[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Leaving behind the wonderful lines, remember the Zeitgeist. ‘It’s December, 1941 in Casablanca. What time is it in New York?’ ‘My watch stopped.’ (Wonderful lines that I couldn’t leave behind for this post.)
[/QUOTE]
So good, in fact, that they deserve saying again. Johnny I have to say, that’s a great post. I think you’ve managed to capture most of the essence of Casablanca.
Sure, it’s a movie and it tells a story. But it is difficult to slot Casablanca into a specific genre, as we are so used to doing nowadays. We expect action films to have lots of special effects, even though the plot may lag in spots because it is, after all, an action film and needs, say, explosions. Romantic films have a love story of some kind, even though the plot lags when the couple is not in each other’s arms. Drama films, thrillers, horror films–yep, they’re dramatic, thrilling, and scary respectively–even though the plot lags when events necessary to drive the plot are not dramatic, thrilling, and scary.
Now, consider Casablanca. Here’s a drama (can Victor escape Casablanca?), with a romantic story (will Ilsa leave Victor for Rick?), comedic in spots (“I’m shocked to find gambling here!” “Your winnings, sir.”), but with a thriller aspect (“This cafe is closed by order of the Reich”–and what will those Nazis do next?). A number of subplots contribute to the story: “play 23 black…play 23 black again,” and there are various characters make it more human (Karl, Sasha, Yvonne, and the German couple who are trying to learn English). It’s a buddy pic (Sam and Rick, Louis and Rick), and it’s a business pic (selling Rick’s to the owner of the Blue Parrot).
In short, Casablanca is a little bit of everything in one picture. It’s not one genre; it’s a number of them. As such, it appeals to a wide audience, and obviously, has done so over the last 64 years.
Just my opinion, anyway.