|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 6, 2024 14:28:12 GMT
On the IMDB, you can sort the user reviews. If you sort by Review Rating and click on the Up Arrow, you can find where viewers rated a title the lowest scores and read why they think something like CASABLANCA is a 1 instead of a 10 out of 10.
So I decided, for the fun of it, let's see if anyone really dislikes CASABLANCA and why they dislike it. I expected to find some reactionary comments, where they hate it for a strange reason or no reason at all. But believe it or not, there are some very intelligent reviews from people who gave the film a 1 or 2.
One comment really caught my attention and I wanted to make a thread about it. Someone wrote that Claude Rains' character practices human trafficking and that is why the film is no good.
Is that true? Is he taking advantage of people wanting passage to the free world? Is he using some of the people for his own gain (i.e. sexual purposes)...? And if that is the case, then why weren't movie fans in 1942 and 1943 more outraged...why does Rains become an endearing character and pal of Bogart's by the end of the movie?
But if we step back and look at the picture as a whole, even if this subplot with Rains is problematic (which I do think it is, by modern day standards)...is it enough to mark CASABLANCA down to a 1 or 2?
Thoughts please...
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Jan 6, 2024 16:41:43 GMT
Thoughts? Yeah. OMG, we're cancelling Casablanca now? It's wartime. Things happen. Corruption and profiteering accompany any conflict and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and anyone who'd scrap a movie which paints that picture deserves the scrap heap themselves. I consider myself a humanitarian, but I'm starting to have very contrary feelings these days every time I'm confronted with this nonsense. I'm sorry. I just can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 6, 2024 17:31:09 GMT
Thoughts? Yeah. OMG, we're cancelling Casablanca now? It's wartime. Things happen. Corruption and profiteering accompany any conflict and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and anyone who's scrap a movie which paints that picture deserves the scrap heap themselves. I consider myself a humanitarian, but I'm starting to have very contrary feelings these days every time I'm confronted with this nonsense. I'm sorry. I just can't.
Another take-away for me, as I suggested in my first post, is why did contemporary audiences in the 1940s and those who re-watched in the succeeding decade go along with the actions of Rains' character? Is it because, as you suggest, they just expected things like that to happen during wartime? To me, the issue is not that there is a guy like Rains in the movie...since the film wouldn't be a film without villains...the real issue is that the writers make Conrad Veidt's character the main villain, so Rains who is straddling the fence, gets a free pass at the end after Veidt has been shot...and none of Rains' earlier actions lead to consequences for him. We can accept Bogart skipping the country and starting over elsewhere...but why accept the same for Rains? Not only does the audience overlook Rains' crimes, but the production code office seems to have overlooked it, too!
Finally, a third take-away for me is I think some viewers don't look deep enough at the meanings contained within the film. For years, this film has enjoyed exalted status among Hollywood elite and the everyday movie buff. But then when you start to read reviews by people who have actually processed what's happening on screen and call some of it out, that leads to a reappraisal. And I think it's a little too easy to dismiss any modern-day criticism as being too PC. I think some of these users on the IMDb sat down to watch CASABLANCA, excited to get acquainted with a long-revered classic motion picture, but elements in it did not sit right with them and they had to express how parts of the film make them uneasy. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 6, 2024 18:40:08 GMT
Captain Renault is indeed a scumbag and I have said that for over 3 decades. I made that point often at the old TCM forum. As you know the character represented a certain type of Frenchman: a self-centered, non-patriot, that decided to profit from the war and the taking over of their country by the Nazis. His reform at the end is a sad joke and totally unrealistic, but of course common for a happy ending Hollywood romantic drama (which is what the film was and not a war drama). Renault was indeed a sexual predator using his power to take advantage of young woman, married or otherwise. The scene with Joy Page and Bogie explains it all. I don't view such criticism as PC in anyway. They are 100% accurate and such actions as those taken by Renault, have been disgusting since the beginning of time.
As for how this should impact anyone rating of the film: I assume those giving the film a 1 or 2 did so only to make a point, and since we are talking about this, they have been successful. In that regards my hat is off to them. Sexual predators are no laughing matter.
As for cancel culture: as TP notes that isn't the topic. I'm very surprise I Love Melvin went there.
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Jan 6, 2024 18:55:10 GMT
One comment really caught my attention and I wanted to make a thread about it. Someone wrote that Claude Rains' character practices human trafficking and that is why the film is no good.
This is where the logic falls apart for me. The character is flawed. I've never thought otherwise and it doesn't seem as though Michael Curtiz did either, so first of all I'm not convinced this is even a new take on it. He's an amoral opportunist who uses power and influence to extort desperate people. If anyone wants to call that human trafficking, be my guest, but my problem is: Why does an opinion about the motive and manner of a singular character, which isn't all that much of a departure from traditional thinking about the Rains character, call for a qualitative downgrading of the entire film, except as a display of someone's personal power to condemn and to lend an inordinate weight to their views? There are plenty of films which have disagreeable (to me) characters, but I wouldn't think of rating the film as a 1 or a 2 on a scale of 1-10 simply because of it. Although the conceit is that it's all done in the name of thought, I think it can often devalue thinking by bending it to personal tastes and motives. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 6, 2024 19:31:51 GMT
One comment really caught my attention and I wanted to make a thread about it. Someone wrote that Claude Rains' character practices human trafficking and that is why the film is no good.
This is where the logic falls apart for me. The character is flawed. I've never thought otherwise and it doesn't seem as though Michael Curtiz did either, so first of all I'm not convinced this is even a new take on it. He's an amoral opportunist who uses power and influence to extort desperate people. If anyone wants to call that human trafficking, be my guest, but my problem is: Why does an opinion about the motive and manner of a singular character, which isn't all that much of a departure from traditional thinking about the Rains character, call for a qualitative downgrading of the entire film, except as a display of someone's personal power to condemn and to lend an inordinate weight to their views? There are plenty of films which have disagreeable (to me) characters, but I wouldn't think of rating the film as a 1 or a 2 on a scale of 1-10 simply because of it. Although the conceit is that it's all done in the name of thought, I think it can often devalue thinking by bending it to personal tastes and motives. I explained the likely reason for rating the film so low: As for how this should impact anyone rating of the film: I assume those giving the film a 1 or 2 did so only to make a point, and since we are talking about this, they have been successful. In that regards my hat is off to them. Sexual predators are no laughing matter. Of course, I'm only speculating as to why an individual would do that. What could be flawed is your POV that one uses logic when rating a film. Instead, I assume most people use more emotion than logic. Maybe these individuals or their family members, were subject to a sexual predator and that explains their raw emotion reason for such a low rating. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Jan 6, 2024 22:04:16 GMT
Bogey and Raines may have a beautiful friendship while escaping Casablanca, but over time I think their ways will part over differences.
If people don't like a film because of flawed characters, maybe they can't accept that there will be unpleasantness sometimes.
I guess the time will come that the studio era films will fade from view and not be considered a golden age of film, therefore not worth viewing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 6, 2024 23:31:54 GMT
Bogey and Raines may have a beautiful friendship while escaping Casablanca, but over time I think their ways will part over differences. If people don't like a film because of flawed characters, maybe they can't accept that there will be unpleasantness sometimes. I guess the time will come that the studio era films will fade from view and not be considered a golden age of film, therefore not worth viewing. I have always imagined a sequel that starts off with Rick (Bogie's character), now in France, working with the French underground. (similar to the Errol Flynn role in Uncertain Glory - 1944). Rick is asked where his buddy, Renault is, and answers that some of the men whose woman Renault had sexually exploited, killed Renault. It looks to me like you, as well as Melvin, are underplaying what really occurred in Casablanca with regards to Renault. Again, watch the Joy Page scene. Note that after Rick allows her husband to win at roulette (and thus she no longer has to have sex with Renault to get their exit visa), Renault, having seen what Rick did, makes a joke about it. That he will be bringing in a lovely blonde and Rick better not mess up that. It should be obvious that Renault is telling Rick not to prevent him from sexually exploiting future victims. To define such a character as Renault as just having a flawed character, doesn't add up for me. While I view Casablanca as a great film, I have always been disappointed in the ending. A better, more realistic ending would have had Renault attempt to arrest Rick, and then for Rick and Renault to shoot it out, with the hero dying for the cause, and the traitor and sexual predator getting what he deserves. |
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on Jan 7, 2024 0:03:43 GMT
One comment really caught my attention and I wanted to make a thread about it. Someone wrote that Claude Rains' character practices human trafficking and that is why the film is no good.
Is that true? Is he taking advantage of people wanting passage to the free world? Is he using some of the people for his own gain (i.e. sexual purposes)...? And if that is the case, then why weren't movie fans in 1942 and 1943 more outraged...why does Rains become an endearing character and pal of Bogart's by the end of the movie?
But if we step back and look at the picture as a whole, even if this subplot with Rains is problematic (which I do think it is, by modern day standards)...is it enough to mark CASABLANCA down to a 1 or 2?
Thoughts please...Absolutely not. If anything, that makes the movie better. In 1942, Casablanca is a North African version of the wild west. No real law and anything goes. The French aren't really in control, the Germans aren't really in control. It's all in flux. An outpost full of desperate people willing to do anything.
That would be like saying: a gunfighter shot someone in cold blood in a western so it's a bad movie. This is one of those reason why some would say it "is" a noir, because no one is totally clean except maybe Sam or Ilsa and she pulled a gun on Rick. This is like another world where morals and decency take a back seat. It's hard to criticize what Renault is doing when literally thousands people people are being tortured and /or dying everyday in one way or another. Atrocities being committed by all sides so who really is right or wrong ? This is typical of some who place 21st century morality onto 1942 circumstances.
I personally never don't mind topics like this coming up in a film if that sort of thing really did happen at that time. I prefer realism over fluff.
Have to be careful when criticizing endings during this era. The code was still being enforced and many endings had to be changed to get approved.
I like the ending because it emphasizes the selfishness of that era. "every man for himself" attitude that probably led to the whole conflagration happening in the first place. I'm sure Rick didn't trust Renault but, he probably didn't trust anyone at that moment. He probably used him as much as Renault would use him. There's was a friendship of convenience. If they truly were heading to a French garrison, being Renault's friend would be quite useful.
By the way: Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) is a musical comedy about human trafficking
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jan 7, 2024 16:14:36 GMT
On the IMDB, you can sort the user reviews. If you sort by Review Rating and click on the Up Arrow, you can find where viewers rated a title the lowest scores and read why they think something like CASABLANCA is a 1 instead of a 10 out of 10.
So I decided, for the fun of it, let's see if anyone really dislikes CASABLANCA and why they dislike it. I expected to find some reactionary comments, where they hate it for a strange reason or no reason at all. But believe it or not, there are some very intelligent reviews from people who gave the film a 1 or 2.
One comment really caught my attention and I wanted to make a thread about it. Someone wrote that Claude Rains' character practices human trafficking and that is why the film is no good.
Is that true? Is he taking advantage of people wanting passage to the free world? Is he using some of the people for his own gain (i.e. sexual purposes)...? And if that is the case, then why weren't movie fans in 1942 and 1943 more outraged...why does Rains become an endearing character and pal of Bogart's by the end of the movie?
But if we step back and look at the picture as a whole, even if this subplot with Rains is problematic (which I do think it is, by modern day standards)...is it enough to mark CASABLANCA down to a 1 or 2?
Thoughts please... If humor and character leeway was not afforded Rick's patrons - especially Captain Renault, then you would have The Diary of ANNE FRANK or Schindler's List instead. Schindler's List's director and producer, Steven Spielberg, observing an earlier project of his, Peter Benchley's JAWS, found the original characters unlikable and realized that if he didn't have them sweetened to some extent, that the audience would be rooting for the title fish... If sympathetic concessions had not been made of the peddlers of assorted vices in Casablanca, nobody would care if Major Strasser's squad devoured the entire establishment. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 7, 2024 16:32:50 GMT
One comment really caught my attention and I wanted to make a thread about it. Someone wrote that Claude Rains' character practices human trafficking and that is why the film is no good.
Is that true? Is he taking advantage of people wanting passage to the free world? Is he using some of the people for his own gain (i.e. sexual purposes)...? And if that is the case, then why weren't movie fans in 1942 and 1943 more outraged...why does Rains become an endearing character and pal of Bogart's by the end of the movie?
But if we step back and look at the picture as a whole, even if this subplot with Rains is problematic (which I do think it is, by modern day standards)...is it enough to mark CASABLANCA down to a 1 or 2?
Thoughts please...Absolutely not. If anything, that makes the movie better. In 1942, Casablanca is a North African version of the wild west. No real law and anything goes. The French aren't really in control, the Germans aren't really in control. It's all in flux. An outpost full of desperate people willing to do anything.
That would be like saying: a gunfighter shot someone in cold blood in a western so it's a bad movie. This is one of those reason why some would say it "is" a noir, because no one is totally clean except maybe Sam or Ilsa and she pulled a gun on Rick. This is like another world where morals and decency take a back seat. It's hard to criticize what Renault is doing when literally thousands people people are being tortured and /or dying everyday in one way or another. Atrocities being committed by all sides so who really is right or wrong ? This is typical of some who place 21st century morality onto 1942 circumstances.
I personally never don't mind topics like this coming up in a film if that sort of thing really did happen at that time. I prefer realism over fluff.
Have to be careful when criticizing endings during this era. The code was still being enforced and many endings had to be changed to get approved.
I like the ending because it emphasizes the selfishness of that era. "every man for himself" attitude that probably led to the whole conflagration happening in the first place. I'm sure Rick didn't trust Renault but, he probably didn't trust anyone at that moment. He probably used him as much as Renault would use him. There's was a friendship of convenience. If they truly were heading to a French garrison, being Renault's friend would be quite useful.
By the way: Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) is a musical comedy about human trafficking
Good point that how Renault is portrayed (until the corny ending and his turnaround) is more realistic. But I do understand why others may feel that making jokes about all of his very unsavory behavior (e.g. how Renault murders Ugarte, and jokes about him trying to escape, the joke about the next blonde he plans to exploit, etc...) just isn't right. Like I said Casablanca is a rom-com much more than a war drama so in that vein, making jokes about killings and exploitation are A-OK. With regards to the ending and the Production Code: If the code was enforced on Renault, he wouldn't have been allowed to have that turnaround from self-serving traitor, murder, and sexual predator into a patriot now on the side of a free France. Rick also gets away with murder, but that was a non self-serving act and thus easy for the censors to ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 7, 2024 17:04:51 GMT
If humor and character leeway was not afforded Rick's patrons - especially Captain Renault, then you would have The Diary of ANNE FRANK or Schindler's List instead. Schindler's List's director and producer, Steven Spielberg, observing an earlier project of his, Peter Benchley's JAWS, found the original characters unlikable and realized that if he didn't have them sweetened to some extent, that the audience would be rooting for the title fish... If sympathetic concessions had not been made of the peddlers of assorted vices in Casablanca, nobody would care if Major Strasser's squad devoured the entire establishment.
Personally, I liked how Bogart thwarted Rains' attempts to morally compromise the young wife whose husband was not winning until Bogart stepped in. However, Bogart was not the police and just interfering with one of Rains' crimes was not enough. I think we can assume that in the next locale, Rains will find new ways to exploit other innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 7, 2024 17:25:21 GMT
If humor and character leeway was not afforded Rick's patrons - especially Captain Renault, then you would have The Diary of ANNE FRANK or Schindler's List instead. Schindler's List's director and producer, Steven Spielberg, observing an earlier project of his, Peter Benchley's JAWS, found the original characters unlikable and realized that if he didn't have them sweetened to some extent, that the audience would be rooting for the title fish... If sympathetic concessions had not been made of the peddlers of assorted vices in Casablanca, nobody would care if Major Strasser's squad devoured the entire establishment.
Personally, I liked how Bogart thwarted Rains' attempts to morally compromise the young wife whose husband was not winning until Bogart stepped in. However, Bogart was not the police and just interfering with one of Rains' crimes was not enough. I think we can assume that in the next locale, Rains will find new ways to exploit other innocent people.Well said. Note that Renault was a Frenchman while the others were locals with different background (of course I don't know what Greenstreet's character was, but I assume Moroccan). But Rains' being a Frenchman with such authority, using his power for self-gain and to appease the Germans, is beyond immoral. As Geldard points out these types of men are all too common in a war setting and are just one of the sad facts of a war situation. But typically, in movies, such characters don't get to have an unrealistic turnaround at THE END. As for Rick: Renault points out how Rick is a phony, pretending to be like Renault, a self-serving jerk, in the backroom scene where Renaults mentions how Rick has always supported the underdog (Rick comment that he was well-paid, falls flat and isn't very convincing). Then we see Rick do so in action, at least twice, with his helping Joy Page's husband and allowing the band to play the patriotic French song. These actions are taking us to the ending where Rick against risks his neck to ensure Laszlo makes it out so he can continue to do his work against the Nazis. PS: Thanks for starting this thread. As you have noted before Casablanca is such a well loved film, making it hard for others to see some of its flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jan 7, 2024 17:27:25 GMT
If humor and character leeway was not afforded Rick's patrons - especially Captain Renault, then you would have The Diary of ANNE FRANK or Schindler's List instead. Schindler's List's director and producer, Steven Spielberg, observing an earlier project of his, Peter Benchley's JAWS, found the original characters unlikable and realized that if he didn't have them sweetened to some extent, that the audience would be rooting for the title fish... If sympathetic concessions had not been made of the peddlers of assorted vices in Casablanca, nobody would care if Major Strasser's squad devoured the entire establishment.
Personally, I liked how Bogart thwarted Rains' attempts to morally compromise the young wife whose husband was not winning until Bogart stepped in. However, Bogart was not the police and just interfering with one of Rains' crimes was not enough. I think we can assume that in the next locale, Rains will find new ways to exploit other innocent people. and Schindler's List were exaggerations suggesting that too much moral policing arguably would've extinguished too much of the charm of Casablanca which keeps many returning to Rick's Cafe Americain in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 7, 2024 18:29:23 GMT
I cannot speak for the users who gave the film a 1 or a 2...but I would suspect they didn't have a problem with characters' assorted vices during the film...just at the end, where several like Rains' character face no moral comeuppance. It would not have made the earlier portion of the film like The Diary of Anne Frank, and it would have meant there were consequences for all the villains, not just Veidt's character. But even if CASABLANCA had a few more of those socially and morally conscious moments earlier in the film, I don't think it would have gotten in the way of telling a good story.
Personally, I liked how Bogart thwarted Rains' attempts to morally compromise the young wife whose husband was not winning until Bogart stepped in. However, Bogart was not the police and just interfering with one of Rains' crimes was not enough. I think we can assume that in the next locale, Rains will find new ways to exploit other innocent people. Well said. Note that Renault was a Frenchman while the others were locals with different background (of course I don't know what Greenstreet's character was, but I assume Moroccan). But Rains' being a Frenchman with such authority, using his power for self-gain and to appease the Germans, is beyond immoral. As Geldard points out these types of men are all too common in a war setting and are just one of the sad facts of a war situation. But typically, in movies, such characters don't get to have an unrealistic turnaround at THE END. As for Rick: Renault points out how Rick is a phony, pretending to be like Renault, a self-serving jerk, in the backroom scene where Renaults mentions how Rick has always supported the underdog (Rick comment that he was well-paid, falls flat and isn't very convincing). Then we see Rick do so in action, at least twice, with his helping Joy Page's husband and allowing the band to play the patriotic French song. These actions are taking us to the ending where Rick against risks his neck to ensure Laszlo makes it out so he can continue to do his work against the Nazis. PS: Thanks for starting this thread. As you have noted before Casablanca is such a well loved film, making it hard for others to see some of its flaws.
One of the real reasons I looked at the reviews from IMDb users that gave it a 1 or a 2 is because I realized there must be quite a few low scores to start balancing out the 9 and 10s. It has an 8.5 average score from 599k users who voted. I expected it to be a solid 9, if not a 9.5.
BACK TO THE FUTURE has an 8.5 average score on the IMDb from 1.3M users. I know they are very different films from different eras, but it surprised me that CASABLANCA didn't have a much higher average score and is "equal" to something like BACK TO THE FUTURE.
I do want to say that I wonder what the scores for these films would be if the internet had been around in the 1940s, and there were registered votes online from people who actually saw the film when it premiered. Was everyone in 1942-1943 super enamored with it? Or is it a film that gained more reverence as time went by (pun intended)..? |
|
