Talk:Casablanca (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Various wikifolk comments

Dumping this off here (irrelevant, so far as I'm concerned--why not compare Bogart to his character in Treasure of the Sierra Madre too?):

"Richard Blaine was, like Bogart himself, a gentleman from New York, who could not return to New York. Bogart in Hollywood was surrounded by cut-throat studio heads, chiseling agents, fawning studio yes men, and admiring fans."

---

On radio here they were reminding us that to-day was the 60th anniversary of this movie's release. It gives reason to pause and reflect about just what makes for a great film. Sometimes it's just haunting scenes that linger on long after. Happy birthday Casablanca! Eclecticology 02:06 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

---

The following paragraph needs correcting!

The fog in the scene was there to mask the unconvincing appearance of the  
cardboard planes. Interestingly, few have commented on the implausibility of  
fog in a northern African location.

Bizarrely Casablanca does get fog. For a scientific take see http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/travel/features/morocco.shtml which will explain European Atlantic fogs to those not used to them :-)

Fog is certainly plausible.

Muppet 10:06 June 10, 2003 (BST)

Hmmm, so the fog wasn't an error. That was an interesting reference you gave me there; thanks for that! (I was the one who wrote the above now deleted words)Arno

---

start of a beautiful friendship? Koyaanis Qatsi 12:19, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

What interests me most about the film, as a Unification Church member, is the resolution of the love triangle between Laszlo, Ilsa, and Rick.

When Ilsa thought her husband was dead, she began seeing Rick. (They are never shown in bed together, yet one assumes their intimacy went beyond champagne and kisses.) Yet immediately upon learning that her husband is till alive, she leaves Rick.

The triangular situation revives in Casablanca, when the (secretly) married couple show up at Rick's cafe. Bitter at being jilted, Rick initially refuses to help them.

Rick has three friends: the despicable Ugarte, the womanizing Inspector Renault, and the loyal pianist Sam. Ugarte commits murder to get the letters of transit, which he trusts Rick to hold for safekeeping. Renault has Ugarte arrested at the cafe, leaving Rick with two 'tickets to freedom'.

Rick refuses to sell the letters of transit to Laszlo, but won't tell him why: "Ask your wife", he says. Ilsa tries to get them from Rick, at first threatening him with a gun and then offering to resume her affair with him. After this display of feminine power, Rick prepares a decisive strategy.

Weygand

Is that statement about General Weygand true? I listened to the scene where Ugarte describes the letter of transit about a dozen times just now and I, at least, am convinced that what Peter Lorre says is "General de Gaulle".

I've had exactly this experience. There's is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Lorre says "De Gaulle", and I've listened closely many times. The Weygand story strikes me as (a somewhat silly) post-hoc justification for what is, to all intents and purposes, only a McGuffin. GWO 15:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously whether or not that's in the script I cannot say. Regardless, I'm not sure Weygand makes that much more sense. While he was Delegate-General of the North African colonies, he was recalled in November 1941, a month before the film is set. I think given the other implausable occurances, and the MacGuffin nature of the letters in general, it's likely that de Gaulle was picked haphazardly as an important French person without thought given to how much sense it made. The writer, I'm sure, had no idea the degree this movie would be scrutinized. The French translator, being more atune to the situation in France and its colonies, probably inserted Weygand's name purposefully as something that at least was somewhat more logical, and close enough in sound to not be a terribly obvious mistranslation. -R. fiend 15:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that he does say "Weygand", but I'll have another listen when I next get the chance. I'm also fairly sure that the scripts say Weygand, and I can't imagine why it would have been changed to de Gaulle.

Because if the viewers hear a name they don't recognise (Weygand) they'll think he's a fictional character, wonder what they've missed and spend the next five minutes trying to figure out which one's Weygand instead of following the plot. De Gaulle was much much more a recognisable name. -- GWO

As for Weygand being recalled, bear in mind that a) the play was written in 1940, and b) the 1941 date is based on a brief shot of an invoice, and shouldn't really be relied on. Markalexander100 11:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?; sure there's an "if", but I don't think Rick was being that hypothetical.GWO

The script could well say "Weygand", but I still maintain that Lorre says "de Gaulle". As is stated in this article, the movie is full of indications that the author wasn't really dealing with the political situation realistically. Certainly any escapee from a concentration camp who was active with the resitence movements throughout Europe would be arrested by the Germans, or even the Vichy government, without any severe worries about repercussions. As for Decemeber 1941, the date is pretty clearly stated in the film. While drinking at the bar after its closed, Rick asks Sam "If it's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?" (or something like that, I forget the exact quote). Anyway if you can check the script itself I'd be very interested in what Ugarte says. While I can't see any good reason for it being changed to de Gaulle its possible 1) that Peter Lorre made a mistake, or 2) the director knew de Gaulle was a name familiar to most people, while Weygand probably was not. I'm just speculating here. Either way I'd sort of like to see the article changed from stating that Ugarte says "Weygand", to saying that some people theorize that that's what he says, or what he was supposed to say. I just don't think the case is closed on it. -R. fiend 19:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed: In either case, it is extremely unlikely that letters signed by any French general would be considered legally binding by Germans in North Africa. The question is not whether they would be considered legally binding by the Germans, but whether they would have been considered practically binding by the Vichy forces (everyone's plan being to leave from Casablanca airport, which was run by Vichy functionaries). And in any case, the point is dealt with in the following section. Markalexander100 02:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I saw Roger Ebert talk about this movie once in Boulder, Colorado. He mentioned how in the American version you hear General de Gaulle, but in the French you hear Weygand which makes more sense. Anyone have it dubbed in French?

dino 03:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what any dubbed version says: this article is about the original film. If dubbed versions differ (which I doubt), that can only be because someone made a mistake in the dubbing process, which isn't so interesting. What is interesting is that on his website, Ebert says that Lorre probably says Weygand [1]; maybe he's changed his mind. Markalexander100 06:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I've read the discussion and concur with pretty much all points. I'm watching the original version right now and I'm definitely sure it says De Gaulle. In the light of all this discussion, I think the Errors section should discuss the issue in greater detail. Currently, the fact that letters of transit from Charles de Gaulle might be worthless is only alluded. Some clarification would help, and I would like to add a few sentences to that paragraph. Aside 01:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

While I can't say if the film says Weygand or deGaulle, I can say it's stupid for it to be deGaulle. Casablanca is in Vichy control; any letter signed by a Free French leader is likely to get you a date with an executioner, not a free passage. Trekphiler 18:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Lorre DOES NOT say "Weygand". On the remastered DVD it is perfectly clear that he says "de Gaulle". Whomever is reverting edits that delete this spurious question is really overstepping the bounds of reasonableness. Psage 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I found 3 mentions of this controversy (in the plot, myths and errors sections) to be excessive. I consolidated them in the errors. Clarityfiend 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely disagree with Ebert. I was familiar with the story when I watched the DVD with Ebert's commentary a few years ago and eagerly waited for the moment but immediately said to myself, "Well, that doesn't sound like 'de Gaulle' to me." I turned on the English subtitles and found they said "de Gaulle" but then turned on the French subtitles and found they said "Weygand." I looked up Weygand and suddenly everything was clear. Subtitles are often done after the film and are sloppy (on 'the 'Bullitt DVD, a surgeon says "Metzenbaum" [scissors] but the subs say "Get some balm"!) A closer listen only reinforced my hearing of Lorre's Hungarian-French "vay-GAWN" pronunciation. --Tysto 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Tysto. I'm a native French speaker and there's absolutely no doubt that Lorre says "Weygand". He pronounces it very clearly, with a nasalized "a" at the end of the word, without any "n" or "d" sound, /vegã/. 195.220.213.22 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone claiming to hear "de Gaulle" know that in French, "Weygand" is pronounced somewhere between "vay-gah" or "vay-gahn" rather than "way-gand"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleja (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just listened to this again, and I can't see how it could possibly be "de Gaulle". The vowels I hear are e and ã. If he were saying "de Gaulle", I would expect to hear œ and o. -Adjusting (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most who advocate "De Gaulle" are doing it based upon the sound of the vowels; it's the leading consonant sound that's dominating. That very clearly (to me, anyway) seems to be a hard 'd' sound and not at all a softer 'v' sound.

The vocal mechanics for making those two sounds are pretty different, aside from their both employing your vocal chords. For a 'd', you put the tip of your tongue against the roof of your mouth, push air against the tongue, which the tongue initially holds back against that pressure, then separate your tongue from the roof of your mouth to suddenly release the air. For 'v' sound, there is no initial trapping of air, nor would most people put the tip of their tongue against the roof of their mouth at all to make that sound. You just put your top teeth against your bottom lip and push the air right on out smoothly. So intuitively, I wouldn't expect one sound, when uttered as clearly as I believe I hear Lorre saying 'd', to be mistaken for the other.

All of that said, I'm quick to stipulate that I'm most certainly not a native French speaker. Is it common for French speakers to make 'v' sounds that sound like a 'd' to native English speakers?

No argument from me that Weygand makes more sense than De Gaulle (to the extent that the letters of transit make sense at *all*, which is not much, regardless of which name Lorre is saying). But that leading consonant sure sounds like 'd' to me. I can't hear a 'v' sound there, no matter how hard I try. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Errors, this one is not!

>Errors and problems in the movie: the supposedly czech Laszlo's Hungarian name

I see absolutely no problem with Viktor Laszlo. Let me explain:

He was certainly born before 1918 (looks like a guy in his mid-40s in the 1943 movie). Before 1918, the entire central Europe belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire. The eastern part of CzechoSlovakia (a country that existed between 1919-1994) is called Slovakia and it traditionally belonged to the hungarian crown. The western part is called Czecha and it traditionally belonged to the austrian crown. In both parts, a lot of hungarian people lived (about 2.5 million overall). Obviously they had hungarian names. But there didn't exist a state for the slavic nations living in the area during that period.

The situation reversed drastically in 1918, when the Habsburg empire fell apart into many small pieces and Hungary lost 65% of its area. Many of the hungarians found themselves behind czechslovakian borders and were forcibly evicted or assimilated after Masaryk's new, nationalistic Republic of Czech-Slovakia was established in the early 1920's. The rest of the remaining were evicted soon after WWII, along with the ethnic germans. Currently there are some half million ethnic hungarians left in Slovakia and practically zero in the Czech Republic.

Therefore, naming a czech character Viktor Laszlo only shows the director knew a lot about central Europe and its history.

Regards: Tamas Feher <etomcat@freemail.hu> 195.70.32.136 14:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Or it could just mean that they got lazy and we found a lucky coincidence.

There's no problem with a citizen of the CSR having such an Hungarian name. However, it is unlikely that he would introduce himself as a "Czechoslovakian" as Laszlo does. In fact, hardly one would have done this, except for a few adherents of Czechoslovakism, other would have simply called themselves Czech, Slovakian or Hungarian. Let's face it: film makers wanted to have Czech resistance fighters and chose the wrong name. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wrong name": not necessarily. :) As pointed out above, it is entirely plausible that a Czech or Slovak could be at least partially of Hungarian ancestry and have a Hungarian name. As for introducing himself as a "Czechoslovakian", that doesn't bother me either--it just shows, especially as he was addressing a Nazi at the time, that he strongly identifies with the country Czechoslovakia in the face of the Nazi occupation. K. Lástocska 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the woman in the beginning who says "perhaps tomorrow we'll be on the plane" (not "someday" I should note) isn't one of the extras who is arrested earlier. She is the young woman from Bulgaria who Rick "saves" later in the filml 209.183.208.173 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm going to delete that and the trivial continuity errors. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with this section. the first is about Captain Renault and his quote about blundering into berlin. It is a possibility that Renault was being sarcastic not necessarily an error in filming. Also the quote from Curtiz was taken out of context... he was describing the holes in the plotline not the errors in the movie.SpencerVR (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that "Laszlo" is a perfectly acceptable surname, as there is a large Hungarian minority in Slovakia. However, the main article here spells his first name "Victor", when "Viktor" (as spelled in this section) is the preferred Czech/Slovak (and probably Hungarian as well) spelling. In fact, I just watched the film a few days ago with Czech subtitles, and it consistently spells his name "Viktor". 94.113.121.156 (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Ebert

In the current revision (as of 9th of October 2005) there are no less than 15 mentions of Robert Ebert or just Ebert. While reading it it feels like it was mostly copied from one of his reviews. Sure, it can be good to have a couple of references to his review, but 15? 201.1.129.170 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed completly. I tried to edit them out, citing my rationale. And literally the next day, the person that originally wrote in the Ebert quotes edited them back in without any explaination what so ever. Sounds a bit facist to me. I'd like to hear his explination on the matter if he cares to post it 69.196.138.93 05:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's Roger, not Robert. Clarityfiend 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the Roger Ebert just bigging himself up a little. Dirk Diggler Jnr 23:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>Vini, Vidi, Eberti!

Translation: I came, I saw, I reviewed. Clarityfiend 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral?

• I have to disagree heavily with the idea that the things I removed are neutral. As someone who actually knows and regularly talks to someone who was involved with the film (as well as having seen it many times), I can tell you there is a lot of misinformation about the film which has passed from legend to fact in general knowledge. I won't revert the page, however, until we have an open, friendly but focused debate about the issue. So let's go. Make the Internet a useful place for debate! :) Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Good man. To start us off, perhaps you could give some specifics of which bits of article are a)misinformation, b) not neutral, or c) crap for some other reason? Mark¹ 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• • What I had in mind when I wrote this (whether Ugarte says "De Gaulle" or "Weygand") is mostly covered above, apparently. Insomnia causes you to miss obvious stuff. But information regarding the making of "Casablanca" has largely passed on to legend, and recently more than one of my sources has turned out to be dubious (cf. history of Mitsuko Horie), so... I'm afraid I'm now too young to carry the debate :( Danny Lilithborne 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Variety top 50 list edit war

Rather than having an edit/revert war over this whole "Variety Top 50 Films of All Time" link, let's hash it out here and make a decision. -- MisterHand 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

please see here : User talk:Markalexander100

since i think it's interesting to know that casa has been chosen so many times (562?)(i'd say only 233) in best movies lists, why do we have to hide it? why not a specific article? i'm open to any constructive proposition (and not to these deleting people) kernitou talk 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an article, which people (mainly me) have spent a lot of time working on. It is not a list of lists which mention Casablanca, and it shouldn't be turned into that. I see nothing particularly notable about this particular list which gives it any special claim to being mentioned. Mark^{your words} 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A brand new 'Casablanca' parody

The cartoon rabbits from the 30 Second Bunny Theater at www.angryalien.com[2] have very recently added a 30 second remake of Casablanca to their online library, it is viewable here [3].

I added this to main page few days back, but on the save page attempt I received an error message, cursed in frustration and couldn't be assed to retry. Dirk Diggler Jnr 00:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A brave film

One point that I think is not made enough of regarding Casablanca is what an incredibly *brave* piece of filmmaking it is. You have to recall that it was made in late 1941, before the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour and the American involvement in WWII was to commence. Nobody knew at the time that the axis powers would not conquer America and win the second world war. No doubt those responsible for making Casablanca would have had life made extremely uncomfortable for them by an ascendent German administration. Nevertheless the risk of making a film damming of the Third Reich's behaviour (albeit obliquely) was considered one worth taking for the sake of creating great art. Martyn Smith 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it was actually made in 1942, after Pearl Harbour. ;) I'm not much of a historian, but I doubt that. I'd say that the alternatives were a) the US joins the war and wins, or b) the US doesn't join the war and coexists with Nazi Germany. And if it were a real possibility that c) the US joins the war and is defeated, the new Teutonic overlords would be more upset that the US had fought against them than that it had made films that said they weren't very nice. Henry^Flower 11:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Further influences

It is commonplace and entirely encyclopaedic on Wiki film pages to mention influences that films have had on broader art and popular culture. I hardly think the fact that one of the most important films of the last 20 years took its title from a line in Casa is not worthy of mention. And a reference on the Simpsons is, as any fule kno, a sure bellwether of a film's importance in popular culture. Please leave these notes in. They are salient to the film as they highlight the importance and influence the film has enjoyed. If they are removed again I will bring the matter to arbritration.

I will also reinstall the 'Brazzaville' as this point is, in fact, not made clear in the article Martyn Smith 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to start a List of references to Casablanca in popular culture, you are welcome to do so, but this is an article, not a list. The Brazzaville point is made entirely clear. Henry^Flower 15:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

What value does the spoiler warning on this article add to the encyclopedia at all? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard as it is to believe, there are benighted people out there (the heathens) who have never seen the movie. This apparently includes many people in Hollywood; when the script was sent out as "Everybody Comes To Rick's" to the people who evaluate movie ideas, very few of them recognized it. Sic transit gloria mundi. Clarityfiend 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"217 agencies"? Suppose one of them was Gene Roddenberry? "Let's set it on a space staton..." (Or in Sunnydale. Where's David Boreanaz when you need him?)Joss Whedon 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This leads to the inescapable conclusion the average Hollywood producer wouldn't recognize an idea for an original screenplay if it hit him in the head with a polo mallet. George Pal 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image addition

The close up shot of Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca is iconic, and is probably the best recognized shot of Ingrid Bergman, as well as of Casablanca. I am adding the photo, as the page still does not have too many photos. Pradiptaray 04:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shocking

Took out "He complies by declaring "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" A waiter chooses that moment to hand Renault his gambling "winnings" for the night, which he shamelessly pockets." I don't believe in overloading the plot with too many secondary details, like for example A Tale of Two Cities.

I also took it out of the Quotes section since it isn't in the top 100. If we added it, where would we stop? There are so many wonderful quotes. That's what wikiquotes is for.Clarityfiend 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazis in France in 1938?

The Writing section of the main article opens thus:

"The original play was inspired by a 1938 trip to Europe by Murray Burnett, during which he visited Vienna and the French south coast, both of which had uneasily coexisting populations of Nazis and refugees."

Either the year is wrong or the whole premise is fallacious. Consider this from the Wikipedia page on Vichy France:

"Vichy France, or the Vichy regime was the de facto French government of 1940-1944 during the Nazi Germany occupation of World War II.

[...]

Vichy France was established after France surrendered to Germany in 1940, and took its name from the government's capital in Vichy

[...]

While officially neutral in the war, it was essentially a Nazi puppet state that collaborated with the Nazis, including with the Nazis' racial policies. Initially it ruled an unoccupied zone in Southern France and some French colonies, but Nazi Germany invaded the zone under Vichy control on November 11, 1942, in operation Case Anton."

So, obviously, there cannot have been any Nazis in South West France in 1938

M0bi 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, your logic is fallacious. The article does not say that the Nazis were occupying France in 1938, just that there were Nazis there. The Nazis (the German government of the time) had a presence in most countries before the war. Henry^Flower 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

M0bi is quite right here; nothing akin to the scenes depicted in the film could have taken place in southern France in 1938. The German presence in France at that time would be the usual diplomatic one, and would not have consisted of uniformed military officers bullying the French police; there were not Nazis there in the sense of the film. There might have been a German consul or even spies that inspired the original author-- this would need to be checked, perhaps on the cited pages of Harmetz's book, but I do not have ready access to a copy. MayerG (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what is meant was "fascists [in the sense of the authoritarian far-right, not necessarily the Fascisti of Italy] and refugees." There were a number of fascist organizations in France at that time, some home-grown, some supported by other countries, but I don't know how open or active or powerful they were in 1938. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Harmetz' The Making of Casablanca is partly online at Google Books, and from this it seems clear that it is in Vienna that Burnett sees the uneasily co-existing Nazis and refugess, and that in the south of France he came across a cafe that was the inspiration for Rick's. I'm going to alter the text to reflect this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rechecking the print version, I see that the details of town/club are not given. I was too ambitious in attributing this entire section to Harmetz [4], and have corrected.[5] DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wondered about the specificity there. Is there another source for that? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gambling films categorization

For some reason, the "Gambling films" categorization continues to be removed from the article, although it seems like only one person in the community feels like it's inappropriate. I hope that person will discuss this here before reverting the edit again. I've seen Casablanca probably a dozen times, and not only is the gambling that goes on in the film a major plot point, the main character basically owns a casino. Rather than removing it with the comment "peripheral" perhaps you could discuss your reasoning here to see if the rest of the community agrees with you before removing it again? Rray 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a peripheral plot point. I'll happily discuss it here while removing it again. Henry^Flower 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it's a peripheral plot point rather than just asserting it as a fact multiple times. I can repeatedly say that the ocean isn't full of salt water too, but that doesn't make it so.

Repeatedly asserting your opinion that gambling is peripheral to the plot rather than central to the plot isn't a discussion at all. You might also review Three-revert rule, Edit war and Wikiquette. Rray 14:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it's central. I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia policies, thanks. Henry^Flower 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The main character (Rick) owns and operates a gambling establishment, Rick's Cafe. One of the most famous quotes from the film is Captain Renault's exclamation that he is "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!" Rick and Renault are two of the main characters in the film; one owns a gambling establishment and the other gambles there. The gambling establishment itself is the major setting for most of the action in the film. Rray 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 2005 and I have both explained our reasoning as to why gambling is a major plot point in the film in the notes to our edits to the article. At this point, I shouldn't have to repeat that reasoning; you should explain your reasoning instead. Rray 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a cafe with a back room. The main plot points of the film are the Rick-Ilse romance and the letters of transit; neither has anything to do with gambling. Henry^Flower 14:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's a cafe with a back room does not mean that it's not also a gambling establishment - the two aren't mutually exclusive. (i.e. Your statement that "Actually it's a cafe with a back room" does nothing to refute my statement that it's a gambling establishment; it's clearly both.)

Casablanca has multiple significant plotlines. Rick's friendship with Renault is also a major aspect of the film, and that friendship exists in part because Renault lets him run his gambling den. (It also exists because Rick lets Renault win.) Rray 15:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Its role as a setting is primarily that of a cafe. The gambling is incidental. The transactions between Rick and Renault are incidental. Henry^Flower 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If its role as a setting were primarily that of a cafe, you would see the patrons there eating and drinking coffee as their primary activity. Instead you see them gambling. I've never seen a review or article about the film that didn't refer to the cafe as a "nightclub and underground casino" or as a "gambling den" or something that references the gambling aspect of the setting (including this article). If it weren't significant to the setting, that wouldn't be the case.

Rick's relationship with Renault is as central to the film as his relationship with Ilse. Their "transactions" are a notable part of that relationship. Rray 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cafe/bar. And no, it isn't. Henry^Flower 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert any more of my good faith edits unless you're willing to actually discuss them. I've repeatedly explained my point of view, and you've yet to offer any kind of refutation of it other than to say things like, "No, it isn't" and "Cafe/bar" even though the article itself refers to the cafe as an "upscale cafe/bar/gambling den". That's not a discussion at all, and it's not in the spirt of collaboration. I'm not sure why you have a problem with an appropriate categorization of the film, but you're unwillingness to actually discuss your points is fine as long as you stop reverting good faith edits. Rray 15:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Henry. It's not a story about gambling, like Rounders for example. If you took out the gambling aspects, the film would hardly be affected. Clarityfiend 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The gambling films category is not just for movies about gambling, but also for movies where gambling is a significant plot point. The movie is set during World War II, but it's not, strictly speaking, "about" World War II. Including the film in that category just gives Wikipedia users one more place that they can find this article. Rray 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By the same lack of logic, if you took out the World War II element the film would hardly be effected. The film has significant plot points about gambling, as it does World War II, and thus is correctly categorized like other films. The fact Casablanca has the most single most famous gambling line in the history of film of course makes it one of the first films you would put in gambling films category. All that even doesn't go into the "I stick my neck out for no one" subtext of the film, or the literal and subtext meanings of the roulette scenes. 2005 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of concerned when I made the category that people might get hung up on the word "significant." But there doesn't seem to be another word that I can think of that works any better. Central? Important? Whatever gets picked there's going to be a degree of subjectivity. As far as this specific film, my feeling is that the gambling is just important enough that including it in the category is fine. The simple fact that some of the action takes place in a casino is not in and of itself enough to warrant inclusion, but that plus Rick's using gambling to funnel money to someone plus Renault's line tips it. I wouldn't cry any tears if the film were removed from the category but it was added in good faith. Otto4711 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"...if you took out the World War II element the film would hardly be effected."? Are we talking about the same film? Mon dieu! I can just see it now: the duel of the disco songs - Dancing Queen versus YMCA? Hmmmm...doesn't have quite the same impact. That being said, IMO it's not a big deal one way or the other. Clarityfiend 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Casablanca is considered a gambling film. Here are a few references from the web:

• Amazon Listmania Best Gambling Movies
• Frank Scoblete's Ultimate List of Gambling Movies and Books
• Winner Online Discussion of Gambling Movies

Again, I'm going to request that you discontinue reverting this edit until you have a consensus that it shouldn't be categorized as a gambling film. It's inappropriate for you to revert this edit. This categorization is logical, accurate, and good for users. There are 3 Wikipedians here who support its inclusion in this category and only 2 who disagree. Rray 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The two are the two who wrote the article, and the three have contributed precisely nothing to it. Funny that. Fortunately Wikipedia is not a democracy. Henry^Flower 16:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dictatorship either, and you don't have any more authority here than I do. We're trying to contribute to the article by providing it with an additional categorization, but for some reason you refuse to discuss or explain, you keep trying to stop us. (Categorizaton of articles is a contribution by the way; just because you continue to remove a useful categorization doesn't suddenly make it not useful or not a contribution.) You might be well-served by reviewing Ownership of articles. You don't get to say, "I'm right because I wrote the article."

I've explained, in detail, why this is an appropriate categorization for the article, and you've replied with terse "No it's not" type replies. I've cited multiple sources which demonstrate clearly that Casablanca is generally considered a film that includes gambling as a plot point. Continuing to revert my good faith edits without discussion and without attempting to reach a consensus is contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia. Rray 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. The category isn't for movies about gambling per se. It's for movies in which gambling plays some non-trivial part. In that light, I can see Casablanca qualifying. Clarityfiend 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the categories of Gambling and Errors, it seems absurd that the roulette wheel could be so tightly controlled as to land the ball on a specific number, but still have all the appearance of a genuine wheel. Dynzmoar (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

midget sentence

I changed the sentence about midgets so the humour can be better appreciated. Rintrah 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationality of Lorre

According to his article, Lorre's not Austrian-German. He's either Austro-Hungarian or just plain Austrian, depending on how you look at it. Any preference? Clarityfiend 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Just plain Austrian" is itself an enigma, since most of the world associates Austrians as predominately of German ethnicity. Of course there were, in addition to "100%" ethnic backgrounds of such ethnicities as German, Hungarian, Italian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Czech, Polish, etc., those who were of more than one ethnic background. Some were ethnically "half & halfs"; others, maybe combinations of 1/2 and two "1/4s" of various ethnic combinations. No end to the complexity.

Some Dialogue

I have added a 'Some dialogue' section. The extract I have quoted brings out something essential about the peculiar wit of this film IMHO, though it seems to have enraged a seasoned edit-warrior here! Colin4C 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. In the first place, this particular quote is far from the most notable of the many memorable lines IMO - there are at least 6 better, as the Quotes section notes. Also, it certainly doesn't deserve a separate section by itself - in all the movies I've contributed to, I've yet to see two sections devoted to quotes. I think the thing to do is to put it to a vote. I vote Opposed to including it here - as I have already stated, it belongs in Wikiquotes (and is already there). In the meantime, I'm going to revert it, pending other contributers' input. Clarityfiend 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that most people consulting this article on the wikipedia would rather savour a brief extract from the dialogue of Bogart and Claude Rains, and make up their own minds about its distinctive quality, and inter alia the quality of the film, than ponder over the eternal minutiae of wikipedantry or be directed by the 'wisdom' of self-appointed film experts. Does the brief Dialogue section detract from the article? Is there anything false in it? I think not...Rather, I feel, it gives us an insight into the peculiar dynamics between Bogart and Claude Rains - which is possibly the key to the whole film. Also dialogue is not the same as 'one-liners', which is what the Quotes section seems to offer. I vote For Colin4C 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should mention which dialog we're arguing about: "I came to Casablanca for the waters." etc. Clarityfiend 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentle readers and editors (especially you, over there on the piano...), here is the dialogue in question. Should we include it or not?

RICK (Bogart): "I came to Casablanca for the waters."

CAPTAIN RENAULT (Claude Rains): "The waters? What waters? We're in the desert."

RICK: "I was misinformed."

Colin4C 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One vote against one does not give you the right to unilaterally decide. Clarityfiend 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor you Colin4C 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! We now have 2 votes against. 2005 has backed me up, and if Henry^Flower weren't mysteriously absent, I'm sure he would also. Clarityfiend 07:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But he hasn't voted...though I see he has added the comment: 'the wiki quotes link is there for a reason'. If this is so why is there an existing Quotes section (featuring quotes!) in the article at all? Why delete some quotes (the ones I and A.N. Other contributed) but retain the others? And if you count A.N. Other's contribution as a 'vote' then it is 2 against two. My idea (which I don't think is so terrible) was to give the idle browser of wikipedia, who is not necessarily a film-buff wonk, a SMALL sample of the dialogue, as an indication of its quality. Not everyone is a know-all film buff....And why is a contribution of the words of Bogart and Claude Rains deemed of less account than the interpretations of the self-appointed guardians of Rick's Bar? Maybe seeing it would inspire people to make their own interpretations.... Colin4C 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd have a better claim to the high ground if you hadn't snuck in days after this started and tried to slip your additions back in behind my back. The other quotes remain because they have been recognized by the AFI as all-time classics; can you cite a source that does the same for yours? The anonymous other contributer illustrates why I object. If you can add whatever lines you want, then others can too. We might just as well include the entire script. You have to draw the line somewhere. Conveniently, the AFI has done just that. Clarityfiend 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of criticism

Removed: "On several occasions, Moroccans and other Arabs, as well as some European and American left-wingers, critisied the fact that in a film wholly taking place in an Arab city and bearing the city's name, and having a large cosmopolitan cast of characters of various nationalities, there is not a single Arab character. In fact, the only Arab seen in the entire film is a nameless market vendor appearing for less than a minute. Some such critics see this as reflecting "a colonialist mindset", and describe the film as "the adventures of invaders who fight their wars with each other on Arab soil, heedless of the 'natives'". (The lack of an Arab character might be, however, due simply to the story having been orinally written with a French location and only later transfered to a Moroccan setting.)

In spite of the above, some Moroccan government officials have expressed satisfaction with the film's continuing popularity as helping promote tourism to their country."

I have two problems with it. First, it doesn't name names. What critics, which left-wingers? Second and more importantly, how does this make the film any different from basically all Hollywood films made in the 40s? At best, I could see adding this as a one sentence item in a Trivia section (except this would bring down the wrath of Henry^Flower). Clarityfiend 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Er....not all 40's Hollywood films were set in North Africa. I think this addition should be retained - but some references would be helpful! Colin4C 17:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to all non-whites. Duuh. So what's next? Should we add a disclaimer to Working Girl for not showing Hispanics and African-Americans (other than extras) in New York City? Let's take Lawrence of Arabia to task too. Surely there were women in Arabia - why were there no female stars? And of course, all the Arabs were portrayed by non-Arabs.

Omar Sharif was an Arab! (and no doubt still is...). But, yes, I agree 'Lawrence of Arabia', would have greatly benefited from a few harem and belly-dancing dancing scenes. I'm surprised that feminist crticism hasn't made this very point. Colin4C 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bridge on the River Kwai took place in Burma. The only Burmese in the film were a few porters and the village chief. Clarityfiend 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The porters....were they the dusky maidens seen cavorting in the pool? (or was that a dream I just had?) Colin4C 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me Omar! I don't remember if the porters cavorted or not (knowing Hollywood, they probably did).

Since Casablanca is about European refugees, why is it noteworthy that they hog all the screen time? If the Arabs were trying to escape to America, then there'd be a problem with the film.

Hey...does Ugarte qualify as an Arab? Clarityfiend 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He has a Spanish name, so not. Error 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless Peter Lorre was Omar Sharif (or Peter O'Toole) in disguise, it doesn't make any difference. (BTW, if Sharif is dead, now, is he still an Arab?) Johnny Blaze 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isolationism

The film makes mentions of isolationism both by name and indirectly, yet the article does not. I'd insert them if I found a suitable place. Error 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

I took out in its entirety the section called "Studio System and Ironies" (shown below). While there is some merit to the content, it has several outright errors (e.g. it is ranked second, not first by AFI, that "up until the last day, no one knew how the picture would end" - when the Myths section states the exact opposite), is almost completely unsourced and contains blatant POV. If somebody has the time to fix it, it would be a worthwhile addition though. Clarityfiend 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"One of enduring ironies of Casablanca and the cult of Humphrey Bogart is that, while held up as a paragon of American movie making (rated #1 on the AFI all time movies), it was a basic factory-line, studio picture. It was mass produced: it was one of many pictures Bogart and company were making that year, and was shot relatively quickly. It had no overriding artistic hand or vision: scripts were constantly rewritten, dialogue was improvised, and up until the last day, no one knew how the picture would end. Its inspiration was a minor screenplay by unknowns. The treacly plot, seen from a detached point of view, makes little sense, and is filled with many points designed merely to show off the idealized love Bogart and Bergman have for one another.

The irony comes about because many film fans feel that a great film needs an overriding hand and artistic vision, generally taking the form of a strong director/star: John Ford's The Searchers, Howard Hawks' Bringing up Baby, or Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Much is made in film writing about a director's vision of a picture, but Casablanca remains a stitched-together film with little vision. Yet it remains on most directors' and stars' shortlists of the greatest movies of all time.

A second irony emerges because of Bogart. Casablanca made Bogart a star, and later generations looked to Bogart as the anti-star, with his character actor histronics, less-than-stellar looks and mumbling, staccato speeches (indeed, Leonard Maltin once said that Bogart becoming a big-screen icon and lover is equivalent to Joe Pesci becoming a hearthrob today). Yet Bogart, far from being the anti-star, was a consummate studio worker: he worked on several pictures at once; he often took roles that other, greater stars dropped to assist the studios; his acting style was plain, unadorned, and uninvolved; and he never bad-mouthed the studio or broke contract. Casablanca was just one more film to Bogart and meant nothing; it was only after critical and financial success came that Bogart began to promote it above his other films."

The large edit above was made by user Clarityfiend --Maxl 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Marseilliaise part

I made a minor change to the "Marseillaise" part in the plot section of the article because I just watched the movie. I've had the DVD for 2 years now. The former text said that Victor Lazlo started singing the Marseilleaise on his own before the band started playing it. However this was is wrong. Lazlo told the Big Band of Rick's Café to play the Marseillaise, then the band leader looked at Rick and Rick nodded, giving permission to play the Marseillaise. I hope this is all right with all of you! ;) --Maxl 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

~~Assuming that the first sentence in the Casablanca article is NOT supposed to be that it's the worst movie ever, someone has altered it to say so. I don't have time right now to read the entire article to see if anything else has been childishly tampered with, but I thought I'd try to point it out. If no one has fixed it up in a few days I'll try to wander back, though I know very little about the movie (I ended up here because I wanted info on the movie, not because I had it) Cheers (24 Nov 06)

Timeless

Timeless means not mentioning the date (Dec 1941, but before Pearl Harbor). I don't consider it to be particularly interesting, so I took it out. Any objections? Clarityfiend 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guillermo?

Is this really Ugarte's first name? Clarityfiend 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think not. I deleted it. Cop 633 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Paris burning?

Was the club Rick & Ilsa met at Le Belle Aurore? Jean-Luc Picard 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, only he says La Belle Aurore. It's on the Riviera. The Germans wore grey, she wore blue. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Substitution

Worth a mention Reagan & (I think) Ann Sheridan were nearly cast as Rick & Ilsa? 3d6 casting 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, neither were "nearly cast" as those characters. That legend originates from a press release the studio sent out during the film's early stages; Ronald Reagan was about to enter the army at the time, so I'm sure WB realized they shouldn't consider him seriously. They probably just put his name down to keep the film's development going. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sequels and other versions

Havana (film) is a pretty obvious remake of Casablanca. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the "other versions" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.109.208 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Cast of thousands?

The cast section seems to be getting a bit out of hand - there are over 30 actors listed. Opinions? Clarityfiend 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ingrid Bergman Closeup Image

In case it hasn't been noticed, the closeup image of Ingrid Bergman was tagged for fair use. Can someone help give it one? --PhantomS 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Casablanca or Tangiers?

The actual city in Morrocco the movie (and earlier play) is based on is Tangiers. The city was an international zone with ambiguous national authority and status. During the 30's and 40's this status allowed Tangiers to become a haven for those running from various authorities and develop a shady reputation. Thus Europeans could flee here before finalizing papers for entering the U.S. During this time the population was principly non-Morroccan as depicted in the film. I think this should be noted in the article, but I'm not sure how to eloquently do this. I also don't have good sources beyond the IMDB's reference to Rick's being based on a Tangiers Hotel. Bravenav 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a better reference than IMDb, I wouldn't recommend you add either speculation to the article. Clarityfiend 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image captions

Can someone clean up image placement and better caption some of them? hbdragon88 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Should the "Propaganda films" category be added to the article. I know this movie had nothing to do with the US government or any government but, you have to admit that it is trying to convince viewers of a certain point of view. Variety magazine even said "Film is splendid anti-Axis propaganda, particularly inasmuch as the propaganda is strictly a by-product of the principal action and contributes to it instead of getting in the way." in their review in 1942 [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boo907868 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

IMO, no. It wasn't intended as propaganda and is no more so than your average war film. Clarityfiend 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"no more so than your average war film"? "your average war film" in that period was little more than privately-produced propaganda. Have you seen "Flying Leathernecks"? "Sands of Iwo Jima"? "Top Gun"? The U.S. military, at least, has a rule: if they provide aid (like access to their ships), they get a veto on what goes in the script; if it reflects poorly on them, it don't get in the movie. ("The Great Santini" was rewritten over that point.) Add the cat. Trekphiler (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying we should add that tag to every film in :Category:World War II films made in wartime? I believe it should be restricted to those films primarily and deliberately intended as propaganda, like Triumph of the Will and the Why We Fight series. Casablanca was meant to entertain and make a buck or two. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Clarityfiend, this film is not an explicit propaganda film. It was rushed into the market to capitalize the fighting that was going on in North Africa. If you had given rick any other nationality other than American it would probably still fly on its own wings. What the Nazis were doing in Europe was evil; most in Western Europe and North America knew it. I don't sense an over-riding effort to convince viewers of this film to that fact.H.E. Noes (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiction or Fact?

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but everyone has probably heard of the story that Ingrid Bergman had no idea which character she was going away with on the plane, either Humphrey Bogart or Paul Henried. While it does sound like a good story, it doesn't seem to hold water, simply because in those days the Production Code (first introduced in the mid-1930's) prohibited letting married spouses from running off with someone else? Can anyone confirm the rumour? I'd like to see if it was completely true or not. --- JS, 156.110.47.73 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a rumour that she said it. She stated it numerous times in interviews and even stated it in her autobiography. However, film historians seem to think that she must have known who she was going to end up with, based upon watching certain scenes in the film. By the way, the script was actively worked on throughout filming. --PhantomS 17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If "the script was actively worked on throughout filming", then the finished product proves nothing, since it is cut together afterward, so Bergman, from what was filmed, might well have had no idea. (To give an idea, I've heard tell of actors being confused at what's going on, because the producer {or director} didn't tell them they were making two films similtaneously.) Trekphiler (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what the article says, in the Rumors section: While rewrites did occur during the filming, Aljean Harmetz' examination of the scripts has shown that many of the key scenes were shot after Bergman knew how the film would end: any confusion was, in Roger Ebert's words, "emotional", not "factual". Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I hope someone will resolve the contradictory spellings of the surname of the actor Curt Bois/Blois.

70.107.97.118 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC) L. Sellinger

Blois, humbug! Clarityfiend 03:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sequels and other versions: Part 2

I'd think you could make a reasonable case that the 1944 Bogart/Bacall film To Have and Have Not could be considered Howard Hawk's version of Casablanca. Leonard Maltin listed the similarities between To Have and Have Not and Casablanca in his recent film video guide. --- JS, 164.58.96.126 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To assure myself that I was in my right mind when I suggested this, here is the quote from Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide of 2005: "Hemingway's 'worst novel' forms the basis for Howard Hawk's version of CASABLANCA: tough skipper-for-hire Bogart reluctantly becomes involved with French Resistance, less reluctantly woos even tougher Bacall (in her film debut). Their legendary love scenes make the movie, but there are also solid performances, taut action, and a couple of songs." Well...there you have it! --- JS, 164.58.96.126 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha! Just for the record, that was me, back when I was unregistered. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lockheed Electra

Errors: It is mentioned here and there that the airplane in the movie is a Lockheed Electra, and that Air France never had a Lockheed Electra in its fleet, but DC-3. Xyzt1234 09:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference?

I'm not sure if this is acceptable as a reference for the Curtiz quote ""I make it go so fast, nobody notices." I mean, it is from a major newspaper, but the article itself is not about the film per se. Opinions? Clarityfiend 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I took that from the Ebert commentary, though I don't have it to hand at the moment. I've added that as a reference. Henry^Flower 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Auto review

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program (A) (British: programme).
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Thank you to all the editors whose hard work made the FAR for this article such a success. szyslak 18:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's looking at you, kid

Can someone explain me why is that phrase so important? I dont quite understand why everybody talks about it and why it is considered the most important phrase in the movie whereas there are really interesting lines throughout the movie to be talking about... Please someone explain the context and the reason. Thank you. --Fredyrod 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a toast that encapsulates Rick (Humphrey Bogart)'s world-weary but compassionate(?) character.84.209.111.13 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Brazzaville?

Ok, I just watched it and I'm certain Renault suggests they join the FF in Brazzaville. Brazzaville is half a continent away! Bad writing, or did I just transcribe it incorrectly? Maury (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to Michael Walsh's 1998 novel sequel, As Time Goes By, Rick and Renault end up not going to Brazzaville at all, and Ilsa and Laszlo never go to Lisbon, either. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Brazzaville was the capital of French Equatorial Africa, the only major French colony to embrace the Free French cause. It would have been a logical destination for persons familiar with French Africa and opposed to Vichy. How they could have gotten there is another question! Dynzmoar (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Raskin references

• Raskin, Richard. "Casablanca and U.S. Foreign Policy." Film History 4, 2 (1990), pp. 153-164.
• Raskin, Richard. "Two Marseillaise scenes: from Casablanca to West Beirut." Canadian Journal of Film Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 112-118.
• Raskin, Richard. "Bogart's nod in the Marseillaise scene: A physical gesture in Casablanca." p.o.v. - A Danish Journal of Film Studies, no. 14 (December 2002), pp. 136-142.

I've removed these references from the references section because they are not referred to in the text. They may count as "Further reading", in which case it needs to be explained why these articles are more pertinent further reading than the many, many other articles and books that analyse Casablanca. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Beat the Clock

While I see DrKiernan's point, I do find using the lyric a bit twee. Leave it out, OK? Trekphiler (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I vote keep. Anyone who hasn't seen the film will not notice anything amiss with the wording, and it might elicit a smile from those that have. This is a bad thing? I'm also rather confused by FuriousFreddy's claim that this is somehow "biased". That being said, I do have a WP:COI issue, seeing as I came up with it. (What's the connection to Beat the Clock?) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely nothing wrong with a little riff. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"connection to Beat the Clock"? As time goes by? (Too subtle?) Trekphiler (talk)

OK, here we are again with another silly little debate. It's being framed as "My dog is better than your dog", but that's not the point at all. What's relevant here is that this is an encyclopedia, in which we present facts and information in as clear and straightforward a manner as possible. If you're writing a personal essay, or commenting on your weblog, than using "as time goes by" when referring to the popularity of Casablanca could indeed bring a smile to the face, or to some induce a groan. It's certainly mildly clever and amusing. But that's not what this is about. This is not a personal essay, or a weblog comment, it's an article in an encyclopedia which is trying to be the preferred first source of information on the web. In that context -- this context -- to be clever in that manner is quite opposed to the purpose of the project and the preferred WP:TONE of the writing.

You may be fond of that little turn of phrase, you may think you're God's gift to article writing, but that's neither here nor there. What's pertinent is that it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is, you're once again trying to impose your own opinion on what is encyclopedic without bothering to discuss it. How is it that anything you want to do is fine, but anybody who disagrees with you is to be unilaterally reverted? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not "my will", good writing in line with the appropriate tone. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of WP:TONE applies to this? "has gone by" is perfectly good English, even in a business letter. Three editors do not consider this to be inappropriate or bad writing and the fourth dropped the matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"perfectly good English" in any other context. Here, it has additional connotations that put it beyond the pale. It's a bit like the article on Odo always saying how his future was "shaped' & "molded". Yes, "perfectly good English", but in the context, a bit twee. Trekphiler (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't use an encyclopdia entry to crack a joke. Period. End of subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

To quote: '"William Donelley, in his Love and Death in Casablanca, argues that Rick's relationship with Sam, and subsequently with Renault, is, "a standard case of the repressed homosexuality that underlies most American adventure stories"'

As a counterquestion to this pseudoscience: Can't guys (or girls) be friends without an underlying something? Ever heard of overanalyzing? Pfui! Io (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Must be fate, Mulder" Yes, they can. (Till the writers screwed it up.) Trekphiler (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Letters of transit -- where do people want to go?

The letters of transit are valuable because they allow people to leave Casblanca and get to Portugal, a neutral country from where they can get to wherever they need to go. The refugees want them so they can get out and go to America, where there is safety and freedom, but Laszlo, a Resistance leader, has no need to go there. From Lisbon, he can travel to London, where resistance in Europe is coordinated from. From London, he can be smuggled back into Europe to continue his work. That's why he wants the letters of transit, not to travel all the way to the U.S. where he would do.... what? Nothing. He'd have to be transported back to London to continue his work.

At first, he wants to take his wife with him, presumably as far as London, but when it looks like that's not possible, he urges Rick to take her with him to America using the letters -- but he, himself never had any need or desire to go to the U.S., it would be a waste of his time, and of Allied resources. 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation is incorrect. Renault states at about the 20 minute mark that Laszlo is trying to reach America. End of story. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the film, and you are correct that Renault says exactly that. I apologize. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Laszlo says this himself as well, when talking to Rick in the office (just before the incident that ends with the competing songs) -- that he must reach America to continue his work, so it's not just a second- or third-hand supposition (Renault via Strasser). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Timing with Torch

Does someone have a citation to verify that the timing of the film's release was in some way chosen to take advantage of Operation Torch (the Allied invasion of North Africa)? The invasion took place on the 8 - 10 of November, and Casblanca was released on the 26 of that month. Since Warners wouldn't have know about the timing of the invasion in advance (or even the fact of it), I think we need some kind of reference that says that once the invasion took place Warners' moved the film's scheduled release date up to take advantage of the connection with the film. Is there something that says that

In the meantime, I've commented out that statement. Once there's a citation to support it, it's easily restored. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Harmetz say it, for instance? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section in this article is really very good -- lots of good information. It is, however, a little bit crowded, visually, which makes it somewhat hard to head. I've added some spaces between the individual section to help out. They add a biut of whitespace, of course, but help to make it a bit easier on the eye.

If anyone has alternate solutions to this problem, go to it - I just want the information to be readily consumable by the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I had noticed the topic of "Cast of Thousands," and created a an account because I wanted to respond, then I saw your topic. I think knowing that the origin of the cast members gives the reader a good insight to the period and perhaps the mood that was present as the movie was being made. I read in the discussion that the movie was just one of many being created in the movie-mill era of the time (things haven't changed that much, have they?). Yet, here you had a cast of emigrants who had an understanding of the politics and upheaval that part of the plot of Casablanca. I, as a reader found this part to be most interesting. It also gives me some good ammo if I am ever in a trivia contest about the movie. so, a little tidying up may be necessary, but the list of cast members, in its length, should stay IMHO.H.E. Noes (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another tribute?

Is As Time Goes By (TV series) a tribute? There seems to be some obvious tips-of-the-hat to Casablanca. Check out the title of the second episode of the second season, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

the series title is more likely a reference to the lyrics of the song "As Times Goes By", with the writers getting cute with that episode title by giving a nod to Casablanca. I don't see any obvious resonances between the series and the movie, certainly nothing that should be mentioned here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Star-crossed lovers, separated by war, reunited by circumstance.... anyway, I don't have any sources on this. I was just wondering. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Poker

From the article:

Rick's remark to Ilsa, "Here's looking at you, kid.", is not in the draft screenplays, and has been attributed to the poker lessons Bogart was giving Bergman between takes.

I don't get it. What does the quote have to do with poker? Recury (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was something that Bogart said to Bergman while they played poker between takes, and was picked up from there for the script. The fact that it was poker is fairly irrelevant, it could have been whist or canasta or backgammon. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I think saying that it was "attributed" to his poker lessons isn't quite right. How about: "Rick's remark to Ilsa, "Here's looking at you, kid", is not in the draft screenplays, but was something Bogart said to Bergman between takes and was added to the script later." ? Recury (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of poker is a nice touch, and "attributed" needs to be kept in order to preserve the sense that it's not definite. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice touch, I agree. But "attributed to the poker lessons" is an awful construction and confusing. I won't change it but I thought I'd just register my complaint. Recury (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Rick's remark to Ilsa, "Here's looking at you, kid", is not in the draft screenplays, but has been attributed to something Bogart said to Bergman as he taught her poker between takes.

Or similar. DrKiernan (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like it will fill the bill. I'll put it in, and if someone disagrees it can be reverted for more discussion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Drama queen?

I don't disagree it's a romance, but it's listed as a drama... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean. Category-wise, it fits a number of genres, but the lede's got it as being a romance, which it is. As I said in my last edit summary (reverting a change of the genre in the lede to "drama"), as a drama it's second rate, it's the romantic element that makes it a grewat movie. Check out Julius Epstein's remark in the article about the film being full of corn, but great corn. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I'm not clear... Listen, sweetheart. It's usually listed in the movie guides & such as a drama. I'm not fanatic about how it's described (& I don't disagree romance is central), but it's really about the drama of Rick having to decide to let her go. As David Gerrold (I think) said, drama is "Rick makes a decision." QED. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's a drama, but there's drama and there's drama. You want to call it a "romantic drama", you'll get no complaint from me, but what makes the film enduring, when everyone already knows how Rick will decide, is the romance of it, the chemistry between Bogart and Bergman, the pang in the heart and the tears that come when she walks away to the plane and he makes that wonderful speech. It's the romantic aspects of the film which make it great, not the drama (which, I reiterate, is pretty second rate by comparison). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't disagree, tho I thought the romantic angle was overrated, myself. I'm only saying, if you look at the movie guides, you won't find it tagged "romance" but "drama" (as oppo, say, "Murphy's Romance"?), which, I suggest, is reason to link to drama v romance. Not to say a romance link is inapt... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB slugs it as "Drama / Romance", TCM as "Romance / World War II" and AMG as "Drama / Romance / Romantic drama / War romance". By a super-secret methodology I can reveal only on my deathbed (and then only to a warlock named "Fred" who's also a notary public), that gives "Drama" a rating of .875, "Romance" a rating of 1.15 and "War" a rating of 2.03, which means that Casablanca is a "Romantic war drama" or a "Dramatic war romance". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since "war" gets the top nod, you'll see why I didn't start one with you over it. ;D Orson Wells ^{Go ahead, Mork} 10:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention that, as in golf, the lower score is the better one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which also explains why I didn't get it. I don't play golf. ;D Rob Roy ^{it's your quarter} 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. "Tiger" Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you, get outta my gas tank. :D J.Z.Delorean ^{jailhouse rocks} 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, I've got to grrrrrrrrip the road anyway. Ed Armstrong, All-American Boy (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're the one that's leaving the Frosted Flakes crumbs on my seatcovers! Robin Masters ^{Higgins, it's for you} 08:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha IMDb removed Romance from Casablanca. Amigo Fura Olho (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! For your next trick (nothing up your sleeves) get "romance" removed from TCM and AMG as well! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guess what film tops the AFI's list of best love stories? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a romance movie, but I see it more as a drama, and it wasn't me who removed romance from Casablanca imdb profile. Amigo Fura Olho (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "romantic drama" - perhaps all parties can live with this? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[...] and fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War against Francisco Franco's Nationalists. [...]

I think it should be mentioned that this information was changed by the Franco government to translate the film into Spanish. Gallaecio (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

minor change

I've changed "to the New World" to "to America." I don't recall America being referred to in the movie as the New World, and the term seems out of place in 1940s dialogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.207.5 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by Umberto Eco

User:DreamGuy and User:2005 has been removing part of the section about Umberto Eco's criticism of Casablanca under WP:UNDUE, but I don't think this is necessary. Certainly Casablanca is an almost universally loved and admired film, but allowing Eco to have his full say on it (a mere paragraph!) cannot be considered as "undue" given the tremendous positive feeling for the film. One doesn't have to agree with Eco's negative take on the film to find value in his expressing his view. The material should be left in, and any concern about undue weight can be dealt with with a few added words to the effect that Eco's viewpoint is not widely shared, or something to that effect. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some disclaiming verbiage. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Eco stuff was three of the five paragraphs of the critical reception section! That is absurdly over the top undue weight. I've reduced it to now be 1 of three paragraphs. 2005 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it again. Since the topic is now under discussion, you need to wait until a consensus has been reached about whether the material gives undue weight. Please do not remove the material again until that occurs. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE has consensus. It will be removed again since it violates that consensus. You should revert it yourself since you violated 3RR. Really, you are just being stubborn here since having 60% of a section devoted to the one view opposing virtually everyone else is ridiculous on its face. Either at least quadruple the size of that section, or do not revert again the undue weight being assigned to the (hugely) minority view. 2005 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course WP:UNDUE has consensus, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether your interpretation of UNDUE in this particular circumstance is warranted or not. That's what needs to be deteremined if it has consensus or not. The section has been in place for quite some time without controversy, an indication (albeit not a perfect one) that there's tacit community approval for it being left alone. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This was a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Textbook example. Couldn't be any more clear. And it's funny how a single editor is trying to tell three different editors that they do not have consensus for edits. Multiple editors over one is already consensus. If you disagree then you get enough people on your side to have consensus. Anything else is just WP:OWNership issues with a thin veneer of wikilawyering. DreamGuy (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how you get "3" editors. So far, only you, DreamGuy, and 2005 are attempting to delete this long-standing material -- that's two, against one dissenting. That's not "consensus". Let's wait until some more editors weigh in here with their opinions, shall we? If the weight of community opinion goes against keeping this material, so be it, there will be no complaint from me, but please keep the article at its status quo until that happens. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I love this film, it has its flaws (acknowledged by many), so I feel that it isn't out of line to have several critical paragraphs. (I'm a bit uncertain about Eco's stature as a film critic, but I imagine others are readily available.) Seems to me that the simplest and best solution is to expand the section as 2005 suggested; however, I'm severely hampered at the moment (w/ very limited Internet access for a while), so somebody else would have to take up the slack. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Eco isn't a film critic per se but a semiotician, and thus a general analyst of cultural artifacts. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy removed th whole section, which is probably the best solution since it plainly violates UNDUE, but after it was reverted I brought it in at least plausible compliance with UNDUE... making it 1/3 of the section instead of 60%. You've vioated 3RR twice now. I don't want to have to block you for this, so please obey WP:3RR. UNDUE is clear: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. This is a tiny minority view. It should not be included at all, but at the very least it is ridiculous to have the minority view taking up 60% of the section. The amount of existing negative text could be reinserted if the positive text is quadrupled, but now it is going to be brougt in compliance with the consensus policy. I implied UNDUE is a guideline above, but it is policy, and all articles must obey policy, period. 2005 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is policy, and then there is the application of policy, which is subject to interpretation and local consensus. There is almost nothing about Wikipedia which is as black-and-white absolute as you're attempting to paint this.

Despite my love for this film, I find Eco's comments about it both interesting and illuminating, and well-worth the space they took up. Others may disagree, but that fact that there can be a disagreement is testament to the reality that no reasonable reading of WP:UNDUE demands that it be removed without an evaluation being made of its relevance and importance. That's what I was asking for, a discussion, rather then peremptory removal on the say-so of two editors that policy was being violated. We still really haven't had that discussion, though, have we, since you guys just keep deciding on your own what's best for the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that the Eco section is 1 of three paragraphs, instead of 3 of 5, we should discuss removing it altogether, or improving that section. The text of the article refers to Eco's views as One of the very few dissenting notes.... That phrase alone basically means including anything is a violation of WP:UNDUE, which clearly says micro-minority views should generally not be included. The current two Eco sentences are okay with me, even if deleting them is better, but that section as a whole needs to be beefed up with positive reception text, since obviously the negative accounts for only 1% at most of crtics, not 1/3 (and certainly not 60%!). (And that doesn't even address Eco's dubious standing as a movie "critic". A short negative critical reaction section should include something from someone with peer standing as a film critic, and if none exists then obviously the negative section must be removed.) 2005 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a touch troubled by the absence of any critical comment. Surely it can't have gotten universal acclaim at time of release? (What film ever has?) I wouldn't count Eco as the best to comment, either; he's not who I'd think of as qualified as a film critic. Is it possible to get period comment, or is that asking too much? Or should we be looking for a historical view? I tend to think something like "When it was released, it received mixed reviews, but since has gained almost universal acclaim", & leave off naming or quoting critics at all. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was mixed reviews at the time, we can easily reflect that. the trouble with the section was it obviously violates UNDUE in a few ways... 60% of the section is negative... the "critic" doesn't have top level standing... the article itself states One of the very few dissenting notes which has to be removed if there were indeed many mixed reviews... given the reputation now the critical section should be beefed up considerably to reflect the overwhelming nature of the positive views. Policy makes clear negative comment is appropriate in its right proportion, unless it is something like only one critic saying something negative, then such comment should not normally be included. The only exception I see to that is if the lone critic had extremely high standing, in which case a sentence or two would be appropriate. It's important to remember that policies are for the whole encyclopedia, and movie articles are relatively non-controversial. We don't just include lines from crackpots though about more controversial topics just to add critical comment, so even we shouldn't do that here either even though it's not a life or death thing. 2005 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the first two sentences of the original text are "negative" in some way. Two sentences of "negative" comment in an entire article which otherwise refers to the film's lasting, enduring, award-winning influence and cult status is by no means undue. The remaining paragraphs explore the film by pointing out its use of archetypes and the theme of sacrifice: both of which are important points to make. If anything, I would remove the words "dissenting note" because Eco is not saying anything particularly shocking that other critics would disagree with. Everyone knows that Casablanca is rooted in age-old cultural themes, and it is well-documented that it was conceived as an everyday-movie which was not expected to attract a cult status (even leading some people to incorrectly assume that it was a B-movie). DrKiernan (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the edit with the claim that the source is wrong when you could have just tacked on a source needed tag (as I just did) or fixed it yourself. Please do not leave misleading edit comments.

Regarding Eco as a whole, it's bizarre that he's mentioned here at all, because he's not a movie critic. If you want a representative criticism from someone who didn't like the film, get someone notable for an opinion on such matters taht anybody reading this would care about. Similarly, if, as DrK suggests above, you want something about enduring and status and etc., don't put it in a section about criticism, don't let Eco of all people say it. Get someone who is an expert on the topic at hand. DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the proper Eco source, even if he being in the article at all is questionable. 2005 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary was not misleading: it explained my reason for changing the source from Gabbard to Eco, and it referred readers to the talk page for my reasons for re-inserting the deleted material. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (Refactored comment in response to the below)

Your comment deosn't make sense. The source is Eco. Your reasons also are not on the topic here. Read WP:UNDUE please. Relevant is not an issue. There could be tons more "relevant" material added. But if it violates policy it must be removed. 2005 (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have mistaken my response to DreamGuy as a response to you. On the point you make, it isn't undue and doesn't violate policy. DrKiernan (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too much to suggest that instead of removing and reducing info that is critical of the film that you supplement it with other negative criticisms? I would suggest two or three pro and con links/quotes from disagreeing critics. Surely if one Googles about or checks some film sites there are some negative opinions. Even Rotten Tomatoes lists the film at just 98% approval. That's 1 of 55 critics, but I'm sure that there are others online. Tankerzea (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE. Adding negative views just to add them is against policy. If indeed opinion is 98% favorable, then either zero, one or two sentences (from authorities) is all that can be included. It isn't exactly right to say that for every 1 sentence of negative there needs to be 55 sentences of positive, but that is the basic idea. Zero or one sentence is what is called for here. 2005 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco is a renowned literary critic and a jury member at the Venice Film Festival. I don't accept the argument that he is not an expert on this subject matter. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Believing that input from other interested editors would be useful, I have posted a notice about this dispute at WP:Films. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible to solve the problem of undue weight by expanding the "Critical reception" section to be more diverse in opinion? Such sections can be tricky to write for sufficient balance, but I think that with a film of this magnitude, we could add more reviews and thus render Eco's viewpoint as one of several, rather than being the other half. I would encourage either side to be bold and pursue such an action without pointing fingers... if it is desired, I can try to dig up a review from Sight & Sound or something of the like and implement it to start us off. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, that's all that needs to be done. If the "positive" is expanded to be the considerably dominant element, say 85%+, then there can be more negative. But having the majority of the text be from a micro-minority point of view is against policy. (That does also presume all the text, negative and positive, has to be authoritative, interesting, meritable and encyclopedic.) 2005 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't each of us contribute a positive review? If we have the time to go back and forth about this issue, surely we can find the time to do some contributing. :) When this is done, we can see if Eco's commentary can fit as a negative viewpoint among mostly positive viewpoints. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it's an older film, here are some ideas. The film's 50th anniversary was in 1992, so reviews from that year could be implemented. Also FilmReference.com has an "Articles" section that highlights some contemporary reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Argument for restoring deleted Eco material

Adding more reviews to the article is fine, it can't hurt it, but I don't believe that it is actually necessary in order to "balance" Eco's views. Looking at any of the reviews listed in IMDB's "External reviews" section, it's quite clear that the film in almost universally loved - it would be hard to find a curmudgeon so hard-hearted as to not like the film. In a case like this, where the film is so widely loved and praised, it's hardly necessary that opposition views be numerically balanced in the way that User:2005 is insisting is necessary and required by WP:UNDUE. The film already starts so far into positive territory, that it would take a boatload of negative viewpoints to even make a dent in the film's reputation, and the very small amount of space given to Eco's opinions is hardly sufficient to do that.

WP:UNDUE should be not be interpreted extremely narrowly, as a requirement that every speciic section needs to be measured line-by-line to make sure that all opinions balance out, but should instead be judged on the basis of the overall fairness of the article and in the status of the subject in the real world. Anyone reading the article in its state before User:DreamGuy removed the additional material by Eco would not come away with the impression that Casablanca is overrated: the lede, for instance, makes it clear that the film has become "iconic" and is consistently ranked among the best films of all time. That a small amount of space was given to some negative views of the film is not a violation of WP:UNDUE, because the article as a whole accurately protrays the film's status in the real world.

For these reasons, I would argue that the Eco material which existed in the article without controversy for 5 months should be restored, even if additional positive reviews are not added to the "Critical reception" section. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

EF, "I would argue that the Eco material which existed in the article without controversy for 5 months should be restored" sounds like wp:other stuff exists. It isn't a useful argument. I've been working on articles for months, not having read some piece of no interest to me, then one day spotted some amazing insight or stupidity. It happens. New eyes look at articles every day. Eventually, potentially BILLIONS will look each day.
I see the inclusion of the Eco material as more a celebration of Eco than anything else. The comments about why it appealed so strongly to the WWII audience is kind of cute, interesting even, but why is it so very popular into the 2000's if that was a big motivator? Generations of different flavors of "Me First"ers have loved and still love the movie.
On whether wp:undue should be interpreted narrowly or broadly, I can't say, and don't see how it matters.
Adding more reiviews... fine? I cringe when I see something like that. The article could explode the internet if it became a repository of reviews of an old classic like this one. Is that really needful? This sounds very like the review equivalent of a nuclear arms race or a poker game "HA! I'll see your Eco review and I'll raise you a NYT and a 'Joe's Hollywood Classics!'"sinneed (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"curmudgeon so hard-hearted as to not like the film" - Offtopic IMO. Humor, I had decided not to mention that I simply cannot sit through that movie. I have seen it all, more than once, in chunks. I just don't like it. I find it annoying. I want to yell at them.sinneed (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a matter of perception. If someone comes to the article, they'll see that the film has been universally acclaimed, so they'll expect a "Critical reception" section that cites critics' opinions of what makes it so good. Yes, the information from Eco would be interesting to readers, but a place needs to be created for it to sufficiently belong. Developing an article is about more than adding new paragraphs of information at random intervals. There has to be an overall coherence. That's why I'm suggesting making the "Critical reception" section more positive in general so the Eco information can belong in the proper scope. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric: As I said, I have no objection to expanding the "Critical reception" section at all. My point was simply that doing so is not a prerequisite for including the Eco material, and that such a close and narrow reading of WP:UNDUE is not a correct interpretation of policy. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling Umberto Eco WP:UNDUE is not a serious argument. Removing alternative views that are sourced and verified from the article is not justified by any policies. If anybody want's to challenge it, and remove sourced text from the article, please feel free to run a survey and in case there is going to be consensus for backing it up, only then may it happen.--Termer (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case you might like to restore it to the article. (I'm a bit shy of doing it myself, seeing as how User:DreamGuy reported me for 3RR violation the last time I tried to restore it and defended the restoration, resulting in a 24-hour block.) The original text of the Eco section was:

A dissenting note comes from Umberto Eco, who wrote that "by any strict critical standards... Casablanca is a very mediocre film." He viewed the changes the characters undergo as inconsistent rather than complex: "It is a comic strip, a hotch-potch, low on psychological credibility, and with little continuity in its dramatic effects." However, he argued that it is this inconsistency which accounts for the film's popularity by allowing it to include a whole series of archetypes (unhappy love, flight, passage, waiting, desire, the triumph of purity, the faithful servant, the love triangle, beauty and the beast, the enigmatic woman, the ambiguous adventurer and the redeemed drunkard):

Thus Casablanca is not just one film. It is many films, an anthology. [...] When all the archetypes burst in shamelessly, we reach Homeric depths. Two clichés make us laugh. A hundred clichés move us. For we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, and celebrating a reunion.

Eco singles out sacrifice as one of the film's key themes: "the myth of sacrifice runs through the whole film." It was this theme which resonated with a wartime audience that was reassured by the idea that painful sacrifice and going off to war could be romantic gestures done for the greater good.

Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is a prerequisite. Your argument is just hard to comprehend. Obviously if Eco was the onlymaterial in the critical reception section, even the most obtuse argument could not justify that. Positive is an absolute prerequisite before negative can exist in an article like this. It seems hard to believe you have actually read UNDUE. If something is "almost universally loved", then negative comment should not be in the article at all. Also, bringing this up now is strange since more positive material has been added. As long as a clearly minority view is given clearly minority coverage in the section, then it is fine. But besides just it having been just flat out weird that most of the critical reception section was devoted to negative comment from a person with little film standing, UNDUE is policy. Minority views, especially fringe ones, can never have the majority coverage. 2005 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's no "of course" about it. I find your interpretation of WP:UNDUE to be overly restrictive and mechanistic in the extreme. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ed Fitzgerald restoring it at the moment would be going along with edit warring. We need to run a simple survey to see what reasonable consensus is if any and take it from there.--Termer (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

...does anyone happen to have access to any sources with which we can flesh out Leonard Maltin's feelings on the film? Google Books isn't very revealing, and most of the stuff I came across is better suited for other sections, such as Themes. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, which calls it "Our candidate for the best Hollywood movie of all time." But, of course, those reviews are written by any number of people, Maltin is only the guide's editor. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads-up... has he ever done a full-fledged review of the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think that a more respected dissenting film critic should replace (or supplement) the Eco Eco here. Pauline Kael is well-known for not being overly impressed by the film. If memory serves, Roger Ebert also had some appropriate comments too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am mainly a Wikipedia reader, and have contributed nothing but my comments here, so take them as you will. But, as a person who has found many good writers, articles, and websites regarding the cinema thru Wikipedia, I think a disservice is done when too much material is removed. It also seems a bit absurd to try to apportion a film's criticisms by a ratio devoted to, say, the 98% approval rating of Rotten Tomatoes. I always enjoy reading the links provided within the bodies of articles, as well as the external links. I tend to agree with the pro-Eco people here. Not that I am stating that I wholly agree with Eco's point, merely that it deserves representation.

As a longtime reader I do find it a bit disturbing when I return to an article some time after having read something useful, and find a link is gone, simply because some editor decides it's worthless, because it's just from a blog, rather than the New Yorker. To me, the utility of the opinion matters. Granted, I am not suggesting a 100 links, in the body or external links, but I have read articles that had whole sections become their own articles. Given the ferocity of the debate, may I suggest that a section be spun off, and call it something like "Critical arguments over the Film Casablanca"? In this way, the article could start small, and as editors come upon dissenting opinions, they can be added. It might also serve that since most of the Big Name critics love this film that there be no bias against adding negative reviews from smaller sources online- blogs and websites that may not have New York Times level readership?

I do think there is too much of a bias against smaller name critics and websources. After all, ten years ago all the big name critics loved Titanic, whereas most critics now agree it was one of the 2 or 3 worst Oscar winners. My point is that the value of "authoritativeness" bestowed by a newspaper, magazine, or tv review show, should not be weighted as heavily against Joe Film Critic from Filmsareus.com as they are, especially if Joe regularly writes better reviews than Ebert or the Washington Post.

By giving the controversy its own article, it would show what has been displayed here has merit, plus it would necessitate the inclusion of overlooked and dissenting voices. Again, I have seen this occur on other pages, so it may be worth a shot. Just my two cents. Tankerzea (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth reading WP:POVFORK: "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." I think that we can find a place for Umberto Eco's views in the article, but it is a matter of placement. The editors removed Eco's views because it made up half of the "Critical reception" section. Since the film received universal acclaim, the section should have the due weight of critics' opinions of what made the film so good. Looking at this situation more closely, I am looking that perhaps the "Critical reception" section is more appropriate for film criticism in the "classical" sense. Looking at Umberto Eco's background, I think that his take on the film might be more appropriate for an "Interpretations" section... it is more high-level, if you know what I mean. In my looking for contemporary reviews to use, I found a lot of academically driven interpretations (mostly geopolitical and masculine) that could be used alongside Eco's viewpoint. By having Eco's viewpoint in "Interpretations" instead of "Critical reception", the latter section will be the stuff of "classical" reviews (currently reflected to be pretty positive). Eco's viewpoint is more "far-reaching" in the academic sense and would be better seen as an interpretation. Just a possible way to reevaluate the situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Eco stuff certainly could be put in Eco's own article. Using Kael instead (calling it "It’s far from a great film, but it has a special appealingly schlocky romanticism.") seems far more appropriate. 2005 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New material needs citation

An editor is attempting to add this to the article, in the section about the logical flaw concerning the letters of transit:

What most Anglophones who've made so much of this seem to be unaware of is that native German-speaking Peter Lorre (who had a very difficult time learning English upon his emigration to the U.S.) was still pronouncing his "W" as a "V", hence "Vey-GAHN," which innumerable English-speakers seem to think is "Day-GALL". But any Francophone will tell you that De Gaulle isn't pronounced "Day-GALL" but "Də-GOHL" and "Vey-GAHN" is exactly how "Weygand" sounds when spoken by a German native who can get the French ending right but still has a problem with that "W".

This sounds plausible enough, but it really needs a citation to verify it, so I've removed it and advised the editor to get a cite before re-adding, it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Errors and inaccuracies

Y'all missed another huge inaccuracy, when a character says something about coming to Casablanca for the waters and is told that Casablanca is in the desert. Casablanca happens to be a massive port on Morocco's Atlantic coast, the largest port in North Africa according to its Wikipedia entry. Dick Kimball (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Letters of transit

Hi all,

I just re-watched the movie and the "Letters of transit" occured to me as patently absurd.

I mean, which government in their right minds would issue blank letters of transit which are irrevocable, even after their rightful owners were murdered? (It's already much of a stretch that Lazlo, being a number-one terrorist from the Nazi POV, can run around unmolested in a puppet state installed by the Nazis. That's quite like Bin Laden reserving a table under his real name somewhere in London...)

Should this be addressed? Yes, the letters are a McGuffin, but one around which the whole plot hinges, so perhaps this should find mention? --Syzygy (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's discussed in the errors and inaccuracies section. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Ugarte

Is it necessary to belabour the "issue" of whether the letters of transit were signed by De Gaulle? It's not like Ugarte or anyone else living in Casablanca was a paragon of honesty, or even necessarily well-informed. Peter Grey (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Viktor Lazlo == Jean Moulin?

When watching the movie, the resemblance between Viktor Lazlo and Jean Moulin struck me with both their roles and appeareances, up to the trademark "scar" (on the forehead of Lazlo, around the neck of Moulin).

Is this only coincidence, or was Lazlo modeled after Moulin? Was Moulin already a known figure at the time of filming? Just wondering... --Syzygy (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, Moulin didn't meet his tragic end until 1943. Before that, he was a spy, so the Free French wouldn't exactly have been publicizing his exploits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC

"Shocked, shocked"

Maybe there should be reference to this being the source of the expression? Or maybe it isn't?Sokalite (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No (to the first question), why? I'd be shocked, shocked if anybody claimed it was a common expression. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Ilsa Norwegian?

The only clue to her nationality is one brief mention of "growing up in Oslo". I don't believe it's OR to infer she's intended to be perceived as a Norwegian. I edited it to say she was Norwegian-born, but it's been removed on the grounds that "grew up in does not necessarily mean born there". I really think that's splitting hairs. Why is there a mention of Oslo, and only Oslo, if the writers intended us to believe she was born in Swaziland or Tahiti and moved to Oslo when she was a baby? Ilsa Lund - sounds like a typical Norwegian name to me. Comments? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In a movie where identity is one of the key themes (e.g. "I'm a drunkard." "Then, that makes you a citizen of the world."), I think it's important to stick with the script as much as possible. Thus, "Norwegian-born" sounds better to me, especially since the couple are such globe-trotters.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Richard Osborne in The Casablanca Companion, Jack Warner "cited the Ilsa character in the movie as promoting international understanding as a courageous Norwegian woman and a reminder of the suffering of the Norwegian people."[7]. I've restored it as Norwegian, rather than Norwegian-born, because it sounds a bit odd the other way. (Would you call Rick American-born?) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It may sound odd, but it depends on what citizenship she's holding. Is she a Hungarian citizen, as married to Laslo (sp?)? French? What? (Notice, I don't actually want an answer to this... :) ) And while I'm not sure identity is so important, I do think reading-in isn't a great idea, especially not after so many years. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

... after so many years? Are the only people who will ever see the movie, those who were around when it was first released? Is this article designed for an 85-year old audience? Hardly. Casablanca receives new viewers and creates new fans every day of the week, and they will see what they see in it, unaffected by what earlier commentators may have had to say about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been 60 since it was made. Judging intent becomes a bit difficult at such a remove. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lux Video Theatre remake

Does anyone know anything about this adaptation of Casablanca from 1955? Are there any surviving copies of it? Presumably it's worth mentioning in the article but I can't seem to find very much information about it outside of the IMDb. Also, where the IMDb credits Paul Douglas as "Nick" some other sites on the subject list him as "Rick". Presumably a typo on IMDb or possibly renamed character for some reason? --Thetriangleguy (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs) 11:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sequels and other versions

It should be mentioned "CaboBlanco", starring Charles Bronson, as a remake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.152.224 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Videohound suggests it's a "remake" in the Hollywood "based on a true story" sense. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article recovery

This article is one of the oldest Featured Articles under WikiProject Films, and it has not aged well. There will be an article recovery in the near future. Below are references to be used (or revisited) to restore the polish to this article; they were retrieved from Film Literature Index. Erik (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• This periodical has multiple Casablanca articles: Journal of Popular Film and Television, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2000.
  • Merlock, Ray. "Casablanca: popular film of the century." Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 2-4. (Included in article)
  • Nachbar, Jack. "Casablanca and the home front." Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 5-15.
  • Cripps, Thomas. "Sam the piano player." Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 16-23.
  • Edgerton, Gary R. "'The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.'" Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 24-32. (Included in article)
  • Jackson, Kathy Merlock. "Playing it again and again." Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 33-41.
  • Nachbar, Jack. "'Nobody ever loved me that much.'" Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 42-45.
  • Nachbar, Jack and Ray Merlock. "Time going by: a Casablanca chronology." Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 n4 (2000): 46-48.
• Turner, George. "Casablanca." American Cinematographer 80 Mar (1999): 112.
• Highet, Alistair. "Casablanca, Humphrey Bogart, the Oedipus complex, and the American male." The Psychoanalytic Review 85 n5 (1998): 761-774.
• Hogan, David J. "Casablanca: original motion picture soundtrack." Filmfax: the Magazine of Unusual Film & Television n66 Apr/May (1998): 38+ [2p].
• Shaw, Daniel G. "Individual commitment in To Have and Have Not (1944)." Film & History 27 n1/4 (1997): 72-79. (not sure of relation to this film)
• Larson, Randall D. "Casablanca." Soundtrack!: the Collector's Quarterly 16 Dec (1997): 38-39.
• Valdes, Mario J. "The configuration of the filmic subject." Semiotica 112 n1/2 (1996): 141-154.
• Stackpole, John. "A converted classic." Audience n188 Apr/May (1996): 18.
• Marks, Martin. "Music, drama, Warner Brothers: the cases of Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon." Michigan Quarterly Review 35 n1 (1996): 112-142.
• Corliss, Richard. "Still talking." Film Comment 28 Nov/Dec (1992): 11-14+ [9p].
• Italie, Hillel. "Casablanca." Classic Images n203 May (1992): 26+ [2p].
• Harmetz, Aljean. "You must remember this..." The New York Times 141 Apr 5 (1992): 17 sec 2.
• McCarthy, Abigail. "'Of all the gin joints.'" Commonwealth 119 Jun 5 (1992): 10-11.
• Kauffmann, Stanley. "Out of the past." The New Republic 206 May 4 (1992): 26-27.
• Ferguson, Ken. "Casablanca 50 years young." Film Monthly 4 Jul (1992): 12-13.
• Harmetz, Aljean. "... And his movie for all seasons." The New York Times Nov 29 (1992): 11 sec 2.
• Hogue, Peter. "'I bet they're asleep all over America.'" Film Comment 27 May/Jun (1991): 24-26.
• Deutelbaum, Marshall. "The visual design program of Casablanca." Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities 9 n3 (1990): 36-48.
• Raskin, Richard. "Casablanca and United States foreign policy." Film History 4 n2 (1990): 153-164.
• Davis, John H. "'Still the same old story': the refusal of time to go by in Casablanca." Literature/Film Quarterly 18 n2 (1990): 122-127.
• Gabbard, Krin and Glen O. Gabbard. "Play it again, Sigmund." Journal of Popular Film and Television 18 n1 (1990): 6-17.
• Davis, John H. "Additions and corrections to 18:2: 'American commitment in Casablanca.'" Literature/Film Quarterly 18 n4 (1990): 275-276.
• Parshall, Peter F. "East meets West: Casablanca vs. The Seven Samurai." Literature/Film Quarterly 17 n4 (1989): 274-280.
• Altman, Rick. "Dickens, Griffith, and film theory today." The South Atlantic Quarterly 88 n2 (1989): 321-359.
• Telotte, J.p. "Casablanca and the larcenous cult film." Michigan Quarterly Review 26 n2 Spring (1987): 357-68.
• Gerard, Jeremy. "'Rick's Cafe' to open on repertory stage in the Catskills." The New York Times 136 Jul 20 (1987): C13.
• Koch, H. "Casablanca? They'll play it forever, Sam." The New York Times 135 Feb 23 (1986): 1+ [2p] sec 2.
• Kockenlocker. "Mixed drinks." Sight & Sound 56 n1 (1986): 36.
• Koch, H. "Casablanca? they'll play it forever, Sam." Screen Actor 25 n 1 (1986): 31. (probably redundant to two lines above)
• Middleton, David. "Casablanca: the function of myth in a popular classic." New Orleans Review 13 n1 (1986): 11-18.
• Margolick, D. "Writer who created Rick's Cafe battles in court to play it again." The New York Times 135 Oct 10 (1985): 81+ [2p].
• Eco, U. "Casablanca: cult movies and intertextual collage." Substance n47 (1985): 3-12.
• Tillotson, Jery. "Cry for Casablanca." Hollywood Studio Magazine 17 n2 (1984): 20-21.
• Cooke, Bob. "(One hundred) 100 questions on Casablanca." Hollywood Studio Magazine 17 n2 (1984): 8-10.
• Kellman, Steven G. "Everybody comes to Roquentin's: La Nausee and Casablanca." Mosaic 16 n1/2 (1983): 103-112.
• Ross, Chuck. "The great script tease." Film Comment 18 Nov/Dec (1982): 15-19.
• Morrow, Lance. "Essay: we'll always have Casablanca." Time 120 Dec 27 (1982): 76.
• Corliss, Richard. "Who'd look at you now, kid?" Film Comment 18 Nov/Dec (1982): 19.
• Sorel, E. "Movie classics: Casablanca." Esquire 94 Nov (1980): 130.
• Greenberg, Joel. "Writing for the movies: Casey Robinson." Focus on Film n32 Apr (1979): 7-17.
• Mcvay, Douglas. "Revival: The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca." Focus on Film n30 Jun (1978): 47.
• Rubenstein, Lenny. "A second look - Casablanca." Cineaste 8 n1 (1977): 34-5.
• "Lose it again, Sam: Casablanca libel suit again kayoed." Variety 284 (1976): 5+ Sep 8.
• Haver, Ronald and others. "Casablanca revisited: three comments." American Film: a Journal of the Film and Television Arts 2 Oct (1976): 3-4.
• Haver, Ronald. "Finally, the truth about Casablanca." American Film: a Journal of the Film and Television Arts 1 Jun (1976): 10-16.
• Crain, Mary Beth. "Casablanca: in defense of what's-his-name." Media Montage 1 n1 (1976): 12-17.
• Crain, Mary Beth. "Casablanca's unsung hero: Paul Henreid." Media Montage 1 n1 (1976): 18-24.
• Lebo, Harlan (1992). Casablanca: Behind the Scenes. Fireside. ISBN 0671769812.
• Harmetz, Aljean (1993). Round Up the Usual Suspects: The Making of Casablanca -- Bogart, Bergman, and World War II. Hyperion. ISBN 1562827618. (well used in article already)

The last two are books about the film's background. Erik (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I currently have access to the Lebo and Harmetz books and the one by Miller. I'll review the Harmetz contributions and see what Lebo and Miller can contribute. Erik (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I also could get access to Harmetz and Miller, but that's good you already got it. I went to my local library and it didn't have anything except for history of film books, with only brief mentions that wouldn't be of any use. SDSU library has "Rosenzweig, Sidney. Casablanca and other major films of Michael Curtiz (1982)", "Koch, Howard. Casablanca: script and legend (1973)", "Francisco, Charles. You must remember this: the filming of Casablanca (1980)", and a few others. I'll probably try and stop by there Sunday and see if they are of any value. There's definitely a few web links that we need to kick out of this article, so whatever we can get above will help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have access to the first journal listed above. There's an entire article devoted to the film colorization, so we can probably split that off into its own section (especially if coupled with some of the other sources that likely touch on it). As I continue to use each source, I'll note it above. I'm done for the night, will hopefully have time tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Brau beating

Does Edgar Brau's novella belong somewhere in this article? IMO, no. While the book Casablanca and Other Stories has a nice review by Michael Dirda, its Amazon sales rank is over 2 million. At the very, very, very best, it might merit a passing mention in the Influence subsection, but not the long description that was added. If the book had its own article, that would be the appropriate place for it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see its import or relevance, but would not object to a passing reference in the influence section, if the Dirda review is a good ref. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, both Brau and Dirda appear to be persons of note, so why not? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit more than I had originally intended

Initially, I just wanted to get rid of some duplicated info, but as I went along, I found it necessary to change more and more (without prior discussion here). Any complaints? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ewww, gross

I don't dispute the #, just the use of the 1955 date. As I understand, the gross is based on first release, not cumulative. (I wouldn't object to a cumulative $# either.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too, but when I looked at Template:Infobox film it says worldwide gross revenue accrued. Personally, I don't mind if the figure for first US release given in the article is used, providing it's explained. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with policy. :p I'd use the original # in the box, & add accrued gross in the page itself, updated as needed. If it went the other way, I wouldn't squawk. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Music

I believe the song Major Strasser and his fellow soldiers sing in the "duel of the songs" scene is actually, Die Wacht am Rhein ('The Watch on the Rhine'), and it is so credited under the song's article here in wikipedia75.220.63.187 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm ... that's what it says in the plot summary. You may have misread what the music section says. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomato Tomoto?

What about the score this movie got on Rotten Tomato's as well. That would seem a wise thing to put in this article. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors

the film's technical advisor, Robert Aisner, did follow the path to Morocco given in Casablanca's opening scene to Morocco given in Casablanca's opening scene.

I'm not sure that's relevant as the original play was set in Casablanca.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Step away from the piano, Sam

To begin with, Sam does indeed deny knowing which song Ilsa means. I call that feigning ignorance. Ilsa also knows he knows. As I recall (but it's been awhile), he also denies even knowing the song. ("I don't think I knows that one"?) Finally, it makes no difference, because it's not Ilsa's quote that's important, it's Rick's. So all we need is Ilsa asking for, & getting "As Time Goes By", not the excruciating detail (which, unless you love old films or repeats of "Casablanca", you're likely not to care about). Can we keep this from turning into a Strasser-Renault ending, here? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

She's responding to his second excuse, not his first. Also, five extra words is "excruciating detail"? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is when it's both irrelevant to the issue & subject of reversions over it. If the point is misquotes, hers isn't even on the list. (OK, "excruciating" might not be the word...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:14 & 01:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead concerns

Hello. I am concerned about the lead section of the article. As per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead's length depends on the total length of the article and as a general guideline, the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs. Although the lead looks good so far, I think we should expand the lead to at least three or four paragraphs (for good examples, see Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), which is a Featured Article). Since this article is over 40,000 characters (over 77,000 to be exact), I think we should include the history of the production such as filming as well as the release dates and responses. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I've already expanded the lead section a few months ago with its production history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

FA article is badly organized

Article needs reorganizing. The "Cast" section is way out of wack and contains information that should be in other sections or in its own section. Any ideas on how to approach this? It's a mess right now. AlbertBowes (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, why are some characters called by their first name and others by their last? e.g. Rick Blaine is called "Rick" and Victor Laszlo is called "Laszlo"? AlbertBowes (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Lede says "screenwriters frantically adapting an unstaged play". Is this discussed in the article? Couldn't find it. Doesn't seem to say anything about the play again. Only in the lede. AlbertBowes (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the naming, it seems to me that's how they are almost always referred to in the film itself. Rick is Rick (even Monsieur Rick), Ilsa is never Mrs. Laszlo, and only Rick calls Renault Louis. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. In what way is Cast "out of wack"? What specifically needs to be moved? How is it "a mess right now"? Of course, this is Wikipedia, you are free to make whatever changes you'd like to see. Do so. --Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Off the top of my head, look at the Cast sections of Home Alone, The Human Centipede (First Sequence), Sunset Boulevard (film), Jurassic Park (film), Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series), Tender Mercies - casting and Changeling (film) for a comparison -- not such a hodge podge mess as the casting section in Casablana. In these films, the sections are organized in some kind of meaningful way. AlbertBowes (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• There are a few different ways to present information about the cast. I agree that this article's presentation is insufficient, and it is mainly because we are listing so many actors and roles that are not primary or even secondary billing. If we want to retain the information, it may be better to convert these additional actors and relevant detail into a table and to make it collapsible. That way, if readers really want to know about people beyond the main cast, they can show the table. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an anomaly in the Cast section (second-billed actors) where it states, "Another Englishman, Greenstreet had previously starred..." yet Greenstreet is the first Englishman mentioned. Is it possible that at one time Claude Rains was listed before Greenstreet, in which case this phraseology would have made more sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.28.204 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Rains is the first Englishman mentioned in the section, so this makes sense. Perhaps at the date of your comment it was otherwise. I think it is an appropriate notation now that Rains is listed ahead of Greenstreet. American In Brazil (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Substandard captions...

The captions in this article violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style as well as one of publishing's most basic rules of thumb: that "captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious." The caption under one shot of Bogart actually (and unbelievably) states: "This screenshot shows Humphrey Bogart in a trenchcoat and fedora in the airport scene." Did this editor think that s/he was supplying valuable information that readers couldn't see for themselves? The other captions limit themselves to telling us the names of the actors in the shots (politely pointing out that it's Bogie, not Bergman, on the left — thanks for that clarification). Since the MoS also reminds that "captions are the most commonly read words in an article, so they should be succinct and informative," the keepers of this page need to look into these woeful captions, all of which are new since the article's last FA evaluation. 71.162.180.66 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and will do something about fixing the captions. It is certainly true that when we are looking at a picture of Bogie in fedora and trench coat we do not need to be told that we are looking at Bogie in fedora and trench coat. American In Brazil (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rank of Conrad Veidt's character Major Strasser

Resolved

Stills of Major Strasser show clearly his shoulder, collar, and cap insignias. They seem to show his rank is that of a Luftwaffe "Generalmajor". (I typed too fast and wrote "Lufthansa" by mistake in my edit summary, DrKiernan, which is kind of funny.) In the film I believe he is just addressed as "Major", apparently a shortened version of "Major General". On the photographic evidence I have linked his title to General_(Germany)#Generalmajor. Please point out if I have erred but I believe my argument is sound. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Major. A link to General or even Generalmajor is misleading. Strasser is addressed as major. Looking at his costume and drawing conclusions that are contrary to how Strasser is addressed is WP:SYNTH. If there is some WP:RS that suggests differently, let us examine it. Until then, major.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I was wrong. He is just a major. The primary difference between Generalmajor and Major Luftwaffe insignias turns out to be the color. (Discovered thanks to this page, Military Ranks of the Luftwaffe (1935–1945). The flight sleeves insignias have one versus two bars but I'd have yet to find a still showing the fleet sleeve in the movie.) The difference therefore would be difficult to tell in blank-and-white. For what it is worth, I find the argument that my view was WP:SYNTH flawed (given that my argument had a reasonable interpretation consistent with all the facts, including him being addressed as "Major", whereas the given counterargument was apparently inconsistent [given the false assumption there was only one rank that made sense given the black-and-white uniform]). I also find the WP:RS demand to be equally compelling to both binding to both sides so I do not find that argument very weighty either. In that sense, I think there was a hint of Wikipedia:Gaming the system with Trappist's reply. Regardless, my view does seem to be wrong now so I have reverted my own edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A Generalmajor was and is addressed "Mr. General". "Major" is utterly impossible as address.--2001:4CA0:2FFF:1:0:0:0:6B (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

'Herr General' is more accurate and reflects both the formality of military address and the German language. No soldier or lower ranking German officer would ever dare address an officer of General rank as anything other than 'Herr General' - at least not if he valued his life. Therefore, Strasser's rank and address as 'Major' is accurate. American In Brazil (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jan Smudek

I've created the above linked article about a Czech WWII resistance fighter. Reputable Czech sources (such as the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) claim that Smudek inspired the character of Victor Laszlo from the film. Is it possible to mention Smudek's name and the association in this article? Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Principally if the sources are good enough - yes. However I assume you refer to Petr Koura: A Nearly-forgotten Legend of the Czech Resistance: Jan Smudek and German Occupation Policy, which imho is by no way sufficient as a source. This is because the article simply claims the inspiration without giving any indication what that is based on (the stories Smudek and Laszlo aren't even particularly similar) nor is the article itself despite being probably an acceptable source for contemporary history in general necessarily an authoritative source on film history. So if the claim regarding Smudek cannot be corroborated by other reputable sources (preferably authoritative for film/film history domain), then it should not be included in the article here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right, I can't find any mention of him in the film history sources. The claim (assumption?) of Petr Koura was republished in various Czech sources but I don't think it is a widely accepted fact from the viewpoint of film history. I'll try to improve wording in the article Jan Smudek. Thank you for your opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Smudek known at the time the film was made? He may have become a hero after the war but that would hardly make him the source of inspiration for the character of Laszlo. It seems to me that if Smudek was known to the Nazis in 1942, when the script was written, that would have been a death sentence. American In Brazil (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ending

Under 'Writing' is this statement:

Wallis wrote the final line, "Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship," after shooting had been completed. Bogart had to be called in a month after the end of filming to dub it.[49]

This scene is so important to the resolution of the film, and the line is so well-known, that more should be said about it. I have read (or heard) someplace that studio execs screened the film and complained to Wallis that it didn't really end so much as just stopped and that a final scene was needed for resolution. Does anyone have a reliable source that can provide a more definitive answer to the question of how the final scene came to be? American In Brazil (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's Looking At You

I am new to writing things here. I was watching a film called "Three on a Match" the other day. There was a line, "Here's Looking at you". Humphrey Bogart had a role in the film, but it wasn't a lead role. The film is much earlier than "Casablanca". I wonder if it was just a thing people said, or if perhaps "Three On A Match" is where Bogey got that line? I will eventually learn how to do things on here, but for now I leave this information to those of you that know what to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.26 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this was a very common toast/catchphrase; the article points out that it's not in the script, but isn't saying it's original to Casablanca.- Anonymous Old Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.23.217 (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 136 states that Bogie would play poker with Bergman between takes and used this phrase when showing his hand. "Here's looking at you" is a common figure of speech in cards and Bogie adding "kid" is not surprising in view of the difference in their ages, his unhappy marriage and her youthful beauty. But at what point did it get incorporated into the script - or was it an ad lib of Bogie's that Director Curtiz kept in the final cut? Did Producer Wallis add the phrase? Anyone have a definitive reference for this famous line? American In Brazil (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)t

Claimed iconicity of certain film elements

The lead contained a claim that, "Its characters, dialogue, and music have become iconic..." which I deleted. An editor has seen fit to restore this claim with the comment that it is, "a no-brainer that it is iconic." In order to prevent an edit war developing over this I am going to explain here my reasons for deleting this claim not supported by the sources.
Iconicity is not a factual statement, it is the editor's opinion. Opinions have no place in an encyclopedia unless they are supported by sources and attributed to those sources. There are two sources linked to the relevant sentence and neither of them supports the claim being made. The Wall Street Journal article claims that there are some "iconic moments" in the film, it claims that the film itself has come to be regarded as an icon of what films should be, but the article does not claim that the, "characters, dialogue, and music" have become iconic. In fact, the Wall Street Journal article makes the claim that the line of dialogue "play it again Sam" is, and I quote, "one of the most familiar lines in American movies" despite the fact that this line does not appear anywhere in the film. The Wall Street journal article therefore does not support the claim in the lead to which it is attached.
The second source attached to the relevant sentence is the website of film critic Emanuel Levy, and his article also fails to support the claim being made. Specifically, he says the film, "features Bogart’s most iconic performance" but he does not claim that the, "characters, dialogue, and music have become iconic" and he also repeats the factually innacurate claim about the line of dialogue that is not even in the film.
Therefore, neither of these sources support the claim being made in the article, and it remains the opinion of the editor who chooses to include it. Wikipedia is built on the idea that claims being made in articles should be supported by their sources. This claim is not so supported and that is why I have removed it for the second time. If an editor wants to consider reverting this edit then please discuss it here first. Cottonshirtτ 05:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Six lines in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes are from here, twice as many as any other film. Can you handle the truth? "Here's looking at you, kid" is listed among the "Best Movie Lines That Have Stuck In Pop Culture".

Bogart has his "most iconic performance" in the opinion of a professional film critic, but the character he portrays is somehow not iconic? Levy's article "fails to support the clam being made"? How about "Rick became one of the most-beloved heroes in film history", "The film’s lingo became a part of American language", and "Casablanca’s many great lines, even today informs the oratories of many top American politicians, including recent presidents."

The Wall Street Journal is a WP:reliable source, even if it makes one mistake. It states there are "iconic moments" in the film. Now explain to me how that can be with forgettable characters and throwaway dialogue.

As this writer noted, Warner Bros. chose "As Time Goes By" for its opening fanfare.

On a side note, you don't prevent an edit war by starting one without waiting for a response. Were you in the Vietnam War? P.S. Ironically, "innacurate" is inaccurate. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• That there are six lines on the movie quotes list you mention is not germane to the discussion. If you want to put in the article a claim that the "characters, dialogue, and music have become iconic..." then you need a source that says so. A source that says something else about the film is not relevant.
• You conflate the actor's performance, a skill at acting, with the character, the person he is pretending to be. There is no anachronism inherent in requiring a source for the claim that the character is iconic.
• You then present a number of claims that Rick is a, "much-loved hero", that the film's lingo became a part of American language, that many lines from the film "informs the oratories of many" politicians, and so on. Do you really need to have it pointed out that none of these quotes are claiming iconicity for the "characters, dialogue and music" of the film? Without a source that says, "the characters, music and dialogue" of the film have become iconic you cannot incude that claim in the article.
• From a second source, the Wall Street Journal, you quote them as having said that there are, "iconic moments" in the film. Then put that claim in the article. Moments, however, are not "characters music and dialogue." Without a source that says, "the characters, music and dialogue" of the film have become iconic you cannot incude that claim in the article. You have a source that says there are "iconic moments" in the film, then say that. Don't try and twist the sources to say what you would prefer them to have said.
• You invite me to explain how there can be "iconic moments" with forgettable characters and throwaway dialogue. My ability to do so, or not, is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about what I know, or can deduce, or can surmise, or might infer. It is about what the sources say. If you have a source that says that the, "characters, music and dialogue" have become iconic then get it in the article immediately. Without such a source the claim that these things have become iconic remains your opinion and there is no place for editorial opinion in a Wikipedia article. Cottonshirtτ 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Iconic is a subjective term that seems to be applied to a subject by people who favor, like, approve of, <your favorite adjective here>, the subject. The state of being iconic is squishy and not tied to 'fact'. In this case iconic may simply have been used by writers as a synonym for long-term popularity. The fact that Casablanca has been popular for a long time is quantifiable; its iconic status not so much.

Avoiding subjective terms and other text that expresses opinion, except when directly quoted, would seem the best path forward.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No "iconic" is the appropriate word, and I believe Clarityfiend has well established that numerous elements of this film, dialogue, characters, music, etc., are now considered iconic. Whether Cottonshirt wants to accept the sources provided is irrelevant. The claims are sourced, and the sources are notable. Period. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears on multiple greatest film ever lists created by notable bodies. How is it even arguable that it isn't iconic? If that, being popular for decades, being a part of the collective consciousness do not make you iconic, what exactly does? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cottonshirt on this one. The point is not whether we all accept that Casablanca is an iconic film, it is that the specific statement "Its characters, dialogue, and music have become iconic" is not directly supported by any of the cited sources. As Cottonshirt has pointed out, just because a source contains the words "Casablanca" and "iconic" within its text doesn't mean it supports the claim that these 3 specific aspects of the film (characters, dialogue, music) have become iconic. One must be able to check a source and see that it directly and specifically supports the claim made in the article. That is expressed and embodied in the opening sentences of WP:V. In this case the sources do not directly support the claim made in the article. If the characters, dialogue, and music of Casablanca are truly its most iconic features, then it should be easy to find sources that specifically say so. All that's needed at present is some simple rewording to make the sentence accurately reflect its cited sources, something to the effect of "The film features Bogart's most iconic performance". --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how there can be any doubt about the dialogue. AFI's list, the Levy review, "Those iconic words were uttered by Humphrey Bogart's Rick Blaine to Ingrid Bergman's Ilsa Lund in the 1942 megahit "Casablanca" and others testify to that.

As for Rick Blaine, here are some more specific references. "The character is iconic and the performance is vintage." Also "Richard Blaine, played so iconically by Humphrey Bogart", and "the iconic Rick Blaine in Casablanca".

I'll grant that Ilsa's on shakier iconic ground, but The Wall Street Journal (in a different article) speaks of Bogart and Bergman's "iconic performances". Film4 says she and Bogart define "iconic cool". Entertainment Weekly lists them among its 26 True (Fictional) Lovers, describing the "war-torn lovers" as "so legendary". Throw in one Turner Classic Movies (non-binding) vote for Rains' "most iconic performance as the cheerful, but corrupt French police captain Renault" and the rest of the extraordinary supporting cast, and it can IMO squeak by on characters.

As for the music, AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs lists "As Time Goes By" at #2, while the Daily Mail refers to it as an "iconic song" and Fox News as "iconic". Heck, even the piano it was played on is an "iconic instrument". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that my comments have resulted in a more determined search for appropriate sources. That can only improve the article and that is what editing Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion.

So far as I can tell we now have one line of iconic dialogue, Rick Blaine is an iconic character, the performances of Bogart, Bergman and Rains are described as iconic, and we have one iconic song (and a piano). That is still a long way from being able to claim that, "Its characters, dialogue, and music have become iconic..." but it is more than sufficient to make a more limited claim. How about something like, "With the passage of time some of the dialogue, Bogart's character Rick Blaine, several of the performances and the central love them from the film have been considered iconic and the film consistently ranks near the top of..." etc. You will obviously need to include all the appropriate sources. Cottonshirtτ 12:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dialogue in this context implies multiple lines; nobody could reasonably take it to mean every word in the film. In addition to "Here's looking at you, kid", "Play it again (sic), Sam" is so well known in its misquoted form, it easily qualifies (Woody Allen would agree). "Round up the usual suspects" pops up in business, sociology and political studies articles, album titles, etc. The other three AFI lines are also borderline iconic.

As for the music, pretty much the entire soundtrack is variations of that one iconic song, other than one sidetrip to French patriotism.

Finally, while Rick is the only surefire standalone iconic figure, the relationship between him and Ilsa[8][9] (along with Renault and the rest) tips the scales for me. Still, I'll consider possibly phrasing it a little differently. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this should do it. Cottonshirt, I think this is the end of an annoying kerfuffle [walks off into the fog]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Another source that may be useful here talking about the sale of the film's piano that plays the "timeless" tune in the "classic" scene where the "famous" line 'here's looking at you kid' is uttered. Additionally the information here might be useful for the Legacy/Impact section or equivalent thereof. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Many Americans use the phrases, ´Round up the usual suspects´, ´I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship´, ´Play it again, Sam´(sic), and ´Here´s looking at you, kid´ without ever knowing their source. Therefore, I would vote on the side of ´iconic´ as a correct adjective to apply to the film. American In Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote attributions

In the Lasting influence subsection, it's not clear who wrote "caught in the emotional struggle" and "everybody is sacrificing"? Was it Behlmer? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

German censorship

It should be noted that the film was heavily edited and censored for its first German release in 1952. Any mention of Nazis and WWII were removed, the bad guys were now drug smugglers, and Laszlo was a scientific genius that had invented some new kind of radiation weapon. It took until its second German dub from 1974 that Germans could see Casablanca in their own language as originally intended, with correct dialogues and all scenes restored. --93.232.167.181 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reason for the censorship was that there was a law in post-war West Germany that forbade the use of the word 'Nazi' in public media. Without this, the mention of WWII became meaningless. As if the German people did not recall the era and merely deleted 12 years of tyranny and war from their history! American In Brazil (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "Nazi" was certainly not banned from public media and used in other movies. However the early postwar (West-)Germany developed a culture of partial denial, meaning the subjects of WII/nazis/3rd reich were often avoided when possible. The modification of Casablanca is imho to be understood in this context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor timing question

The article says "Story editor Irene Diamond convinced producer Hal Wallis to purchase the film rights to the play in January 1942. Brothers Julius J. and Philip G. Epstein were initially assigned to write the script. However, despite studio resistance, they left after the attack on Pearl Harbor to work on Frank Capra's Why We Fight series." This reads as though the attack was after the assignment which was after the purchase of the film rights. But that's impossible since the attack was on December 7, 1941. Is there some way of rewording this so as not to appear inconsistent with the actual chronology? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP article on 'Why We Fight' states that Frank Capra was commissioned by Chief of Staff of the Army, George Marshall, to produce the series early in 1942. The article quotes Capra's autobiography that Capra had no staff when he began. It would have been only natural that he turned to his Hollywood colleagues for assistance. Apparently, that is when the Epstein brothers were contacted by Capra and agreed to the assignment. However, I see your point for those not familiar with the chronology of 'Why We Fight' and I will add the phrase 'early in 1942' to clarify the time frame. American In Brazil (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Laszlo is not a Czech name

Shouldn’t it be somewhere noted, that Laszlo is absolutely nonsensical name for anybody having Czech relations? It is very obviously Hungarian name. (A long story about the Hungarian resistance in the Southern Slovakia would have to be developed)

Ceplm (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No. This isn't a documentary; it's Hollywood make-believe. Besides, Czechs can't have Hungarian names? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is anything wrong with it, yes it is a Hollywood fiction, and yes Czechs could have Hungarian names, but they don't much. Even now the whole country phone book shows four entries for the name Laszlo (and we are a way more cosmopolitan now than in the time of the World War II). What I meant is that it is one of the most obvious inaccuracies in the movie for any Czech, and if we have the section “Errors and inaccuracies”, then I think it certainly fits.

Ceplm (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source has commented on it as an inaccuracy then I could support that. Otherwise, it's WP:TRIVIA from where I'm sitting. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Let us not forget that director Michael Curtiz was a Hungarian Jew. It would have been natural for him to want a Hungarian named character to be the noble figure who was opposing the Nazis. American In Brazil (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Stars vs supporting cast - infobox dispute

Casablanca has a strong claim to having the finest supporting cast of all time, but that doesn't make them stars. In addition to Ebert, I can cite the Los Angeles Times ("The supporting cast featured some of the best actors working in Hollywood -- several of whom had emigrated from Europe because of the war -- including Claude Rains, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Dooley Wilson, Conrad Veidt, Marcel Dalio and S.Z. Sakall."[10]), The Boston Globe ("What a peerless parade of supporting-player paired with part: Rains’s Captain Renault ..."[11]), etc. There are admittedly some sources/support for Rains, but I'd be shocked, shocked if anybody could dig up any for the rest. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

updated sale of Sam's piano

Sam's piano sold at auction in Nov. 2014 for 3.4 million dollars. Edit made.Conscientia (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO the piano sales don't belong in this article. I've updated List of film memorabilia#Casablanca, but should that be in a See also section here or not? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is correct to mention the piano sales in the music section. They reflect the cultural value people place on the film. I very much doubt if a nearly forgotten 'B' movie called Tangiers would have a musical instrument from the film sell 72 years later for $3.4 million. American In Brazil (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Influences on other films.

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)

71.80.205.14 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Why don't you add it and let's see where it goes. American In Brazil (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Overdrawn is already mentioned. Barb Wire? [shudder]. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey it won the Worst New Star award:)--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede

"Casablanca did account for three Academy Awards – Best Picture, Director (Curtiz) and Adapted Screenplay (the Epsteins and Koch) – and gradually its reputation grew."

I don't really understand this sentence. "Did" implies that Academy Award had been previously mentioned in the lede, when they weren't. Why not simply "Casablanca won three Academy Awards"? Clarityfiend κατάσταση 21:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's intended to contrast with the previous sentence: "The film was a solid if unspectacular success ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links 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/20121218091756/http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/4183.htm to http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/4183.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/paulinekaelreviews/c2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308125514/http://www.themodernword.com:80/eco/eco_casablanca.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_casablanca.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917201832/http://www.dvdbeaver.com:80/film2/DVDReviews27/casablanca.htm to http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews27/casablanca.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ia700508.us.archive.org/0/items/ScreenGuildTheater/Sgt_43-04-26_ep141_Casablanca.mp3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ia700400.us.archive.org/20/items/Lux09/Lux_44-01-24_Casablanca.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sequels and other versions

Art Lortie informs me there are more: "Parodies and sequels:

• Casablack by Christopher Leopold (Hamish Hamilton, 1978) - novel based on the movie
• As Time Goes By by White, Michael; Gribbin, John R. (Quality Paperbacks Direct, London, 1998)
• As Time Goes By A Novel of Casablanca by Michael Walsh (Warner Books, 1999) – sequel
• Humphrey Bogart, Private Dick: A Novel by Howard Decker (Event Horizon Press, 2016)"

alortie4@aol.com - Hope this helps!Darci (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The rights to the film.

The one thing that needs addressing is the rights to the film. There are many debates far and wide about this and it is of significant value in this article. Does anyone know who owns the rights? I know that in 1985 Murray Burnett sued for the rights of the characters. I don't know the outcome of that case (the article sounds like he didn't sound very positive about his win) but apparently at the time Warner Brothers owned the rights to the film. Either way I feel like films (especially older ones) need to have copyright information, if available, in their articles. Am I wrong in this? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

yet another external link

Since i was researching on youtube, would it be beneficial to reader to list the following link under external links?

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_kfwa5-kg

--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think not. Professor Julian Cornell is not a noted film critic. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually one could argue that noted/established academic beats noted film critic. That aside we're talking about external links not article content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Established isn't the same as notable. I'm no expert on professors, but Julian Cornell has no article, and this is a youtube video, not an article in a journal. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The point there was that WP usually prefers scholars over critics and there is WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter").--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

For films? That hasn't been my experience. Also, what distinguishes Cornell from the hundreds (thousands?) of other professors in the field? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Clarity on this one. If the good professor isn't notable enough as a film critic to merit their own article here, then I don't think we should be including their critique. DonIago (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's a basic rule for WP overall (preferring scholarly literature), which course holds for films as well. However critics and scholars have slightly different functions, critics are used for notable indovidual contemporary reviews, whereas scholars are more for analysis and potentially providing an overview of the (historic) reception of movie.

Anyhow imho it isn't really a question of policy here, that is policy allows for the link but that doesn't imply that it should be used only that it could. In other words it is question of editorial discretion. I feel that the link is interesting to readers, but if other editors/article maintainers don't see it that way, I see no reason to push its inclusion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)