I avoided Casablanca for a long time, in the same way that other people avoid eating tofu or taking up jogging. Anything that good for me couldn’t possibly be enjoyable.
But in my early twenties, I decided for reasons I don’t remember to watch The Maltese Falcon, and I was absolutely blown away. The dialogue in it sparked in a way I didn’t realize dialog could. And our man Humphrey – well, he’s just the man, is all.
So a little while later I rented Casablanca. It’s not my favorite Bogart movie – I still favor The Maltese Falcon – but it’s extremely watchable. Very fun, very exciting, very moving. And tremendously funny.
I was thinking about this and it struck me that one of the amazing and beautiful things about Casablanca is the way it hits the balance between a stylized archetype and a real individual situation, maybe like the best blues or country songs.
It keeps a lot of the feel of a theatre piece, putting in enough scenery and details so we feel what’s going on, but keeps them spare enough that we can concentrate on Rick’s face and emotions as he crumples Ilsa’s good-bye note, or tells her to get on the plane. The language, too is clearly not realistic – nobody would really say the ‘You wore blue, the Germans wore grey’ speech – but everyone has felt what Rick is saying.
(OK, maybe some of you have never had to face someone who dumped you. Ya’ll can go watch Free Willy or something.)
I think that balance, the way it deliberately doesn’t try to be ultra realistic but taps in to universal situations of love, loss, and ability to sacrifice for others, is a big reason why it still works so well today.
And, of course, Bogie is the man.
What it represents is not so much the apex of filmmaking, as the apex of Hollywood studio filmmaking.
There are myriad factors that came together to enshrine Casablanca in the public consciousness. Pieces just fell into place, resulting in an instant classic. No one part of the film stands out as spectacular in it’s own right, but the combination of a solid script, solid performances and solid direction by the studio workhorse Curtiz make it one of the most emminently watchable films ever made.
It is shallow, no doubt about it. It isn’t that great by international standards, it doesn’t even break my top fifty. But it came to represent an era in the public imagination and of the Hollywood studio. A timeless, emotionally affirming story in a solid package that came right as the nation was undergoing the turmoil of a World War? Instant classic. It is a film that mixes all of the most successful story elements, love, war, comedy, etc, into something that has the unique ability to resonate deeply within all of us. That is why it has become so treasured.
It’s also trite and somewhat pedestrian. Standard Hollywood fare (for the time). But no other film combined all of the elements of the Hollywood “A” picture so successfully.
More than most any other Hollywood movie, yes. That is why it has become so treasured.
It isn’t one of my most favorite movies, but it is in my DVD collection, which I feel would be pretty bare without it. Quercus has it right.
The main thing that bothers me about not liking Casablanca, is the same thing about not liking any other older film. People will use the, “you can’t appreciate the film because you are spoiled by the gore, action, sex, and violence of today’s films,” reasoning to dismiss an opinion. I prefer a lot of older films to films coming out today, but I like others, felt let down to a degree watching Casablanca.
I’m not sure how much of it was the hype surrounding it, I think it made it more difficult to view it with fresh eyes, but I knew Bogey was in it, and was looking forward to it. I really enjoy To Have And Have Not, as mentioned. Dark Passage is a favorite, I doubt I’ll ever get tired of. Casablanca just didn’t do it for me, for whatever reason. I appreciate hearing the lines spoken, or not spoken, which have become so cliched, but overall, it didn’t deserve the praise IMHO.
You do have to cut an old film some slack to account for differences in how movies were made, what audiences expected, etc. To me, the most noticable “we don’t do that now” part is the song by the woman guitarist. It’s just a song thrown into the movie. Sam’s songs are integral because he is integral and they are mostly used as transition points. But that other singer, sheesh. But that’s what melodrama meant back then and you just let it go by and enjoy the rest of the movie.
If you don’t see the point of the movie you won’t enjoy it. BrotherCadfael mentions one key point and I’d like to expand on what I see as the main motif.
There are two Ilsa’s: the one Rick fell in love with in Paris and the Real Ilsa that is the wife of a resistance fighter. Ilsa in Paris is a mirror of Rick in Casablanca. Her heart is broken, she no longer cares about what the Nazis are doing, etc. But she finds out that Victor is alive and comes back to the living.
Thru much of the movie Rick is moving towards a conclusion different from how it actually ends. His conscious motivations are very different from his buried motivations. Such a marvelous split personality.
Rick finally realizes that the Ilsa he was in love with in Paris was not the Real Ilsa. That all his anguish was for a fictitious person. That changes things for him dramatically. The ending follows.
Casablanca wasn’t really intended to be an instant blockbuster classic. It was just another film that a studio churned out. But it really had that Gestalt-thing going. Everything just added up to surpass what would have been expected. The zoo of characters at Rick’s is just amazing.
Even the ending is not a “Hollywood Ending”, then or now. You know how it is supposed to end: Victor gets in a gunfight with Strasser, Strasser kills him, Rick picks up Victor’s gun and kills Strasser. Rick and Ilsa become Heroes Of The Resistance, ad nauseum. Instead it ends in a classic way. Classic is classy.
True love: you want her to be happy, even if that means you don’t have her.
The Allied Forces were still in France and western Belgium when the Armistice was signed in November 1918. They never came within 500 miles of Berlin. Even the postwar occupation was limited to the west bank of the Rhine, some 400 miles away.
The line makes Renault look either ignorant or a fraud. That the Allied Forces never entered Germany in the last war was hardly an obscure fact to audiences of 1942-43, many of whom served in that war.
When I saw Casablanca in my callow youth I thought it was pretty good, “except for that La Marseillaise scene; that was a bit over the top.” When I saw it the second time some ten years later, and knew something more about war, yeah I had to blink back some tears. It may be only a story, but allegedly, most of the extras in that scene were ex-pats, having fled Europe because their country was occupied. More than a few eyes had tears in them by the end of the shooting.
I imagine that Louis was trying to make a point to Maj. Strasser. Both of them know the Americans never set foot in Berlin, but the implication in the statement was that the Americans helped end the war in the Allies favor, so it would not be smart to sell them short.
Just wanted to take a minute to thank everyone who posted. Over the past week I had begun a long response that addressed most people’s points, but haven’t had the time lately to finish it right — and now other matters keep intruding on my time. I hope this small acknowledgment is enough.
I will say that Casablanca was certainly good enough that I’d like to see it a second time, eventually. When I do, I’ll keep in mind the history and context I’ve learned from this thread.
I saw Casablanca a few days ago and thought it was great. One of the few movies that holds up, and them some. J.Lo and Ben Affleck should be flogged for even thinking about remaking it.
Here’s a link to an Ebert article about the film. It may or may not give you some insight into the film and its “greatness”; but one of the things I like about Ebert is that he cares infinitely about film, and his passion usually comes through in his reviews. Unlike other critics, who tend to be negative at the drop of a hat, Ebert understands the complexity of filmmaking and our emotional involvement with cinema.
Also, Ilsa is incorrect in saying it was a “solid script” – it is famously known for being a mediocre script based on (as Ebert puts it) “a play of no great consequence”; in fact, much of the “memorable” dialogue was written on the spot by the many studio writers on set. The fact that the film turned out to be such a wonderful story is based largely on happenstance, which appears to have played a large part in the entire process. (Something, I might add, that scares the bejesus out of studio execs.)
It’s hard to say what the film means to me: I love it, that’s for certain, but it’s more of an emotional love than an intellectual one. There’s something wonderfully pure about the tale, and its themes of love and sacrifice, that simply speaks to me on a very ethereal level. The hardness of Rick, and the slow chiselling away at that hardness (both as the cause and effect of love), brings us to a most unsatifying conclusion – and yet one which is inevitable and true.
Of course, that all might be because I fell in love with Bergman, all those years ago, from the moment she came on screen…
Oh, and one more thing. The website I linked to is part of Ebert’s “Great Movies” series from the Suntimes. It’s a gread read for film fans, and you might be surprised at some of the films you find.
I just saw Casablanca for the first time this afternoon. I loved it. I agree wholeheartedly that it holds up strongly to this day.
I think part of the reason it’s still great to modern audiences (I’m 17, by the way) is that the pacing is dead-on. It’s not entirely too fast like some movies made nowadays and it’s not entirely too slow (Citizen Kane, I’m looking at you). The music is absolutely spectacular, including the subtle and not-too-subtle usage of “As Time Goes By”.
The acting was great. I didn’t think Bergman was too stiff, and I think Henreid showed appropriate discretion in playing the role of a resistance leader trying to keep a low profile. Did you want him to pick a fight with Strasser at Rick’s or what? And, of course, Bogart is the freakin’ man. Even the stock players were great. Peter Lorre as Ugarte was very memorable as was Sydney Greenstreet as Ferrari.
I loved the ending and was relieved to see the change of heart in both Rick and Renault.
