The Oscar Project #16: Casablanca (1943)

by Chris Marshall:

Amazingly, Casablanca was the earliest Best Picture winner I had ever seen before starting this project. I think I’ve watched it twice previously all the way through, and I was amazed even when I first saw it as a middle schooler. There’s absolutely nothing bad to say about it.

You know the story already. Rick runs a successful restaurant/café in Casablanca at the beginning of the Second World War. He is not a political man; he doesn’t stick his neck out for anybody. He has no interest in showing favoritism toward either the French or the Germans. He’s in exile from the United States for unspecified reasons, but this helps him remain neutral. He isn’t burdened by patriotism.

There’s no reason to go through all the details of the story, as they are already well known. The story itself is only one reason why this film is so revered, but that fact should not obscure its brilliance. It’s a love story, a morality tale, and a character study all rolled into one. If Rick, Ilsa, and Laszlo weren’t so well developed, the story would have lost all its power.

The characters speak in a way that makes it feel so real. The dialogue is snappy and all too clever, but can’t you just see Humphrey Bogart talking like that in real life? He exuded “cool” from every pore. He is certainly the linchpin of this movie, but the other actors turned in impeccable performances as well. Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Peter Lorre—this was definitely an A-list film.

Roger Ebert once said that he had never met anyone who disliked Casablanca.  But that leads to an interesting question: is this a great film, or is it simply a beloved one? Or is there even a difference? The new Sight & Sound greatest films list is due out this year, and it will be the seventh time since 1952 it has been conducted (it is released every 10 years). Casablanca has never appeared on that list. The American Film Institute, on the other hand, has listed it as #2 and #3, respectively, on their two lists of the 100 greatest (American) movies of all time.

Why the divide? Obviously, every list will reflect the tendencies and biases of its voters, but other films don’t face the same problem. Citizen Kane has been #1 on every Sight & Sound list, save the first one, and it was #1 on both of AFI’s lists. Strangely enough, Casablanca didn’t even get enough votes in the S&S poll to make the “honorable mentions” section. Nobody (or almost nobody) voted for it all.

What?! I only get five minutes of screen time?!

I’m not making an argument one way or another; I simply find this difference to be curious. What makes it so much different for one group of voters? Citizen Kane is almost universally recognized as the “greatest” or “best” film ever made, but are there really that many people who consider it to be their favorite movie? If the S&S people are using technical brilliance or total influence as the main criteria, that’s completely respectable. But if that’s the case, then why is Singin’ in the Rain also in the top ten? I mean no disrespect, as I haven’t even seen it, but I’ve never heard anybody make the argument that it was great in a way that distinguishes it from Casablanca.

In any case, regardless of whatever poll it may or may not have appeared on, its place in the canon is not debated. You’d be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn’t have at least a passing familiarity with it. When director Michael Curtiz and his crew began filming, during the middle of WWII, they set out to make a great piece of entertainment, not an all-time classic film. By any measure, they outperformed their expectations. Now, 70 years later, we still remember all the characters, all the big lines, all the important scenes. I have to believe the same will be true another 70 years down the road.