Talk:Casablanca (film)

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)
    • Regrettable as it is today, calling adult black males "boys" was very much the norm in the early 1940's. Casablanca was a product of its times, and it holds up better now than does Gone with the Wind, which has even-more blatant racism in depiction of African-Americans. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

      Yes, but what is dumb about Ilsa calling Sam a "boy" is that she is Norwegian, not an American casual racist, and would not have any reason to demean Sam in that manner. They could have just written it, "Who's the piano player? I think I know him."

      It's also ironic in a big anti-fascist movie to have Sam speak in stereotyped ungrammatical dialect. Pascalulu88 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda

Much as I love this movie I must recognize it as propaganda due to its message and its timing. Propagandistic elements include:

1. unflattering depictions of Vichy France and of course Nazi Germany (as if either was likely to be seen sympathetically) 2. introduction of a wide array of people who could be victims of the Nazis 3. depiction of a self-pitying Rick Blaine who forgets that he has cause to be thankful for being an America as someone needing correction for such 4. early small victories for the Allied side (The Marseillaise drowning out Die Wacht am Rhein)

Obviously no American movie from the first few months of World War II that addressed international issues involving the war was going to say anything sympathetic about Nazis or the Third Reich.

It is the third point that is special, and "be proud and thankful that you are American enough that you will fight for it" is a clear message. Maybe people had their doubts before Pearl Harbor, but if they still had those, those needed to be banished, and fast. Propaganda can be distinguished achievement, and it can be subtle. Maybe such is more unlikely than crude expressions that are embarrassments after the fact or must be seen in context to be tolerable (let us say the cartoon "Tokio Jokio"). That propaganda is a cinematic masterpiece (as is Battleship Potemkin) makes it less blatant. It is intended to promote a political position, which makes it no less propaganda than something ugly or incompetent.

I introduced the idea that Casablanca is propaganda in the article on Propaganda.

Pbrower2a (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it have been possible or desirable to depict Vichy France and the "THIRD Reich" (as Claude Rains puts it) in a flattering way? What exactly are you complaining about here? Any objective descriptions of the activities of Vichy France or the Nazi régime ARE going to be unflattering to most decent people.

And the "wide range of people" actually are victims of the Nazis. Pascalulu88 (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Intro takes too long to get to the point

Casablanca is among the most famous and celebrated films ever made, whether you like it or not, but you wouldn't know it from the first three paragraphs or 300 words of this article, which read like the Wikipedia entry on any other old film. Loads and loads of detail before "oh yeah, by the way, it's quite popular." Casablanca's fame should be the first thing the article mentions.

As memory serves me, a minor detail

The entry states: "Laszlo orders the house band to play La Marseillaise" I thought it was Yvonne rather than Laszlo.

No, it was Laszlo. Why would Yvonne do such a thing? Youtube has several clips showing Laszlo doing the deed. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Laszlo tells them to play. Rick nods to the band and gives his approval. MartinezMD (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Medals make witty statement

The medals Claude Rains wears are the World War I Victory Medal, the WW I Commemoration Medal and the WW I Legion of Honor. Whenever Major Strasser asks who will win WW II everybody acts like they don't know, yet there's Claude Rains flashing his victory medals, flash, flash, glint, glint. Since this movie was directed by Michael Curtiz this was obviously deliberate. I think this should be noted in the article. 98.238.220.212 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Has a reliable source discussed it? DonIago (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

General Weygand

When Ugarte explains to Rick that he has "letters of transit" that "cannot be rescinded, not even questioned", he specifies that they have been signed by General Weygand, who was a high-ranking official in the Vichy government. I suspect, however, that generations of Americans, French and perhaps other nationalities believe he says "General de Gaulle". In fact, I recently saw the film in a cinema in France and the French subtitle said "General de Gaulle". On my DVD version, the English hard-of-hearing subtitle also says "General de Gaulle", but the French subtitle correctly says, "General Weygand". Not only is this what Ugarte actually says, but it would make no sense for him to say "General de Gaulle". De Gaulle's signature would have had absolutely no authority in Vichy France. For this reason, I would like to specify that the letters of transit are signed by General Weygand. I would do this toward the top of the plot description, in the sentence that begins "The papers allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe and to neutral Portugal ...". I would expand this sentence to say, "The papers, signed by General Weygand, a high-ranking Vichy government official, allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe and to neutral Portugal...". Steviesk (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Who issued the letters is disputed (and this is noted in the Inaccuracies section). You cannot say for certain it was Weygand. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What we really need is a script from the movie. That would resolve it once and for all. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the actual script survives.[1] If, and this is a big if, this is a legitimate script, it says on p. 19 that it was signed by "Marshall Waygand [sic]". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I just looked at the particular line in the movie (in theory the actor could have deviated from the script) and imho while Waygand is bit hard to hear it is clearly not de Gaulle (no l sound at the end) If you want to check it yourself see/listen here. So I'd agree to the suggestion above and also to update the inaccurancy section accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. You hear one thing, others hear another, as confirmed by the inconsistent captioning. If someone has access to a verified script (why would the actor deviate from it?), that would settle(?) the matter once and for all. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No. This is a trivial detail that does not belong in the plot section. It is totally unnecessary to mention either Weygand or De Gaulle or the fictional general Waygand created for the purposes of an obviously convenient MacGuffin. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

General "Waygand" was probably never intended to be fictional. The misspelling is probably that of an American who had only heard the name on the radio and just typed it with American phonetics.

We don't remember Weygand, but he was quite famous (and notorious) for 30 plus years. Pascalulu88 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainly @Clarityfiend: but also @DrKay::

Using the film in this context might actually be less WP:OR than using the original script - if we're making a statement about the film rather than the script. It is not that uncommon during filming an actor might change his lines of somwhat (by mistake or or intention) and it is then up to the director whether he takes another cut to fix that or leaves the deviation in there because he likes it. That's just how filming works in practice.

Howwever here I just mentioned the film that to point out that original film and orignal script actually do agree so, so both yield the same conclusion (and as I said you can clearly hear that it is not de Gaulle, that is not really a question of interpretation or researching some mangled audio tape).

The most likely reason, I suspect, why some subs (in particular) on dvd or video might have it wrong (and unfortunately apparently some literature too) might just be that de Gaulle is much better known than Weygand (in fact in might be fair to assume, that at least outside of France and WWII historian circles, most cultural never heard but Weygand but have heard of de Gaulle.

Now with regard to our article and WP:OR. First of all the (original) movie, the original script and subtitles on various cassette, dvd or streaming editions are all primary sources and the cited book (Robertson) is a secondary source. Now unfortunately Robertson just mentions "letters of transit by de Gaulle" as a movie mistake but says nothing at all about subtitles. So if we're amending Robertson dscription by primary sources (subtitle info) anyway, we might as well (and imho should state) what original script and movie actually say. Even better look for further (better) secondary sources that might deal with the issue explicitly (see below).

Unfortunaly after researching the issue a bit more it yields some clarification but also unexpected additional issues. First of all the movie critic Roger Ebert apparently looked at the issue back in the 90s and kinda confirmed Weygand (see [2] or [3]), but oddly enough the (not original?) version of the script he looked at contained both names de Gaulle and Weygand. And now for the unexpected, it seems the "letters of transit" issue in general widely known as one of the most famous inaccuracies or "macguffin" of the movie, are not a real inaccurancy at all. The historian Meredith Hindley points out in her 2017 book on Casablanca (Destination Casablanca: Exile, Espionage, and the Battle for North Africa in World War II, see [4]) that such letters of transit by Weygand did actually exist and gives a concrete example of a person having received one.

I agree that for the plot section "letters of transit" is sufficient and the de Gaulle/Weygand detail of no importance. However the inaccuries section definitely need to be overhauled/partially rewrittten. --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The first Ebert link does not confirm it was Weygand. He reaches no firm conclusion and in fact states scripts have both versions. ("So, which is it? Probably Weygand. But why does the published screenplay give both possibilities?") I couldn't view the second. So it looks like the Inaccuracies section is ... accurate? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not (at least if you want to put a finer point on it, as a secondary source suggest Weygand to be the more probable). If you want to leave the sentence as it is, imho it should at the very least having an explanatory footnote stating what the orginal script says and what Ebert concludes).

That aside the current content of paragraph doesn't really reflect, what is actually stated in the currently cited source (Robertson), which is a problem on its own.

Moreover according to Hindley Robertson's take on the (historical) inaccurancies and the macguffin notion is not correct to begin with anyway. Something which would need to incorporate into the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In Roger Ebert's audio commentary, he says de Gaulle, also noting that it doesn't make much sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)