All-time classic - but more happy accident than design

Rating: 8/10 (23 April 2003)

Rick escapes war-torn Europe to open a dubious night-club in Africa, but his life is turned upside down by an old flame.
So regularly viewed and reviewed, that I'll keep it short for fear of sending you to sleep; but I'd like to make three quick observations.
1. Is Bogart (Rick) really in love with Bergman (Ilse)? If so why does he act like he does? Sacrifice means doing something you don't really want to do, but you do it for the general good. He has moved on with his life (he could have returned to the USA after Europe) and maybe doesn't want to turn back the clock? Equally, in the final reel, he merely acts to expedite the moment. This doesn't mean events could not progress later.
2. Casablanca has the same smoke (fog, in Africa?) and hardboard sets that Warners used for every production around that time.
3. Bogart never indicates who's side he is on until the picture winds down. Through image and viewing film we learn the truth, but that would be no good for a person watching the film for the first time or not being prive to the Bogart image. Surely things should have been at least hinted at earlier?
We are among pro's here - and better still pros having acres of luck. Great casting (every one a winner!) and non more so than having the king of cool in the lead. Also a lesson in scripting with enough wisecracks to lighten the load, and the wisdom to keep build to a (great) climax
(Many "great" films are merely great intro's and climaxes. This is what the audience remembers. Just look at Jaws, for example.)
This is movie making from a factory, not an art-house. Here you didn't politic for two years before you even start on production, you just got on with it. People involved here made three movies a year and thought nothing of it. This produced a lot of dross, but it produced just as much quality as the more measured and indulgent systems that followed.