Review of Casablanca (1943) by Cameron J — 25 Mar 2012

Humphrey Bogart is probably the last guy to be criticise someone for regreting something after... um...-I've got nothing. Back then, people had enough integrity to escape scandal, and now, where it everyone's shame? That's why I can't, in all good spirits, possibly joke about such a classic like th-I'm sorry, I just can't finish typing that ridiculous excuse. I will always respect this lost time, but without scandal, we've no one to make fun of, and without anyone to make fun of, modern comedy is nothing. ...Wow, we are some shallow dirtbags now a days, but hey, we'll always have Paris-I mean, I like it just fine. Of course, there's nothing quite like going back in seeing some powerful masterpieces like, well, "Citizen Kane", something that this film doesn't even come close to, in all honesty. Still, it is respectable, yet no film has ever and will ever escape slipping into even the smallest flaw, and this picture is no exception.

Running a mere 102 minutes, even with such sweeping subject matter, it's to be expected that certain points of the film would be rushed, but wow, you have no idea what you're in for... in just the opening sequence. Really, the biggest thing you have to worry about is some repetition and dryness that throws you out of the film on occasion, but the film makes the once piece of rushing count in that opening, moving with such frantic sloppiness that it dilutes the effectiveness of exposition. The exposition is further damaged by the fact that immediate development is lacking in the first, while what development there is stands as just as conventional as the rest of the film. Now, I know that sounds weird to the point of being offensive, but calling this film conventional is not all like calling Shakespeare a cliched writer, because someone or something along those lines actually set a new standard and order, whereas this film is such a product of its time. It hurts to say, but it remains to be said that, at the end of the day, this classic get to be so very '40s, falling into many of those story and character conventions that were very much prominent back then, and I know that they had limitations back then, but a flaw is a flaw. However, as history has taught us, this is certainly a standout among films of its highly conventional type, and while I don't at all think the film is a masterpiece, I'm going to have to agree on those who say that it's certainly a notable piece in classic cinema. It's not spotless, yet does escape its time's tropes, more often than not, and stands a very distinctive for, if nothing else, its style.

The cinematography on the film is excellent, with lighting and shots being set up so carefully and elaborately to brilliantly to truly bounce at you and grip with grace and, at times, grit, and the black-and-white limitations only supplement that gritty dazzle. The gritty dazzle certainly compliments the production designs and locations, which are simply phenomenal, giving you that sense of adventure and authenticity in this foreign, beautiful setting. It's a charming, compelling drama that would typically fail to stand the test of time, yet what leaves this film to particularly stand its ground is its script, which may not be tightest or unconventional piece of its time, yet when it does hit unique points, it hits hard, particularly when it comes to the more human aspects. There are plenty of flaws in classic pictures that are simply overlooked as limitations, yet histrionic writing is often forgivable, so long as its not too over-the-top, because, at the time, the theatrics weren't so much a limitations as much as they were actively targeted themes, and undeniably charming ones at that, yet this film manages to find its way around most of the histrionics without diluting charm. Sure, the film can only go so long before it falls in with the crowd and hits then-conventional histrionics, but on the whole, dialogue and character behavior is human, yet still believably snappy, giving the film a down-to-earth feel that engages you, while the snap entertains and charms you. Still, a film is only as charming as its performers, and while you shouldn't go in expecting some powerful classic acting like in a "Citizen Kane" or something, but do expect some pretty classic charm, especially from leading man, Humphrey Bogart. Bogart is a portrait on effortless charisma, and he leads the screen with unrelenthing charm and an engaging presence that, when mixed with electric chemistry with his castmates, creates a compelling lead presence that helps in carrying this film through and through, and making it so unforgettably charming.

In closing, its rushed moment only exacerbates the dilution of exposition spawned from a lack of immediate development, but what you have to worry about the most is some disengaging repetition, as well as the film's distinctiveness being mildly hurt by its occasional slipping into the conventions of its generation, yet it still stands strong and notable among its peers with lively and sometimes gritty cinematography that compliments the lush production, while what really keeps you gripped is the not at all spotless, yet mostly compelling and humanly snappy screenplay that's really brought to life by its colorful cast, headed by the dashing charmer that is Humphrey Bogart, just one of the many aspects that help make "Casablanca" an undeniable classic and a very entertaining portrait by its own right.

3/5 - Good.