So, that's it, huh?

Rating: Null/10 (21 January 2004)

Certain movies gain a status whereby their name becomes an invocation. Star Wars, Psycho, Citizen Kane, Jaws, Titanic and certainly Casablanca qualify as movies that virtually anyone can get a freeze frame in their mind. They can name the key actors, recite dialogue, and even give an overview of the plot without necessarily even having seen the film in person.
The legend of Casablanca exceeds most films ever produced. The film is held in a near religious regard which is normally reserved for fans of genre films. (Witness the slavish devotion to the Star Wars product line despite the increasing evidence that the creator of these films has lost not only touch with reality, but even a rememberance of what made the first film so compelling.) And having finally seen Casablanca for myself I am left unsetteled at how unimpressed I was by this classic of modern cinema.

The setting for the story is unique enough. Nazi controlled North Africa is not a familiar device for gushy romances. But a city does not a movie make. The story itself isn't terribly deep. Old lovers reunited. Unfinished business must remain that way. They part unfulfilled. And the characters are not written in such a way as to give them depth and persona beyond their plot-driven dialogue. Cinematography is to my untrained eye, dull and unremarkable. O.K. the sets are nicely done.
But the greatest deficiency of them all is the performance given by the leading man. Humphrey Bogart is a legend among tough guy actors. Why was he cast in the role of an introspective gentleman entrepeneur? While even uttering these thoughts has in past and undoubtedly will again make me the target of jihad by the most bloodthirsty classic movie fans, I must say I've seen better performances on Murder, She Wrote. Honestly.
In fact I would go so far as to say that people in need of an object lesson in miscasting and insufficient artistic depth would do well to take notes on Bogey's performance here.
I would be remiss if I did not interject here the beatific Ingrid Berman and the scene stealing Claude Rains. These two people are about the only enjoyable part of the entire process and keep the film from being a shambles.
The saving grace that I repeatedly hear offered up in defense of this film is that it is old. I find this utterly insufficient. Noting that a film was made prior to 1970 seems to excuse all manner of technical and story related problems. Everyone wants to put it into the context of how bad every other movie was back then. Now perhaps if I had not seen more modern dramas, I would be thrilled with this movie, but using the same measuring stick by which I judge any new film, this one comes up terrible short.