It’s truly a great film on all levels and, as everyone has said, there are few movies with so much great dialog.
“I came to Casablanca for the waters.”
“Waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.”
“I was misinformed.”
And, of course, “I’m shocked . . . shocked to learn that gambling is going on here.”
Forget the political issues of the film – they’re interesting, but only a small part of it. Casablanca is unabashedly romantic – both in depicting love (Rick for Ilsa; Ilsa for Victor), but in depicting friendship (Rick and Renault), patriotism, good vs. evil, and everything else. It may be the greatest romantic film ever, despite its patina of cynicism. It still speaks for anyone who has the slightest bit of idealism or romance in their soul.
Sonia, my dear, I’m with you. Casablanca’s just kind of meh to me. I didn’t find the love story compelling: I wanted to bash Ilsa over the head, and then I wanted to bash Rick over the head for being such a silly cow over Ilsa.
There are some good lines, and some of the actors were compelling, but overall, it’s just a pretty average film to me. You should try The Third Man, though: a better conflict, more compelling characters, extraordinary writing and acting, and thoroughly enjoyable.
One other major aspect of the film was its timing; it was made in the summer of 1942. At that time, the Nazis were not some historical movie cliche like the Apaches; there was still a good chance that they might win the war. Many filmmakers of the era were basing the movies on past victories to boost up public morale. Casablanca was talking about the current war that was still being fought at the time people were watching it.
People here have mentioned the both the tight plotting and that it was written on the fly–the day’s script was barely written before shooting started. These are usually mutually caontradictory yet here they produced magic. Nothing was thought through too much and it gives the movie an immediacy that is almost like real life, except nobody is that clever in real life. Except, apparently, the writers.
On the bright side, the movies had a noble before Lord and Lady Haden-Guest. Paul Henreid was really Paul Georg Julius Hernreid Ritter Von Wassel-Waldingau. A lord outranks a mere ritter, and England still exists, unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but either outranks us.
There was also the terrible near-future SF movie Barb Wire, whose plot was lifted wholesale from Casablanca, only dumbed down and bloodied up. It had, I shit you not, Pam Anderson in the “Rick” role.
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.
HOWEVER, what’s with the soft focus on Bergman? She was 26, at the height of her beauty (for thems of us who can’t resist a slightly imperfect (in all the best ways) woman)? You can barely make out her quivering lip and she did the best quivering lip in the biz.
Big classic movie fan- I wouldn’t have it in my top 100. I think its good but not great- There at least a dozen Bogart movies I prefer to it. But then again, war based love stories are not my cuppa tea, I am more into noirs.
