Skip to main content

You mustn’t underestimate American blundering.

Casablanca
(1942)

(SPOILERS) I’m not sure, way back when, that I went away from Casablanca on first viewing recognising it as the all-time classic for which it is so acclaimed. Perhaps it was just too hallowed to be viewed with unprejudiced eyes. I enjoyed it well enough, but my reaction wasn’t comparable to first sight of the similarly lauded Citizen Kane. And as Humphrey Bogart movies went, I was much more persuaded by The Maltese Falcon. Nevertheless, subsequent visits have served only to elevate its status and confirm the hype was right. You can see very clearly that Casablanca was just another studio picture that somehow separated itself from the pack to earn a status for the ages. But you can also see just how and why it deserved such singling out.

One thing that always impresses me is that Casablanca was made mid-World War II – well okay, only a year in if you were America – because it has in its bearing such an air of confidence and knowledge of continuance, in spite of the threats both existential and physical impinging on the titular city and its inhabitants. It thus occupies a unique space, a timeless pocket or bubble. Which is to state the obvious, that it is, after all, a studio picture and a fantasy, yet it also managed to ride a wave of positive publicity on the back of Operation Torch’s success, in which the allies took the city (Western forces landed in Morocco in early November 1942, and the picture scrambled for release at the end of the same month).

Hungarian-born director Michael Curtiz reputedly invested his own knowledge of desperate refugees haggling to escape oppression for similar sequences pocking the picture. But as much as everything stops in its tracks for a clash of national pride – as the Germans sing Die Wacht am Rhein only to be drowned out by a rendition of La Marseillaise – and even though it is undoubtedly positioned as one, Casablanca never feels didactic in its function as a wartime propaganda picture. I suspect that’s partly because it’s so knowing, even if its Germans are two-dimensional, but also because the war is very much the backdrop; much as it fuels and infuses each character’s actions, it is not the essence of the story.

Curtiz, for whom prolific was an understatement, had already overseen two pictures that year including Yankee Doodle Dandy. That film received eight nods including Best Picture at the fifteenth Academy Awards; Casablanca (which was properly released in 1943) received eight nominations including Best Picture at the sixteenth. It isn’t for nothing that he’s acclaimed as “Hollywood’s greatest director you’ve never heard of” (as one of the Blu-ray release extras informs you). Curtiz’ career took in more than 150 films between 1912 and 1961, and if Casablanca is obviously his best known, other still-feted offerings include The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), Angels with Dirty Faces (1938), Mildred Pierce (1945) and We’re No Angels (1955).

Of course, were more of a light shone on his career, it might come up that Curtiz seemed to have thoroughly enjoyed drowning extras on Noah’s Ark (1928). It’s well known he rubbed just about everyone he worked with up the wrong way, but he clearly got results and then some, and that’s generally what counts in Hollywood (until you get caught and from there publicly sacrificed). If he worked with what were frequently four-square studio system storylines – he was said to be entirely lacking when it came to plot savvy, relying on wife Bess Meredyth – there was no doubting his visual virtuosity. Indeed, probably his greatest skill was ensuring you don’t really notice his direction, even though, when you do examine it, his expertise is readily apparent. You do notice the compositions, though, and Casablanca, in collaboration with director of photography Arthur Edeson, is an incredibly beautiful film (Edeson worked on the previous year’s The Maltese Falcon, which also featured Bogart, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre).

While Bogart had graduated to leading man status over the course of 1941, this was the first time he ascended to romantic partner, shorn of gangster trappings. Sure, Bogart’s still a tough guy, but Rick Blaine leads with his brains and only goes in for some shooting – a Nazi dog who deserves it!; see Michael Powell’s very good The Spy in Black for a less black-and-white Conrad Veidt German – at the very end.

The love triangle here makes for the perfect heroic loner figure, as Woody Allen recognised in Play it Again, Sam. There’s Blaine. There’s Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman, who apparently had been doing not very much at all when she got the call). And there’s Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid didn’t think much of Bogie’s acting chops, but then, that’s probably why the latter was a star and the former wasn’t so much). There’s a perfect balance of polite tension between them, and if the nature of Ilsa’s dilemma is an inevitably upstanding one – under the auspices of the Hayes Code, it couldn’t be otherwise – the unfolding is no less compelling for her implied behaviour. Laszlo is impossibly decent of course, but Blaine wins our respect for being equally honourable underneath it all and having attitude with it; echoes of this could be found later in the Luke-Leia-Han of Star Wars. Only with added incest.

While Rick’s dilemma and noble sacrifice – and the way he speechifies it – is everything to the enduring status of Casablanca, it isn’t actually the part I get the biggest kick from. Indeed, one of the few elements of the picture I think is possibly inessential – diehards will doubtless denounce such an idea vigorously, particularly as it underlines they’ll always have it – is the flashback sequence of Rick and Ilsa together in Paris. I’d argue it’s possibly more evocative left to the imagination.

No, the best part of the picture is the Epstein brothers’ dialogue, whereby every line is a gem. And most particularly, the dialogue given to Claude Rains’ Louis Renault, the equal and opposite, or not so much, force to Rick. It’s entirely appropriate that “This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship” ends the movie when Louis has earlier professed “If I were a woman… I would be in love with Rick”. The great thing about coming to realise how marvellous Claude Rains performances are is that he was in a lot of films – eleven with Curtiz alone – so even when you’ve seen a lot, there are a lot more to enjoy. For me, Louis is the most relishable part of Casablanca, an irrepressible flow of upbeat amusement, no matter who he is with, be it Germans – “You repeat Third Reich as if you expected there to be others” he is told – or Bogie: “That is my least vulnerable spot” Louis replies when Rick informs him a gun is pointed at his heart.

Pauline Kael predictable struck a contrary note in her review – “It’s far from a great film, but it has a special appealingly schlocky romanticism” – and started at it by attesting Bergman became a popular favourite when Rick “treated her like a whore”. Which I suppose he did, but she can’t have it both ways when she also admits “you’re never really pressed to take its melodramatic twists and turns seriously”. The ending apparently caused much stress it terms of just how it would play out; that it was decided on the fly makes its extraordinary elegance all the more impressive (Selznick ultimately nixed plans for a further scene with Rick and Louis acknowledging the Allied invasion of North Africa).

The ending itself offers comfort amidst danger, so reflecting that Casablanca takes place in a cocooned world, safe beneath its noirish hues and battles of wits; the war can only intrude so much. Even as they have ended their stay there, it’s crucial that Rick and Louis will always remain, part of this beguiling moment in time. Such filmic artifice is absolutely the key to its enduring appeal. William Friedkin called it “The most iconic American film ever”, and if Kael is right, in as much as it isn’t deep and its themes of honour and sacrifice are at best clunky, Casablanca defies such limitations; Curtiz fashioned a contender for the most perfectly pitched melodrama ever. So no, there's absolutely no need to seek out a version in full colour, with a happier ending.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.