In case you missed it, there was a total solar eclipse almost two weeks ago that was visible along a roughly three hundred mile wide band in North America that stretched from Mexico to Canada. For perhaps the sixth or seventh time in my life, that band just missed the place I happened to be at the time, my home Chicago.
Meaning that despite my passion for astronomy which began in high school, I have never experienced one of the most thrilling astronomical occurrences of all.
Nevertheless, we did experience a partial eclipse where from our perspective, the disc of the moon covered about 94 percent of the disc of the sun.
But as everyone who has experienced a total eclipse realizes, the difference between a total and a partial solar eclipse is literally the difference between night and day.
That didn't prevent tens of thousands of folks from gathering in Chicago's Loop where I happened to be, to witness the rare event. The last partial eclipse visible in Chicago was in 2017. The last total eclipse of the sun visible from Chicago took place a few years before I was born, June 16, 1806 to be exact. To put that into perspective, Chicago didn't become a city until 1839.
They say that on average, any given spot on the earth will experience a total solar eclipse about once in three hundred years, so odds are we in Chicago are due to expect one in about 100 years. I could look it up but won't bother as I don't expect to be around then.
Strangely enough, places not too far from here such as Southern Illinois beat the odds and experienced totality both in 2017 and 2024, further emphasizing the indelible fact that life is not fair.
Of all natural phenomena that thrill, amaze and terrify us at the same time, eclipses, both lunar and solar, are by far the easiest to explain and understand. Go outside on a clear day with two friends, let's call them Luna and Terra, (see where I'm going with this?). Ask Terra to look up at the sun, not for too long of course. Then ask Luna to face Terra, standing between Terra and the sun. From Terra's perspective, your two friends have just created a solar eclipse as Terra's face is now in Luna's shadow and Terra can look in the direction of the sun with no problem as she can't see it.
Then have your friends exchange places. Now from Terra's perspective, she can't see the sun as she's looking in the opposite direction, and Luna's face is much darker because it is in Terra's shadow. From Terra's perspective, she has created both literally and figuratively a Lunar eclipse.
Ah you say but why does the sky turn dark, and you can clearly see the sun's corona during a total solar eclipse?
That's due to an almost freakish coincidence where the sun happens to be about four hundred times the distance from us as the moon, and the moon just happens to be about one four hundredth the size of the sun. This means that from our perspective, the sun and the moon appear to us to be approximately the same size.
During totality, the disc of the moon lines up precisely with the disc of the sun, completely blocking the light of the surface of the sun from reaching us. However, the moon does not cover up the sun's corona, the outermost portion of the sun's atmosphere, which emits light of its own, albeit much dimmer light than the light from the surface. We don't normally see the corona for the same reason we don't see the stars or the planets at daytime as the blue sky, i.e.: the light from the sun, mostly its blue wavelengths that our own atmosphere scatters, is much brighter than the vast majority of celestial objects we see clearly at night. While firmly inside the moon's shadow, no light from the sun's surface enters the atmosphere, and the normally blue daytime sky fades quickly to black. So, the stars, the planets and the sun's corona are free to shine brightly albeit briefly in the daytime sky during a total eclipse. And of course, we can also see the disc of the moon in silhouette.
This image is the first-ever astronaut's view of the moon's shadow cast on the Earth during a total solar eclipse on Aug. 11, 1999. The photo was taken by French space agency CNES astronaut Jean-Pierre Haigneré on board Russia's former space station Mir.
The black, central portion of the shadow is where folks on the ground would experience total eclipse. The outer edges of the shadow where darkness gradates to light, is where a partial eclipse would be observed.
From this amazing photograph, it's obvious that the moon's shadow only covers a small portion of the earth which explains why in any particular place, total eclipses are rare. But if my memory serves correct, from my astronomy class I took back in twelfth grade, I learned that a total solar eclipse occurs somewhere on earth on an average of once per year. Obviously as the surface of our planet is 75 percent ocean, there's a decent chance that a solar eclipse will be visible only from a fairly inaccessible place.
It also bears mentioning that every minute of every day a total solar eclipse takes place somewhere in not-too-distant space, where the disc of the moon happens to be perfectly aligned blocking the disc of the sun. Of course, in space where there is no atmosphere to scatter the sun's light, the sky is always dark, making the effect much less impressive. So, if you're getting up in age and are jonesing to see one in person before you kick the bucket, I wouldn't bother hitching a ride aboard a commercial spaceship to go see an on-demand solar eclipse, much better to wait a few years and seek one out in some remote part of terra firma.
Lunar eclipses, while not everyday occurrences, are much more common from a terrestrial standpoint thanks to the earth's relative size compared to the moon. In a total lunar eclipse, the entire surface of the moon is swallowed up by the earth's shadow and can be seen from anywhere on our planet which happens to be facing the moon at the time of the eclipse.
You dear reader, probably know all that already as this isn't exactly rocket science. Heck it isn't even as complicated as understanding the difference between the use of por and para in Spanish.
So it's a little mind-numbing to see how many misconceptions there are about eclipses among our fellow travelers aboard Spaceship Earth, even among some of our finest minds.
I immediately think of a comment from whom I believe to be the only Nobel Laureate in Astrophysics currently serving as a member of the U.S. Congress, Marjory Taylor Greene, who tied together the recent eclipse visible in the Americas with an earthquake that briefly rocked the U.S. East Coast. The congresswoman with an unquestionably beautiful mind, last week remarked that the unlikelihood of these two rare acts of nature happening on the heels of one another, certainly cannot be a coincidence, but a message from God.
However, even lesser minds have shown to be susceptible to misinformation about eclipses.
As I suspected ever since the first time I viewed a partial eclipse back in elementary school, many of the dire warnings about the particular dangers of viewing solar eclipses are hooey. Am I saying the warnings are just a conspiracy theory made up by the folks who sell solar eclipse viewing glasses?
Absolutely not.
But here's the thing. It's never a good idea to look directly at the sun, eclipse or not.Our brains tell us so much as doing so is tremendously uncomfortable as well as completely unsatisfying. Sane people don't stare directly at the sun for more than a second or two not because of the warnings, but because it is too damn painful. This is true even during a partial eclipse.
Yes, like Donald Trump back in 2017 who is still hazed endlessly about it, I gazed up at the sun for a few seconds at a time a couple weeks ago, just as I did back in 2017, and just as I did during the four or five other partial eclipses I experienced during my life. To the best of my knowledge, I did not permanently nor even partially damage my eyes doing so.
The theory is that because the sky darkens during an eclipse, our pupils naturally dilate meaning that when we do look at the sun, our dilated pupils aren't ready for the instant burst of sunlight, diminished yet still damaging.
It does become perceivably darker as the moon covers up more and more of the sun. But if you've ever noticed the natural contraction and dilation of the pupils, either your own or someone else's, dilation is a rather slow process while contraction happens instantaneously as the sudden increase of bright light is perceived by the brain. So, when you look directly at the sun during a partial eclipse, the pupils are reacting just as they would during no eclipse.
What's more, looking directly at the sun even during an eclipse where 94 percent of the sun is covered, is still painful enough to discourage you from doing it and reveals practically nothing of the eclipse.
That said, one should not look directly at the sun for more than a few seconds with normal sunglasses, eclipse or not, as they do not provide sufficient protection from the sun's harmful rays and do enable you to gaze directly at the sun without discomfort for enough time to do some real damage.
That's where the eclipse glasses come in. They block enough light so that unless you are looking at a tremendously bright source like the sun, you cannot see anything through them. But if you use them to look directly at a solar eclipse, they work like a charm.
That is until the partial eclipse becomes total and the light from the corona is too dim. At that point, experts now say, it is safe to take them off and view the magic directly.
Until the sun comes out from behind the moon's complete shadow that is, when it's time to put the glasses back on.
While I don't have any evidence to back it up, I'm a little skeptical of some of the accounts we keep hearing about how ancient cultures reacted to eclipses. It's a little like the myth we were taught at school that until Columbus came around, everybody thought the earth was flat and that by sailing west from Europe, the ships with everyone on board would fall off the earth's edge. How then did Columbus get anybody to sign up for his suicidal voyage?
A tale that always makes me smile is the one that pits one group, usually colonizers, against another, usually the subjugated. Using their supposed "advanced" knowledge of how things work, one tactic the colonizers might employ to subjugate the subjugated was to use their ability to predict eclipses to demonstrate their power by saying right before they knew an eclipse was coming, that they could make the sun or the moon go away. I'm not saying this has never happened in human history, but what you never hear mentioned is the intended victims saying right after the eclipse, "wow that was a cool trick, do it again!"
You know that had to have happened.
What we tend to forget today is the role the natural world played in people's lives before we came along. Technology giveth and it taketh away. Electricity for one which gave us among many other marvelous things, the electric light bulb. One of my favorite stories is about the grandmother of a good friend of mine who told him that before her house in Maine was equipped with electric lights, she never realized how dirty it was.
I for one, can't tell you how lost I feel on those rare occasions when our power goes out.
On the other hand, the electric light bulb has taken away our view of the sky. As a lifelong city boy, I never realized what the nighttime sky really looked like until my early twenties during a camping trip, also in Maine with the same friend. "What is that streak of white light that crosses the sky, is it a cloud?" I asked him. He laughed at me incredulously and said: "It's the Milky Way!" Even though I knew exactly what the Milky Way was, I hadn't a clue that you could actually see it so clearly with the naked eye.
That was only the half of it. By then I had a good handle of the constellations as defined by the brightest stars that were visible from the city. But a couple hundred miles from the streetlights of the nearest city, those same stars I knew so well didn't stand out much from the hundreds of thousands of other stars I couldn't see from home. And I learned on that trip that I could even see with my naked eye something way beyond our own Milky Way Galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, some 2.5 million light years away.
With no power, no internet, TV or radio, not even a decent light to read by, people generations before us looked up to, and understood the sky in ways we cannot even dream of. It's no wonder that so much ancient mythology is centered on the constellations and the comings and goings of the planets and other celestial objects that wandered about the sky in relation to the stars which remained forever fixed in place. It was the understanding of those relationships that served as an essential tool to get a grip on an otherwise unpredictable world.
Most cultures believed that eclipses were bad omens, so it was beneficial to understand them in order to predict and prepare for those events, which they did. They may have beat their drums and shot arrows into the sky to scare away the dragons and demons that were consuming the sun and the moon during an eclipse. We may laugh, but those measures always worked.
But I suspect the ancient astronomers of every culture knew all along what was really going on.
I've never passed on an opportunity to experience a solar eclipse, even though they were only partial from where I was. This is the third one that happened while I was at work. The first time I had a little home-made pin hole viewer but discovered that a much more impressive way to view the eclipse was via the pinholes made by the fully formed leaves in the middle of summer which projected hundreds of crescent shapes on the ground. I shared that discovery with passersby who to a person were as intrigued by the phenomenon as I was.
I wasn't so lucky in 2017 as there was haze in the sky which does not bode well for the pinhole effect. Instead, I struck up a conversation with a couple who were kind enough to lend me their eclipse viewing glasses.
This time, the trees were bare but armed with both glasses AND a pin hole viewing device, I returned the favor and shared them with the complete strangers around me, several of them visitors to this country, who again shared my enthusiasm.
It dawned on me two weeks ago that the real glory of an event like this is the ability to share it with others, perhaps especially with complete strangers. As a society we have removed ourselves so much from nature, that it's truly a wonderful thing to experience one of its most magnificent events, smack dab in the middle of a big city, where you would least expect it. I can't even imagine what a thrill it must have been to be in Cleveland or Dallas or any other big city directly in the path of totality, to experience it together with a large group of fellow human beings gathered to celebrate something so beautiful and awesome.
Which reminded me of a few important things, we're all in this together as very small cogs, living in a unimaginably massive universe.
That thought is comforting, scary, and mind blowing, all at the same time.
You must be thinking, what could this guy possibly be writing about now? Given the topics of my recent posts, this one must be about keeping score in terms of politics, or war, of the crumbling of society as we know it, or where Casablanca falls on my list of all-time great movies.
But no, look at the date.
Today's Opening Day, the best day of the year, the day all hope springs eternal, and this post is about the true meaning of the term "keeping score". It's also about how baseball is so ingrained into American culture that our language is filled with idiomatic expressions that come directly from the greatest game never invented.
The French cultural historian Jacques Barzun famously wrote:
Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball, the rules, and reality of the game.
I turns out that 55 five years later out of disgust with the game, Barzun took back that comment, but hey this is Opening Day, we'll have to leave that for another day. It would be like trash-talking Jesus on Christmas.
To prove Barzun's original comment, I'm constantly impressed by my equally French boss's ability to rattle off baseball terms as if she had been a student of the game at the Sorbonne.
It turns out that she really can't stand baseball and more than likely has no idea that much of her excellent command of American vernacular directly channels "the National Pastime."
So I get a little smile whenever she says things like "let's touch base" or "I'll take a rain check" or that something is "hit or miss."
Strangely enough, "keeping score" is not on the list.
You keep score in other games (perhaps that's why this particular expression didn't make the list), but at least in my experience, no other sport is so compulsively focused on recording the minutest detail of every single moment of every single contest as baseball.
To give you an example, I'll take a random Major League player from the past and a random date from sometime in his career and look up how he did that day during the game. Pulling a name out of a hat I'll pick Nate Colbert (never heard of him), a three-time all-star first baseman and outfielder who had a ten-year career playing in the late sixties and seventies for five different teams. Now let's pick a random date, say June 25, 1973, and see how he did. By the way, baseball terms that have become idiomatic expressions in everyday American English from here on are highlighted in red.
OK, from the box score, we see that on June 25, 1973 as a member of the San Diego Padres, Nate Colbert went 0 for 4 in four plate appearances with one RBI, I'm guessing by driving in a run on a ground ball, in a 3-2 loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers. In the field he played first base and recorded ten put outs, (to be expected at that position).
Let's see if we can do better.
Just as I suspected, from the play-by-play,batting cleanup, or fourth in the lineup, in the bottom of the first inning off Dodger pitcher Claude Osteen with runners Dave Roberts (not to be confused with the current manager of the Dodgers) at second and Jerry Morales at third, Colbert hit a ground ball to Dodger shortstop Bill Russell who threw Colbert out at first. Morales scored on the play, accounting for Colbert's RBI, while Roberts remained at second.
In the bottom of the fourth inning with no one on base, Colbert grounded out to third.
In the bottom of the sixth, Colbert grounded out to third again, advancing this time advancing Jerry Moralez to second base.
My son, stepping up to the plate.
In the bottom of the eighth with two outs and Roberts on first, Colbert grounded out to Claude Osteen, which ended the inning.
Colbert unfortunately didn't bat with two outs inthe bottom of the ninth in that game. Had he failed at that of course, either the ballgame's over, or it goes into extra innings.
Had Colbert played a decade later, we could do even better as pitch-by-pitch accounts became standard in official baseball scorekeeping and we would know how many balls and strikes he had in the count before putting the ball into play. If he had played even later, we'd be able to know out what kind of pitches those were such as fastballs, curveballs, knuckleballs or screwballs.
Now I'm sure at this point you must be saying, "who gives a shit?"
Well, let me explain.
Um, I can't really explain, other than to say that out of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, in one of them, this information will come in handy one day. Like the tie-in to my previous post?
It also goes to illustrate the obsessive nature of baseball which in turn illustrates the nature of the term "keeping score" when it doesn't apply to the game of baseball.
It's not generally a compliment when someone accuses you of keeping score.
Unless you're doing it in the ballpark that is, which is what I'll be doing this Sunday with the family.
And as is my annual custom on this great day, I close with the two happiest words in the English language:
The word propaganda has sinister connotations. Hearing the word makes me think of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister for Propaganda, whose secret to success was defined in his famous quote:
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
It's also makes me think of the current dictator of Russia who recently used the feckless Tucker Carlson as a vehicle to distribute nonsense, trying to justify his criminal invasion of Ukraine to any American willing to listen.
But propaganda is not the sole domain of tyrants, and while it implies bias, it needn't consist of misinformation or outright lies.
Does that mean there can be good propaganda? I guess that all depends upon whose propaganda it is and which side you're on.
In the mid-1930s, Americans were reeling from the Great Depression. Many men in this country who were approaching middle age were still living with the memories and the effects of what was arguably the most terrifying war from the viewpoint of the average soldier, World War I.
The same was true in Europe only more so. The big difference is in Europe, another war was on the horizon. And the vast majority of Americans at the time wanted no part of it. Who can blame them?
The support for isolationism and non-intervention in foreign wars among Americans in the thirties was overwhelming. So much so that Congress passed several neutrality acts late in the decade, which not even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in marked opposition to them, would dare veto.
The chief problem with those acts is that they were blanket declarations, forbidding any kind of participation or aid in a foreign conflict, even in support of an ally who was attacked. Roosevelt understood the threat that Hitler and the Nazis posed to the free world, but politically there was little if anything he could do about it until September 1, 1939.
On that day, the Nazis invaded Poland resulting in Britain and France declaring war on Germany. This changed American public opinion only slightly. FDR managed to push through arms sales to the Allies on a cash and carry basis which passed with only a small majority in Congress. Eventually the Allies' reserve of liquid currency began to run out and Britain, alone in Europe in the fight against Hitler after the Nazis marched into Paris, was desperate.
Enter Lend-Lease, Roosevelt's plan to send arms and materiel to the Allies free of charge with the stipulation that the supplies be returned after the conflict. The president used marketing, (another word for propaganda) to explain his plan to the American people by appealing to their sense of self-interest. He used the simple analogy of a homeowner lending a neighbor his garden hose to put out a fire. The logic was that A) putting out the fire while it was still small not only would save the neighbor's house but perhaps also the home of the lender and B) the hose would be returned when it was no longer needed.
Roosevelt succeeded in passing the Lend-Lease Act which was signed in March of 1941. Again, much of the country balked.
That is exactly where the United States stood when the main action in the film Casablanca takes place.
In one of the film's most famous scenes, Rick is alone, drinking himself into a stupor after earlier that evening, the love of his life walked into his nightclub in the arms of another man. It is very late, long after the joint has shut down for the night. Sam walks in and tries to console his friend but to no avail. Rick asks Sam a curious question: "It's December, 1941, what time is it in New York?" "My watch broke" replies Sam, We understand the question better with Rick's next line: "I bet they're sleeping in New York, I bet they're sleeping all over America."
Then comes one of the most famous lines of the movie: "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine."
I saw Casablanca probably a dozen times before I noticed the "It's December, 1941" part. During all those viewings I just assumed Rick was commenting on how really late at night it was; if they're asleep in New York, it must be at least 3am in Casablanca, if the rest of America is asleep, even later.
But if it was December, 1941, they were also figuratively asleep all over America, as Europe and the Pacific were going up in flames. On the seventh day of that month, we were finally awakened.
Until I noticed Rick curiously pointing out the date, the ambiguity of that line was lost on me, along with one of the film's most important aspects. Along with being a splendid wartime drama and love story with elements of film noir, mystery, suspense, and even comedy thrown in, above all, Casablanca was a propaganda film.
The message the film was marketing to the American people and to the rest of the world was clearly anti-fascism. We learn in the film that in the years before the action takes place, its protagonist Rick Blaine had actively fought on the Republican side against the Franquistas in Spain and had run guns to the Ethiopians in their struggle against Fascist Italy. Meanwhile the other hero Victor Laszlo was busy fighting the Nazis.
The line with the double meaning was written before December 7, 1941. but the film wasn't shot until the following year, well after the United States had entered World War II. Why then bother including the line in the film which wasn't originally set to be released until 1943, long after we as a country had supposedly woken up?
My theory is that as much as Casablanca was making a clear statement against our enemies in the war, the film is also a critique of American society, at least the part of it that still had reservations about our participation in the war, many of whom had sympathies with and philosophical ties to the Nazis.
There was a great deal of anti-Nazi sentiment during the thirties in Hollywood. Warner Brothers (who produced Casablanca) was especially active having closed all its operations in Germany back in 1934. But American film companies were hesitant to make anti-Nazi films as the Hays Office (see my last post), strongly discouraged production of movies that had biases against foreign countries including Germany, out of fear of offending both the country, and this nation's German speaking population,
So rather than making overtly anti-German films, in 1937, Warner Brothers produced two movies that were set in the United States, but were unmistakable allegories for what was going on in Europe at the time. Black Legion, (with Humphrey Bogart) was a fictional story about a white supremacist group in Detroit modeled after the KKK. They Won't Forget (with Claude Rains),was a fictionalized account of the real-life story of Leo Frank, a young Jewish man who was (by most accounts wrongfully) convicted and lynched for the murder of a 13 year old girl in Atlanta.
In 1940, after the war began in Europe, Warner Brothers purchased the rights to Everybody Comes to Rick's, an anti-Nazi play written by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison. The film company paid a king's ransom for the work, all the more so as the play had never been produced. By then, other film companies felt the time was right to make anti-Nazi propaganda films. Some were forgettable such as Hitler-Beast of Berlin, others were classics like Charles Chaplin's The Great Dictator.
Yet there were still Americans who felt the time wasn't right to offend the Nazis. In 1941, members of Congress conducted hearings investigating Hollywood's anti-Nazi "motion picture propaganda". The two senators who initiated the hearings were Gerald Nye of North Dakota and D. Worth Clark of Idaho. Both senators had ties to the America First Committee, a group founded in 1940 to promote isolationism. Two of the group's most prominent members were industrialist Henry Ford and aviator Charles Lindbergh, both barely concealed anti-Semites. On September 11, 1941, Lindbergh who had Nazi sympathies, gave an infamous speech in Des Moines where bemoaning "the Jewish problem", claimed that Jews were controlling "our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government” all in the effort along with FDR and the British, to lure us into the war.
In response President Roosevelt commented:
When I read Lindbergh’s speech, I felt that it could not have been better put if it had been written by Goebbels himself. What a pity that this youngster has completely abandoned his belief in our form of government and has accepted Nazi methods because apparently they are efficient.
It all became moot after December 7, 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Four days later the America First Committee was no more. We were at war with both Japan and Germany and work was well underway to turn Everybody Comes to Rick's, which the writer James Agee claimed was the worst play ever written, into the screenplay for what was to become Casablanca, which some to this day claim to be the best movie ever made.
My argument that Casablanca should be in the running to be considered among the best of the best*, is the fact that over eighty years after its release, it continues to speak to us in its universal themes of love and sacrifice, of values and forgiveness, of right and wrong, of the importance of looking beyond our self-interest, and the lengths we would go just to survive.
In light of the last decade, especially the last two years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine and even more recently, the war in Gaza , Casablanca is especially relevant today.
My current obsession with the movie was inspired by the resemblance of the late Alexei Navalny, the heroic Russian opposition leader, to the character Victor Laszlo. Mind you it is only a superficial resemblance at best. Once out of harm's way in a German hospital after being poisoned in Russia, the real Navalny returned to Russia to carry on his work, where he knew he would end up in prison, standing a good chance of meeting an untimely death as is the case with everyone who runs afoul of Vladimir Putin. That chance became a reality this February 16 in a gulag in Siberia.
Navalny's life and tragic death touched people's lives far and wide. Even Putin's two most useful idiots in the United States couldn't stay silent. Without placing any blame, Tucker Carlson said: "The whole thing is barbaric and awful. No decent person would defend it." Donald Trump went one step further paying Navalny the greatest compliment his twisted mind could come up with, comparing Navalny's ordeal with his own.
The fictional Victor Laszlo's life was peaceful by comparison, escaping Europe for the relative safety of America. But there is one particular line in the movie that by changing a few words, could define Navalny's legacy.
As he is interrogated by the antagonist in the film, Major Strasser of the Gestapo (Conrad Weidt), Laszlo is offered his freedom if he divulges the names of the resistance members all over Europe with whom he has been in contact. After refusing to comply he explains to the Major the inevitable futility of the cause of the Nazis and all totalitarian movements:
And what if you track down these men and kill them? What if you murdered all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands, would rise to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast.
Relevant or not, an eighty-year-old movie is bound to appear dated, especially when it comes to current attitudes, values and sensibilities, and Casablanca is no exception. I generally shy away from judging the past through the lens of contemporary standards; however I believe that blindly dismissing acts of the past as simply products of their time is a cop-out.
One objection I've read about Casablanca is that despite being a movie about refugees from Nazi Germany, no Jews are depicted. On one hand, this is a curious assertion as while there was no attempt to identify characters in the film as being Jewish, there is absolutely no reason to believe they were not Jewish. The fact is a great number of people responsible for making Casablanca, from the authors of the play it was based upon, to the screenwriters, the director, and the producer of the movie, to the owners of the company that made the film, were Jewish. Even more telling is that a high percentage of the cast was Jewish, themselves refugees from the Nazis.
Perhaps the film makers elected to portray World War II as a crisis affecting all of humanity by not singling out any one particular ethnic identity as its victims.
On the other hand, the dark side is that the makers of the film had to have been cognizant of the fact that had they emphasized the Jewishness of the refugees, they would have been called out in the antisemitic climate of the U.S. by folks such as Lindbergh, as being producers of Jewish propaganda.
Another bone the filmmakers threw at potential American censors including the OWI, (Office of War Information, the official department of U.S. wartime propaganda) was to give the impression that America was the great beacon of hope for the world's oppressed, who opened its arms to anyone who sought refuge here. That could not have been further from the truth as the U.S. imposed strict immigration quotas even on refugees, based upon ethnicity and race.
In 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis departed Hamburg with 937 passengers aboard, nearly all of them Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. The ship was bound for Cuba where the refugees hoped to stay until visas for them to enter the United States were granted. During the trans-Atlantic voyage, the government of Cuba rescinded its offer to accept the refugees. When the ship docked in the port of Havana, only a handful of passengers, those with the appropriate immigration documents were allowed to disembark. The ship with rest of its passengers aboard sailed north toward Miami where they hoped to land safely. But the immigration quota of the U.S. was already filled, there was in fact a waiting list a mile long and welcoming the refugees aboard the St. Louis into the country would have meant they would have "jumped in line" ahead of those who had already applied for entry.
Rules are rules after all.
The United States could have raised the immigration quota on humanitarian grounds but the vast majority of Americans, many of whom were sympathetic to the plight of the refugees aboard the St. Louis, were still opposed to changing the quota. The same situation applied in Canada.
Without any other option, the ship sailed back to Europe where some of the passengers were granted asylum in Great Britain. Those were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones ended up in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, all of which would become occupied by the Germans. Some of those refugees were eventually able to obtain immigration visas to the United States. Of the rest who did not, 254 souls, more than one quarter of those who departed Hamburg on the St. Louis for a new life in America, perished in the Holocaust.
The refugee situation only got worse in the States as the war waged on. Among the refugees aboard one ship headed for the United States was a confirmed Nazi spy. The government used this bit of anecdotal evidence to mount a case for the inherent danger of allowing refugees into this country, and further restricted immigration, despite the mounting evidence of genocide in Europe.
While the race and ethnicity of the refugees depicted in the movie were never established, the character of Sam was unequivocally black. That goes back to the original play, where the character of a different name who would become Sam in the movie, was identified throughout the play's script simply as "the NEGRO". The screenwriters gave Sam a little more humanity, identifying him by name in the film script, but they wrote his lines in what could best be described as a white person's idea of the way black people speak.
Here's a little snippet of the script's dialog between Sam and Rick:
RICK:
Sam, Ferrari wants you to work for him at the Blue Parrot.
SAM:
Ah likes it fine here.
RICK:
He'll double what I pay you here.
SAM:
Ah ain't got time to spend what ah makes here.
Fortunately, Dooley Wilson who played Sam, toned down the patois considerably.
In the line that immediately proceeds this dialog, the aforementioned Signor Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet) offers to buy Rick's nightclub, along with its piano player Sam. Rick responds: "I don't buy or sell human beings." That line was obviously written to help establish Rick's left-of-center credentials. It was hardly revolutionary in 1941, nearly eighty years after the issue of slavery was resolved in this country. But you can begin to appreciate the line when you consider that a mere three years earlier, Hollywood produced Gone With the Wind, a movie that earnestly celebrated the antebellum South and the institution of slavery with as much glee as Mel Brooks's farcical music number "Springtime for Hitler" celebrated the Nazis.
In his commentary to Casablanca that I linked to in my previous post, Roger Ebert argues that Sam, a black man and Rick, a white man are equals in the film, something unheard of in Hollywood at the time. Well, the being equal part is not entirely true as Sam is in Rick's employ. But he is Rick's best friend and only male friend whose relationship is not transactional. Yes, Sam gets a paycheck from Rick but as is made abundantly clear, he could do better elsewhere if he chose.
As tempting as it is to say that Casablanca was ahead of the curve if only slightly in terms of the way Hollywood portrayed black people, there is one word in one line of the film that sends everything into full scale retrograde. It's Ilsa's first scene where she and her husband walk unawares into the club owned by her former lover Rick. She spots Sam who was with Rick and her in Paris. Trying to play it cool and not let on about what happened while her husband was away in a concentration camp, she says to Captain Renault in front of Victor, "Captain -- the boy who is playing the piano -- somewhere I have seen him."
Dooley Wilson was 56 when he played Sam, Ingrid Bergman who played Ilsa was 27.
It is the cringiest line of the movie and has been for at least six decades. No amount of explaining or putting it into the context of the era can change that.**
No one has ever accused Casablanca of being ahead of the curve as far as women are portrayed in the movies. By 1941, although it was the exception rather than the rule, Hollywood had given us a number of films featuring strong female characters in firm control of their destiny.*** Let's face it, Ilsa Lund, the spouse of Victor Laszlow, is no Yulia Navalnaya, the spouse of Alexei Navalny. After her husband's death, Navalnaya pledged to carry on her husband's work making herself not only persona-non-grata in her own country but also risking becoming a dead-woman-walking wherever she is as Putin's pathological fear of opposition and his homicidal impulses know of no national borders.
By contrast Ilsa, not long after learning erroneously of her husband's death, falls in love with Rick in Paris. Then to the consternation of a great many contemporary feminists, once reunited with her husband, AND her lover, she tells the latter that she can no longer stand being separated from him and leaves the decision of how to proceed up to him.
But for most feminists, far and away the most unsettling part of Casablanca is its treatment of the character of Captain Louis Renault.
If you were to take the most corrupt police official you have ever read about in the news, then multiply that person's malfeasance tenfold, you would still come up a bit short of Louis Renault.
The crazy, inexplicable and for many, unacceptable thing about him is that despite being a despicable individual, he is one of the most likable characters in the movie, he gets the funniest lines and in the end, becomes a hero to the cause, so to speak. Among the many unspeakable acts and outright crimes he commits while abusing his role as the Chief of Police of Casablanca, Renault routinely extorts women by offering highly coveted exit visas to them, in exchange for sex.
Casablanca was obviously made several decades before the women's movement gained momentum and several more decades before the advent of the MeToo Movement. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that while the attitudes about sexual harassment and the exploitation of women were different eighty years ago, there was no justification then or now for finding light in the actions of Renault, and that the filmmakers by making Renault a likable character despite his crimes are guilty of obfuscating and trivializing his actions.
I have a slightly different take on that last part, namely that the filmmakers did not cover up the actions of Renault in the slightest, but rather made them crystal clear and out in the open. It is we the viewers who through our fondness of the character over the decades, have overlooked his actions and trivialized them.
Let me explain.
The Spanish have a humorous expression: Mas lento como el caballo del malo, (Slower than a bad guy's horse). It refers to the predictable Hollywood Westerns of old, where characters were clearly defined, and the good guy always caught the bad guy because for some reason, the bad guy's horse was always slower.
In a widely referenced and decidedly not so silly essay despite its title: Casablanca, or, the Cliches are Having a Ball, philosopher Umberto Eco describes the film as a pastiche of several historical literary and dramatic themes, taken from works ranging from Homer to the most current popular entertainment of the time. According to him, set into those themes are characters who, like the Spanish idea of American Westerns, are "stock figures, either all good or all bad."
It's at this point in the essay where it appears that Eco and I had not been watching the same movie.****
From my point of view, there are only two characters in Casablanca who fit Eco's "stock figure" description. Representing the forces of good versus evil, in one corner is Victor Laszlo, the noble Resistance fighter risking life and limb to defend freedom and democracy. In the other corner, equally devoted to his cause of preserving, protecting and defending The Third Reich, is Major Strasser of the Gestapo.
In the end, just like the Westerns, the horse belonging to good guy dressed in white, Victor Laszlo, ended up being faster than Major Strasser's, as if by design.
As portrayed in the film, Victor Laszlo is an extraordinary person. I suppose in his one-dimensionality, so too is Major Strasser. The rest of the characters in the film are ordinary people doing their best to survive under extraordinary circumstances.
In other words, they're complicated.
I honestly can't name any character in Casablanca (with the exception of Major Strasser) who is all bad, but Captain Renault comes mighty close.
His trademark line "round up the usual suspects" defines Renault's approach to his job, that is to say throw as much shit against the wall to see what sticks. If nothing sticks, at least it looks like he's doing something.
Before we even meet him in the film, we witness one of those brutal round ups he speaks of, as officers under Renault's command terrorize the streets of Casablanca, capturing any character they deem suspicious looking. One unlucky soul is even shot dead in the back as he runs away from the thuggish cops. Renault may not himself be a Nazi, but without people like him, the Nazis would never had been able to wreak the amount of havok they did.
We don't see the death of Signor Urgate (Peter Lorre) while in the custody of Renault, we only hear the Captain mention his death while debating casually, as if he were deciding what to order for lunch, whether to report that Urgate committed suicide or was killed trying to escape.
And we never see Renault assaulting women, he only alludes to those actions with little more than a wink and a nudge.
What we do see is a prolonged scene with one of his prospective victims deeply searching her soul, pouring her heart out to Rick by contemplating what appears to be the only chance to get her and her husband out of Casablanca. Check out my last post which features both a video clip from, and the script of that scene.
Yet bad as he is, at the end of the film Louis Renault gets to walk arm and arm into the mist with the hero Rick in the last shot of the movie, redeemed by his sudden conversion into a patriot, the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
All is forgiven and our sense of justice is thrown askew because Renault's horse turns out to be the swiftest of all, not quite as we think it should be.
Is it an injustice of the filmmakers to portray a scumbag such as Renault as a likeable character?
Well in the real world, bad guys' horses aren't always slow, despicable people sometimes can be quite charming when they're not doing despicable things, and in a time of war, combatants don't have the luxury of screening allies for their moral character. Remember, by the time Casablanca was released, Joseph Stalin was our ally.
No, I think given the two distinct sides of Louis Renault, it's up to viewer to decide. It's the kind of moral dilemma that Alfred Hitchcock, a master of telling stories with moral dilemmas, would be proud of. *****
If we end up liking Louis, it's on us, not the filmmakers.
Back when I was an impressionable youngster studying film, I pooh poohed Casablanca for its over-the-top sentimentality and its heavy-handed dialog, but especially because the film theorists whom I respected were dismissive if not outright hostile to it. In other words, it wasn't cool to like Casablanca.
But I got older and stopped caring so much about what other people told me to like. I grew to love the movie simply because it was so entertaining, especially the performances from the leads, to the greatest supporting cast ever put together in a motion picture, to the bit players who only have one line of dialog if that, to the of hundreds of extras, a great many of whom were themselves refugees from the Nazis. It's spectacularly beautiful to look at, thanks to the efforts of the director Michael Curtiz and the cinematographer Arthur Edison. And the screenplay despite its hiccups, gives us a story filled with characters we care about, not to mention all the great lines that have become woven into American culture.
It's a movie that stands up to multiple viewings as every time you see it, you pick up on details you missed before. By now I've probably seen Casablanca fifteen times and am still discovering new things, whether they be unnoticed comic gems, or clues that give heretofore unrealized insight into one of the characters. Some of those moments from my most recent viewing helped guide these two posts. It's a work of extreme economy, there's not one superfluous scene or even shot that is not essential to telling the story.
Mostly it stands the test of time.
That's especially true given the current state of the world. We've always had police corruption, sexism and racism, but I never thought I'd see the following again, especially in the United States:
A return to pathological self-interest and isolationism as expressed by the term "America First."
Indifference and outright hostility to the plight of the refugee.
An acceptance of totalitarianism because of its apparent efficiency.
Joseph Goebbels inspired "alternative facts" making a comeback.
A criminal European dictator with absolute control and impunity being admired and embraced by a good many Americans including a former and possibly future president of the United States.
Before getting on that plane to Lisbon, Victor Laszlo's parting words to Rick are:
Welcome back to the fight, this time I know our side will win.
Watching Casablanca today and exploring it in the context of the time in which it was made as we just have, makes us realize we've been through all this before. Today our world is not in an altogether different place than it was in the late thirties/early forties. Because of that, in our own time we share something with the original viewers of the film more than eighty years ago:
Our story is still being written.
The best either of us could do is hope and pray that Victor Laszlo is right.
More than eighty years after it was made, Casablanca still has something to say to us.
We should listen.
Here's looking at you kid.
NOTES:
* Well, in the top one hundred films at least, in my humble opinion.
** That's not to say people haven't tried to explain that line away. One explanation is that in French, the official colonial language of Morocco, the archaic colloquial term for waiter is "garçon", in English, "boy". It might stand to reason that for folks of a particular social strata like Ilsa's, there would be no distinction between the workers in a nightclub, as they would all have been considered "the help". Consequentially, restaurant staff whether they be waiters or musicians might all be addressed in a similar fashion. In the words of a comment I read, it would be "a classist" form of addressing someone rather than a "racist" one.
I think the most logical explanation is the line was directly lifted from the play as were many others, and it simply didn't set off alarm bells in the minds of the screenwriters or anyone else involved, as it certainly would today. Regardless, the choice of Ilsa referring to Sam as "the boy" is a truly unfortunate, disrespectful one.
*** Three strong female characters immediately come to mind: Rosalind Russel's Hildy Johnson from Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday, the eponymous role in Ernst Lubitich's Ninotchka .played by Greta Garbo, and much as Scarlet O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) in Gone with the Wind was not particularly admirable as a character, it would be hard to argue that she was not truly badass.
**** Umberto Eco over-plays his cliché card when he writes the following: "And so we can accept it ... when whores weep at the sound of “La Marseillaise.” The character he is referencing is Yvonne (Madelaine Lebeau). When we first meet her, she is at the bar at Rick's, obviously quite smitten by its proprietor and not a little tipsy. We can tell they've having a relationship or did, because he treats her shabbily. The next evening, Yvonne walks in with a German officer, obviously an attempt to get Rick's attention. Later that evening when the Germans start singing their patriotic tune Die Wacht am Rhein, Laszlo with Rick's approval, commands the house band to strike up the Marseillaise, and the voices of the rest of the patrons at Rick's singing along drown out the Germans. It's Yvonne's face we see in extreme closeup, tears in her eyes, singing the French national anthem more fervently than anyone in the room. When the tune finishes, she yells “Vive la France! Vive la démocratie!” That is her entire contribution to the movie. Did I mention that she was a prostitute? No, because there is no reason to believe she was, clichés be damned.
***** Ah but did the writers have the intention of setting up a moral dilemma for us, or was it just an accident? Did they simply assume viewers in 1942 wouldn't be bothered by Renault's actions? Let me point out one line that makes the answer pretty clear to me. When Rick first sets his eyes on young Annina, the Bulgarian girl set to be Louis' next conquest, the first thing Rick says to her is "Hey you're underage, how did you get in here?" Frankly I don't know how a typical 1942 audience would judge Louis coercing adult women to have sex with him. But extorting a child to have sex is another story. There was no reason to portray Annina as a minor other than to illustrate Loius Renault's depravity. The writers knew what they were doing.
This past weekend three quarters of my family drove up to Minnesota to look at colleges for our youngest child. Killing time during the six-hour drive, on her cellphone my wife opened up a random list of the 100 greatest films ever made. I'm kind of a sucker for these lists for many reasons, not the least of which is they provide an endless source of discussion, controversy and argument, due to their sins of commission and omission.
For starters, the film I brought up in my last post was not to be found on the list. Do you really mean to tell me that the comedies This is Spinal Tap and Airplane, funny for their time but not nearly as much today as when they were made, are deserving to be among the 100 greatest films ever made, but the sublime Local Hero is not???
You know, that kind of stuff.
Frankly I could never put together a list like this as I don't think I've seen one hundred films in my life truly deserving of such a distinction. I mean, there are probably dozens of films by great directors like Kurosawa, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Fassbinder, Varda and scores of others I haven't seen yet that simply have to be better than say, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which might come in around number 100 of the top movies I have actually seen.
But in the end it's all subjective isn't it?
Well no, not really. There's a reason why certain films like Citizen Kane are always on these lists.
But not Casablanca, which some critics place at or near the top of their lists of greatest films ever made, while others like the authors of this list, don't think it even merits a spot in the top 100. I wasn't surprised by the snub as the 1942 Hollywood classic is somewhat polarizing; people either love it passionately or think it's overrated. Foremost among the latter group are the followers of the Auteur School of film criticism which places the worth of any film squarely upon the shoulders of its director, whom they consider the true author (auteur) of the work. Auteur criticism places a film within the context of its director's body of work and judge it primarily by whether it contributes to the particular vision and style of that director. Alfred Hitchcock would be a prime example of a director admired by the auteur critics as he has a unique vision and a definite visual and thematic style. *
Not so Michael Curtiz, who before directing Casablanca, already had dozens of Hollywood films and before that, many more in Austria and his native Hungary to his credit. Curtiz (an Americanization of his true surname Kertesz, a name familiar to anyone who is acquainted with the art of photography), made films in practically every popular genre at the time, from horror to mystery to film noir, from thriller to adventure, from love story to comedy to musical, including the Elvis Presley vehicle King Creole (probably the star's best film). Because of his tremendous output, Curtiz is often considered the ultimate Studio System director, one of many workers in the industry who were assigned films as much or more for practical reasons like his technical chops, his reputation for working within schedule and never going over budget, rather than for his personal vision.
And because of that, as his output was all over the place stylistically and thematically, most auteur critics feel Curtiz represented the studio's vision rather than his own. To them he is a craftsman rather than an artist. In less generous terms, some would call him a studio hack, albeit a very, very good one.
So where does Casablanca stand with the auteur critics? Respect, but often in the form of backhanded praise. This is from none less than Andrew Sarris, the American film critic who expanded upon the auteur theory from its origins in France:
...the director’s one enduring masterpiece is, of course, "Casablanca", the happiest of happy accidents, and the most decisive exception to the auteur theory.
Not all of the detractors of Casablanca were subscribers to the auteur theory, here's Paulene Kael:
It's far from a great film but it has a special appealingly schlocky romanticism, and you're never really pressed to take its melodramatic twists and turns seriously.
Responding to that comment, in an essay for The Atlantic celebrating the 70th anniversary of the film in 2012, David W. Brown, himself a great fan of Casablanca writes this:
Nobody ever walked away from a screening of Casablanca and said, "Well I don't get it." Not with regard to its reputation as a great work, nor to the nature of its characters or plot. It's not a challenging work. But its universal themes and accessibility are inseparable from its place in the American film canon.
Therein lies the issue with the movie, it's a great film because its themes are universal, we all get it; it's less than great because it doesn't challenge us.
Brown points out in his essay that greatness of any work of art comes from either smashing accepted standards to bits to create something entirely new, or taking those established standards to heights never realized before.
Citizen Kane would fit into the first category, and Casablanca into the second.
If you've seen the movie, you might be interested in this shot by shot analysis of Casablancaby one of its greatest supporters, the late Chicago based film critic Roger Ebert.
Ebert does a nice job putting everything into place. What the auteur critics seem to ignore is that film making is perhaps more than any other art, a collaborative effort as anyone who has ever sat through the closing credits of a movie realizes. Without minimizing the efforts of Curtiz one bit, Ebert points out that the greatness of Casablanca lies in the efforts of everyone involved from its producer Hal Wallis who probably shaped the final product more than anyone else, through the writers, (Julius J. Epstein, Phillip G. Epstein and Howard Koch), the cinematographer, (Arthur Edison), the editor, (Owen Marks), the music director, (Max Steiner), the costume and set designers (Orry-Kelly and George James Hopkins), the rest of the technical staff and of course, the amazing cast all the way down to the extras, truly one of the greatest collections of talent ever gathered for one film.
I admire Ebert for his point of view and keen sense of observation but there are a few points he makes here that I have some issues with.
THE SCREENPLAY
It's no secret that Casablanca is probably the most quotable movie ever, at least in American cinema. In his analysis, Roger Ebert says the true sign of a successful screenplay is when the audience leaves the theater quoting lines from the movie. I'm not sure I agree, it's kind of like saying the sign of a great work of music is if you're able to hum tunes from it after leaving the concert hall. That would certainly disqualify most western classical music written after 1850.
Regardless, for all its memorable snippets of dialog, Casablanca also has more than its share of roll-your-eye inducing lines as well. Consider the following:
"Was that cannon fire or is it my heart pounding?"
One would be hard pressed to write a cheesier line.
The
son of actress Joy Paige who played the young Bulgarian bride in the
movie, recounted in her 2008 obituary in the LA times that his mother,
in 1942 a high school senior with family connections to the film
industry, read an early draft of the screenplay but was not impressed. She told her son she felt it was "corny and old fashioned." Fortunately
for her despite her reservations, she got and accepted the role which turned out to be her one true shot at silver screen immortality.
You be the judge. The following is a transcription of the screenplay highlighting Page's one big scene in the movie where her character, Annina, is looking for some advice from Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart). The action takes place in the dining room of Rick's Cafe Americain:
Annina meets Captain Renault, Chief of Police, in the hallway as she leaves the gambling room:
RENAULT: How's lady luck treating you?
Annina looks down.
RENAULT: Aw, too bad, you'll find him over there.
Renault points in the direction of Rick. Annina sees him and goes to his table as Renault watches her attentively.
ANNINA: Monsieur Rick?
RICK: Yes?
ANNINA: Could I speak with you for just one moment please?
Rick looks at her.
RICK: How'd you get in here? You're underage.
ANNINA: I came with Captain Renault.
RICK (cynically): Oh I should have known.
ANNINA: My husband is with me too.
RICK: He is? Well Captain Renault is getting broadminded. Sit down.
Will you have a drink?
Anina shakes her head.
RICK: No of course not, you mind if I do?
ANNINA: No.
Rick pours himself a drink.
ANNINA: Monsieur Rick, what kind of a man is Captain Renault?
RICK: Oh he's just like any other man, only more so...
ANNINA: No I mean, is he trustworthy, is his word...
RICK: Now just a minute, who told you to ask me that?
ANNINA: He did, Captain Renault did.
RICK: I thought so, where's your husband?
ANNINA: At the roulette table trying to win enough for our exit visa.
Well of course he's losing.
RICK: How long have you been married?
ANNINA: Eight weeks, we come from Bulgaria.
Oh things are very bad there Monsieur, the devil has the people by the throat.
So Jan and I we, we do not want our children to grow up in such a country.
RICK (wearily): So you decided to go to America?
ANNINA: Yes but we haven't that much money and,
traveling is so expensive and difficult, it was much more than we thought to get here.
And then Captain Renault sees us. and he is so kind he wants to help us...
RICK: Yes I'll bet...
ANNINA: He tells me he can get us an exit visa but, but we have no money..
RICK: Does he know that?
ANNINA: Oh yes.
RICK: And he's still willing to give you a visa?
ANNINA: Yes monsieur.
RICK: And you want to know...
ANNINA: Will he keep his word.?
RICK: He always has.
There is a silence. Annina is very disturbed.
ANNINA: Oh monsieur you are a man, if someone loved you very much so that your happiness was the only thing that she wanted in the world, and she did a bad thing to make certain of it, could you forgive her...
Rick stares off into space.
RICK: Nobody ever loved me that much.
ANNINA: ...and he never knew, and the girl kept this bad thing locked in her heart,
that would be alright, wouldn't it?
RICK (harshly): You want my advice?
ANNINA: Oh yes please.
RICK: Go back to Bulgaria.
ANNINA: Oh but if you knew what it means to us to get to America...
oh, but if Jan should find out, he's such a boy, in many ways I am so much older than he is.
RICK: Yes well everyone has problems in Casablanca maybe yours will work out. You'll excuse me.
Rick abruptly rises.
ANNINA (tonelessly): Thank you Monsieur.
He quickly goes off, leaving Annina alone at the table. She remains seated, too demoralized to move.
And... cut.
Are you moved to tears by reading that? Probably not.
The sincerity Joy Page brings to the role of Annina kind of sort of pulls off all that wonky dialog ("The Devil has people by the throat" really???). But I'm afraid even a more seasoned actor could never take that claptrap beyond grade B level melodrama. Conversely, Rick's one-line responses, at least on paper, convey the level of indifference and snarkiness we've come to expect from his character up to that point, not much more.
You wouldn't know it just from reading the dialog, but this is the pivotal scene in the movie, there's a lot going on here.
First, Rick is defining for us his complicated relationship with Renault (Claude Rains). He knows full well that Renault is a scoundrel as his snide comments suggest. The conversation is rapid fire, both actors starting their lines before the other has a chance to finish, except for one time not indicated in the script. When Annina asks if Renault will keep his word, Rick pauses only for a second, but it seems much longer. For the first time in the scene, he speaks without irony:
"He always has."
Rick and Renault share a mutual admiration, even affection, yet neither would hesitate throwing the other under the bus if it were necessary. Here Rick withdraws his glance from the young woman as if to wash his hands of the sordid affair. He tells the young woman in not so many words that yes Renault, a man of his word, will indeed grant her and her husband the exit visas, after he fucks her. The way Bogart delivers that line, he conveys both fondness for the man, and contempt.
Talk about complicated.
Then Rick exposes his vulnerability in the middle of Annina's sad confession about her dilemma.
His face changes from an expression of compassion to anguish when her words hit close to home as she talks about a woman loving a person so much she would do anything to make him happy. Rick has just been reacquainted with the love of his life Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) in the arms of another man. He allows himself a moment of self-pity when he responds: "Nobody loves me that much."
Then fatalism sets in as he crushes Annina's dream of a better life by advising her to just give up and go back home.
After some more mushy words from the poor girl, Rick abruptly gets up and leaves her in the lurch, telling her dismissively that everybody's got problems in Casablanca, so leave me alone and have a nice day.
Same old Rick sticking his neck out for no one.
At least that's what we're led to believe as the scene shifts to another part of Rick's place where back to business, he welcomes Ilsa and her husband Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) back to his nightclub. This scene is so filled with tension between Rick and Ilsa that we forget about poor Annina.
But not Rick. In the subsequent scene Rick enters the gambling room where Annina's husband Jan is sitting dejectedly at the roulette wheel. The croupier Emil (played by the great French actor Marcel Dalio in an uncredited role) asks Jan, who is only holding a few chips, if he'd like to place another bet. "I'd better not" he says, those chips probably representing the last of the couple's savings. Rick, looking over his shoulder says: "have you tried 22?". "I said 22" he repeats a little louder, speaking to Jan but looking at Emil who gets the message.
Of all the memorable lines from Casablanca that are quoted endlessly, the last one Rick says to Annina before darting out of the room...
Yes well everyone has problems in Casablanca maybe yours will work out.
... is not one of them. But it dawned on me after having seem the film for the umpteenth time this week that it should be. When he says everyone has problems in Casablanca, perhaps he is referring to his own. Thinking of it in those terms, in his mind he is first diminishing his own suffering by empathizing with another person's pain. Doing his part to help ease that pain is step two.
In that gesture at the roulette wheel, coming at no small cost to both Rick and his business's reputation, he solves Annina'a dilemma, much to Renault's consternation. And there in one fell swoop, the pathologically guarded Rick at last reveals who he really is for all to see, including himself.
That seemingly dismissive line to Annina foreshadows the greatest line of the film:
I'm not good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that.
Screenwriters provide the architecture of a film, not just the dialog. They don't write for the printed page any more than an architect designs for the blueprint. They depend on the cast, the director, the cinematographer, the editor, and a whole cast of characters to make their words come to life. That's the magic of cinema.
Watch this clip of the two scenes involving the Bulgarian couple to see what I mean. Pay close attention to Bogart's physical reactions to Joy Page and especially to his exquisite timing. If you doubt what a great film actor he was, you have the script, give it a go yourself.
Unfortunately, the middle scene has been edited out of this clip. Better yet, watch the whole movie, watch it again if you've already seen it.
Do I consider this great screenwriting despite its not always stellar dialog?
You bet I do, along with great acting directing, cinematography and you name it.
VICTOR LASZOW
Roger Ebert claims in his analysis that Casablanca is a near perfect movie. Then he points to some small issues such as continuity errors and the many parts of the story that challenge one's suspension of disbelief, all of which he admits, don't really take anything away from the film.
I agree.
It seems Ebert's main objection to the film is the performance of Paul Henreid in the role of the unassailable resistance hero, Victor Laszlo. Laszlo, a Czechoslovak with Hungarian name**, is a continuous thorn in the side of the Nazis. He has escaped from a concentration camp and found his way to Morocco, then part of unoccupied France.*** From there he hoped to obtain two official letters of transit that would permit him and his wife Ilsa to leave the country for neutral Portugal, then on to the United States, where he could continue his work in relative safety.
If you've seen the movie you can skip the next paragraph. If not and you're interested in how Rick got involved in all this, read on:
FOR THAT WE MUST GO TO FLASHBACK, cue the harpist...
PARIS-1940: It turns out that while Victor was in Nazi captivity, Ilsa mistakenly learned that he was dead. Thinking herself a widow, Ilsa met Rick in Paris, fell in love with him, hears the first of many "here's looking at you kids", yadda yadda yadda, then in march the Nazis. Rick, himself no friend of the Third Reich, decides to skedaddle, but not before Ilsa finds out that Victor is very much alive, has escaped from the concentration camp, and is back in Paris. She can't face Rick with the news so instead of joining him on the last train out of town, she sends a note with Sam (Dooley Wilson, more on him later) telling Rick without explanation that she can never see him again, have a nice life.
So back to the present and Victor and Ilsa end up unbeknownst to them at the club of Ilsa's lover and now we've got ourselves one barnburner of a love triangle.
So what's wrong with Henreid's performance according to Ebert? There's no chemistry between Victor and Ilsa, he claims. I believe at one point Ebert says that Henreid is too stiff, apparently not realizing the mixed message that term sends.
Anyway, stiff or flaccid, it hardly matters, the character of Victor is all about his work. He certainly loves Ilsa, we know that because he says so, even if Ebert is not convinced. Ingrid Bergman always said that when they were making the film, she asked director Michael Curtiz which character Ilsa was supposed to really be in love with. He reportedly told her to dole out the loving equally between the two and that they'd sort it out at the end of the story, which legend has it, was not determined until the day they shot the final scene.
But it's clear to me in the final cut that Ilsa worships Laszlo (perhaps more like a father), but loves Rick.**** That is what defines her conflict. Had there been more "chemistry" between Laszlo and Ilsa as Ebert and others suggest, and all else had been the same, she would have chosen her husband in a heartbeat without all the drama.
Not a very interesting ending.
AND SPEAKING OF THAT ENDING (spoiler alert!!!)
If you've read anything about the making of Casablanca, you know that the filmmakers were flying by the seat of their pants, making everything up as they went along. At times it is said, any given day's shooting could have included dialog that was written that very morning and rushed over to the set. As I mentioned above, Ingrid Bergman didn't know which man she was supposed to be in love with. Some suggest even the screenwriters had no clue which of the two, Laszlo or Rick, she would end up with in the end.
Roger Ebert points out quite logically that there is no way Ilsa could have ended up with her lover Rick rather than her husband, as it would have been strictly forbidden by the enforcers of the extremely conservative Motion Picture Production Code, the self-regulating moral police force better known as the Hays Office. With its intimations of extramarital goings on, and even a not too subtle suggestion of latent homosexuality, (remember this is 1942), Casablanca was already pushing the envelope, and the producers had to do several end-runs around the censors to get the more titillating scenes on the screen. But an ending where Ilsa leaves her husband for her lover and not getting her comeuppance for it would have been a non-starter in 1942 Hollywood, strictly on moral grounds. *****
But there is a vastly more profound reason why Ilsa got on that plane with Victor and not Rick. It would have made no sense insofar as the trajectory of the story.
For decades, Casablanca has been described as a love story set to the backdrop of war. But the war was not a backdrop, it wasn't even the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room. World War II was the story. Without it, the film would not have been Casablanca, it would have been Paris, Oslo, Prague, New York, Berlin, Sophia and all the other places the characters escaped from to end up in Casablanca. In other words, without the war, there would be no Casablanca the movie because nobody in it would have met each other.
More important, the film was made during the war. When Rick in a perplexed drunken stupor cynically asks Ilsa how the story of their love triangle ends, she responds, "I don't know, the ending hasn't been written yet." That response has a double meaning clearly not lost to the people who were watching the film at the time of its release. On the surface she's saying she doesn't know which man she'll end up with. In a much deeper sense, she, everyone watching the film in 1942, and for that matter anyone alive all over the world at the time, had no idea how the only important story of the day would turn out. It certainly wasn't looking good at the time for those who preferred freedom, justice and democracy to fascism, tyranny and genocide.
By the time the film was released, the United States government was demanding sacrifice from every single American, Tragically and unjustly, Americans of Japanese descent were forced to sacrifice more than any other group. The government was drafting American sons (the daughters went voluntarily), asking of them the biggest sacrifice of all.
Imagine an ending where Ilsa and Rick, both it turns out with skin in the game, throw away all their commitments and values to run off together and live happily ever after, while the rest of the world was sacrificing, suffering and dying.
Preposterous.
What most people who have written about Casablanca for the past fifty years or so seem to miss is its unmistakable role as a propaganda film.
As usual, I've gone on much too long, so we'll save that part of our story for another day.
Stay tuned, les jeux sont faits.
NOTES:
* There's definitely an auteur theory bias to this list. For the record, three Hitchcock films made the list but surprisingly none are in the top ten. Stanley Kubrick has five including number one, 2001: A Space Odessey.
**The writers probably thought a truly Czech name like Jiři Dvořák would be too hard to pronounce. Ebert could have commented on Henreid's Austrian accent too, but like the inappropriate name, that didn't seem to bother him either. Fortunately, none of the actors in the international cast bothered to fake an accent to mimic the nationality of the character they were supposed to be playing. I guess having any kind of foreign, i.e. non-American accent was enough to lend the film a hint of authenticity, at least to the American audience. The one exception is June Page, one of only three Americans in the credited cast, (Bogey and Dooley Wilson were the other two). Given the diverse accents in the film, Page's American accent is a little off putting when she says she's from Bulgaria.
***A little history lesson. Roger Ebert claims one of the biggest inaccuracies in the film is the idea that Victor Laszlo, an enemy of the Third Reich, could arrive in French controlled Morocco and not be immediately arrested by the Gestapo as by this time France was occupied by the Germans. This is not quite so. While the northern portion of contiguous France, including Paris was occupied by the Nazis, the southern part of the country and its North African colonies were governed by l'État français (The French State) better known as Vichy France, named after the city which was its capital. While Vichy had signed a peace treaty with Germany and collaborated with the Nazis, it was still an independent state at the time the film takes place, and the Germans despite their influence, would have had no official jurisdiction there. Of course, to paraphrase Carl (S. K. Sakall) the ex-pat German waiter at Rick's: "being Germans they would have taken him anyway."
**** All the chemistry on screen may have been between Ilsa and Rick, not Ilsa and Laszlow, but in real life, legend has it that Ingrid Berman and Paul Henreid had an affair, while she and Humphrey Bogart barely spoke to each other off the set. I guess that's why they call it "acting."
***** The Hays Office did let another moral transgression slide, in our day a far greater sin, the sex crimes of Captain Renault. I'll get to that in my next post.
One of my favorite films is the 1983 comedy-drama written and directed by Bill Forsythe called Local Hero. It's about a a young oil company executive sent to a village on the coast of Scotland, to buy up all the property in town to make way for a massive refinery. The exec, "Mac" MacIntyre (played by Peter Riegert) starts out the movie as a typical American to much of the world: he has an MBA, he drives a Porche, he's a capitalist city-slicker and so on, your typical "yuppie" in the parlance of the day. As such, Mac is not a little put off by having to travel to a remote part of the British Isles when he could easily close the deal over the phone from his office in Houston. Little does he realize before he sets off, that the only telephone in town is inside a phone booth (phone box in local speak) on the beach.
Once there he slowly falls in love with the place, the fictional village of Ferness, for its charms, its breathtaking scenery, its slower pace of life, and its people, especially the woman who happens to be the wife of his chief contact in town.
Soon enough, MacIntyre becomes conflicted about his mission to enable the destruction of the lovely Ferness and the countryside surrounding it.
It turns out the villagers are two steps ahead of him. The moment they learn the plans of the oil company to buy them out, they start planning how best to spend their new found fortune. The devotion for the place they present to MacIntyre is only an act to drive up the price of their property. Even the local pastor is in on the act as his church serves as the meeting place for townsfolk to gather and discuss their plans to best cash in.
The only snag is Ben Knox, whose surname is the same as the oil company's. Ben lives in a dilapidated shack on the beach and, thanks to his family's century's old accord with the Crown, happens to own the entire beach, lock, stock and barrel. He does not intend to sell what turns out to be the most significant parcel of the site.
So, Mac's boss, Knox Oil's president Felix Happer (played by Burt Lancaster), flies in from Houston to personally negotiate with Ben.
Funny thing, but in a case of life imitating art, another film made a generation later and its sequel documenting real-life events, have several parallels with the fictional Local Hero.
For starters, the documentaries are also set in the Scottish Highlands not far from the city of Aberdeen. An American company sets its sights on developing its own large-scale project on the coast. Many of the locals sell off their land to the developers, but a handful, one in particular whose story the film is centered around, flat out refuse.
The boss of the company in the documentary bears only a slight physical resemblance to Lancaster's Felix Happer, but there are a few parallels between the two. Both are oddball characters, their eccentricities at times defying credibility. Narcissism also plays a role in both men's characters.
That is where their similarities end.
Happer's narcissism is garden variety, even charming at times. His true passion is astronomy, and his greatest ambition it seems is to discover a celestial object and have it named after himself. *
The other's narcissism is off-the-charts and toxic.
The similarities between the stories were not lost on the creator of the documentary, Anthony Baxter, who with the permission of the owner of its rights and the blessing of Bill Forsythe, incorporated scenes from Local Hero into his own films.
Local Hero isn't really about the construction of the plant, nor the planned destruction of the town. It's about history, nature, myths and legends, beauty, wonder, magic, transformation, the bonds that tie all human beings together, and other things that make life worth living. But mostly it's a love poem to Scotland. As such, it could be considered an allegorical fantasy. Here is a link to the original trailer which nicely captures the spirit of the film without giving too much away.
The two documentaries sadly, are all too real. They are about hubris, deceit, pettiness, greed, the wanton destruction of nature, and people who do everything in their power to stand in the way of all that.
In that last sense, one theme both films share is the indefatigable human spirit.
The Ben Knox of the original documentary is Michael Forbes, a quarry worker, farmer and part time salmon fisherman who refuses to sell his land and home of over forty years to the Americans who want to build a golf course and resort over it. Forbes is the star of Part I of the documentary as much of the film centers around his life, struggle, and his neighbors' and family's ordeal. The seeds of Part II are planted at the end of Part I, and the role of star switches over to Michael's mother, Molly Forbes. Her beauty, strength, dignity, pride, sense of humor, and love of her home, steal the show. The best line of both films comes at the beginning of Part II when after being informed that the American businessman claimed she reminds him of his mother, Molly responds with both a sneer and a gleam in her eye: "Well he hadn't been very good to her then."
If you haven't guessed by now, the Felix Happer of the documentaries is Donald Trump.
The name of the original documentary is You've Been Trumped, released in 2011, and its sequel, You've been Trumped Too, released in 2016. **
I won't go into all the sordid details other than to say that Part I begins before ground is broken on the project, and over the course of its runtime, we see ancient dunes, at one time protected by the Scottish government as a unique ecosystem, home to numerous endangered species of flora and fauna, lost piece by piece as earth movers build the golf course. Adding insult to injury, the developers created giant berms to block the views of the homes Trump couldn't get his rapacious little hands on. He called the homes he couldn't destroy "eyesores".
Trump reserved his harshest words for Michael Forbes whose property he referred to as a "pigsty", and to Michael himself as a person whom "every Scot should be ashamed of."
That comment no doubt had great influence on the Scottish people because soon after the release of You've been Trumped, Michael Forbes won the "Top Scot" award, an annual popular public vote sponsored by the makers of Glenfiddich Scotch as a part of their Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland Awards campaign. In response, Trump threw one of his trademark hissy fits condemning Glenfiddich, pledging never to serve the hooch in any of his properties ever again. I guess that sure showed 'em.
The conflict between Forbes and Trump received world-wide coverage and some of the most poignant scenes in both films show the tremendous support Michael and his family have received from complete strangersall over the world.
Part I ends with a particularly troubling event. The Forbes family discovers their water supply has dried up after construction workers were seen digging in the vicinity of the natural spring, the source of their water, well as they were building a road. Despite the Forbes's rightful demand to restore their water, nothing happened except broken promises and the Trump Organization calling the police to arrest the filmmakers for having the nerve to ask why the group would not take care of their legal responsibility and repair the damages they made to the Forbes's water supply.
Much of Part II is devoted to Molly, by this time in her nineties, who spends much of her time hauling buckets in a wheelbarrow back and forth to obtain water from a nearby stream so she could flush her toilet. The only potable water available to her and the rest of her family was bottled water. Rather than the one-week fix Team Trump kept promising the Forbes family, the situation lasted for five years until Michael, in defiance of Trump and the local police he had in his pocket, took it upon himself to dig a trench in the access road for the golf course and fix the broken pipes himself.
During the filming of Part II, before the water situation was resolved, Trump was running for President of the United States and Baxter had the inspired idea to fly Michael Forbes and his wife Sheila to Cleveland during the Republican National Convention. While there they struck up conversations with Trump supporters, some of whom were genuinely moved by their situation while others could not be swayed. One of them in justifying Trump's actions remarked that his man doesn't get mad, he gets even.
Now where have I heard that before?
Oh that's right, I heard it a couple weeks ago from Trump himself after winning the New Hampshire primary while he was trashing his opponent, Nikki Haley.
"I don't get mad, I get even" sounds kind of cool and defiant in a Clint Eastwood sort of way.
But what does it really mean?
On the surface, the phrase implies that getting mad and getting even are mutually exclusive things. Getting mad implies loosing one's cool, acting irrationally and uncontrollably, while getting even in this comparison anyway, implies a cool, measured response to an offense. As the saying goes: "revenge is a dish best served cold."
There is a certain logic to getting even, after all, doing unto others as they have done unto us is basic human nature, in stark contrast to the so called "Golden Rule" which suggests quite the opposite.
The Golden Rule in one wording or other, exists as the basis of the justice system of every culture I can think of, the primary tool to help human beings get along with one another by helping settle conflicts if not avoiding them altogether.
Yet doing unto others as we would have done unto us is not a one-size-fits-all rule for successful human relationships as it does not go nearly far enough. It
hardly works in truly close relationships such as marriage for example where a
more appropriate rule would be do unto her/him as she/he would have
done to herself/himself.
In other words, we're all different and have
different expectations of one another, so treating our partner
precisely as we would like to be treated ourselves is a recipe for
disaster. I consider myself something of an expert on the issue.
In the same vein, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to resolving
conflicts because conflicts come in all shapes and sizes from petty to
tragic. With the exception of the tragic, we all differ as to what
conflict constitutes a true offense.
For people used to always getting their way like Donald Trump, every conflict is a true offense, a personal affront worthy of getting even. Contrary to what Trump says about not getting mad, as borne out by Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony under oath before Congress, he does indeed get mad, a lot. It was she you might remember who had to clean the ketchup off the walls of the White House dining room after he threw his plate of lunch against it like a two-year-old, when he received some news that displeased him.
In reality, getting mad and getting even are joined at the hip. Getting even is just one of many responses to anger. If a conflict does not make us angry, we feel no need to get even. While it may be useful at times, especially to make the aggrieved party feel better, getting even, especially if it means eye-for-eye style justice, is rarely a useful tool to resolving conflicts, which you must admit is kind of a useful skill for someone who wants to be president.
Let's use Trump as an example. He got mad at Michael Forbes and got even by calling him names and making his ninety-year-old mother haul buckets of water from a stream in a wheelbarrow so she could flush her toilet.
Yet Michael and Sheila Forbes continue to live in their home as Trump's disgruntled neighbors, no doubt still pissing him off to no end. (Molly unfortunately passed away in 2021 at the age of 96).
He got mad at a whiskey company because they published the results of a public poll he didn't like, so he got even by banning their whiskey at his establishments.
Seems to me Glenfiddich is still the first name most people come up with when they think of single malt scotch. Heck, I can even buy it at my local grocery store.
And he got mad at the United States for not re-electing him president in 2020. So he got back at us by waging a riot in and around the Capitol in the hopes of overturning two cornerstones of our democracy, a free election and the peaceful transfer of power.
Four indictments and 92 criminal counts against him later, he's running for president again for the sole purpose of keeping himself out of jail for the rest of his life.
Seems to me like an awful lot of trouble just to get even with somebody.
CODA
On the flip side, there is no way that Michael and Sheila Forbes or their neighbors could ever get even at Trump for all the grief he put them through.
Yet there's always laughter which is the next best thing. This from 2017:
* The fictional Felix Happer's wish was granted in real life when in 1992, an asteroid was discovered and named by its discoverer (no doubt a fan of the film), 7345Happer.
** You've been Trumped is available on most streaming platforms. You can watch You've been Trumped Too for free on YouTube by clicking here. I don't feel it's necessary to watch them in the order in which they were made. In fact, as the sequel prominently features Molly, if you're like me you'll instantly fall in love with her and her story, so watching them in reverse order may even be preferable.
,