Talk:Casablanca (film)

Academy Awards – 1943

Of the 16 (10 would have been eligible for Casablanca) competitive awards which given at the time, Casablanca had 6 nominations. The Academy did not award Casablanca Best Actress for Ingrid Bergman.

It was the winner of 3 Academy Awards.

Award	Result	Winner
Outstanding Motion Picture	Won	Warner Bros. (Hal B. Wallis, Producer)
Best Director	Won	Michael Curtiz
Best Actor	Nominated	Humphrey Bogart Winner was Paul Lukas – Watch on the Rhine
Best Writing, Screenplay	Won	Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, Howard Koch
[[]]	Nominated	[[]] Winner was [[]] – [[]]
[[]]	Nominated	[[]] Winner was [[]] – [[]]
[[]]	Nominated	[[]] Winner was [[]] – [[]]
[[]]	Nominated	[[]] Winner was [[]] – [[]]

• Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor – Claude Rains
• Academy Award for Best Cinematography, black-and-white – Arthur Edeson
• Academy Award for Best Film Editing – Owen Marks
• Academy Award for Best Original Music Score – Max Steiner

Intro

Casablanca is a 1942 American romantic drama film directed by Michael Curtiz and based on Murray Burnett and Joan Alison's unproduced stage play Everybody Comes to Rick's.

American romantic drama film? In my view: A well done award-winning Propaganda film sums it up more. Not only Nazi Germany turned propaganda films. This is just like nowadays displaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6B:4D5E:7501:B4B4:9496:6E5D:7302 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested, you can source the genre information and help populate Category:American World War II propaganda films. It currently includes only only 88 films. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

To the unsigned commenter above: hogwash. That is absolute nonsense. Granted, I think of it more as a noir, but all of Hollywood classfies it as a romance. This was anything but propaganda, since these were real issues during that time. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment is the hogwashy one. Check http://brightlightsfilm.com/casablanca-romance-propaganda/ for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.106.74 (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, American propaganda films of the period would be, for instance, the Why We Fight series produced by Frank Capra for the US War Office. Casablanca was produced by Hal Wallis for Warners as commercial entertainment. It certainly advocates the Allied cause, because that's how its creators felt about that, but no one told them they had to. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"Notable" uncredited actors

It seems to me that around five of the entries should be deleted, as the roles are not that significant, as far as I can recall: Belasco (a dealer), Edmunds (contact man), Revanent (conspirator), Del Val (radio announcer) and White (waiter). Maybe also Puglia (rug merchant) (or was he the one who was bargaining?). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed you here, CF. Many of these characters were featured in the memorable "duel of the anthems" and all of the actors who played these roles were actual refugees, which gave that scene such poignancy. As noted in f.n. 25 & 26 (Harmetz, 1992, pp. 213-214), they "brought to a dozen small roles in Casablanca an understanding and a desperation that could never have come from Central Casting." I think it would be a disservice to their memory - and to the article - to leave them out. American In Brazil (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not up to modern FA standards

I am afraid this is not really up to modern FA or even GA standards. Setting aside the quality of prose, which I don't feel competent to analyze, I see the following problems: 1) a number of uncited sentences (I've added cite tags). 2) editorializing (ex. "Particularly notable is the "duel of the songs" between Strasser and Laszlo at Rick's cafe" - particularly notable according to whom?), 3) 'Quotations' section seems like a wikiquote-artifact. If some of those quotes are significant, this should be rewritten into a significance section. 4) 'Rumors' section is similarly a strange heading; in general this article seems to lean heavily on the 'trivia' side of information. 5) Did I say that the lack of 'impact and significance' section is a big gap? Many readers will want to know why this firm is important - but for now, this information is spread through many strange sections, instead of being in one place. Ping users who art still active and participated in the past FA(R) discussions: @DrKay, SandyGeorgia, Szyslak, Henry Flower, Wetman, Zerbey, Gareth Owen, and OwenBlacker: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me respond to your points in order. 1) Thank you for the citations. You're right - as good Wikipedians we must cite reliable sources WP:RS; 2) I changed 'notable' to 'memorable' to conform to the description in the citation; 3) Those quotes are significant in view of the fact that they are on the AFI list of 100 most memorable film quotations, as cited in the article; only Casablanca has six quotations on the list; 4) The 'Rumors' heading has been changed to 'Anecdotes and Inaccuracies' to conform to your objection to the heading title; however, the 'trivia' that you object to has been a lasting legacy of this most important film; 5) The 'impact and significance' section that you say is missing is described in the sections 'Lasting Influence', 'Influence on Later Works' and 'Interpretation' sections. These sections (5.2, 5.3 & 6) are in order.

There has been much commentary about the film throughout the more than seven decades since its production. For clarity, precision, succinctness and readability I, for one, believe it is necessary to subdivide these discussions. After all, Casablanca is a movie which has greatly influenced the cinema ever since its release. And the haphazard way in which the screenplay was written makes it that much more remarkable. In fact, I think I'll see it again (for the 112th time - lol). American In Brazil (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's looking at you (again) Casablanca! :-) --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I add the following from the section 'Awards and Honors' in response to the objection to the film's significance:

"In 1989, the film was one of the first 25 films selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[130] In 2005, it was named one of the 100 greatest films of the last 80 years by Time magazine (the selected films were not ranked). Screenwriting teacher Robert McKee maintains that the script is "the greatest screenplay of all time".[17] In 2006, the Writers Guild of America, West agreed, voting it the best ever in its list of the 101 greatest screenplays.[131] The film has been selected by the American Film Institute for many of their lists of important American films: {list}."

American In Brazil (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casablanca (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112193310/http://www.starpulse.com/news/Dee_Doyle/2008/06/05/best_movie_lines_that_have_stuck_in_pop_ to http://www.starpulse.com/news/Dee_Doyle/2008/06/05/best_movie_lines_that_have_stuck_in_pop_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Barb Wire

• There needs to be a reference to "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank" and "Barb Wire". They were heavily influenced by "Casablanca".
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrawn_at_the_Memory_Bank
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barb_Wire_(film)

75.142.144.88 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Overdrawn is already listed in the "Influence on later works" subsection. I believe Barb Wire was too at some point. Somebody must have deleted it. It wasn't that good, apparently. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is a repeat of Talk:Casablanca (film)/Archive 1#Influences on other films. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference to Barb Wire in "Influence on later works". American In Brazil (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Misquotes

The German version is interesting. According to https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Enzyklop%C3%A4die_der_popul%C3%A4ren_Irrt%C3%BCmer/_Kultur

'Casablanca: Humphrey Bogart sagte: „Schau mir in die Augen, Kleines!“ Dieses Zitat stammt aus einer frühen Synchronfassung des legendären Films mit Humphrey Bogart und Ingrid Bergman. In der neueren sagt Rick: „Ich seh dir in die Augen, Kleines!“ Im englischen Original lautet der Satz „Here's looking at you, Kid!“. Diesen Satz sagt Rick jedesmal, während er Ilsa mit einem Drink zuprostet und bedeutet, dass er auf ihr Wohl trinkt. Aus der deutschen Fassung „Ich schau dir in die Augen, Kleines“, die dem englischen Ausdruck fast Wort für Wort entspricht, seinen Sinn aber völlig entstellt, lässt sich schließen, dass das originale Manuskript in zwei Stufen übersetzt worden sein muss. Der erste Übersetzer fertigte eine Wort-für-Wort Übersetzung an, in die ein zweiter Übersetzer versuchte einen Sinn zu bringen; vermutlich ohne den Film zu kennen. Einigen Aussagen zufolge ist auch das englische Original falsch. Im Drehbuch soll demnach „Here's good luck for you“ gestanden haben, ein Trinkspruch, den Bogart vernuschelt und so sinnentstellt habe.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.34.85.137 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe "Misquotes" should be under "Writing" since it refers to lines from the script and therefore is more appropriate there. Any comments? American In Brazil (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. It (singular since there's really only one misquote) has nothing to do with the writing process during the production, and the subsection is in the production section. However, "Here's looking at you, kid" isn't a misquote, so I'm going to move that. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend You make a good point: that the 'misquotes' were not a part of the writing process. However, I was not suggesting incorporating the "Misquotes" into the "Writing" section, but rather moving "Misquotes" under "Writing" since that would make the distinction between the script and later misquotations a bit clearer (I assume, an important point for "Clarityfiend"). Also, by placing "Misquotes" at the end, where it is now, the article does not so much 'finish' on a clean break but rather just stops. It seems to me that, stylistically, the "Misquotes" section belongs under "Writing" section without any change in text. American In Brazil (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That still leaves it in the Production section. It's better where it is, under Anecdotes and inaccuracies; in fact, it could possibly should be merged into that section. P.S. I moved a big chunk of text out of that section into Writing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and merged the sections. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Escape route

At best, this item is an implausibility, not an inaccuracy. Should it be removed? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in terms of what item you're referring to? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"According to Harmetz, the usual route out of Germany ... was not via Morocco and Lisbon but via Vienna, Prague, Paris and England ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Official YouTube Alternative Edit

for consideration to add under "Cancelled sequels and other versions" It seems the film sold through YouTube in 2019 is slightly different from any edit I have seen and I am searching for confirmation and clarification of how these differences came to pass. There is a minor bit of dialog that is not in the canonical version and the graphics of the opening sequence are different as are many edits of scene transitions. These findings are from my own observation and my research has not found discussion or notated surveys of discrepancies. I feel this should be included here once there is more explanation available.Paul61877 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

As much as I love this film...

This is a wonderful film, but there is an incident of casual racism, when Ilsa asks” who is the boy at the piano?” Sam is an adult man, not a boy. Otherwise the film seems to treat Sam’s character with respect. However, the fact that Ilsa referred to him in this term, bothers me a bit. But It seems that Ilsa has to “play a part” and not let on that she recognizes and values Sam as a full and talented human being. So, I guess I will forgive the screenwriters for putting these words in Ilsa’s mouth. Everyone in Casablanca had to play a part, to escape the notice of the Master Race flunkies.

Also, where is the bottle of Champagne that Renault orders? Why is the “Spanish singer” playing the guitar (solely on the neck, like Eddie Van Halen) in such an odd manner? Bless, her, she certainly doesn’t need the few tiny chord/strums to accompany her lovely voice. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is unlikely to be considered a racist term in this context. Having said that, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article; it should not be used as a forum to express views about the film itself. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Eagleash, you are entirely correct, and I apologize. WP is not the place for my personal film-viewer observations...thank you for your polite admonishment. I am currently rewatching this classic film. I am very sorry that I went beyond what is WP proper, and abused this talkpage. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)