|
|
Post by kims on Jan 7, 2024 19:19:47 GMT
In 1942/43, surely audiences were aware of men like Renault who used their authority to gain sexual favors and there were films where the damsel in distress was offered help in exchange for sex. Casablanca was not unique for that. What was different was that Renault was not beaten up or killed to save the damsel. Our hero used trickery to save her from "the fate worse than death." Why would Renault face consequences for sex abuse? No one was being prosecuted for that-was it even a crime then? Remember the days when men rarely were seen as rapists-the woman asked for it-wink, wink.
Rick's decision to stop being isolationist and join the fight is more believable than Renault giving up his job with benefits. Having them shoot it out at the airport would be more realistic, but I think CASABLANCA then would be just another war propaganda film. For me it endures because of a tight script-today the film would have to be over 2 hours long to provide detailed back stories for everyone BORING-and great character actors who deliver their characters' personality in limited screen time. The ending delivers a "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, but keep pushing us around we will fight you." attitude that seems to reflect the times. There was great resistance to entering WWII until Pearl Harbor. And maybe that's an American attitude, great resistance to entering into other countries issues until we are attacked-like 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 7, 2024 22:57:16 GMT
This is the review that I referenced:
|
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Jan 8, 2024 0:18:22 GMT
In 1942/43, surely audiences were aware of men like Renault who used their authority to gain sexual favors and there were films where the damsel in distress was offered help in exchange for sex. Casablanca was not unique for that. What was different was that Renault was not beaten up or killed to save the damsel. Our hero used trickery to save her from "the fate worse than death." Why would Renault face consequences for sex abuse? No one was being prosecuted for that- was it even a crime then? Remember the days when men rarely were seen as rapists-the woman asked for it-wink, wink.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 8, 2024 1:02:38 GMT
This is the review that I referenced:
At SSO the IMdb ratings are being discussed and how political they are. I.e. social justices activist rank films very, very low, so that such films don't show up in the top 25 \ 50 overall rankings. I don't agree with using politics to determine a rating of a film, but that is where some people are at. As for the comment: I agree 100% with the first sentence. As for the question about a ten star rating; I would answer that with the point that most people don't use politics in determining their rating. So YES, people give Casablanca a 10 star rating, because they don't let politics impact their rating. The Oscar comments are just lame since Oscars were given back in 1942. As far as things changing in Hollywood: they have indeed changed but now the shoe is on the other foot; I.e. The Academy uses way too much politics but mostly just liberal ones. |
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on Jan 8, 2024 1:32:02 GMT
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.
One of the many reasons I despised the production code. It can never be applied evenly nor consistently to a variety of movies. As far as Renault, the film shows him start out as a "bad guy". And tossing the Vichy bottle in the trash I guess is to imply he's turned a new leaf. Which the code would want to promote. And since Rick killed a "bad guy", that apparently makes it okay.
Historically, the French were in this weird predicament where there were three "Frances": Vichy, The resistance and, Free French. And there were times when a Vichy unit would be defeated and suddenly join the Free French whom they were fight against moments before. Good and Bad were very subjective in those days. I believe those jokes were to set up just how dirty this man was. Notice, they never showed him taking advantage of anyone, just discussing it. That would definitely not pass the censors.
Babyface (1933) is another of the many pre code films that had new corny, sappy endings tacked on to please censors. In this case, after the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 8, 2024 13:57:07 GMT
This is the review that I referenced:
At SSO the IMdb ratings are being discussed and how political they are. I.e. social justices activist rank films very, very low, so that such films don't show up in the top 25 \ 50 overall rankings. I don't agree with using politics to determine a rating of a film, but that is where some people are at. As for the comment: I agree 100% with the first sentence. As for the question about a ten star rating; I would answer that with the point that most people don't use politics in determining their rating. So YES, people give Casablanca a 10 star rating, because they don't let politics impact their rating. The Oscar comments are just lame since Oscars were given back in 1942. As far as things changing in Hollywood: they have indeed changed but now the shoe is on the other foot; I.e. The Academy uses way too much politics but mostly just liberal ones.
The other thing about the IMDb, is that if someone gives a film a 9 or 10 and explains why in a review...or someone else gives a film a 1 or 2 and explains why in their review...a reader can still "counter" the score by voting to say whether the review was helpful, since there is a yes and no button directly under the review. Most of the time people are clicking NO, saying it wasn't helpful, because the user review didn't support their own political beliefs.
There was a review I wrote about two years ago for an episode of Law & Order: SVU. I just felt the episode went overboard, and though I'm a moderate and try to be open to new ideas, I decided the writing and performances in that episode were examples of radical feminism gone too far. I had a lot of people click NO (which I expected might happen) who felt my review was not helpful...probably far-left viewers who thought I was attacking feminism. But I wasn't really questioning feminism, I was questioning an extreme form of feminism that doesn't tone down its argument and allow some realism into the scenario. I found that episode of SVU to be very-very preachy and extreme, to the point where none of it was entertaining to watch or even very enlightening. I didn't want to write and publish an unpopular review, but I just felt my own point of view had to be added into the mix.
Getting back to the CASABLANCA reviews, I suppose it may 'threaten' or 'disturb' people who love the movie, to realize others despise it. Personally, I have never been against political correctness, because I think some forms of PC cause us as a society to re-examine our beliefs and possibly dismantle unconscious prejudices. But now we have reached a point where mere political correctness is not enough, there are extreme forms of woke-ism which I think is what I disliked about the SVU episode...using fiction to hold a mirror up to society has to be balanced, or else it alienates some of the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jan 9, 2024 0:48:55 GMT
At SSO the IMdb ratings are being discussed and how political they are. I.e. social justices activist rank films very, very low, so that such films don't show up in the top 25 \ 50 overall rankings. I don't agree with using politics to determine a rating of a film, but that is where some people are at. As for the comment: I agree 100% with the first sentence. As for the question about a ten star rating; I would answer that with the point that most people don't use politics in determining their rating. So YES, people give Casablanca a 10 star rating, because they don't let politics impact their rating. The Oscar comments are just lame since Oscars were given back in 1942. As far as things changing in Hollywood: they have indeed changed but now the shoe is on the other foot; I.e. The Academy uses way too much politics but mostly just liberal ones.
The other thing about the IMDb, is that if someone gives a film a 9 or 10 and explains why in a review...or someone else gives a film a 1 or 2 and explains why in their review...a reader can still "counter" the score by voting to say whether the review was helpful, since there is a yes and no button directly under the review. Most of the time people are clicking NO, saying it wasn't helpful, because the user review didn't support their own political beliefs.
There was a review I wrote about two years ago for an episode of Law & Order: SVU. I just felt the episode went overboard, and though I'm a moderate and try to be open to new ideas, I decided the writing and performances in that episode were examples of radical feminism gone too far. I had a lot of people click NO (which I expected might happen) who felt my review was not helpful...probably far-left viewers who thought I was attacking feminism. But I wasn't really questioning feminism, I was questioning an extreme form of feminism that doesn't tone down its argument and allow some realism into the scenario. I found that episode of SVU to be very-very preachy and extreme, to the point where none of it was entertaining to watch or even very enlightening. I didn't want to write and publish an unpopular review, but I just felt my own point of view had to be added into the mix.
Getting back to the CASABLANCA reviews, I suppose it may 'threaten' or 'disturb' people who love the movie, to realize others despise it. Personally, I have never been against political correctness, because I think some forms of PC cause us as a society to re-examine our beliefs and possibly dismantle unconscious prejudices. But now we have reached a point where mere political correctness is not enough, there are extreme forms of woke-ism which I think is what I disliked about the SVU episode...using fiction to hold a mirror up to society has to be balanced, or else it alienates some of the audience. Before commenting further on the political incorrectness held up to Casablanca, I want to apologize if I offended anyone by using The Diary of ANNE FRANK and Schindler's List, very serious subject matter indeed, to offer in comparison to Casablanca. I meant no disrespect, but I may have been a bit too casual in throwing the Holocaust takes into the conservation. I don't feel 'threatened' or 'disturbed' by those who despise Casablanca. Surprised, though: I never previously thought of the 1942 movie as being anywhere near offensive. But political correctness is subjective. I still think the MIKADO HOTEL scene in LICORICE PIZZA was unnecessary racist bull$#!+ and offer up the following in rebuttal to Paul Thomas Anderson:  |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Jan 9, 2024 1:09:52 GMT
going a bit off the main theme: people have debated for decades whether movies influence behavior. Does the Renault character influence anyone to pursue his negative behavior? Has any film influenced change in society?
Would society be better with the old Code, which in my opinion denied reality?
|
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on Jan 9, 2024 1:59:43 GMT
This could be a conversation thread on it's own. It's quite true. One example: A podcast I listen to did a great series on Song of the South (1946). As we know, it shows a rather unflattering portrayal of an enslaved Black man. After it's initial theater run, it only would be shown in theaters/TV during Republican administrations ( Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan). And now, Disney keeps it in deep storage. 
As far as conservative vs. liberal, there was the red scare of the 50's. Accusations of communism or fascism or socialism or whatever ism in movies since the film industry began. And any film that's successful, someone will find something to complain about.
As far as Casablanca, we can't replay the 1940's. They came and are gone now. What happened then can't be changed. But, I think it's important things are portrayed as they were. And films made at that time reflect those times. We don't have to like it. There are portrayals and scenes today that are just modern day versions of the problematic scenes of the past. We go in cycles, we really do repeat the history we don't remember. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 9, 2024 17:33:12 GMT
This could be a conversation thread on it's own. It's quite true. One example: A podcast I listen to did a great series on Song of the South (1946). As we know, it shows a rather unflattering portrayal of an enslaved Black man. After it's initial theater run, it only would be shown in theaters/TV during Republican administrations ( Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan). And now, Disney keeps it in deep storage.
As far as conservative vs. liberal, there was the red scare of the 50's. Accusations of communism or fascism or socialism or whatever ism in movies since the film industry began. And any film that's successful, someone will find something to complain about.
As far as Casablanca, we can't replay the 1940's. They came and are gone now. What happened then can't be changed. But, I think it's important things are portrayed as they were. And films made at that time reflect those times. We don't have to like it. There are portrayals and scenes today that are just modern day versions of the problematic scenes of the past. We go in cycles, we really do repeat the history we don't remember. My understanding is that there is a type of contest between libs and cons with regards to movie ratings related to PC-concerns on IMdb. E.g. Gone With The Wind; Someone will rate this a 1 or 2 based on its juvenile handling of slavery and someone else will counter with a ranking of 10 (when they may have just given the film an 7 or 8). Note that of the top 10 films (based on what was listed on SSO the other day), only 12 Angry Men was pre-1960. The two Godfather movies were listed and two Lord of The Rings, and the always #1 or #2 the Shawshank Redemption. Go figure! As for Casablanca and Renault: To me it still looks like you're ignoring the ending: I can understand the screenwriters just ignoring Renault's behavior and Renault letting Rick off the hook (with the "round up the usual subjects", which is one of the funnies dramatic lines in movie history). But Renault's turnaround and the beautiful friendship line just doesn't add up. And it isn't just because Rick was disgusted by Renault's treatment of woman seeking freedom, but about how Renault was so willing to do the bidding of the Nazis. I do understand that Rick's comment was really America saying, "we support the French in their battle against the Nazis". But to say that to a Frenchman that assisted the Nazis is really out-there, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by BingFan on Jan 9, 2024 19:15:36 GMT
I haven’t read the IMDB ratings for CASABLANCA, other than what’s been reported here. But it sounds like at least some of the raters view the film as somehow approving of Renault’s despicable behavior, and letting him off the hook at the end on top of that.
I’ve always viewed CASABLANCA as presenting Renault as a corrupt official who will work with the Nazi occupiers as long as he can somehow profit from that collaboration. Although Rick will speak with Renault in a politely friendly way, it seemed obvious that he was doing so not to express approval of Renault, but only to maintain his own neutrality in the situation, thereby allowing his cafe to remain open. Rick (and therefore, to me, the film itself) is far from approving of Renault’s corruption. Indeed, when Rick has a chance to actively undermine Renault, he does so.
At the end, when Rick shoots Major Strasser and thereby enters the fight against the Nazis, Renault does so as well by sending the police on a wild goose chase after the “usual suspects,” instead of arresting Strasser’s actual killer on the spot. In doing so, Renault is putting his own life in jeopardy, as it’s probably likely that the Nazis would soon arrest him for subverting the search for Strasser’s killer. Renault, like Rick, has now decided to join the fight and has to leave Casablanca. I don’t think we can be sure that Renault will join the Resistance, which Rick probably does, but it does seem likely that he’s finished collaborating with the Nazis, who almost certainly will put him on their enemies list very soon.
Renault isn’t the same kind of definite hero that Rick becomes, and he may always be corrupt. But the film only portrays him in a positive light after he helps Rick evade capture by the Nazis and joins him in his flight from the Nazis. Before that, Renault is shown as a despicable, corrupt collaborator. I don’t see a reason to downgrade the film for somehow approving of Renault’s unforgivable actions. The film seems to do exactly the opposite.
|
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on Jan 9, 2024 20:14:14 GMT
As for Casablanca and Renault: To me it still looks like you're ignoring the ending: I can understand the screenwriters just ignoring Renault's behavior and Renault letting Rick off the hook (with the "round up the usual subjects", which is one of the funnies dramatic lines in movie history). But Renault's turnaround and the beautiful friendship line just doesn't add up. And it isn't just because Rick was disgusted by Renault's treatment of woman seeking freedom, but about how Renault was so willing to do the bidding of the Nazis. I do understand that Rick's comment was really America saying, "we support the French in their battle against the Nazis". But to say that to a Frenchman that assisted the Nazis is really out-there, at best. I realize this sounds preposterous but, this actually did happen during WWII. Here's an example: After the fall of France, the admiral of the French navy based at Oran, Algeria (not far from Casablanca, Morocco), was given two options: 1) Take the navy to a Caribbean port and sit out the war or 2) Join the British navy and fight against the axis.
The admiral's response was: As long as there is a French government, we will be loyal to it. He wasn't supporting the nazi per se. He was loyal to the vichy nazi puppet. Of course the British bombed the navy to the bottom of the sea. After Operation Torch, Allied invasion of North Africa, many French garrisons flipped sides instantly from the vichy to the Allies. Including the one Renault and Rick were supposedly heading to.
Another reason why I prefer classic films be kept as they are. Not only to see how things were in those days. But, also the mindsets of those days. They didn't know things we know now. A villain is supposed to be disliked. And Renault certainly fits that description. He's basically just backing the winner, whomever that may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 9, 2024 20:58:08 GMT
Renault isn’t the same kind of definite hero that Rick becomes, and he may always be corrupt. But the film only portrays him in a positive light after he helps Rick evade capture by the Nazis and joins him in his flight from the Nazis. Before that, Renault is shown as a despicable, corrupt collaborator. I don’t see a reason to downgrade the film for somehow approving of Renault’s unforgivable actions. The film seems to do exactly the opposite.
Rick doesn't become a hero, he always was, but just acted cynical. This is exposed in an early backroom scene where Rick goes to get some money with Renault. Rick has always supported the underdog and been anti-fascist. His running guns to the anti-Franco resistance in Spain was proof. Rick tries to downplay that by saying he was well paid, but that falls flat with Renault since the fascist would have paid him more. This is a key scene because Renault is leery that Rick will remain neutral, given his history. Renault is making it clear he will assist the Nazis in their quest to kill Lazlo, and that Rick better stay out of the way (or else). Thus, Rick's actions at the end are no surprise. I still find it not believable that someone like Renault would decide, in the moment, to join the resistance and risk his neck and give up his very nice lifestyle (woman, great meals, booze, etc...). He would have had Rick attested and then killed him before the Nazis could question him to cover his butt. But like I said that line of "round up the usual suspect" is one for the ages, so from a rom-com movie POV the ending works. |
|
|
|
Post by christine on Jan 9, 2024 21:28:39 GMT
Most of the history of film began in the 20th Century. Like any art form, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The films of the 'Golden Age of Hollywood" are a snapshot of the history of our society and the times people were living through during that era. You don't have to love all of them, but I think view them as the reflection that most of them were.
I am in awe of this period and the history many of these films show us, whether consciously or unconsciously. Of course there is something that can be frowned upon in any historic period. Personally, I think we're lacking some of the positive values this era reflects such as respect and empathy toward one another. So, is today's society better? The way it is so easy for us to pick at the past. I don't have much respect or even want to see many movies now days. So for me, I love watching the stories of the past and traveling to CASABLANCA!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 10, 2024 1:11:49 GMT
As for Casablanca and Renault: To me it still looks like you're ignoring the ending: I can understand the screenwriters just ignoring Renault's behavior and Renault letting Rick off the hook (with the "round up the usual subjects", which is one of the funnies dramatic lines in movie history). But Renault's turnaround and the beautiful friendship line just doesn't add up. And it isn't just because Rick was disgusted by Renault's treatment of woman seeking freedom, but about how Renault was so willing to do the bidding of the Nazis. I do understand that Rick's comment was really America saying, "we support the French in their battle against the Nazis". But to say that to a Frenchman that assisted the Nazis is really out-there, at best. I realize this sounds preposterous but, this actually did happen during WWII. Here's an example: After the fall of France, the admiral of the French navy based at Oran, Algeria (not far from Casablanca, Morocco), was given two options: 1) Take the navy to a Caribbean port and sit out the war or 2) Join the British navy and fight against the axis.
The admiral's response was: As long as there is a French government, we will be loyal to it. He wasn't supporting the nazi per se. He was loyal to the vichy nazi puppet. Of course the British bombed the navy to the bottom of the sea. After Operation Torch, Allied invasion of North Africa, many French garrisons flipped sides instantly from the vichy to the Allies. Including the one Renault and Rick were supposedly heading to.
Another reason why I prefer classic films be kept as they are. Not only to see how things were in those days. But, also the mindsets of those days. They didn't know things we know now. A villain is supposed to be disliked. And Renault certainly fits that description. He's basically just backing the winner, whomever that may be.
I'm not following how this incidence of the French admiral relates to what is being discussed here. Ok, he was loyal to the Vichy nazi puppet government. Are you saying that after the end of the war this French admiral was rewarded or given a medal for service to the government of France? I.e. viewed as a hero by the post-war French government or the people of France? Also, I see nothing preposterous in the story or what this admiral did (since as you already noted people in power during wartime, make such decisions for various reasons, and I never disputed that). While I don't support his decision, I assume he didn't make it for personal gain (i.e. he was not rewarded by the Germans), but instead what I view as a misguided sense of loyalty. In that way it is much different than the actions of Renault which were all driven for self-centered, personal gain. E.g. when searching Rick's joint for the missing docs: he orders his men to really mess up the place and when Rick gets upset about it, tells him you know how the Nazis love such destruction. I.e. just another unnecessary, kiss ass action, by Renault to please the Nazis. Note that another Warner Bros. movie, that some view as a Casablanca sequel (mainly due to having Bogie, Rains, Lorre and Greenstreet and director Crutiz), is Passage to Marseille. In this film the Vichy\Nazis loyalist Major Duval (Greenstreet), gets what is coming to him, and the loyalist to France, Captain Freyciniet (Rains), with the help of French convicts from Devil's Island, do the right thing. I.e. convicts are the heroes, and not the borderline traitor Major Duval. Again, I'm not saying Casablanca should have had a different ending since it is more rom-com than war-drama. I.e. I clearly understand why WB had a romanticized ending to Casablanca and in that way, it works. I just don't see a need to try to rationalize the ending as somehow being logical as it relates to the 180-degree turnaround of Renault, especially given the time-period of the film (after the French surrender in June of 1940 and before the USA entered the war in December 1941). I.e. Renault would have still put his money on Germany. Now if in early 1944, I could see him moving to the other side. |
|
