This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.70.32.136 (talk) at 14:00, 5 September 2005 (Errors, this one is not!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:00, 5 September 2005 by 195.70.32.136 (talk) (Errors, this one is not!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.
 | Film Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Dumping this off here (irrelevant, so far as I'm concerned--why not compare Bogart to his character in Treasure of the Sierra Madre too?):
- "Richard Blaine was, like Bogart himself, a gentleman from New York, who could not return to New York. Bogart in Hollywood was surrounded by cut-throat studio heads, chiseling agents, fawning studio yes men, and admiring fans."
On radio here they were reminding us that to-day was the 60th anniversary of this movie's release. It gives reason to pause and reflect about just what makes for a great film. Sometimes it's just haunting scenes that linger on long after. Happy birthday Casablanca! Eclecticology 02:06 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
The following paragraph needs correcting!
The fog in the scene was there to mask the unconvincing appearance of the cardboard planes. Interestingly, few have commented on the implausibility of fog in a northern African location.
Bizarrely Casablanca does get fog -- see for example the cached weather forecast at http://tinyurl.com/dxhx (points to google cache of CNN reporting "Dense Fog" in Casablanca.) For a more scientific take see http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/travel/features/morocco.shtml which will explain European Atlantic fogs to those not used to them :-)
Fog is certainly plausible.
Muppet 10:06 June 10, 2003 (BST)
Hmmm, so the fog wasn't an error. That was an interesting reference you gave me there; thanks for that! (I was the one who wrote the above now deleted words)Arno
start of a beautiful friendship? Koyaanis Qatsi 12:19, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What interests me most about the film, as a Unification Church member, is the resolution of the love triangle between Laszlo, Ilsa, and Rick.
When Ilsa thought her husband was dead, she began seeing Rick. (They are never shown in bed together, yet one assumes their intimacy went beyond champagne and kisses.) Yet immediately upon learning that her husband is till alive, she leaves Rick.
The triangular situation revives in Casablanca, when the (secretly) married couple show up at Rick's cafe. Bitter at being jilted, Rick initially refuses to help them.
Rick has three friends: the despicable Ugarte, the womanizing Inspector Renault, and the loyal pianist Sam. Ugarte commits murder to get the letters of transit, which he trusts Rick to hold for safekeeping. Renault has Ugarte arrested at the cafe, leaving Rick with two 'tickets to freedom'.
Rick refuses to sell the letters of transit to Laszlo, but won't tell him why: "Ask your wife", he says. Ilsa tries to get them from Rick, at first threatening him with a gun and then offering to resume her affair with him. After this display of feminine power, Rick prepares a decisive strategy.
Weygand
Is that statement about General Weygand true? I listened to the scene where Ugarte describes the letter of transit about a dozen times just now and I, at least, am convinced that what Peter Lorre says is "General de Gaulle".
- I've had exactly this experience. There's is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Lorre says "De Gaulle", and I've listened closely many times. The Weygand story strikes me as (a somewhat silly) post-hoc justification for what is, to all intents and purposes, only a McGuffin. GWO 15:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Obviously whether or not that's in the script I cannot say. Regardless, I'm not sure Weygand makes that much more sense. While he was Delegate-General of the North African colonies, he was recalled in November 1941, a month before the film is set. I think given the other implausable occurances, and the MacGuffin nature of the letters in general, it's likely that de Gaulle was picked haphazardly as an important French person without thought given to how much sense it made. The writer, I'm sure, had no idea the degree this movie would be scrutinized. The French translator, being more atune to the situation in France and its colonies, probably inserted Weygand's name purposefully as something that at least was somewhat more logical, and close enough in sound to not be a terribly obvious mistranslation. -R. fiend 15:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that he does say "Weygand", but I'll have another listen when I next get the chance. I'm also fairly sure that the scripts say Weygand, and I can't imagine why it would have been changed to de Gaulle.
- Because if the viewers hear a name they don't recognise (Weygand) they'll think he's a fictional character, wonder what they've missed and spend the next five minutes trying to figure out which one's Weygand instead of following the plot. De Gaulle was much much more a recognisable name. -- GWO
- As for Weygand being recalled, bear in mind that a) the play was written in 1940, and b) the 1941 date is based on a brief shot of an invoice, and shouldn't really be relied on. Markalexander100 11:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If it's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?; sure there's an "if", but I don't think Rick was being that hypothetical.GWO
- The script could well say "Weygand", but I still maintain that Lorre says "de Gaulle". As is stated in this article, the movie is full of indications that the author wasn't really dealing with the political situation realistically. Certainly any escapee from a concentration camp who was active with the resitence movements throughout Europe would be arrested by the Germans, or even the Vichy government, without any severe worries about repercussions. As for Decemeber 1941, the date is pretty clearly stated in the film. While drinking at the bar after its closed, Rick asks Sam "If it's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?" (or something like that, I forget the exact quote). Anyway if you can check the script itself I'd be very interested in what Ugarte says. While I can't see any good reason for it being changed to de Gaulle its possible 1) that Peter Lorre made a mistake, or 2) the director knew de Gaulle was a name familiar to most people, while Weygand probably was not. I'm just speculating here. Either way I'd sort of like to see the article changed from stating that Ugarte says "Weygand", to saying that some people theorize that that's what he says, or what he was supposed to say. I just don't think the case is closed on it. -R. fiend 19:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that he does say "Weygand", but I'll have another listen when I next get the chance. I'm also fairly sure that the scripts say Weygand, and I can't imagine why it would have been changed to de Gaulle.
I removed: In either case, it is extremely unlikely that letters signed by any French general would be considered legally binding by Germans in North Africa. The question is not whether they would be considered legally binding by the Germans, but whether they would have been considered practically binding by the Vichy forces (everyone's plan being to leave from Casablanca airport, which was run by Vichy functionaries). And in any case, the point is dealt with in the following section. Markalexander100 02:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I saw Roger Ebert talk about this movie once in Boulder, Colorado. He mentioned how in the American version you hear General de Gaulle, but in the French you hear Weygand which makes more sense. Anyone have it dubbed in French?
dino 03:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters what any dubbed version says: this article is about the original film. If dubbed versions differ (which I doubt), that can only be because someone made a mistake in the dubbing process, which isn't so interesting. What is interesting is that on his website, Ebert says that Lorre probably says Weygand ; maybe he's changed his mind. Markalexander100 06:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Errors, this one is not!
>Errors and problems in the movie: the supposedly czech Laszlo's Hungarian name
I see absolutely no problem with Viktor Laszlo. Let me explain:
He was certainly born before 1918 (looks like a guy in his mid-40s in the 1943 movie). Before 1918, the entire central Europe belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire. The eastern part of CzechoSlovakia (a country that existed between 1919-1994) is called Slovakia and it traditionally belonged to the hungarian crown. The western part is called Czecha and it traditionally belonged to the austrian crown. In both parts, a lot of hungarian people lived (about 2.5 million overall). Obviously they had hungarian names. But there didn't exist a state for the slavic nations living in the area during that period.
The situation reversed drastically in 1918, when the Habsburg empire fell apart into many small pieces and Hungary lost 65% of its area. Many of the hungarians found themselves behind czechslovakian borders and were forcibly evicted or assimilated after Masaryk's new, nationalistic Republic of Czech-Slovakia was established in the early 1920's. The rest of the remaining were evicted soon after WWII, along with the ethnic germans. Currently there are some half million ethnic hungarians left in Slovakia and practically zero in the Czech Republic.
Therefore, naming a czech character Viktor Laszlo only shows the director knew a lot about central Europe and its history.
Regards: Tamas Feher <etomcat@freemail.hu> 195.70.32.136 14:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Categories: