 |
Casablanca (1942) Adam’s rating: ★★★1/2 (out of 5) Director: Michael Curtiz Rated: none. 102 min. No. 2 on AFI 100 No. 3 on AFI 100 reissue No. 16 on IMDB Top 250 Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Peter Lorre |
"Casabalanca" No. 2 on AFI 100;
No. 3 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 16 on IMDB Top 250
No. 3 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 16 on IMDB Top 250
I don’t hate “Casablanca,” I just don’t understand its appeal.
What is so special about this movie? It’s come to symbolize classics. It’s come to symbolize film noir. When you hear the casual movie-watcher talk about old films, this seems to be the end-all, be-all of their classic film knowledge.
But what’s special about it? Other than the fact that Curtiz employs some low-key lighting to shroud the mysterious tone of the film ... nothing.
The acting is OK. But it’s not even close to being Humphrey Bogart’s best role – despite the fact he plays the same type of role in almost every film and this one isn’t even close to his best stab at it. And it’s even further from being Ingrid Bergman’s best. I could go into more depth here, citing several examples, but don’t worry … there will be more reviews you can read of Bogart and Bergman’s films. Trust me.
There are no technical tricks with the camera, no effects, nothing special with the selection of shots that the likes of Alfred Hitchcock, John Huston and even John Ford -- who had used some very simplistic, but extremely powerful, techniques in his films -- would employ. They are Michael Curtiz' contemporaries and they were doing some amazing things in this period.
Hitch and Huston were experimenting with lighting, intriguing plot lines, suspense and film noir (a term that describes low-key lighting in mystery, crime dramas).
Hitch did it -- and did it well -- in "The Lady Vanishes (1938), "Rebecca" (1940), "Foreign Correspondent" (1940," "Suspicion" (1941), "Saboteur" (1941) and -- my personal favorite -- "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943). Huston did it -- with Humphrey Bogart as his leading man, I might add -- in 1941's adaptation of Daschell Hammet's "The Maltese Falcon."
Then you have John Ford. Sure, you have "Stagecoach" (1939), "Young Mr. Lincoln" (1939) and "How Green was My Valley?" (1941) in this same period, but to find the coup de grace of any argument for "Casablanca's" superiority, you need look no further than “The Grapes of Wrath (1940),” which has arguably the most powerful scene in the history of American cinema when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) is hiding in a shack and Ford’s use of key lighting distorts Fonda’s face in half bright light and half darkness. That one scene alone -- possibly the most powerful of its time and in the history of American cinema -- is more than anything Curtiz did in “Casablanca.”
Hitch and Huston were experimenting with lighting, intriguing plot lines, suspense and film noir (a term that describes low-key lighting in mystery, crime dramas).
Hitch did it -- and did it well -- in "The Lady Vanishes (1938), "Rebecca" (1940), "Foreign Correspondent" (1940," "Suspicion" (1941), "Saboteur" (1941) and -- my personal favorite -- "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943). Huston did it -- with Humphrey Bogart as his leading man, I might add -- in 1941's adaptation of Daschell Hammet's "The Maltese Falcon."
Then you have John Ford. Sure, you have "Stagecoach" (1939), "Young Mr. Lincoln" (1939) and "How Green was My Valley?" (1941) in this same period, but to find the coup de grace of any argument for "Casablanca's" superiority, you need look no further than “The Grapes of Wrath (1940),” which has arguably the most powerful scene in the history of American cinema when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) is hiding in a shack and Ford’s use of key lighting distorts Fonda’s face in half bright light and half darkness. That one scene alone -- possibly the most powerful of its time and in the history of American cinema -- is more than anything Curtiz did in “Casablanca.”
So what makes this movie special?
I’ll give you the story. It is original. Expatriates fleeing Morocco before the Nazis take hold of North Africa.
But, that’s original for 1942 and intriguing in a time period when the world is at war – kind of like how epic films based on books written about the Civil War and feature elaborate set designs and expensive costumes or some film that becomes more of a children’s film as it is lost in translation from its book get rubber stamped as being some of the finest films ever made because they were two of the first movies that featured color film, had expensive budgets and everyone went to see them.
I understand and appreciate "Casablanca's" historical significance, which is why I’m giving it the rating I did at 3½ stars, but I fail to grasp why it is so highly rated on lists. I fail to understand what makes this movie better than more revolutionary films of the same time period.
No comments:
Post a Comment