@movie_nazi said:

Indeed! The I stick my neck out for nobody is a line lost but does encapsulate Rick's nihilistic attitude. The love story told in flashback sequences also illustrates why Rick has come to have the crappy attitude on life. Nothing hurts more than to have your heart broken and it can sour a man. I personally think the film is imppecably written and has so many quotable lines that I hear people spout to this day and they have no clue where it came from. The I am shocked, SHOCKED that there is gambling in this establishment! Here are your winnings, sir. I hear ALL the time. I also myself often quite use the line Rick utters when Ugarde states that Rick probably despises him. Well if I ever gave you any thought then I probably would. 🤣 Lots of one line nuggets like that sprinkled throughout the film. Yes, I can truly say I not only understand why Casablanca receieves adoration but it has my utmost adoration as well.

Oh man, you can’t start a Casablanca quotefest without me picking my faves! “Shocked, shocked!” is def one of my tops, and it shows how Claude Raines was the perfect anti-villain to Bogie’s anti-hero. If Bogie is the good guy with serious character flaws, then Claude is the bad guy who’s so smooth you want to bring him home to meet your parents. I mean, he basically tortures Ugarte to death but turns it into a moment of dark humor. “You would find the conversation a trifle one-sided. Señor Ugarte is dead. I’m making out the report now. We haven’t quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died while trying to escape.”

So just as Bogie provided the template for the anti-hero, Claude Raines gave us the template for all the charming villains. All the 007 bad guys owe it to Capt. Renault!

@rooprect said:

Casablanca broke a lot of rules, and its success showed other filmmakers that they could break rules too. At the core of it is one of the 1st anti-heroes that Hollywood dared portray in a major film: a whiskey-swilling, nihilistic, amoral narcissist. Like manfromatlantis said, you have to look at the era it's from. Everything prior to 1940 (and a lot of films after) were still using the classic template of a "heroic" hero, a squeaky clean good guy who always does the right thing and gets the girl, especially since the Hayes Code was now in full force, censoring anything that wasn't a classic morality tale with good Christian values.

Throughout the thirties, Warner Brothers put out a lot of gangster movies where the protagonist was the anti hero. James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson were to prominent actors that were popular in this role. Even Bogie himself got to be an anti hero in High Sierra. (Before this, he was typically cast as an outright villain killed by the main character in the next to last reel.)

Where Casablanca differed, in my observation, is in the ultimate fate of the antihero. In these Warner Brothers gangster movies, the Hayes code dictated they all must get their comeuppance because they were technicall bad guys even though we the audience rooted for them. They would get gunned down or sent to the electric chair/gas chamber or whatever.

In Casablanca both antihero Bogart and antivillian Claude Rains are allowed to show their softer side and are given a redemption story instead of a death sentence. I can imagine it was very refreshing at the time.

Also, of course, Humphrey Bogart doesn't get the girl even though he gets a happy ending. Interesting how they pulled that off. They tried that formula again to less success with Tokyo Joe, and Sirocco. They didn't work so well. Possibly because

,

, ,

, , , ,

spoilers for movies almost 80 years old

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Bogart dies at the end of them. Mostly, though, it was because there wasn't any chemistry between Bogart and whoever the leading ladies were. I can't remember their names, which should be a clue as to part of the problem.

The formula works well in To Have and Have Not because there is definite chemistry between Bogart and Bacall. The supporting cast is aaalmost as good as what we see in Casablanca. I would recommend this to anyone who hasn't seen it.

@sukhisoo said:

@rooprect said:

Casablanca broke a lot of rules, and its success showed other filmmakers that they could break rules too. At the core of it is one of the 1st anti-heroes that Hollywood dared portray in a major film: a whiskey-swilling, nihilistic, amoral narcissist. Like manfromatlantis said, you have to look at the era it's from. Everything prior to 1940 (and a lot of films after) were still using the classic template of a "heroic" hero, a squeaky clean good guy who always does the right thing and gets the girl, especially since the Hayes Code was now in full force, censoring anything that wasn't a classic morality tale with good Christian values.

Throughout the thirties, Warner Brothers put out a lot of gangster movies where the protagonist was the anti hero. James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson were to prominent actors that were popular in this role. Even Bogie himself got to be an anti hero in High Sierra. (Before this, he was typically cast as an outright villain killed by the main character in the next to last reel.)

Where Casablanca differed, in my observation, is in the ultimate fate of the antihero. In these Warner Brothers gangster movies, the Hayes code dictated they all must get their comeuppance because they were technicall bad guys even though we the audience rooted for them. They would get gunned down or sent to the electric chair/gas chamber or whatever.

In Casablanca both antihero Bogart and antivillian Claude Rains are allowed to show their softer side and are given a redemption story instead of a death sentence. I can imagine it was very refreshing at the time.

Also, of course, Humphrey Bogart doesn't get the girl even though he gets a happy ending. Interesting how they pulled that off. They tried that formula again to less success with Tokyo Joe, and Sirocco. They didn't work so well. Possibly because

,

, ,

, , , ,

spoilers for movies almost 80 years old

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. emphasized text .

Bogart dies at the end of them. Mostly, though, it was because there wasn't any chemistry between Bogart and whoever the leading ladies were. I can't remember their names, which should be a clue as to part of the problem.

The formula works well in To Have and Have Not because there is definite chemistry between Bogart and Bacall. The supporting cast is aaalmost as good as what we see in Casablanca. I would recommend this to anyone who hasn't seen it.

I would recommend the holy quadrilogy being the four films Bogie and his "old lady" did together.

To Have and Have Not (1945)

The Big Sleep (1946) My personal favorite of the four.

Dark Passage (1947)

Key Largo (1948)

You know how to whistle, don't ya Steve? You just put your lips together and blow.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWOOOOOOOOOOOO!

@sukhisoo said:

@rooprect said:

Casablanca broke a lot of rules, and its success showed other filmmakers that they could break rules too. At the core of it is one of the 1st anti-heroes that Hollywood dared portray in a major film: a whiskey-swilling, nihilistic, amoral narcissist. Like manfromatlantis said, you have to look at the era it's from. Everything prior to 1940 (and a lot of films after) were still using the classic template of a "heroic" hero, a squeaky clean good guy who always does the right thing and gets the girl, especially since the Hayes Code was now in full force, censoring anything that wasn't a classic morality tale with good Christian values.

Throughout the thirties, Warner Brothers put out a lot of gangster movies where the protagonist was the anti hero. James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson were to prominent actors that were popular in this role. Even Bogie himself got to be an anti hero in High Sierra. (Before this, he was typically cast as an outright villain killed by the main character in the next to last reel.)

Where Casablanca differed, in my observation, is in the ultimate fate of the antihero. In these Warner Brothers gangster movies, the Hayes code dictated they all must get their comeuppance because they were technicall bad guys even though we the audience rooted for them. They would get gunned down or sent to the electric chair/gas chamber or whatever.

In Casablanca both antihero Bogart and antivillian Claude Rains are allowed to show their softer side and are given a redemption story instead of a death sentence. I can imagine it was very refreshing at the time.

Also, of course, Humphrey Bogart doesn't get the girl even though he gets a happy ending. Interesting how they pulled that off. They tried that formula again to less success with Tokyo Joe, and Sirocco. They didn't work so well.

Good point about gangster antiheroes predating Casablanca. But I agree, the difference is that Rick gets a happy ending (even without the girl, another twist). It could’ve been played as a romantic tragedy, but the final scene is unquestionably triumphant. You can’t help but cheer when you hear “Welcome back to the fight, this time I know our side will win” plus the greatest last line of any romance “This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

Overshadowed, but no less significant, is the way the “villain” Capt Renault gets away with all his crimes too. There’s no divine justice, no bolts of lightning from the sky. In many ways Casablanca is the perfect existentialist story, with the core message being that redemption is up to the individual; it doesn’t come from any higher morality or law, as the Hayes Code might’ve preferred.

I think another difference between Rick and earlier antiheroes is that Rick suffers from base character flaws like alcoholism, sociopathy, and in a powerful scene we learn he's plagued with self-loathing. He isn’t just on the wrong team like a gangster or Marlon Brando playing a disillusioned Nazi; Rick’s entire personality is wrong.

Bogie was great at bringing these sorts of characters to life. In a Lonely Place (1950) is to me a version of Rick who never had his moment of redemption and who continued to spiral. There’s nothing apologetic about Bogie’s portrayals of flawed humans, he just shows it like it is and leaves it up to the audience to judge or not.

@movie_nazi said:

To Have and Have Not (1945)

The Big Sleep (1946) My personal favorite of the four.

Dark Passage (1947)

Key Largo (1948)

You know how to whistle, don't ya Steve? You just put your lips together and blow.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I like them all, but Key Largo is probably my favorite.

The dialogues between Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson are priceless. Lionel Barrymore gives a riveting performance. I believe he actually stood up from his wheelchair momentarily. Claire Trevor as the doomed alchoholic is touching.

Dark Passage is the most underrated of the four. It gets some critical lambasting, but I enjoy it. Endora gets to ham it up and her final scene took me by surprise.

The Big Sleep is a fun movie, as well. In addition to his icsonic scenes with Lauren Bacall, his interaction with the scene stealing Dorothy Malone as the librarian sizzles. I love how it is a movie that is centered around a promiscuous woman is caught up in pornography and blackmail, but they can't come out and say it because the infamous Hayes code is standing by disapprovingly, forcing them to sneak around the edges of the topic. My only beef is that the plot is so complicated that not even the film's screenwriter can tell us who killed the limo driver. Whoever it was probably got justice so I guess it is okay. It just wasn't very satisfying from a mystery standpoint.

@rooprect said:

Bogie was great at bringing these sorts of characters to life. In a Lonely Place (1950) is to me a version of Rick who never had his moment of redemption and who continued to spiral. There’s nothing apologetic about Bogie’s portrayals of flawed humans, he just shows it like it is and leaves it up to the audience to judge or not.

I had a similar thought when watching In a Lonely Place.

His character wasn't a mustache twirling villain, a brave idealistic hero, bumbling slapstick clown, a wisecracking trickster, or any of the other archetypes that were (and still are) put up on the screen. Dixon Steele was a real person with real problems. He did manage to get absolved of the murder that was the central external element of the story, but his problems were far from over at the end of the movie. He was still spending too much time in that Lonely Place inside and we feel he is fated to continue suffering the various consequences of this.

@sukhisoo said:

@rooprect said:

Bogie was great at bringing these sorts of characters to life. In a Lonely Place (1950) is to me a version of Rick who never had his moment of redemption and who continued to spiral. There’s nothing apologetic about Bogie’s portrayals of flawed humans, he just shows it like it is and leaves it up to the audience to judge or not.

I had a similar thought when watching In a Lonely Place.

His character wasn't a mustache twirling villain, a brave idealistic hero, bumbling slapstick clown, a wisecracking trickster, or any of the other archetypes that were (and still are) put up on the screen. Dixon Steele was a real person with real problems. He did manage to get absolved of the murder that was the central external element of the story, but his problems were far from over at the end of the movie. He was still spending too much time in that Lonely Place inside and we feel he is fated to continue suffering the various consequences of this.

If you haven't already grabbed a copy of the Criterion release of In a Lonely Place, I highly recommend it. The bonus mini-documentaries talk a lot about what you just said: the way Bogie avoids all the character clichés and gives us something new, even if the character isn't exactly likeable. In fact there were mumblings that the character of Dixon Steele was so disturbing that it would give Bogie a bad reputation in real life, but Bogie (who co-produced the film) insisted on keeping Dixon real. Warts and all.

One huge change that the film made, which I agree with, is that the original book reveals early on that Dixon really is the killer. So it becomes a cat and mouse game of him trying to evade justice. But the film version takes the other approach, showing that he was innocent and yet he's such a violent man that maybe it's a matter of time before he really does kill someone.

In fact, according to Criterion, the original screenplay had him killing Laurel in the last scene. But they decided it would be much more interesting to blur the lines between good & evil. He doesn't kill her, but he sure came close enough... what do we make of that?? In the end it's like you said, even though he's absolved of the central murder it's not a happy ending for Dixon. We know he's doomed to his lonely place.

@sukhisoo said:

@rooprect said:

Bogie was great at bringing these sorts of characters to life. In a Lonely Place (1950) is to me a version of Rick who never had his moment of redemption and who continued to spiral. There’s nothing apologetic about Bogie’s portrayals of flawed humans, he just shows it like it is and leaves it up to the audience to judge or not.

I had a similar thought when watching In a Lonely Place.

His character wasn't a mustache twirling villain, a brave idealistic hero, bumbling slapstick clown, a wisecracking trickster, or any of the other archetypes that were (and still are) put up on the screen. Dixon Steele was a real person with real problems. He did manage to get absolved of the murder that was the central external element of the story, but his problems were far from over at the end of the movie. He was still spending too much time in that Lonely Place inside and we feel he is fated to continue suffering the various consequences of this.

In a Lonely Place (1950) is a great film! Truly a gem of it's time and it seems to fly under the radar. I really liked his character in that film becuase it was relatable. Not me personally but I have known people to have that short temper that often got them in to trouble and got eyes on them whenever trouble happened.

It's kinda crazy that these films are over 80 years old. I was able to catch a theater viewing for the 80th anniversary of The Maltese Falcon a few years back. I would love to be able to watch all of the old films on the big screen.