I'm not very good at in-depth critique, like Moira and Lynn are, so rather than trying to do that, I'll just answer a couple of my own questions and hope that someone picks it up from there.
Why do I love this movie?
Hah. I've seen it so many times I can almost quote half the scenes. I love the overall mystique of what is going to happen to those darn letters. I love the affair between Ilsa and Rick. I love ALL the employees of Ricks, from the bartender, to the croupier, to Sam. The only thing I would add, not necessarily to this movie but an adjunct to it would be the background of all these people and how and why they all ended up in Casablanca.
Would I recommend this movie?
I would recommend it to anyone who would possibly listen. It's hard to find people willing to watch a black and white movie that happens to be older than me (making it older than dirt). But it is worth a try.
Why have I watched it over and over?
Every time, and I mean EVERY time, I really do see something different. It may only be a dress, or a look, or a background but there is always something new. I also love to analyze the characters involved. They are all so different and diverse. Some seem perfectly happy to be there, and others can't wait to get away.
To me this movie has all the elements you could care for to keep you engrossed for a couple of hours, I only wish I had been able to see it when it first came out. But in re-thinking that, I believe knowing how the war actually was being handled, and how it ended adds to the enjoyment of the story.
Anne
Casablanca
Casablanca
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Kudos Anne! I applaud your willingness to start a thread on definitely the most popular movie of all time. Here's something I did awhile back that represents an opposing view. I hope it will be recieved in the lighthearted spirit it was written. Let the discussion begin!
Well, Casablanca (1943) showed again today on TCM. Most people place this film very high on lists. In fact, it usually battles for first place with Orson Welles Citizen Kane (1941) every other year. Personally, I always found the film dull. I thought I was a real killjoy until I discovered there are small pockets of unbelievers like myself out there, in lonely darkened theaters probably going for popcorn a third time or just heckling the screen.
Casablanca was basically a propaganda film. We had just entered WWII and this was just one of many movies made to bolster American morale. It also helped that the area had recently become well known due to fighting in the region. Bogart had scored big with High Sierra and The Maltese Falcon (both 1941) and was just coming into his prime as a leading man. Bergman would win an Oscar for Gaslight (1944), and although she had a contract with David O. Selznick he was willing to loan her for the picture.
While a great sounding concept, as a film, I find it flat and somewhat disjointed. There are a couple of reasons for this. Probably the biggest problem was the fact that they were continually rewriting the script while shooting. I have heard some people try to turn this into one of the films strengths, but as someone who has done some stage work and married an actress as well, I can tell you this makes characters shallower not deeper. Actors cannot convey expressions or make their parts more multidimensional when they have no idea what they will be doing next or even what their character is thinking. This results in a more surface type performance which is a lot of what Casablanca seems to me.
I also had problems with some of the scene lifting they did from other films. They practically stole the entire scene where they play the French national anthem from "The Grand Illusion" (1937).
The film itself is painted with a broad brush and there is a lot of heavy sentimentality that is rather annoying. I certainly don’t mind a good tearjerker, but this film gets downright silly in some places. There is also no chemistry in my opinion between Bogart and Bergman. 1944's To Have and Have Not is a similar film, but the sizzle between Bogie and Bacall has a life of it's own and is almost animalistic in places.
On the good side, this film has some great performers. Greenstreet, Rains and Lorre are legendary character actors. It also has some of the best one-liners I have ever heard in a film. It’s worth seeing for the wisecracks and quips alone. There are some scenes that do work for me, such as the young wife who questions Bogie about Claude Rains being a man of his word. The scene is brilliantly underplayed by Bogart and works well in this case. I found it much more honest and believable than some of the love scenes with Bergman which followed.
Casablanca came out in late 1942 and was not eligible to receive an Academy Award in that year. In 1943, the only other nominated film of value that I am aware of was "The Oxbow Incident", which in itself was a superior film to Casablanca in my opinion. It's also probably one the best roles that Dana Andrews ever played. Oxbow does have some flaws, notably "the letter" (they should never have read the letter--just left it up to our imagination), but otherwise is a much deeper and complex film that works on several levels.
However, the wartime public did not want to see a pessimistic view of the nature of man. There were no heroes in Oxbow, and society itself was shown to be ugly, reaching to swallow up the defenseless and gorging on itself. Small wonder they chose Casablanca instead.
As for myself, the best picture of 1943 was not eligible: Carl Dryers mesmerizing "Day of Wrath". Beautiful cinematography, superb players, and a great story make this a film I return to again and again, always finding something new.
Other great 43 films that I would place over Casablanca:
The Life and Death of Col Blimp
Five Graves to Cairo
I Walked with a Zombie
Shadow of a Doubt
If you’re one of the many lovers of Casablanca, feel free to let me know where to get off. I know most people love this film and I am happy for those who find enjoyment in it (or anything for that matter). I have never thought the film was bad, but I never thought it was all others have claimed it to be. It’s more like a good B picture to me than the best film ever made.
If you’re one of the small pockets of resistance out there, I sympathize with you. Feel free to make another trip for some popcorn—the next tub's on me.
Well, Casablanca (1943) showed again today on TCM. Most people place this film very high on lists. In fact, it usually battles for first place with Orson Welles Citizen Kane (1941) every other year. Personally, I always found the film dull. I thought I was a real killjoy until I discovered there are small pockets of unbelievers like myself out there, in lonely darkened theaters probably going for popcorn a third time or just heckling the screen.
Casablanca was basically a propaganda film. We had just entered WWII and this was just one of many movies made to bolster American morale. It also helped that the area had recently become well known due to fighting in the region. Bogart had scored big with High Sierra and The Maltese Falcon (both 1941) and was just coming into his prime as a leading man. Bergman would win an Oscar for Gaslight (1944), and although she had a contract with David O. Selznick he was willing to loan her for the picture.
While a great sounding concept, as a film, I find it flat and somewhat disjointed. There are a couple of reasons for this. Probably the biggest problem was the fact that they were continually rewriting the script while shooting. I have heard some people try to turn this into one of the films strengths, but as someone who has done some stage work and married an actress as well, I can tell you this makes characters shallower not deeper. Actors cannot convey expressions or make their parts more multidimensional when they have no idea what they will be doing next or even what their character is thinking. This results in a more surface type performance which is a lot of what Casablanca seems to me.
I also had problems with some of the scene lifting they did from other films. They practically stole the entire scene where they play the French national anthem from "The Grand Illusion" (1937).
The film itself is painted with a broad brush and there is a lot of heavy sentimentality that is rather annoying. I certainly don’t mind a good tearjerker, but this film gets downright silly in some places. There is also no chemistry in my opinion between Bogart and Bergman. 1944's To Have and Have Not is a similar film, but the sizzle between Bogie and Bacall has a life of it's own and is almost animalistic in places.
On the good side, this film has some great performers. Greenstreet, Rains and Lorre are legendary character actors. It also has some of the best one-liners I have ever heard in a film. It’s worth seeing for the wisecracks and quips alone. There are some scenes that do work for me, such as the young wife who questions Bogie about Claude Rains being a man of his word. The scene is brilliantly underplayed by Bogart and works well in this case. I found it much more honest and believable than some of the love scenes with Bergman which followed.
Casablanca came out in late 1942 and was not eligible to receive an Academy Award in that year. In 1943, the only other nominated film of value that I am aware of was "The Oxbow Incident", which in itself was a superior film to Casablanca in my opinion. It's also probably one the best roles that Dana Andrews ever played. Oxbow does have some flaws, notably "the letter" (they should never have read the letter--just left it up to our imagination), but otherwise is a much deeper and complex film that works on several levels.
However, the wartime public did not want to see a pessimistic view of the nature of man. There were no heroes in Oxbow, and society itself was shown to be ugly, reaching to swallow up the defenseless and gorging on itself. Small wonder they chose Casablanca instead.
As for myself, the best picture of 1943 was not eligible: Carl Dryers mesmerizing "Day of Wrath". Beautiful cinematography, superb players, and a great story make this a film I return to again and again, always finding something new.
Other great 43 films that I would place over Casablanca:
The Life and Death of Col Blimp
Five Graves to Cairo
I Walked with a Zombie
Shadow of a Doubt
If you’re one of the many lovers of Casablanca, feel free to let me know where to get off. I know most people love this film and I am happy for those who find enjoyment in it (or anything for that matter). I have never thought the film was bad, but I never thought it was all others have claimed it to be. It’s more like a good B picture to me than the best film ever made.
If you’re one of the small pockets of resistance out there, I sympathize with you. Feel free to make another trip for some popcorn—the next tub's on me.
Last edited by Mr. Arkadin on February 7th, 2009, 10:01 pm, edited 7 times in total.
casablanca
Hi, Mr. A.
You said, 'Most popular movie of all time'. Yes, NOW. At one time all of these were 'Most popular':
The Kid ....The Jazz Singer .... Top Hat ,,,, Mutiny on the Bounty ....Citizen Kane.
Right on about Col. Blimp. I saw it in England during the war and understand that it was severely edited here, only because it was thought to be too long. .... mel
You said, 'Most popular movie of all time'. Yes, NOW. At one time all of these were 'Most popular':
The Kid ....The Jazz Singer .... Top Hat ,,,, Mutiny on the Bounty ....Citizen Kane.
Right on about Col. Blimp. I saw it in England during the war and understand that it was severely edited here, only because it was thought to be too long. .... mel
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Re: casablanca
Hi Mel. Kane was liked by some critics on release (who didn't work for a certain newspaper), but it did not really have any kind of popularity until it was rediscovered in the 60's.melwalton wrote:Hi, Mr. A.
You said, 'Most popular movie of all time'. Yes, NOW. At one time all of these were 'Most popular':
The Kid ....The Jazz Singer .... Top Hat ,,,, Mutiny on the Bounty ....Citizen Kane.
Right on about Col. Blimp. I saw it in England during the war and understand that it was severely edited here, only because it was thought to be too long. .... mel
Col. Blimp is simply amazing. I was glad that TCM recently showed it again. Everyone should see this film. Powell and Pressburgers wartime masterpiece to be sure.
Just when you think we've gotten other boardmembers tastes in films fairly established, it can still be possible to have a "what the ??!!' reaction to a statement. Arkadin - I liked your top 25 list, and can agree with you heartily about Colonel Blimp, but I Walked with a Zombie over Casablanca?? Five Graves - yes, Shadow of a Doubt - yes, but Zombie??
Mr. A:
I'll respond on only one item, and leave the rest for others who are more eloquent than I.
You said: "the sizzle between Bogie and Bacall has a life of it's own and is almost animalistic in places."
Dear Sir: The 'sizzle' was real, not acting at all. Bogie and Bacall were just in the beginning of their real life romance and all their personal sizzle was simply shining through on screen.
Anne
I'll respond on only one item, and leave the rest for others who are more eloquent than I.
You said: "the sizzle between Bogie and Bacall has a life of it's own and is almost animalistic in places."
Dear Sir: The 'sizzle' was real, not acting at all. Bogie and Bacall were just in the beginning of their real life romance and all their personal sizzle was simply shining through on screen.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Hi Anne,mrsl wrote:Mr. A:
I'll respond on only one item, and leave the rest for others who are more eloquent than I.
You said: "the sizzle between Bogie and Bacall has a life of it's own and is almost animalistic in places."
Dear Sir: The 'sizzle' was real, not acting at all. Bogie and Bacall were just in the beginning of their real life romance and all their personal sizzle was simply shining through on screen.
Anne
We all knew it was real. Many films were and are made by leads who are romantically attracted to each other. Crawford for example, seduced many of her leading men. The question is, is the film stronger as whole because of it? In the case of To Have and Have Not, I would say definitely.
It really doesn't matter if you have a romantic attraction or not though. My wife has often spoken of leading men and women (she worked with) that abhorred each other in real life, but you would have never noticed it on stage. I personally felt there was no chemistry between Bogart and Bergman for various reasons, some of which I stated in the post above. Others will surely disagree and that's great. We all see different things in a film--these are just my thoughts and views.
Last edited by Mr. Arkadin on December 9th, 2007, 8:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Jezebel,Jezebel38 wrote:Just when you think we've gotten other boardmembers tastes in films fairly established, it can still be possible to have a "what the ??!!' reaction to a statement. Arkadin - I liked your top 25 list, and can agree with you heartily about Colonel Blimp, but I Walked with a Zombie over Casablanca?? Five Graves - yes, Shadow of a Doubt - yes, but Zombie??
I am speaking in the context of personal preference. These are simply my thoughts and taste. Yes, I do personally favor Zombie over Casablanca as a 1943 release.
I am not trying to ridicule Casablanca or those who love the film. I try to respect others tastes and am certainly not trying to start a flame war here. All I can say is I honestly enjoy the film (my wife can't understand why I like it either so you're in good company
). I have always loved the story of Jane Eyre, and to see it placed in a horror context was unusual, and I thought--daring for it's time. The cinematography is beautiful in this film, and I also think the music is superb. The theme of love is somewhat similar to Casablanca in that both women love a man who at first seems cynical and unloveable. Our perceptions are changed as we watch the film, and gradually we are able to comprehend what they have seen all along. As I said in another thread, IWWAZ is primarly about the betrayal of love (another link to Casablanca), but the film spins us around in circles as we discover who the actual betrayer and victim are.
Most reviewers definitely agree that there is no real understanding or basis for why Casablanca has become such a beloved film (In fact, someone sent the script out again in the 90's with the title changed to major studios and it was rejected by all of them). I guess you could also apply that logic to my love for I Walked with a Zombie.
Last edited by Mr. Arkadin on December 9th, 2007, 6:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
jdb1
I tried again to sit through Casablanca last night.
Again - no go. It's so strange. No matter what you all here and elsewhere say about its wonderfulness, I'm just not seeing it. After waiting around through the film for a while for Lorre and/or Rains to appear, I gave up.
I have a strong feeling that whatever gold others have found in this film was achieved by accident, happening only in that shot, and probably couldn't be recreated, since the whole thing was done in seat of the pants fashion.
I think my apathy is in large part the result of not finding Ingrid Bergman a very warm screen presence, and of not finding Bogart much of a romantic hero (at least not at the time of this film - once he hooked up with Baby, it was a different story). Maybe I would have liked it better with Ronald Reagan, the originally intended star. Hmmm - imagine it with Gary Cooper, or Cary Grant!
Again - no go. It's so strange. No matter what you all here and elsewhere say about its wonderfulness, I'm just not seeing it. After waiting around through the film for a while for Lorre and/or Rains to appear, I gave up.
I have a strong feeling that whatever gold others have found in this film was achieved by accident, happening only in that shot, and probably couldn't be recreated, since the whole thing was done in seat of the pants fashion.
I think my apathy is in large part the result of not finding Ingrid Bergman a very warm screen presence, and of not finding Bogart much of a romantic hero (at least not at the time of this film - once he hooked up with Baby, it was a different story). Maybe I would have liked it better with Ronald Reagan, the originally intended star. Hmmm - imagine it with Gary Cooper, or Cary Grant!
I watched it again (Please Don't Shoot) I happen to love the film and Not because of it's stars. The premise is great, the Characters are great and while it may not be my favorite Bogart film. It is worth sitting through. TCM does overplay the film. But on a rainy Saturday Night I couldn't think of a better way to watch a film for the 1,0000 time. Unless of course they showed "To Have and Have Not". I do agree that Bogart was better when he met Bacall.
vallo
vallo
"We're all forgotten sooner or later. But not films. That's all the memorial we should need or hope for."
-Burt Lancaster
-Burt Lancaster
-
sandykaypax
- Posts: 490
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:15 pm
- Location: Beautiful Ohio
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
I'll watch parts of Casablanca if I come across it playing, but not for the plot, for the wonderful actors: Bogart, just as he's coming into his own, feeling confident and with that cynical idealism of his written all over his battered, expressive face, the warmth of Bergman, the delightful sight of Claude Rains once more weaving spun gold out of very thin material, Conrad Veidt as the personification of casually urbane menace, Leonid Kinskey as the bartender, the wonderful Marcel Dalio in a too small part as a croupier, and half a dozen others. The craftsmanship of the film, with cinematography, atmosphere (such as those huge raindrops on Ilsa's letter as they smear the writing of her goodbye not, *oh, boy* it gets me), the whole lovely magilla just works...I haven't seen the entire film in one sitting in years, but your thread reminds me that I probably should. Soon.
hi, all.
An old saying goes, 'If you have a reputation for being an early riser, you can sleep 'til noon and no one will notice'.
In making lists, some people will copy from other lists ( it's easier than doing the research ). I think that's the story with 'Casablanca'. It got a lot of attention and gained a reputation out of proportion to it's merit. so now it's included on so many 'best' lists simply because that's the thing to do.
Go ahead, I'll duck. ...... mel
An old saying goes, 'If you have a reputation for being an early riser, you can sleep 'til noon and no one will notice'.
In making lists, some people will copy from other lists ( it's easier than doing the research ). I think that's the story with 'Casablanca'. It got a lot of attention and gained a reputation out of proportion to it's merit. so now it's included on so many 'best' lists simply because that's the thing to do.
Go ahead, I'll duck. ...... mel