This is the second to last stop on the journey to watch and write about the entire list of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in 12 months' time...
This was saved for now...because at heart, I'm a sentimentalist.
Film 99
99. "Casablanca" (AFI Rank #3)
This is tricky. There are a great number of people whom I care about deeply who don't care for this film. I understand their perspective. There is a great deal of this film that feels like melodrama, with a tense situation foisted upon it. To that argument, I cannot offer a counter. It is true. It is melodrama, and a tense situation is foisted upon it.
To me, though, it is SO much more than that. I'm not entirely certain that I can ever convince them otherwise, so I'm not going to try. I'm just going to describe my reactions to watching it this time.
Like several great films, the opening sequence of "Casablanca" is an extended scene that seems to fly by in a moment. Stuffed, and I mean STUFFED with exposition, the opening of "Casablanca" until the moment that Rick's closes the first night is...39 minutes long. If I was asked, I'd say that opening lasted 20 minutes at the most. The fact that it is nearly twice that long...well...that's what great filmmaking is. It transports us into another world, bathes us in a scenario/story, and expects us to grab hold of it and embrace it. Very little action happens in it, yet it pulses, breathtaking in pace, and treats the viewer like he/she can keep up with what's happening. And it's wonderful. Just wonderful.
This film is #3 on the list. It won the Best Picture Oscar for 1943. Its characters are iconic. Its spoken language contains some of the most quotable lines in film history. But why? Why? It really is just a melodrama.
Also - although the love story would tend to make one think this is a couples film...I'd call this a "guy" movie. Yes, there is some sappy stuff in it, but the sensibilities of this film seem decidedly "male" to me. They do.
Let's start with the script. Written by Julius and Philip Epstein, with some work thrown in (but rejected) by Howard Koch, the screenplay for this film is a taut masterpiece that bristles with energy, overflows with eloquence, and throws in a healthy dash of "screw you very much" lines - just when they are needed. This is ultimately what separates "Casablanca" from other films. Its story is so damned available, so remarkably well-constructed, and so shockingly complete. Scenes follow through to logical endings. There is no enigma, no great "well, you decide how it ends." No. The script poses problems...and it solves them. There is something deeply satisfying about watching a moment/scene unfold, and then watching as the action comes to a logical conclusion. And along the way, usually, we have a brief twist, or a wildly funny/witty line or two thrown in for good measure. I'd love to say something definitive like..."I think the script, among all the elements in the film, is the one that is most vital to its success." EXCEPT...
...as great as the script is...I cannot imagine that it plays the way it does without the actors involved. How does the film work without Humphrey Bogart? As stiff as he is, and as limited a range as he often displays...can you picture anyone else as Rick Blaine? Of course not. Bogart has an undeniable charisma on screen, and was, indeed, one of the biggest stars Hollywood ever produced. He had the lead in 4 of the films in the AFI Top 100. The man is simply an icon, and films like this one are what made him so. Picture "Here's looking at you, kid." being delivered with any other tone to the voice. Ronald Reagan was rumored to be considered for the role. Picture HIM delivering it. Hell, the last line in the film could only, and I mean it, ONLY be delivered by Bogart. It just fits his temperament, his persona, his voice, his everything. I have to admit that I was prejudiced against Bogart - precisely BECAUSE of his perceived lack of range, etc. This was the only film of his I'd seen before I attempted to watch these films the first time, in 2014. I loved this performance, but questioned how good he could possibly be in anything else. He has become caricature. And I guess that's what happens to icons. Watching these 4 films, though, I have grown to love Bogart's particular brand of cool, and the commitments he makes. He was an actor, not just a movie star, albeit an actor with a particular appeal/range. I should stop. I'm gushing. Look, if you don't get how great Bogart is in this film...try this one moment. It happens just before the deeply satisfying ending of the film, as the plane is departing Casablanca. Not a word is spoken. There is a shot of Claude Rains as Renault and Bogart, Blaine in the foreground, Renault behind him, watching the plane depart, with a little depth of field/bokeh trickery. The composition of the shot is stunning...BUT...look at Bogart's heartbroken face. It's gut-wrenching, perfect, and shows some real acting skill. That one moment makes me audibly gasp nearly every time I see it. Oh, and one more thing. Name another actor that makes the line "I was misinformed" so damned funny. 
Writing about Ingrid Bergman is hard. She is simply wonderful as Ilsa, an (at times) fully realized woman who loves her husband, but doesn't NEED him. Ilsa is immoral at times, certainly by the standards of 1942, but she doesn't have any regrets about that. She is living her life, and she happens to have been involved with our two leading men. Bergman's real moment to shine, I think, is her scene in the street with Bogart. I mentioned in parentheses (at times) in the open to this paragraph. There are some things that become dated in modern sensibilities about Ilsa, especially the idea that at the end of the film, she's kind of assigned where to go, rather than making the choice herself. Kind of. Bogart's final speech to her is not him asserting his will as much as him telling her how much she'll regret her choice if she stays with him, but there does have the feeling that "We got this, sugar. You go with him." Hollywood is TERRIBLE with its use of female characters, and Ilsa Lund is a character in a Hollywood film.
For me, however, the film rises, and rises, and rises with the performance of Claude Rains as Renault. There is such joy in the character, such ease in his movement, in his speech, in everything that he does. It doesn't hurt that Renault has some of the funniest lines in the film, but I'm also positing that those lines are so damned funny PRECISELY because of Rains. It is thankless work being a character actor. The films of the AFI Top 100 are riddled with several of them (men, mostly) making multiple appearances, actors such as Ward Bond, Martin Balsam, Ned Beatty, Robert Duvall (at least in his incarnations on the list), Karl Malden, Ben Johnson, Thomas Mitchell, and Jack Warden. I submit that Rains is the guy, however, that makes his screen time the most delightful. Always seeming like there's something else going on behind those eyes...man, do I love watching him perform. It's easy for me to pick out moments where Rains devastates with his spectacular delivery of sparkling dialogue in this film, but I'm going to reference that scene I mentioned above with Bogart. Look at Renault. There is just as much heartbreak in him as there is in Rick, if for different reasons. Renault is a rank opportunist, and as such, he can foresee the future. That plane leaving spells bad things for him, and he knows it. Rains nails this moment. One other thing. Doesn't it feel like Rains plays this entire film with a smirk? I'm looking for stills, and it's not as prevalent as I thought. 
Music, of course, is used to great effect in the film, and the haunting piano under "As Time Goes By" evokes so much melancholy, it's hard to overstate its importance. The music matters. Oh yeah...and don't forget the "La Marseillaise" showdown in the club. This film needs its music.Lastly, I want to talk about Michael Curtiz. It would be easy to overlook the contributions of a director in this particular film, given its performances and script. There aren't a lot of stunning visual compositions to look at in the film...and yet...there are. Look how the love triangle is always blocked as a triangle. Observe the details in wide shots where people are behaving the way they should. Observe the use of light/shadow. As we've gone on this journey, I've talked about two main things a director does - visual imagery and performances of actors. Well. I don't know how, given the performances of the actors in this film, that one can call the job that Curtiz did as a director anything short of a masterpiece. The ensemble works together so flawlessly...I have to give some of the credit to Curtiz. Why? Because I direct plays, and I'd hate to think that my contributions to some of the performances I was able to garner were moot. Curtiz has two films on the list, "Yankee Doodle Dandy," and this one. Both feature iconic performances from the actors. I don't think that's an accident. Incidentally, he made them both in the same year. Hollywood was a different place a long time ago, and we forget how industrious some of these people were.
I've rambled on long enough. "Casablanca" was saved for the end of the list because I'm a rank sentimentalist, and I wanted films at the end of the list that I LOVE watching for whatever reason. This film I LOVE watching because of how much I love watching movies. If you haven't seen this film...you may not like it. I do. Lots of people do.
Ebert wrote about this one, too. Because of course he did. His essay is here. Roger and I seem to love the film for the same reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment