Whenever the phrase “it’s a classic” is used to describe movies, films like “Casablanca” are usually brought up. Yet, this Best Picture Oscar winner is far from a classic.
Directed by Michael Curtiz, “Casablanca” follows a saloon owner named Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) in Casablanca, Morocco during World War II. One night, an old friend of his named Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) comes to the saloon with her husband Victor (Paul Henreid) to see if Rick can help them get immigration papers to leave Casablanca.
Bogart is considered to be one of the greatest actors in the history of Hollywood, however, his performance in “Casablanca” was mediocre. He seemed flat and bored whenever he interacted with patrons in the saloon. When it came time to be romantic with Bergman, however, Bogart was able to capture the pain of meeting a former lover perfectly. While Bogart avoided being melodramatic and pretentious, his melancholic tone throughout 75 percent of the film hindered his potential to be anything more than average.
Bergman, on the other hand, did a terrific job playing Ilsa. She was able to portray Ilsa as a wise and tired soul who is trying to heal a relationship tainted by her absence. Ilsa should have been the main character of “Casablanca.” Her backstory of escaping war-torn Europe would be a great story and, if given more screen time, Bergman would have made the film more interesting.
The direction from Curtiz was good, but not award-winning like his Best Director Oscar suggests. What he lacks in shot creativity or framing, he makes up for with clever camera movements and the use of flashbacks.
My main issue with “Casablanca” is not with the film itself, but rather with its legacy. It is held as an all-time great film, but in reality, the movie is no better than your average drama. The romantic dynamic between Bergman and Bogart is cliche and the horrors of the Nazis are not displayed at the level they should be.
In comparison, “Gaslight,” a film that was released two years after “Casablanca,” has a much more detailed and interesting storyline about a woman going through an abusive relationship and how she gets out of it. Unlike “Casablanca,” “Gaslight” plays with expectations instead of catering to them.
There is nothing wrong with claiming that “Casablanca” is a masterpiece. In my opinion, however, there are far better films that explore the deterioration of romance. Movies like “American Beauty” or “Brokeback Mountain” highlight relationships that sour while also providing sweet direction and amazing storytelling.
If a studio were to remake “Casablanca,” there should be more of a focus on the geopolitical climate during World War II and less on a zombified saloon owner. Have an arthouse filmmaker write and direct the feature, and you have what could be an enhanced version of a so-called “classic” movie.
Rating: 3.5/5
Casablanca was boring.. I can’t understand why anyone would say it was a Good movie. Over rated gave it credit.. It was a horrible movie and a total waste of time to watch
When most people call this one of the greatest movies of all time, they are focused only on the performances of Bogart and Bergman. But in truth the plot of Casablanca is weak as water. Don’t believe me? Try recasting this movie with other people in the roles. No good, right? Also, the cinematography is amateurish (almost exclusively shot/countershot), and the sets look like something you would find in a high school production. In short, this is an OK movie, and it has a great cast. But certainly not one of the greatest movies of all time.
Ya’ know, you are right, Sir. I tried mentally recasting the film with the wino who just asked me for five bucks on the street and the whore I saw last night on Sunset Boulevard; and it didn’t work at all. Why, oh why, have I watched this piece of trash thirty-plus times?
I have no generational bias against classic films. I love black and white. I’m a huge fan of Bogart, Bergman and Rains.However, Casablanca is a flat, pedestrian movie. It is also heavily propagandistic, which is to be expected coming out of pro war, anti America First Hollywood of the the early 40s. But it’s propaganda is so heavy handed that it taints the romance and actually weakens it’s message. I much prefer the similarly situated Howard Hawk’s film -To Have and Have Not, starring Bogie and Bacall.
To Have and Have Not directly rips from Casablanca, because of Casablanca’s success. It is a cheap ripoff that Humphrey agreed to do for two reasons – 1. The project was guaranteed to make him money, 2. Lauren Bacall was a POA.
“Nazis are not displayed at the level they should be.” the movie was made in 1940 and released in 41… we didn’t know all of it yet.
Casablanca was a child of its time. Back then, moviegoers looked for a diversion from the realties of an ugly war and Casablanca reeled people in with its tale of a hopeless wartime romance. North Africa was a suitable backdrop as Casablanca the city was strategic as a future bomber base, yet its early war years saw a melting pot of nationalities at war with and against each other. The cinematography accentuated the romantic overtones of the film’s association with the city, but in reality the real Casablanca was and still is nothing like the movie’s image. A hopeless Casablanca movie romantic would be disappointed travelling there today as their is no tangible semblance of its movie likeness. I would agree it is not a classic due to its predictable storyline and campy dialogue. But if you look at it through the right lenses (no pun intended) – it does strike a cord with people longing for a different time and place.
The sheer audacity of assuming you understand why other people like a clearly great film, when you yourself don’t possess the sensibility to understand its merits, is a quality I envy. What a beautiful life you must one living… untouched by reality. If you could find a way to bottle your ignorance, I would gladly drink a dose every morning.
” The horrors of the Nazis are not displayed at the level they should be” – no, but really? Do you know anything at all of the North African colonies during the Second World War? One; there was not a lot of information on what was actually going on Back In Eastern Europe at the time and Two; there was no opportunity for North African-based Nazis to act like those Einsatzgruppen and camp guards who were enacting the Holocaust.
The whole point of an American and a Frenchman and a German being in such close social proximity is because this was NOT the territory on which the Nazi excesses were being played out.
Take issue with the movie’s plotting, pacing, direction, acting, the rest of it (by the way, it IS a great movie), but for God’s sake do yourself a favour and learn some history – some more history, really.
It’s a masterpiece, exquisitely acted and directed, and virtually every line is witty or delivered with cool aplomb.
Exactly! What are folks on about?
Ah, neh. You guy are just dumb. It’s a great movie through and through.