Revision as of 07:18, 21 October 2022 editClarityfiend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,215 edits →General Weygand: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:18, 21 October 2022 edit undoClarityfiend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,215 edits →General Weygand: +detailNext edit → | ||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
:Apparently the actual script survives. If, and this is a big if, is a legitimate script, it says on p. 19 that it was signed by "{{sic|Marshall Waygand}}". ] (]) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | :Apparently the actual script survives. If, and this is a big if, is a legitimate script, it says on p. 19 that it was signed by "{{sic|Marshall Waygand}}". ] (]) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
::Actually I just looked at the particular line in the movie (in theory the actor could have deviated from the script) and imho while Waygand is bit hard to hear it is clearly not de Gaulle (no l sound at the end) If you want to check it yourself see/listen . So I'd agree to the suggestion above and also to update the inaccurancy section accordingly.--] (]) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | ::Actually I just looked at the particular line in the movie (in theory the actor could have deviated from the script) and imho while Waygand is bit hard to hear it is clearly not de Gaulle (no l sound at the end) If you want to check it yourself see/listen . So I'd agree to the suggestion above and also to update the inaccurancy section accordingly.--] (]) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::That's ]. You hear one thing, others hear another, as confirmed by the inconsistent captioning. If someone has access to the script (why would the actor deviate from it?), that would settle the matter once and for all. ] (]) 07:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | :::That's ]. You hear one thing, others hear another, as confirmed by the inconsistent captioning. If someone has access to the verified script (why would the actor deviate from it?), that would settle the matter once and for all. ] (]) 07:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:18, 21 October 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Casablanca (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Casablanca (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Barb Wire
- There needs to be a reference to "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank" and "Barb Wire". They were heavily influenced by "Casablanca".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Overdrawn_at_the_Memory_Bank
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Barb_Wire_(film)
75.142.144.88 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Overdrawn is already listed in the "Influence on later works" subsection. I believe Barb Wire was too at some point. Somebody must have deleted it. It wasn't that good, apparently. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- This discussion is a repeat of Talk:Casablanca (film)/Archive 1#Influences on other films. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I added a reference to Barb Wire in "Influence on later works". American In Brazil (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Misquotes
The German version is interesting. According to https://de.wikibooks.org/Enzyklop%C3%A4die_der_popul%C3%A4ren_Irrt%C3%BCmer/_Kultur
'Casablanca: Humphrey Bogart sagte: „Schau mir in die Augen, Kleines!“ Dieses Zitat stammt aus einer frühen Synchronfassung des legendären Films mit Humphrey Bogart und Ingrid Bergman. In der neueren sagt Rick: „Ich seh dir in die Augen, Kleines!“ Im englischen Original lautet der Satz „Here's looking at you, Kid!“. Diesen Satz sagt Rick jedesmal, während er Ilsa mit einem Drink zuprostet und bedeutet, dass er auf ihr Wohl trinkt. Aus der deutschen Fassung „Ich schau dir in die Augen, Kleines“, die dem englischen Ausdruck fast Wort für Wort entspricht, seinen Sinn aber völlig entstellt, lässt sich schließen, dass das originale Manuskript in zwei Stufen übersetzt worden sein muss. Der erste Übersetzer fertigte eine Wort-für-Wort Übersetzung an, in die ein zweiter Übersetzer versuchte einen Sinn zu bringen; vermutlich ohne den Film zu kennen. Einigen Aussagen zufolge ist auch das englische Original falsch. Im Drehbuch soll demnach „Here's good luck for you“ gestanden haben, ein Trinkspruch, den Bogart vernuschelt und so sinnentstellt habe.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.34.85.137 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe "Misquotes" should be under "Writing" since it refers to lines from the script and therefore is more appropriate there. Any comments? American In Brazil (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. It (singular since there's really only one misquote) has nothing to do with the writing process during the production, and the subsection is in the production section. However, "Here's looking at you, kid" isn't a misquote, so I'm going to move that. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend You make a good point: that the 'misquotes' were not a part of the writing process. However, I was not suggesting incorporating the "Misquotes" into the "Writing" section, but rather moving "Misquotes" under "Writing" since that would make the distinction between the script and later misquotations a bit clearer (I assume, an important point for "Clarityfiend"). Also, by placing "Misquotes" at the end, where it is now, the article does not so much 'finish' on a clean break but rather just stops. It seems to me that, stylistically, the "Misquotes" section belongs under "Writing" section without any change in text. American In Brazil (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- That still leaves it in the Production section. It's better where it is, under Anecdotes and inaccuracies; in fact, it
could possiblyshould be merged into that section. P.S. I moved a big chunk of text out of that section into Writing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- That still leaves it in the Production section. It's better where it is, under Anecdotes and inaccuracies; in fact, it
- I've been WP:BOLD and merged the sections. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Escape route
At best, this item is an implausibility, not an inaccuracy. Should it be removed? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific in terms of what item you're referring to? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- "According to Harmetz, the usual route out of Germany ... was not via Morocco and Lisbon but via Vienna, Prague, Paris and England ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Official YouTube Alternative Edit
for consideration to add under "Cancelled sequels and other versions" It seems the film sold through YouTube in 2019 is slightly different from any edit I have seen and I am searching for confirmation and clarification of how these differences came to pass. There is a minor bit of dialog that is not in the canonical version and the graphics of the opening sequence are different as are many edits of scene transitions. These findings are from my own observation and my research has not found discussion or notated surveys of discrepancies. I feel this should be included here once there is more explanation available.Paul61877 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
As much as I love this film...
This is a wonderful film, but there is an incident of casual racism, when Ilsa asks” who is the boy at the piano?” Sam is an adult man, not a boy. Otherwise the film seems to treat Sam’s character with respect. However, the fact that Ilsa referred to him in this term, bothers me a bit. But It seems that Ilsa has to “play a part” and not let on that she recognizes and values Sam as a full and talented human being. So, I guess I will forgive the screenwriters for putting these words in Ilsa’s mouth. Everyone in Casablanca had to play a part, to escape the notice of the Master Race flunkies.
Also, where is the bottle of Champagne that Renault orders? Why is the “Spanish singer” playing the guitar (solely on the neck, like Eddie Van Halen) in such an odd manner? Bless, her, she certainly doesn’t need the few tiny chord/strums to accompany her lovely voice. Tribe of Tiger 03:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is unlikely to be considered a racist term in this context. Having said that, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article; it should not be used as a forum to express views about the film itself. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eagleash, you are entirely correct, and I apologize. WP is not the place for my personal film-viewer observations...thank you for your polite admonishment. I am currently rewatching this classic film. I am very sorry that I went beyond what is WP proper, and abused this talkpage. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger 04:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regrettable as it is today, calling adult black males "boys" was very much the norm in the early 1940's. Casablanca was a product of its times, and it holds up better now than does Gone with the Wind, which has even-more blatant racism in depiction of African-Americans. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Eagleash, you are entirely correct, and I apologize. WP is not the place for my personal film-viewer observations...thank you for your polite admonishment. I am currently rewatching this classic film. I am very sorry that I went beyond what is WP proper, and abused this talkpage. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger 04:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Propaganda
Much as I love this movie I must recognize it as propaganda due to its message and its timing. Propagandistic elements include:
1. unflattering depictions of Vichy France and of course Nazi Germany (as if either was likely to be seen sympathetically) 2. introduction of a wide array of people who could be victims of the Nazis 3. depiction of a self-pitying Rick Blaine who forgets that he has cause to be thankful for being an America as someone needing correction for such 4. early small victories for the Allied side (The Marseillaise drowning out Die Wacht am Rhein)
Obviously no American movie from the first few months of World War II that addressed international issues involving the war was going to say anything sympathetic about Nazis or the Third Reich.
It is the third point that is special, and "be proud and thankful that you are American enough that you will fight for it" is a clear message. Maybe people had their doubts before Pearl Harbor, but if they still had those, those needed to be banished, and fast. Propaganda can be distinguished achievement, and it can be subtle. Maybe such is more unlikely than crude expressions that are embarrassments after the fact or must be seen in context to be tolerable (let us say the cartoon "Tokio Jokio"). That propaganda is a cinematic masterpiece (as is Battleship Potemkin) makes it less blatant. It is intended to promote a political position, which makes it no less propaganda than something ugly or incompetent.
I introduced the idea that Casablanca is propaganda in the article on Propaganda.
Pbrower2a (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Intro takes too long to get to the point
Casablanca is among the most famous and celebrated films ever made, whether you like it or not, but you wouldn't know it from the first three paragraphs or 300 words of this article, which read like the Misplaced Pages entry on any other old film. Loads and loads of detail before "oh yeah, by the way, it's quite popular." Casablanca's fame should be the first thing the article mentions.
As memory serves me, a minor detail
The entry states: "Laszlo orders the house band to play La Marseillaise" I thought it was Yvonne rather than Laszlo.
- No, it was Laszlo. Why would Yvonne do such a thing? Youtube has several clips showing Laszlo doing the deed. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Medals make witty statement
The medals Claude Rains wears are the World War I Victory Medal, the WW I Commemoration Medal and the WW I Legion of Honor. Whenever Major Strasser asks who will win WW II everybody acts like they don't know, yet there's Claude Rains flashing his victory medals, flash, flash, glint, glint. Since this movie was directed by Michael Curtiz this was obviously deliberate. I think this should be noted in the article. 98.238.220.212 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. Has a reliable source discussed it? DonIago (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
General Weygand
When Ugarte explains to Rick that he has "letters of transit" that "cannot be rescinded, not even questioned", he specifies that they have been signed by General Weygand, who was a high-ranking official in the Vichy government. I suspect, however, that generations of Americans, French and perhaps other nationalities believe he says "General de Gaulle". In fact, I recently saw the film in a cinema in France and the French subtitle said "General de Gaulle". On my DVD version, the English hard-of-hearing subtitle also says "General de Gaulle", but the French subtitle correctly says, "General Weygand". Not only is this what Ugarte actually says, but it would make no sense for him to say "General de Gaulle". De Gaulle's signature would have had absolutely no authority in Vichy France. For this reason, I would like to specify that the letters of transit are signed by General Weygand. I would do this toward the top of the plot description, in the sentence that begins "The papers allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe and to neutral Portugal ...". I would expand this sentence to say, "The papers, signed by General Weygand, a high-ranking Vichy government official, allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe and to neutral Portugal...". Steviesk (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- No. Who issued the letters is disputed (and this is noted in the Inaccuracies section). You cannot say for certain it was Weygand. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- What we really need is a script from the movie. That would resolve it once and for all. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently the actual script survives. If, and this is a big if, this is a legitimate script, it says on p. 19 that it was signed by "Marshall Waygand ". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I just looked at the particular line in the movie (in theory the actor could have deviated from the script) and imho while Waygand is bit hard to hear it is clearly not de Gaulle (no l sound at the end) If you want to check it yourself see/listen here. So I'd agree to the suggestion above and also to update the inaccurancy section accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's WP:OR. You hear one thing, others hear another, as confirmed by the inconsistent captioning. If someone has access to the verified script (why would the actor deviate from it?), that would settle the matter once and for all. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I just looked at the particular line in the movie (in theory the actor could have deviated from the script) and imho while Waygand is bit hard to hear it is clearly not de Gaulle (no l sound at the end) If you want to check it yourself see/listen here. So I'd agree to the suggestion above and also to update the inaccurancy section accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class film articles
- FA-Class war films articles
- War films task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the war films task force
- FA-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- FA-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
- WikiProject Film articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Top-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class Library of Congress articles
- Low-importance Library of Congress articles
- WikiProject Library of Congress articles
- FA-Class Morocco articles
- Mid-importance Morocco articles
- FA-Class romance articles
- Low-importance romance articles
- WikiProject Romance articles
- FA-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- FA-Class Los Angeles articles
- Mid-importance Los Angeles articles
- Los Angeles area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles