Misplaced Pages

Further influences

It is commonplace and entirely encyclopaedic on Wiki film pages to mention influences that films have had on broader art and popular culture. I hardly think the fact that one of the most important films of the last 20 years took its title from a line in Casa is not worthy of mention. And a reference on the Simpsons is, as any fule kno, a sure bellwether of a film's importance in popular culture. Please leave these notes in. They are salient to the film as they highlight the importance and influence the film has enjoyed. If they are removed again I will bring the matter to arbritration.

I will also reinstall the 'Brazzaville' as this point is, in fact, not made clear in the article Martyn Smith 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to start a List of references to Casablanca in popular culture, you are welcome to do so, but this is an article, not a list. The Brazzaville point is made entirely clear. Henry 15:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

What value does the spoiler warning on this article add to the encyclopedia at all? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard as it is to believe, there are benighted people out there (the heathens) who have never seen the movie. This apparently includes many people in Hollywood; when the script was sent out as "Everybody Comes To Rick's" to the people who evaluate movie ideas, very few of them recognized it. Sic transit gloria mundi. Clarityfiend 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"217 agencies"? Suppose one of them was Gene Roddenberry? "Let's set it on a space staton..." (Or in Sunnydale. Where's David Boreanaz when you need him?)Joss Whedon 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This leads to the inescapable conclusion the average Hollywood producer wouldn't recognize an idea for an original screenplay if it hit him in the head with a polo mallet. George Pal 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image addition

The close up shot of Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca is iconic, and is probably the best recognized shot of Ingrid Bergman, as well as of Casablanca. I am adding the photo, as the page still does not have too many photos. Pradiptaray 04:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shocking

Took out "He complies by declaring "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" A waiter chooses that moment to hand Renault his gambling "winnings" for the night, which he shamelessly pockets." I don't believe in overloading the plot with too many secondary details, like for example A Tale of Two Cities.

I also took it out of the Quotes section since it isn't in the top 100. If we added it, where would we stop? There are so many wonderful quotes. That's what wikiquotes is for.Clarityfiend 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazis in France in 1938?

The Writing section of the main article opens thus:

"The original play was inspired by a 1938 trip to Europe by Murray Burnett, during which he visited Vienna and the French south coast, both of which had uneasily coexisting populations of Nazis and refugees."

Either the year is wrong or the whole premise is fallacious. Consider this from the Misplaced Pages page on Vichy France:

"Vichy France, or the Vichy regime was the de facto French government of 1940-1944 during the Nazi Germany occupation of World War II.

Vichy France was established after France surrendered to Germany in 1940, and took its name from the government's capital in Vichy

While officially neutral in the war, it was essentially a Nazi puppet state that collaborated with the Nazis, including with the Nazis' racial policies. Initially it ruled an unoccupied zone in Southern France and some French colonies, but Nazi Germany invaded the zone under Vichy control on November 11, 1942, in operation Case Anton."

So, obviously, there cannot have been any Nazis in South West France in 1938

M0bi 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, your logic is fallacious. The article does not say that the Nazis were occupying France in 1938, just that there were Nazis there. The Nazis (the German government of the time) had a presence in most countries before the war. Henry 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gambling films categorization

For some reason, the "Gambling films" categorization continues to be removed from the article, although it seems like only one person in the community feels like it's inappropriate. I hope that person will discuss this here before reverting the edit again. I've seen Casablanca probably a dozen times, and not only is the gambling that goes on in the film a major plot point, the main character basically owns a casino. Rather than removing it with the comment "peripheral" perhaps you could discuss your reasoning here to see if the rest of the community agrees with you before removing it again? Rray 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a peripheral plot point. I'll happily discuss it here while removing it again. Henry 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it's a peripheral plot point rather than just asserting it as a fact multiple times. I can repeatedly say that the ocean isn't full of salt water too, but that doesn't make it so.

Repeatedly asserting your opinion that gambling is peripheral to the plot rather than central to the plot isn't a discussion at all. You might also review Three-revert rule, Edit war and Wikiquette. Rray 14:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it's central. I'm quite familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, thanks. Henry 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The main character (Rick) owns and operates a gambling establishment, Rick's Cafe. One of the most famous quotes from the film is Captain Renault's exclamation that he is "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!" Rick and Renault are two of the main characters in the film; one owns a gambling establishment and the other gambles there. The gambling establishment itself is the major setting for most of the action in the film. Rray 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 2005 and I have both explained our reasoning as to why gambling is a major plot point in the film in the notes to our edits to the article. At this point, I shouldn't have to repeat that reasoning; you should explain your reasoning instead. Rray 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a cafe with a back room. The main plot points of the film are the Rick-Ilse romance and the letters of transit; neither has anything to do with gambling. Henry 14:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's a cafe with a back room does not mean that it's not also a gambling establishment - the two aren't mutually exclusive. (i.e. Your statement that "Actually it's a cafe with a back room" does nothing to refute my statement that it's a gambling establishment; it's clearly both.)

Casablanca has multiple significant plotlines. Rick's friendship with Renault is also a major aspect of the film, and that friendship exists in part because Renault lets him run his gambling den. (It also exists because Rick lets Renault win.) Rray 15:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Its role as a setting is primarily that of a cafe. The gambling is incidental. The transactions between Rick and Renault are incidental. Henry 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If its role as a setting were primarily that of a cafe, you would see the patrons there eating and drinking coffee as their primary activity. Instead you see them gambling. I've never seen a review or article about the film that didn't refer to the cafe as a "nightclub and underground casino" or as a "gambling den" or something that references the gambling aspect of the setting (including this article). If it weren't significant to the setting, that wouldn't be the case.

Rick's relationship with Renault is as central to the film as his relationship with Ilse. Their "transactions" are a notable part of that relationship. Rray 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cafe/bar. And no, it isn't. Henry 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert any more of my good faith edits unless you're willing to actually discuss them. I've repeatedly explained my point of view, and you've yet to offer any kind of refutation of it other than to say things like, "No, it isn't" and "Cafe/bar" even though the article itself refers to the cafe as an "upscale cafe/bar/gambling den". That's not a discussion at all, and it's not in the spirt of collaboration. I'm not sure why you have a problem with an appropriate categorization of the film, but you're unwillingness to actually discuss your points is fine as long as you stop reverting good faith edits. Rray 15:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Henry. It's not a story about gambling, like Rounders for example. If you took out the gambling aspects, the film would hardly be affected. Clarityfiend 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The gambling films category is not just for movies about gambling, but also for movies where gambling is a significant plot point. The movie is set during World War II, but it's not, strictly speaking, "about" World War II. Including the film in that category just gives Misplaced Pages users one more place that they can find this article. Rray 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By the same lack of logic, if you took out the World War II element the film would hardly be effected. The film has significant plot points about gambling, as it does World War II, and thus is correctly categorized like other films. The fact Casablanca has the most single most famous gambling line in the history of film of course makes it one of the first films you would put in gambling films category. All that even doesn't go into the "I stick my neck out for no one" subtext of the film, or the literal and subtext meanings of the roulette scenes. 2005 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of concerned when I made the category that people might get hung up on the word "significant." But there doesn't seem to be another word that I can think of that works any better. Central? Important? Whatever gets picked there's going to be a degree of subjectivity. As far as this specific film, my feeling is that the gambling is just important enough that including it in the category is fine. The simple fact that some of the action takes place in a casino is not in and of itself enough to warrant inclusion, but that plus Rick's using gambling to funnel money to someone plus Renault's line tips it. I wouldn't cry any tears if the film were removed from the category but it was added in good faith. Otto4711 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"...if you took out the World War II element the film would hardly be effected."? Are we talking about the same film? Mon dieu! I can just see it now: the duel of the disco songs - Dancing Queen versus YMCA? Hmmmm...doesn't have quite the same impact. That being said, IMO it's not a big deal one way or the other. Clarityfiend 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Casablanca is considered a gambling film. Here are a few references from the web:

• Amazon Listmania Best Gambling Movies
• Frank Scoblete's Ultimate List of Gambling Movies and Books
• Winner Online Discussion of Gambling Movies

Again, I'm going to request that you discontinue reverting this edit until you have a consensus that it shouldn't be categorized as a gambling film. It's inappropriate for you to revert this edit. This categorization is logical, accurate, and good for users. There are 3 Wikipedians here who support its inclusion in this category and only 2 who disagree. Rray 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The two are the two who wrote the article, and the three have contributed precisely nothing to it. Funny that. Fortunately Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Henry 16:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dictatorship either, and you don't have any more authority here than I do. We're trying to contribute to the article by providing it with an additional categorization, but for some reason you refuse to discuss or explain, you keep trying to stop us. (Categorizaton of articles is a contribution by the way; just because you continue to remove a useful categorization doesn't suddenly make it not useful or not a contribution.) You might be well-served by reviewing Ownership of articles. You don't get to say, "I'm right because I wrote the article."

I've explained, in detail, why this is an appropriate categorization for the article, and you've replied with terse "No it's not" type replies. I've cited multiple sources which demonstrate clearly that Casablanca is generally considered a film that includes gambling as a plot point. Continuing to revert my good faith edits without discussion and without attempting to reach a consensus is contrary to the spirit of the Misplaced Pages. Rray 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. The category isn't for movies about gambling per se. It's for movies in which gambling plays some non-trivial part. In that light, I can see Casablanca qualifying. Clarityfiend 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

midget sentence

I changed the sentence about midgets so the humour can be better appreciated. Rintrah 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationality of Lorre

According to his article, Lorre's not Austrian-German. He's either Austro-Hungarian or just plain Austrian, depending on how you look at it. Any preference? Clarityfiend 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Dialogue

I have added a 'Some dialogue' section. The extract I have quoted brings out something essential about the peculiar wit of this film IMHO, though it seems to have enraged a seasoned edit-warrior here! Colin4C 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. In the first place, this particular quote is far from the most notable of the many memorable lines IMO - there are at least 6 better, as the Quotes section notes. Also, it certainly doesn't deserve a separate section by itself - in all the movies I've contributed to, I've yet to see two sections devoted to quotes. I think the thing to do is to put it to a vote. I vote Opposed to including it here - as I have already stated, it belongs in Wikiquotes (and is already there). In the meantime, I'm going to revert it, pending other contributers' input. Clarityfiend 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that most people consulting this article on the wikipedia would rather savour a brief extract from the dialogue of Bogart and Claude Rains, and make up their own minds about its distinctive quality, and inter alia the quality of the film, than ponder over the eternal minutiae of wikipedantry or be directed by the 'wisdom' of self-appointed film experts. Does the brief Dialogue section detract from the article? Is there anything false in it? I think not...Rather, I feel, it gives us an insight into the peculiar dynamics between Bogart and Claude Rains - which is possibly the key to the whole film. Also dialogue is not the same as 'one-liners', which is what the Quotes section seems to offer. I vote For Colin4C 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should mention which dialog we're arguing about: "I came to Casablanca for the waters." etc. Clarityfiend 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentle readers and editors (especially you, over there on the piano...), here is the dialogue in question. Should we include it or not?

RICK (Bogart): "I came to Casablanca for the waters."

CAPTAIN RENAULT (Claude Rains): "The waters? What waters? We're in the desert."

RICK: "I was misinformed."

Colin4C 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One vote against one does not give you the right to unilaterally decide. Clarityfiend 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor you Colin4C 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! We now have 2 votes against. 2005 has backed me up, and if Henry weren't mysteriously absent, I'm sure he would also. Clarityfiend 07:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But he hasn't voted...though I see he has added the comment: 'the wiki quotes link is there for a reason'. If this is so why is there an existing Quotes section (featuring quotes!) in the article at all? Why delete some quotes (the ones I and A.N. Other contributed) but retain the others? And if you count A.N. Other's contribution as a 'vote' then it is 2 against two. My idea (which I don't think is so terrible) was to give the idle browser of wikipedia, who is not necessarily a film-buff wonk, a SMALL sample of the dialogue, as an indication of its quality. Not everyone is a know-all film buff....And why is a contribution of the words of Bogart and Claude Rains deemed of less account than the interpretations of the self-appointed guardians of Rick's Bar? Maybe seeing it would inspire people to make their own interpretations.... Colin4C 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd have a better claim to the high ground if you hadn't snuck in days after this started and tried to slip your additions back in behind my back. The other quotes remain because they have been recognized by the AFI as all-time classics; can you cite a source that does the same for yours? The anonymous other contributer illustrates why I object. If you can add whatever lines you want, then others can too. We might just as well include the entire script. You have to draw the line somewhere. Conveniently, the AFI has done just that. Clarityfiend 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of criticism

Removed: "On several occasions, Moroccans and other Arabs, as well as some European and American left-wingers, critisied the fact that in a film wholly taking place in an Arab city and bearing the city's name, and having a large cosmopolitan cast of characters of various nationalities, there is not a single Arab character. In fact, the only Arab seen in the entire film is a nameless market vendor appearing for less than a minute. Some such critics see this as reflecting "a colonialist mindset", and describe the film as "the adventures of invaders who fight their wars with each other on Arab soil, heedless of the 'natives'". (The lack of an Arab character might be, however, due simply to the story having been orinally written with a French location and only later transfered to a Moroccan setting.)

In spite of the above, some Moroccan government officials have expressed satisfaction with the film's continuing popularity as helping promote tourism to their country."

I have two problems with it. First, it doesn't name names. What critics, which left-wingers? Second and more importantly, how does this make the film any different from basically all Hollywood films made in the 40s? At best, I could see adding this as a one sentence item in a Trivia section (except this would bring down the wrath of Henry). Clarityfiend 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Er....not all 40's Hollywood films were set in North Africa. I think this addition should be retained - but some references would be helpful! Colin4C 17:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to all non-whites. Duuh. So what's next? Should we add a disclaimer to Working Girl for not showing Hispanics and African-Americans (other than extras) in New York City? Let's take Lawrence of Arabia to task too. Surely there were women in Arabia - why were there no female stars? And of course, all the Arabs were portrayed by non-Arabs.

Omar Sharif was an Arab! (and no doubt still is...). But, yes, I agree 'Lawrence of Arabia', would have greatly benefited from a few harem and belly-dancing dancing scenes. I'm surprised that feminist crticism hasn't made this very point. Colin4C 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bridge on the River Kwai took place in Burma. The only Burmese in the film were a few porters and the village chief. Clarityfiend 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The porters....were they the dusky maidens seen cavorting in the pool? (or was that a dream I just had?) Colin4C 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me Omar! I don't remember if the porters cavorted or not (knowing Hollywood, they probably did).

Since Casablanca is about European refugees, why is it noteworthy that they hog all the screen time? If the Arabs were trying to escape to America, then there'd be a problem with the film.

Hey...does Ugarte qualify as an Arab? Clarityfiend 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He has a Spanish name, so not. Error 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless Peter Lorre was Omar Sharif (or Peter O'Toole) in disguise, it doesn't make any difference. (BTW, if Sharif is dead, now, is he still an Arab?) Johnny Blaze 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isolationism

The film makes mentions of isolationism both by name and indirectly, yet the article does not. I'd insert them if I found a suitable place. Error 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

I took out in its entirety the section called "Studio System and Ironies" (shown below). While there is some merit to the content, it has several outright errors (e.g. it is ranked second, not first by AFI, that "up until the last day, no one knew how the picture would end" - when the Myths section states the exact opposite), is almost completely unsourced and contains blatant POV. If somebody has the time to fix it, it would be a worthwhile addition though. Clarityfiend 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"One of enduring ironies of Casablanca and the cult of Humphrey Bogart is that, while held up as a paragon of American movie making (rated #1 on the AFI all time movies), it was a basic factory-line, studio picture. It was mass produced: it was one of many pictures Bogart and company were making that year, and was shot relatively quickly. It had no overriding artistic hand or vision: scripts were constantly rewritten, dialogue was improvised, and up until the last day, no one knew how the picture would end. Its inspiration was a minor screenplay by unknowns. The treacly plot, seen from a detached point of view, makes little sense, and is filled with many points designed merely to show off the idealized love Bogart and Bergman have for one another.

The irony comes about because many film fans feel that a great film needs an overriding hand and artistic vision, generally taking the form of a strong director/star: John Ford's The Searchers, Howard Hawks' Bringing up Baby, or Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Much is made in film writing about a director's vision of a picture, but Casablanca remains a stitched-together film with little vision. Yet it remains on most directors' and stars' shortlists of the greatest movies of all time.

A second irony emerges because of Bogart. Casablanca made Bogart a star, and later generations looked to Bogart as the anti-star, with his character actor histronics, less-than-stellar looks and mumbling, staccato speeches (indeed, Leonard Maltin once said that Bogart becoming a big-screen icon and lover is equivalent to Joe Pesci becoming a hearthrob today). Yet Bogart, far from being the anti-star, was a consummate studio worker: he worked on several pictures at once; he often took roles that other, greater stars dropped to assist the studios; his acting style was plain, unadorned, and uninvolved; and he never bad-mouthed the studio or broke contract. Casablanca was just one more film to Bogart and meant nothing; it was only after critical and financial success came that Bogart began to promote it above his other films."

The large edit above was made by user Clarityfiend --Maxl 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Marseilliaise part

I made a minor change to the "Marseillaise" part in the plot section of the article because I just watched the movie. I've had the DVD for 2 years now. The former text said that Victor Lazlo started singing the Marseilleaise on his own before the band started playing it. However this was is wrong. Lazlo told the Big Band of Rick's Café to play the Marseillaise, then the band leader looked at Rick and Rick nodded, giving permission to play the Marseillaise. I hope this is all right with all of you! ;) --Maxl 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

~~Assuming that the first sentence in the Casablanca article is NOT supposed to be that it's the worst movie ever, someone has altered it to say so. I don't have time right now to read the entire article to see if anything else has been childishly tampered with, but I thought I'd try to point it out. If no one has fixed it up in a few days I'll try to wander back, though I know very little about the movie (I ended up here because I wanted info on the movie, not because I had it) Cheers (24 Nov 06)

Timeless

Timeless means not mentioning the date (Dec 1941, but before Pearl Harbor). I don't consider it to be particularly interesting, so I took it out. Any objections? Clarityfiend 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guillermo?

Is this really Ugarte's first name? Clarityfiend 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think not. I deleted it. Cop 633 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Paris burning?

Was the club Rick & Ilsa met at Le Belle Aurore? Jean-Luc Picard 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Substitution

Worth a mention Reagan & (I think) Ann Sheridan were nearly cast as Rick & Ilsa? 3d6 casting 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sequels and other versions

Havana (film) is a pretty obvious remake of Casablanca. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the "other versions" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.109.208 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Cast of thousands?

The cast section seems to be getting a bit out of hand - there are over 30 actors listed. Opinions? Clarityfiend 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ingrid Bergman Closeup Image

In case it hasn't been noticed, the closeup image of Ingrid Bergman was tagged for fair use. Can someone help give it one? --PhantomS 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Casablanca or Tangiers?

The actual city in Morrocco the movie (and earlier play) is based on is Tangiers. The city was an international zone with ambiguous national authority and status. During the 30's and 40's this status allowed Tangiers to become a haven for those running from various authorities and develop a shady reputation. Thus Europeans could flee here before finalizing papers for entering the U.S. During this time the population was principly non-Morroccan as depicted in the film. I think this should be noted in the article, but I'm not sure how to eloquently do this. I also don't have good sources beyond the IMDB's reference to Rick's being based on a Tangiers Hotel. Bravenav 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a better reference than IMDb, I wouldn't recommend you add either speculation to the article. Clarityfiend 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image captions

Can someone clean up image placement and better caption some of them? hbdragon88 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Should the "Propaganda films" category be added to the article. I know this movie had nothing to do with the US government or any government but, you have to admit that it is trying to convince viewers of a certain point of view. Variety magazine even said "Film is splendid anti-Axis propaganda, particularly inasmuch as the propaganda is strictly a by-product of the principal action and contributes to it instead of getting in the way." in their review in 1942 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boo907868 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

IMO, no. It wasn't intended as propaganda and is no more so than your average war film. Clarityfiend 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction or Fact?

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but everyone has probably heard of the story that Ingrid Bergman had no idea which character she was going away with on the plane, either Humphrey Bogart or Paul Henried. While it does sound like a good story, it doesn't seem to hold water, simply because in those days the Production Code (first introduced in the mid-1930's) prohibited letting married spouses from running off with someone else? Can anyone confirm the rumour? I'd like to see if it was completely true or not. --- JS, 156.110.47.73 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a rumour that she said it. She stated it numerous times in interviews and even stated it in her autobiography. However, film historians seem to think that she must have known who she was going to end up with, based upon watching certain scenes in the film. By the way, the script was actively worked on throughout filming. --PhantomS 17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I hope someone will resolve the contradictory spellings of the surname of the actor Curt Bois/Blois.

70.107.97.118 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC) L. Sellinger

Blois, humbug! Clarityfiend 03:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sequels and other versions: Part 2

I'd think you could make a reasonable case that the 1944 Bogart/Bacall film To Have and Have Not could be considered Howard Hawk's version of Casablanca. Leonard Maltin listed the similarities between To Have and Have Not and Casablanca in his recent film video guide. --- JS, 164.58.96.126 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To assure myself that I was in my right mind when I suggested this, here is the quote from Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide of 2005: "Hemingway's 'worst novel' forms the basis for Howard Hawk's version of CASABLANCA: tough skipper-for-hire Bogart reluctantly becomes involved with French Resistance, less reluctantly woos even tougher Bacall (in her film debut). Their legendary love scenes make the movie, but there are also solid performances, taut action, and a couple of songs." Well...there you have it! --- JS, 164.58.96.126 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed Electra

Errors: It is mentioned here and there that the airplane in the movie is a Lockheed Electra, and that Air France never had a Lockheed Electra in its fleet, but DC-3. Xyzt1234 09:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference?

I'm not sure if this is acceptable as a reference for the Curtiz quote ""I make it go so fast, nobody notices." I mean, it is from a major newspaper, but the article itself is not about the film per se. Opinions? Clarityfiend 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I took that from the Ebert commentary, though I don't have it to hand at the moment. I've added that as a reference. Henry 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Auto review

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.
• Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program (A) (British: programme).
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Thank you to all the editors whose hard work made the FAR for this article such a success. szyslak 18:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's looking at you, kid

Can someone explain me why is that phrase so important? I dont quite understand why everybody talks about it and why it is considered the most important phrase in the movie whereas there are really interesting lines throughout the movie to be talking about... Please someone explain the context and the reason. Thank you. --Fredyrod 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)