Please explain. Are human’s not natural? is structure not natural? is order not natural?
—Semantics, darling. I am going back to the natural/artificial dichotomy: man-made as opposed to provided by nature. (What Greg said). The way you put it, nature is a constant and everything under it is accepted as natural. This would be problematic for the purposes of our discussion or any controversial topic, because some would be quick to adhere to it their otherwise debatable sense of taste authority.
…“set of rules supposedly set in stone”. Tastes change an evolve; art changes an evolves; canons change an evolve.
…have no other face than “they are long established and everyone knows them”. The face is criticism, perception, thought, feelings, etc.
—Which I am allowed to question when confronted with them, right?
Are you familiar with the historical narrative of art?
—Not specifically. My education on the humanities is more general.
@Dimitris — yes. :)
Casablanca still captivates audience because it was situated in a time of historical importance, i.e., World War II. Dooley Wilson singing “As Time Goes By” helped fight the racism of that time, and added a touch of romance to a film about very violent circumstances.
My partner Mike and I are going to see Casablanca performed at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra next year at part of the Friday Night at the Movies series. The orchestra plays along to a screening of the film. It should be interesting to watch in that setting, hightening the emotional effect of the soundtracks.
Casablanca is not completely a romance or action film or drama. It combines all these elements to make a film that tries to capture the reality of these “fictional” characters. What becomes of the characters in the end is left to chance, and we hope they make it out alive like Anne Frank’s father did, despite losing his entire family in the Holocaust.
“A Kiss is Just a Kiss…As Time Goes By” goes the song, but is that really true? Does time take great love apart, or does it live there, quietly, secretly?
Peace and Best Wishes, Ruben Santos Claveria
It’s not likely that those earlier commercial writers and directors were self-deceived about what they were doing: they were trying to put something over, and knew they could only go so far. They made the hero a “heel” so that we would identify with his rejection of official values, and then slyly squared everything by having him turn into a conventional hero…. We enjoyed the pretense that the world was like this… this pretense which was necessary for its enjoyment separated the good American commercial movie — the good “hack” job like Casablanca or To Have and Have Not — from film art and other art. This was the best kind of Hollywood product: the result of the teamwork of talented, highly paid professional hacks who were making a living; and we enjoyed it as product, and assumed that those involved in it enjoyed the money they made.
That’s from Kael? I really haven’t read her writing, but…wow.
_But what it all comes down to is that Casablanca is the apotheosis of the Old Hollywood style of filmmaking. I think that’s ultimately why it’s great."
We’re on the same wavelength: I think you’re right. However, I never considered that it as the distillation of the Old Hollywood style, but I think I know what you mean. What exactly is the “Old Hollywood style,” though? I could say It’s a Wonderful Life is the apotheosis of the old Hollywood style, too, I think; or what about Gone With the Wind? Why is Casablanca superior example of Hollywood filmmaking? (I might agree with you, but I’m trying to explore this issue.) Also, what about Citizen Kane. In way, it’s the apotheosis of Hollywood filmmaking—while almost transcending it—the craft being so superlative that it becomes artistry.
But I’m getting a head of myself. Part of what I wanted to do is to get understand the reasons Casablanca was the apotheosis. Can we put our fingers on what makes the performances, dialogue, etc. so great? Maybe we can’t, but I wanted to try.
Kane was not about Hollywood filmmaking. It was about independent filmmaking and its rebelliousness ensured Welles would never get full cooperation again. Casablanca was one of the best examples of pure studio works (I’d site The Wizard of Oz as another). There were many non-auteurs who churned out great work during the golden age, but its difficult to top Casablanca in this regard.
Well, I don’t know if Kane was “about Hollywood filmmaking,” but imo it is, for all intents and purposes, a Hollywood film.
But for me, I probably would choose Casablanca as the greatest Hollywood film—over It’s a Wonderful Life (slightly), Gone with the Wind or even Singin’ in the Rain. (Then again, I’m not sure I’d choose it over CK.)
There are far more enjoyable and superior in that regard Hollywood-studio productions than the examples mentioned above and the first that comes to mind is The Band Wagon. Same goes for other Capra films.
@Jerry and Dimitris
If you guys are still there, I forgot to ask why you think Winchester ’73 is a greater film than Casablanca. (My memory of Wincester is a little vague, but the title refers to a rifle that Jimmy Stewart wins in a contest or something, right?)
I’m not so sure I would classify Curtiz as a “non-auteur” in that by the original meaning he was more likely one than Welles who worked against the studio system and set out to make art on his own terms. the idea of the auteur was to point out directors who created art within the bounds of the studio system by, in a sense, subverting it to create their own personal visions. In that way, Curtiz would be a more sensible example than Welles who was simply an artist in the more normal sense of the word, even if film is a collaborative art requiring input from more than one “creator”.
Of course, none of that means Casablanca was better than Kane or, for that matter, worse, simply that the means of production and the role of the director as artist in each case should be considered differently. One can also argue that the idea of the auteur has shifted over time to simply mean director as artist, and in that case the “greater” autuer is simply the better director or the one who made more individual or impressive films, but that tends towards redundancy or a explication of roles in that either it merely points out which directors are better than others, in which case auteur is just another way of saying “better”, or that it suggests that certain directors had more independence or control over their works than others, meaning they may write and direct and perform other functions, or that they amassed enough power and popularity for the studios to remain uninvolved with their films or less involved allowing the director more of a free hand.
(I didn’t see your post right above my last one.)
I love Capra, but I think It’s a Wonderful Life is his best film. If you say there are others that are more entertaining, I might not be able to argue with that, as what makes a film entertaining can vary from person to person. But, like Casablanca, IAWL resonates deeply with a lot of people and it has managed to do this over a long period of time. Wouldn’t you say that’s meaningful?
(I never saw The Band Wagon.)
Hi! Hope you guys have a good time. That sounds really cool. I hope I can see Casablanca on the big screen one day.
Interesting to see how this thread has evolved, but to get back to the original question as to why Casablanca is so loved and admired – well, if you need to ask why (no offense meant to Jazzaloha for asking, either) then it’s just not working its magic on you. The film has everything going for it: great acting by every single actor, an intriguing and complex story, good use of flashbacks, well-written (now iconic) dialogue, good cinematography and framing. But much more than that, is the nature of the romance between Rick and Ilsa at the heart of the film. Because the film has a human heart that beats throughout, the film transcends its time and place. It is much more than just another wartime film. Bogart has been as good, but never better. Bergman gives one of the most riveting performances ever to grace the screen. She shines in every scene she is in – with her watery, sultry eyes glistening. She makes the perfect foil to the coy and cynical Rick character – a character only Bogart could make believable and enduring.
After seeing this several times over the course of years, falling in love with the picture at an early age, I finally had the opportunity to watch it on a large screen, paired with the great Allen take-off, Play It Again, Sam (Allen screenplay, Herbert Ross directs). Seeing it on a large screen, one can fully appreciate Arthur Edeson’s cinematography that fully captures the exotic, yet very seamy city of Casablanca from the opening scene. Curtiz keeps the pacing just right from the beginning scenes, when we pan the streets and see the multitude of different nationalities and expatriates, all showing signs of desperation, as this is a city of escape, but also a city everyone is trying to get away from, being in the hands of the Vichy – stooges to the Nazis. Casablanca is like a microscosm of the world that is plunging into darkness and war.
We learn right away that no one can be trusted. In fact, this is a film about trust, betrayal, and cynicism. We see it from the first scene, with the pickpocket active, using a phony line to fool the unsuspecting. This sets up the whole theme of betrayal typified in much of the film. One person betrays another, in a dizzying whirlwind of deceit and treachery. No one can be trusted. That is, until Ilsa enters Rick’s bar and sets up the theme on a much more personal level. We learn through the brilliant flashback – so typical of films of this period – why Rick fell in love with her and then felt abandoned and betrayed by her in Paris.
The Paris scenes are actually my favorite, as they briefly set the romantic mood at the heart of this almost always cynical take on humanity. Rick views Ilsa’s betrayal – as he misperceives it – as the ultimate letdown he has suffered in a rather dismal and tragic life. We learn early on that Rick has always championed hopeless causes (Ethiopia, Republican Spain), and he sees Ilsa’s supposed abandonment of him as the last straw. We get drunk with him as he wallows in true Bogardian self-pity. The fact that Bogart is the master of this type of role is apparent as he hams it up very convincingly.
Of course, we know that Ilsa eventually reaches through to him, finally dissolving his hard shell. When he finally realizes Ilsa hasn’t really betrayed him, but still loves him, and won’t probably desert her husband (who, after all, has come back from the dead), he relents and lets her go. Everything then fall into place, when even the über-cynical Captain Renault proves he will no longer play the betrayal game. Maybe all is resolved a bit too quickly (and stretching credibility just a little), but finally all the betrayals are absolved in the holy matrimony (Rick’s only matrimony) to a ‘higher cause’. Evil – ever present in the city – is vanquished – at least for a day. Rick loses Ilsa but gains a ‘beautiful friendship’.
This film reunited a great acting threesome: Bogart, Lorre and Greenstreet from the also brilliant Maltese Falcon. Although Lorre and Greenstreet are just pawns in the storyline this time, the chemistry of their presence in this film reminds us of just how good they all were in the Maltese Falcon. When they were re-united (with Rains, too) in Passage to Marseille, the magic had started to fade – even though Curtiz is again directing.
Anyway, if anyone is still asking why Casablanca is a great and iconic film, look no further than Dooley Wilson. He sings As Time Goes By for all the lovers in all the gin joints everywhere. Let’s join Rick in a drink and toast Ilsa – one of the greatest dames to ever walk into anyone’s fractured life.
As Rick the philosopher of despair says, “…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.” With this film, we were made to understand that once and for all. If you still want to find films equal or greater than this one, you’ll need to round up the usual suspects.
This is a great composite of scenes from the film, with Sinatra singing instead of Dooley Wilson. Don’t know if the embed will work for this video:
FRANK SINATRA – CASABLANCA – AS TIME GOES BY by Mukhran
It’s romantic, it has colour, it hits the right emotional and psychological notes, it has Bogey who is super cool, a beautiful female lead, chemistry and not just between the leads, fine supporting cast, cinematography, a memorable song, a stirring rendition of La Marseillaise, it’s on the right side, it has glamour, a bitter-sweet ending that feels right, it appeals to our nobler instincts without being too soppy (Bogey gives it an edge) and of course dialogue people love to recite. It is intimate and personal yet panoramic, individuals in a wider struggle and massive events. It has racial and international solidarity. But we all know that, don’t we? Maybe it just has that indefinable je ne sais quoi
If you still want to find films equal or greater than this one, you’ll need to round up the usual suspects.
No. That’s just academic thinking. the “usual suspects” are part of an elite System.
Not even Jerry Johnson would say that ;)
Do so. I won’t argue about its dazzling emotions by limiting it in the musical but I’ll expand its vivid characteristic and the anthology dance sequences into the vanity syndrome of most artists from all fields. So it’s mainly about the resurrection of a veteran’s past prime: and? Minnelli has given depth and breaths in the trifling screenplay and there are moments where melancholy rings loud and clear for Astaire’s character and Minnelli’s rich decoration and fiery aesthetic is always there t jolt us up.
As for Winchester ‘73, it would also be best not to analyze so much since I’ll hijack a thread that’s purely for Q & As about Casablanca’s remembrance. (I also gave a few reasons about my love for Band Wagon since you had seen Winchester compared to the former)
In the end, we should be judging each film by its own genre, correct? Neither eras nor technical styles, blah, blah, blah…but where they truly belong to…and if there’s a sub-genre by the name of “epic romances that don’t insult the viewers’ intellect”, Casablanca would easily be in the top 50 of them.
I’ll make a note to see The Band Wagon. (It’s been on the radar, but now I’ll try to make more of a priority to see it.)
I wouldn’t have minded you going into some reasons you think Wincester ’73 has better dialogue (although I probably don’t remember the film well enough to offer any meaningful comments).
As for judging films in its own genre, you’re probably right, but the question of which is the greatest Hollywood film or greatest film, period, is more a game and not something so serious. So, the whole endeavor is somewhat suspect, but it’s more of a fun parlor game.
I agree with everything you’re saying, and the film is magical for me. But I just wondered if we could put a finger on why it’s so magical—because on the surface, it’s not evident why this film is as good as it is. (Unlike some other great films whose greatness and “magic” are more understandable, imo.)
The word “perfect” has been offered here—and either embraced by those who love the movie or rejected for various critical reasons. But what is a “perfect movie”? If it’s one in which all of the elements—direction, acting, cinematography, etc.—complement each other—and, more important, if there is nothing extraneous in the picture, no sidetracking in terms of plot, no unnecessary flourishes—then the movie is perfect. So a perfect movie can be one you hate but must admit does exactly what it wants to without straying from its vision.
“Casablanca” does that. It decided on a hybrid between the invisible direction of classic Hollywood and the art-film sensibilities of a “Citizen Kane”—and pulls it off without drawing attention to the effort. But watch Rick knock over glasses as a transitional device, notice the film noir shadows and exuberant characterizations, the plot that moves both into the future and the past—and that needs to make both meet. And all of this occurs at a fortuitous time in American history, just when the war was ready to suck us in—and “Casablanca” helps in this effort.
Again, if you consider the film’s separate plot, characterization, and cinematographic elements, it’s a mess. But the film blends these contrarities without effort. And it’s more than auteurism—it has to be, to allow the performers and the politics of its script to take over—but I’m not dismissing Curtiz, who kept everything in line, and recognized that film is a popular art in the oldest—sense: moral (in that it lives in a universe of consequences, not merely phenomena, like Greek tragedy) and monumental (a sign of the culture that produces it, like a cathedral or skyscraper). Again, whether you “like” it has no bearing on its perfection.
Jazz – But I just wondered if we could put a finger on why it’s so magical—because on the surface, it’s not evident why this film is as good as it is.
Well, I can’t express it any differently than I did above – without going through the film scene by scene. I still say with any film we are watching, we either get its ‘magic’ or we don’t. Defining why something works for anyone in the field of the arts is like trying to explain why we like or love another person. To do so objectively takes all the complex feeling out of it, the fun out of it.
If you want to explain ‘magic’, the magic tends to go away – like an explanation of just how the magician fools us into believing that rabbit came out of a hat. Explaining the trick takes the fun out of the illusion. What is cinema but illusion on the screen? It is an illusion we either buy into or not. We either take to the film or say, “Show me your next trick.”
Casablanca works because of the myriad of elements blending together. This is not a European-style art film that has moments of some vague existential angst like an Antonioni. Because it deals effectively with a certain time and place and brings something to life – illusion and all – it is far more than the sum of its individual parts. Otherwise, this discussion is too much like asking someone, “Yes, I know you love her (or him) but why in the hell do you?” We don’t need to explain to someone who can see what we mean in the first place. Let’s not get too didactic.
A general comment about film taste:
One thing I am totally opposed to on philosophical and aesthetic grounds is any ranking of films by hierarchy or saying one film is superior to another. This is complete and total balderdash. Each of us admires and likes the type of films that appeal to us as discerning individuals and we each love a film for what it gives us. This varies from person to person on this site. There are no absolutes.
We are perfectly free to disagree, but I don’t like anyone telling me what I should like, love, or respect – or saying my own judgment is not valid. I can’t judge beyond my own tastes and experiences. I don’t judge for others – I can only recommend. If someone has similar taste to mind (which I sincerely doubt), then they might enjoy a film if I do. Why do we get so heated up about our choices in film on this site?
One thing I am totally opposed to on philosophical and aesthetic grounds is any ranking of films by hierarchy or saying one film is superior to another. This is complete and total balderdash.
Agreed…so why do we need the existence of “official great films lists” and why did you utter this quote If you still want to find films equal or greater than this one, you’ll need to round up the usual suspects.
What the fuck are the usual suspects?
As long as academics rule this universe, there will always and forever be the comparison motive.
(POST-WRITING APOLOGY: This is longer than I thought it would be:)
DMITRIS: “As long as academics rule this universe, there will always and forever be the comparison motive.”
I’m not sure if the urge to make films—or whatever—compete against one another is an “academic” one—feels more like a market-driven thing, more capitalism than ivory-tower-ish.
MIKE CLAYTON, I agree with you that hierarchical rankings are a problem—maybe not as heinous as you make it out to be, though. Ebert’s yearly lists, for instance, are expansive—he eventually ends up with 30 or so films for a single year—and they’re unranked (aside from the implicit ranking that comes with an appearance on the list). He doesn’t make the films he loves compete against one another, and seems often more interested in “recommending.”
Then again, what’s wrong with exercising a little authority? MIKE, you rankle at the notion of “anyone telling me what I should like, love, or respect – or saying my own judgment is not valid.” I know in my own experience that one can form a good partnership with critical “authorities.” I loved horror films when I was a kid (still do), but when I was 12 or so I was lucky enough to buy a copy of Carlos Clarens’ “History of the Horror Film.” (Here he is at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Clarens.) He took these movies seriously, and he deepened and expanded my appreciation for the genre.
Maybe you just need a good teacher; then again, one should also be a good student—and you can’t have one without the other. And you can be one and the other. Just don’t shy away from the notion that—if you’ve watched and thought about enough movies—you can judge for others. Sometimes we’re waiting for a clear voice to help us along.
And also be ready to consider you might be wrong—not about whether you “like” or don’t “like” a movie. I can’t argue with you when you say, “I love ice cream.” I just don’t know what to do with it. Even if you tell me why you like ice cream, all that does is inform me of your “personal” tastes. And there’s no disputing taste.
What I want is for you to help me convince myself that I like ice cream, too. Your “tastes and experiences” are meaningless to your readers unless you offer them as valid. And you can do that without being dictatorial. “Judgments” are, at their best, “recommendations” with substance. If “Casablanca” is magical “just because” (I’m not saying that’s what you said—but your shying away from critical authority implies a kind of retreat from your readers’ need for enlightenment—and yes, instruction), then I’m excluded from the experience.
Sure, I have my own tastes and experiences, but I prefer them to co-exist with a community of filmgoers. Comedies are funnier with an audience—I’ve given in to their judgment and laughed along; and I can’t tell you how often my “tastes” have altered because careful critics—“amateurs” as well as pros—have guided me toward a new way of seeing. It’s a hard job, but many thanks if it’s done well.
“Again, if you consider the film’s separate plot, characterization, and cinematographic elements, it’s a mess.”
I agree with your definition of perfection with regard to the film. But I suspect that definition applies to many Hollywood films. I also think that the film is perfect in the way that the performances/casting just feels perfect. Earlier I mentioned that when I think of great performance, Bogart, Rains and Ingrid Bergman’s would not cross my mind. That’s true. However, if I think of the perfect Hollywood performance, these individuals would be at the top of the list. When I say “Hollywood performance,” I mean something specific—something that has as much to do with star quality and screen presence (maybe more) as it does with significant acting ability. The “Hollywood” performance connotes glamour and romance—and in this way, Casablanca has all of this. (Gable and Leigh in Gone With the Wind have this, but, imo, they’re a notch below. GWTW doesn’t have as good supporting characters/performances, too. The dialogue is not as good. Welles as Charles Foster Kane has this quality, but his character is more of a tragic, rather than romantic, figure, so more points go to Bogart, etc. for me.)
“Defining why something works for anyone in the field of the arts is like trying to explain why we like or love another person. To do so objectively takes all the complex feeling out of it, the fun out of it.”
For the most part, I don’t agreee with this, Mike. In my experience, the more I undestand a film, the better I appreciate it (if it is a good film). In fact, I can’t think of an example when this is not true. Now, there are some films that have certain elements that are mysterious or ineffable and that’s great, too, but, in general, knowing how a film works makes me love a film a lot more.
“One thing I am totally opposed to on philosophical and aesthetic grounds is any ranking of films by hierarchy or saying one film is superior to another. This is complete and total balderdash.”
If we’re talking strictly about matters of taste, I agree completely with you. If I really love Big Trouble in Little China a lot more than Citizen Kane, who is anyone to tell me I’m wrong? What one enjoys or doesn’t enjoy is not a matter of right or wrong/good or bad, imo.
However, I do not believe that all films are equal in terms of artistic merit. Some films are badly made; others are terrific artistic achievements. I may love the poorly made films and I may dislike the ones of artistic worth. (I may also dislike the poorly made ones, etc.) This is a separate reaction/assessment, imo. While I may love Big Trouble more than CK, I think I would be wrong to say that Big Trouble is an artistically superior film. This is not a fact, not something that can be proven scientifically, but we can debate and argue this point in a way that is meaningful—unlike debating my liking Big Trouble more than CK.
Having said that, this doesn’t give license to being rude or disrespectful to people with differing views (e.g. to mistreat someone who thinks Big Trouble is a better work of art than CK). Even if we disagree, people should try each other with respect—although I’m not against vigorously disagreeing with someone’s opinions.
One last thing. I don’t care much for ranking—particularly in separating the 21st film from the 22nd, for example—but I do care about identifying and understanding films that are truly great artistic achievements. I get a genuine thrill when I discover these films and gain an appreciation for them. I also think part of what I’m doing comes out of respect for art and artists—particularly the truly great ones. Watching movies is not just about whether I like or enjoy a film (although that is a big part of it), but it is also often about experiencing great art. Great art is something rare and truly special. The individuals who pull off are a marvel to me and I feel they deserve a lot of respect and admiration when they do this.
@Jazzaloha: I suppose calling Casabl;anca a “mess” is a bit of hyperbole; what I meant was that each element could easily be in different pictures. Consider the characters, especially the minor ones. I know the film wants to include the whole wide world, but the movie stops two or three times to give room for these quirky, non-essential characters to do their bits. The direction often calls attention to itself—repeated gestures and lines, little odd echoes; the noirish/expressionistic shadows of certain scenes, the lookit-me! flourishes (the “Dear Rick” letter washed away by rain). Meanwhile, the main plot moves in a space somewhere between Hemingway fatalism and suspense-melodrama. Again, lots of stuff is thrown into the mix.
So the magic lies in the way they reconcile with each other. I think you’re right that it’s the performances—more particularly, the performers, solid pre-Method Hollywood actors in control of each scene. Curtiz was lucky to have such pros (In the alternate universe, Peter Loree has a much bigger role.)—but what saves this from pastiche is the code-hero sacrifice plot making everything conform to its moral vision. I think we hang on to this picture because it moves so confidently up the moral ladder, from pleasure (feeling good) to honor (looking good to others) to virtue (being good).
OK, I can feel another lecture coming over me. ’Nuff said.
A great story, great acting, a fllm that has an almost perfect pace, Once I start seeing it I usually can’t stop from watching the rest of it. I’ts one of those films that if I run into it at 3 am I’m seeing it all the way through. the chemistry between Rains and Bogart is a beautiful thing. The whole movie has an edge to it that makes it to me anyway a compelling visual experience. I still haven’t forgiven Ingrid for breaking Humphrey’s heart. And it’s just a movie.
Jazz – What I meant to say was that I am opposed to any ranking of great films by hierarchy. Great films being as you define them: films that are truly great artistic achievements. It is just these types of films I was referring to above. I completely agree with you that: Great art is something rare and truly special. That’s what I meant by saying you really can’t rank this type of ‘special’ film, as it is all a matter of arbitrary taste. Each ‘special’ film is unique. Casablanca is one of those unique films. But let’s not get into a rating game with it, as that is just a matter of taste. In any case, I obviously needed to clarify that.
It should be clear that my mention of the term ‘usual suspects’ at the end of my first post was just to be taken ironically. Make up your own list of ‘usual suspects’. This was not a reference to any film canon, but just what anyone would consider a film as ‘great’ as Casablanca. All the usual suspects are your own – not someone else’s. That was my (perhaps feeble) point.
To make it clear: I just mean for us to view each film that is significant to cinema for whatever reason as a unique work of art and not subject it to endless and pointless comparisons as to which is better or the best. We can all have our own opinions on this, but that’s all they are – opinions.
I still say the magic of these special films vary from person to person. Of course, no two people are going to have exactly the same list of ‘special films’. That’s what makes it interesting, as we are each unique, too. Choosing what works for us in film – as in all art – is very personal and always subjective.
GWTW doesn’t have as good supporting characters/performances, too.
You’re kidding me, right? Leslie Howard Olivia de Havilland, Thomas Mitchell, Hattie McDaniel, man…even George Reeves plays a super-camp role! if there’s one thing GwtW makes up for its gentle mess, it’s because of its supporting characters! It’s Gable and Leigh who are the stiffer the merrier as the film progresses!
" Leslie Howard Olivia de Havilland, Thomas Mitchell, Hattie McDaniel"
Butterfly McQueen, Laura Hope Crews (Miss Pittypat), Belle Watling was great whoever she was they were ALL good …& let’s not forget those strapping Tarleton boys:)
Can’t understand where you’re coming from with that one Jazz
Well, maybe it’s because I haven’t seen GWTW in a long time, but I can hardly remember anything about the supporting characters and the actors that played them. I do remember Butterfly McQueen, and I thought she was better than I expected.
I recently have rewatched Casablanca and GWTW in the last few months and I did enjoy Casablanca more.
This isnt to suggest that GWTW isnt a great movie (it is) but I seemed to identify with Bogart more in Casablanca.
I also think Bergman was more sympthetic then Leigh in their respective movies because Bergman was torn between her duties as a wife to an important person, as opposed to her actual love, While leigh in GWTW was just a spoiled brat.
Looking at it, if I feel that strongly about both characters, they did their jobs ;)
I will say that I think Scarlett is a more interesting character than Ilsa.
I’m sure you’re not alone :)
I think it was her brattiness and her treatment of Gable that put me off. I always looked forward to the ending where she gets left by him!~
Again, if a actor can make me feel one way or another about their portrayal, they are doing their job well :)