Jump to content

Talk:Casablanca (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Strasser pulls a gun

This is the second time my point was reverted, once by Doniago, once by Clarityfiend. If Strasser had merely tried to make a phone call and Rick shot him it would be murder. But if Strasser pulls a gun, Rick shooting him is self-defense. Of course, that is what happens. Thus, this is no small or excessive detail. Comments, people? American In Brazil (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

For me, it's not the detail, it's how it was phrased (horribly). Your second try was even more awkward than the first. I've been trying to come up with an elegant way to put it. Best so far, but not quite satisfactory: "When Strasser tries to intervene, gunshots are exchanged, and he is killed" or maybe "When Strasser tries to intervene, he is killed in the ensuing gunfight." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Does the presence (or absence) of guns especially matter? Strasser attempts to intervene and Rick kills him. There's no insinuation there as to whether Rick is acting in self-defense or not, and I don't really see how it matters. He needs the plane to get away and he kills Strasser to ensure that it does so. Do we really think Rick wouldn't have murdered him if he needed to? DonIago (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The last line seems not really helpful to me, WP editors should judge on Rick's behalf (or rather build any writing based on that). Having said that, I'd agree with Clarityfiends suggestions above. It shouldn't be a problem to have a formulation in the article, that doesn't come across awkward but neverthless summarizes the actual events correctly without potentially triggering the wrong association in the reader's mind. If the reader gets the impression that Rick murdered Strasser in cold blood, then that would be definitely a (completely unnecessary) misrepresentation of the actual plot.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. "When Strasser tries to intervene and points a gun at Rick, Rick kills him"? I haven't seen the movie in awhile, and admittedly this is a minor enough edit that I'm not too invested in the outcome. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess that one would work too. If anybody wants to review the scene in question to refresh his memory and judge for himself which description might be best/most appropriate, it can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G62tkd2t7qk?t=91 --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no exchange of gunshots. Rick says, "Get away from that phone," Strasser turns and pulls a gun on Rick (the gun is seen briefly) and Rick fires his gun which he is hiding in his raincoat pocket. Strasser never fires his gun. We do not know if Strasser is wounded or killed. How about: "Strasser tries to intervene, pulls a gun on Rick and Rick shoots him." This is succinct, clear and accurate. American In Brazil (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually while the phrase "exchange of gunshots" may also create a slightly misleading impression, it appears nevertheless that both shoot almost simultanously if you look closely, but Strassers shot misses (watch for the smoke next to strasser's cloak).
While we strictly speaking only know/see that Strasser got shot and goes down, the film context pretty much suggests that he is dead. First of all if a person in movie get shot goes down and there is no indication/hint whatsoever that he is still alive, then it is fair to assume him dead. Secondly and probably more importantly the plot at the very end with Renault and Rick conspiring makes little sense with a Strasser next to them alive and listening.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I think it should be left as it is. One problem is that the plot is already very close to the max. recommended length (currently 696 words). I just can't see how to phrase it both well and succinctly. Also, this would be considered justifiable homicide anyway, not cold-blooded murder. Even if Strasser were unarmed, it would still be right to kill him to save two others. (And Strasser is dead. Renault didn't tell the policemen to get a doctor.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
To you but maybe not others, which was one of the reasons that started the discussion in the first place. As I said above we should not superimpose an appropriate plot description with personal morals or speculations.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If word count is currently a consideration, I'd be willing to take a pass at trimming, though I suspect it would be more of a slight trim off the top than a hatchet job. DonIago (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that. The synopsis is about as lean as it can get. It's not worth it to shoehorn in this relatively minor detail IMO.Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I just reviewed the scene several times. I agree that Strasser fires a gun simultaneously with Rick. Although only one shot is heard, there is gunsmoke coming from Strasser's weapon. (And Rick is holding his gun in his left hand outside his raincoat, not in it as I previously said - no use ruining a perfectly good raincoat.) This sets up Renault to say to the gendarme, "Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects." Strasser is obviously dead because the gendarmes carry away his body. But my point is that Strasser pulls a gun (and fires it) and that's when Rick shoots. So I think adding "...and Strasser pulls (fires) a gun" [an addition of only five words] is appropriate. I can live with the wording 'as is' but I think this is an important detail. American In Brazil (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
"pulls (fires)"? Noooooo. Not only is it bad stylistically, you haven't gotten to the part about Rick firing when Strasser does. Face it. There's no short, easy way to say it. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads: "Rick kills him when he tries to intervene." Why not just add "and pulls a gun." That's four words - a short, easy way to say it. This highlights the fact that Strasser is attempting to shoot Rick. American In Brazil (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Does the intervening part matter relative to the gun part? "Rick kills Strasser when he pulls a gun on him." DonIago (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes they both, oh yes they both, oh yes they both reached for the gun, the gun, the gun, the gun, oh yes they both reached for the gun, for the gun... Opera hat (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. That's it. Draw! Debouch (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, the word count is now at the number of the beast. No further edits required. :p DonIago (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, here are the choices as I see it:
1) "Rick kills him when he tries to intervene." (current version)
2) "Rick kills him when he tries to intervene and pulls a gun." (my suggestion)
3) "Rick kills Strasser when he pulls a gun on him." (DonIago's suggestion)
I would go for #2 or #3 because I think that Strasser pulling a gun is crucial to the denoument (and sets up Renault's famous remark). American In Brazil (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"Pulls" a gun is slang. I believe "draws" a gun is more correct, no? MartinezMD (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't like #2 because it's awkward and ignores the shooting part. #3 muddies Strasser's motive a bit and also misses the simultaneous firing. Also, "pulls" is slangy ("draws" is better). (Didn't see MartinezMD's comment.) Let us not lose sight of the expatriate's original objection, which I find less and less justified the more I think about it. Are readers really going to consider Rick in a bad light because he guns down a hard-working Nazi minding his own business and trying to do his duty? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, #1 was also my wording, and I maintain that exactly what form Strasser's intervention takes is essentially immaterial. Rick kills Strasser because he tries to intervene, not specifically because Strasser pulls a gun. If Strasser had continued attempting to intervene without pulling a gun, do we think Rick wouldn't have shot him anyway? Also, yeah, Strasser's a Nazi. DonIago (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily for intervening as such I'd say, however it is fair to assume that rick would have shot him for any action that was likely to stop the plane such as informing the tower. In fact Rick says so himself more less literally in that scene.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
These are all interesting points. However, the plot summary should be a simple exposition of, well, the plot. It makes no sense for Renault to say to the gendarme, "Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects" without mentioning that Rick shoots him. So I suggest a one word change in the current sentence (which adds nothing to the word count): "Rick shoots him when he tries to intervene." American In Brazil (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. DonIago (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Then, without further objections, I will make the change. American In Brazil (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Conrad Veidt, who played Strasser, was in real life very much an anti-Nazi. He made a career of playing villains in Germany, Britain, France and Hollywood. Indeed, his Hollywood contract specified that he would only be cast as the villain. His casting as Strasser in Casablanca was an easy choice for producer Hal Wallis. In my view, his menacing portrayal is unsurpassed among movie villains. American In Brazil (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Strasser vs. Rick shooting first

I wish I could remember where I read this, but apparently Bogart and Veidt discussed this scene among themselves, and Bogart said that Rick wouldn't pull a gun on an unarmed man, and Veidt, (from extensive real-life experience!) immediately said that a Nazi would be enough of a bastard to shoot even an unarmed man, so he'd pull a gun on Rick whether Rick had a gun trained on him or not. So this is the way they wanted to play it. But Curtiz originally wanted to shoot a version in which Rick just shoots Strasser in cold blood, and this is the version you can actually see in the trailer, go check it out on YouTube. But they shot the version the actors preferred, too, and this was the one now seen in the finished film--Strasser tries to shoot first.

I really wish I could remember where I read this. It's not in Conrad Veidt on Screen, and I doubt it's in the utterly hideous Veidt bio written by Jerry C. Allen, but it might be in a book discussing Casablanca itself. But this would solve a great deal of the above debate, methinks. --Snowgrouse (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Would be interesting, and might be worth adding to the Production section of the article, but I'm hopeful that the above debate is resolved to everyone's satisfaction at this point. DonIago (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The trailer does contain the original scene: where Bogart (improvising) says "All right, Major, you asked for it" and shoots Veidt (Harmetz, p. 267). It was Hal Wallis who wanted the change. The scene was re-shot, this time without Bogart's improvised line and with Veidt drawing first (Harmetz, p. 238). DrKay (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I found the original source--it was in the Allen biography of Veidt after all (the 1992 edition. I suck at citing, but if someone else is able to do it, go ahead). I'm pasting the source here:

"During the continuing discussion about possible endings for the film, two of the actors made a suggestion that was accepted by director Curtiz. This was in regard to the important scene near the end of the film where Major Strasser hurries by car to the airport, determined at all costs to stop the airplane from departing Casablanca with the Laszlos. The script called for Bogart, as Rick, to shoot Major Strasser in the back as the major attempted to call for the police. Both Bogart and Veidt objected to this approach, feeling that it wasn't in character for Rick to kill a man in that way. Bogart suggested that Major Strasser attempt to pull his pistol first, and then Rick could shoot the Nazi in self-defense.

At this point Curtiz wasn't convinced. To Bogart's loud and somewhat gruff arguments Veidt added his own, more softly but in an equally convincing manner. He stated: "Mike, I think it would be in keeping with my character as a Nazi fanatic to attempt one last sneak attack." Curtiz agreed to give the idea a trial rehearsal.

As Bogart and Veidt staged it, Strasser, while holding the telephone in one hand and attempting to call for reinforcements, uses his other hand to remove his pistol from his holster. He fires one quick round at Rick, narrowly missing him. Rick then fires at Strasser, hitting him, and Strasser slumps to the ground. Curtiz liked the result. The script was then altered with this change incorporated for the final take."

(Allen, Jerry C: Conrad Veidt: From Caligari to Casablanca (Boxwood Press, 1992), p. 322-322)

But as you can see from the poor quality of the writing ("in keeping with my character as a Nazi fanatic"--what? Nobody talks like that! Plus pointless comments about Bogie's gruffness and Connie's softer delivery), I'm sure there has been some authorial interpretation of the incident going on. But that's the source I was looking for, anyway. --Snowgrouse (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Veidt may well have expressed himself that way. English was his third language (he was also fluent in French) and he had trouble learning it when he was in England (though English grammar is closer to his native German than French). For purposes of WP, however, we must not speculate and we must accept reliable sources as definitive. I believe we should add this information with citation to the "Production" section, as suggested by Doniago above. American In Brazil (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
How would you resolve the discrepancies between the two sources? DrKay (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I assume the "discrepancies" you refer to are between whether Wallis wanted the change (Harmetz, p. 238) or Bogart and Veidt suggested the change (Allen, p. 322). It is also possible that the actors made the suggestion and the producer agreed. The sources seem to indicate that the final decision was made by director Curtiz. I would not resolve this discrepancy, as that would be editorializing, but would mention both versions.
You can actually see that the scene was shot at two different times, probably on different days, then spliced together. When Strasser exits his vehicle, his coat has no epaulets on the shoulders. When he turns to shoot at Rick, the epaulets are there! Apparently two different coats were in the wardrobe department and the scene was shot with both of them. Of course this required Veidt to change coats, which he only would have done if the scene was not one continuous take. This scene is crucial for the resolution of the film. Here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G62tkd2t7qk
American In Brazil (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I would resolve it by not saying who suggested what but simply saying that the scene was re-written and re-shot, explaining what the changes were but not who made them, i.e. taking the matching content from the sources and avoiding anything inconsistent. DrKay (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That may be a good solution. Anyone have other ideas? American In Brazil (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Music section

I cannot fathom why an article that has a music section mentions everything about the music except the performers. I do not want to speculate on the reason for this but have my suspicions. 2601:19B:C00:4970:7946:C3F3:5C94:2051 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Read the 'Music' section again, and under 'Cast', Dooley Wilson. American In Brazil (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Paul Henreid

Why do we need a ref for Paul Henreid's name in the infobox? Is there some dispute as to whether it's him? I am puzzled by that. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Paul Henreid was the third-billed star and there's a WP article on him. If you hover over (or click) the reference, you will discover a quotation about the three stars from the late film critic, Roger Ebert. American In Brazil (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Cost

The info box states the cost as $878,000. The 'Production' section states the cost as $1,039,000. Both have citations. Can anyone clarify this discrepancy? American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The budget was $878k. It went over budget and cost $1,039k. DrKay (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There's still a problem, since the 'Production' section states the final cost was $75,000 over budget. Follow my math here: $1,039k - $878k = $161k. So I think we need to clarify this somehow. American In Brazil (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Notable" uncredited actors

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Not up to modern FA standards

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

Let me respond to your points in order. 1) Thank you for the citations. You're right - as good Wikipedians we must cite reliable sources WP:RS; 2) I changed 'notable' to 'memorable' to conform to the description in the citation; 3) Those quotes are significant in view of the fact that they are on the AFI list of 100 most memorable film quotations, as cited in the article; only Casablanca has six quotations on the list; 4) The 'Rumors' heading has been changed to 'Anecdotes and Inaccuracies' to conform to your objection to the heading title; however, the 'trivia' that you object to has been a lasting legacy of this most important film; 5) The 'impact and significance' section that you say is missing is described in the sections 'Lasting Influence', 'Influence on Later Works' and 'Interpretation' sections. These sections (5.2, 5.3 & 6) are in order.
There has been much commentary about the film throughout the more than seven decades since its production. For clarity, precision, succinctness and readability I, for one, believe it is necessary to subdivide these discussions. After all, Casablanca is a movie which has greatly influenced the cinema ever since its release. And the haphazard way in which the screenplay was written makes it that much more remarkable. In fact, I think I'll see it again (for the 112th time - lol). American In Brazil (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's looking at you (again) Casablanca! :-) --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I add the following from the section 'Awards and Honors' in response to the objection to the film's significance:
"In 1989, the film was one of the first 25 films selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[130] In 2005, it was named one of the 100 greatest films of the last 80 years by Time magazine (the selected films were not ranked). Screenwriting teacher Robert McKee maintains that the script is "the greatest screenplay of all time".[17] In 2006, the Writers Guild of America, West agreed, voting it the best ever in its list of the 101 greatest screenplays.[131] The film has been selected by the American Film Institute for many of their lists of important American films: {list}."
American In Brazil (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Intro

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

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

If you are interested, you can source the genre information and help populate Category:American World War II propaganda films. It currently includes only only 88 films. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
To the unsigned commenter above: hogwash. That is absolute nonsense. Granted, I think of it more as a noir, but all of Hollywood classfies it as a romance. This was anything but propaganda, since these were real issues during that time. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but your comment is the hogwashy one. Check http://brightlightsfilm.com/casablanca-romance-propaganda/ for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.106.74 (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
No, American propaganda films of the period would be, for instance, the Why We Fight series produced by Frank Capra for the US War Office. Casablanca was produced by Hal Wallis for Warners as commercial entertainment. It certainly advocates the Allied cause, because that's how its creators felt about that, but no one told them they had to. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casablanca_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1136593973"