Showing posts with label classic films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic films. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

On flies in Casablanca

Rick and Ferrari's first scene at the Blue Parrot. Image found here; click to enlarge.

[Edited and amended to avoid implying some things I don't mean to suggest.]

In my post on Casablanca from a couple of days ago, I briefly mentioned the arrangement of the space of the Blue Parrot, the bar run by Ferrari (Sidney Greenstreet). Here, following up on some leads provided by Roger Ebert's commentary (and to get this film out of my head for a little while), I want to toss out a few observations about something seen there (and not seen elsewhere).

Ferrari (Sidney Greenstreet) functions as a metonymy for Casablanca's indeterminate spaces: He has an Italian surname, speaks with an English accent, uses French forms of address, and wears a fez while in the Blue Parrot and a panama hat when out and about. He is another version of the citizen of the world that Renault has declared Rick to be, someone who seems to be from everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. Yet, as I mentioned in the previous post, of all Casablanca's expatriates, Ferrari appears to have become fully assimilated into the Moroccan backdrop against which the film's central action plays out: When he makes his entrance at Rick's, the first people Ferrari acknowledges (with local hand gestures showing his respect) are north Africans. Moreover, we later learn that Ferrari is firmly in control of Casablanca's black market (which Rick makes clear he wants no part of) and, perhaps, even more unpleasant endeavors--when Ferrari offers to buy Sam's services from Rick, Rick tersely replies that he doesn't buy or sell human beings, to which Ferrari says that human beings are precisely Casablanca's "leading commodity."

Perhaps all this is why each of the two scenes set in the Blue Parrot conclude with Ferrari swatting at flies. Apparently in the corrupted world depicted in Casablanca, only the Blue Parrot has any trouble at all with flies. But in a place like Casablanca, corruption gets measured by kind rather than degree. The Parrot's chaotic exterior and seamy, dimly-lit interior seem intended to underscore Ferrari's full investment in Casablanca's unseemly side; compare to Rick's clean, brightly-lit, grid-like interior. In his commentary on the first scene, Ebert notes that the fly-swatting isn't in the script, that either director Michael Curtiz or Greenstreet himself added it as a bit of business. Whoever had the idea, it's a subtle touch that's no big deal in and of itself but, if we happen to notice it and think about it, at the very least enhances the film's texture. If we think about it a bit more, the flies' presence at the Blue Parrot but nowhere else serves as an implicit judgment on Ferrari.

[A later, quick comment on the empire-vs.-colony politics of this: While it's true that Ferrari is the film's firmest link to the local population and equally true that Ferrari is utterly corrupt, I don't think it follows that the film is arguing that the local population in its entirety is corrupt and to be avoided when not exoticized. There's something about Ferrari's lack of hesitation in owning up to who he is and what he does that leads me to conclude its judgment stops at Ferrari's indeterminate shores--or, more abstractly, at the shores of all those who would prey on or perpetuate human misery (which, alas, knows no political or cultural boundaries. Hence, again, why the flies are present only at the Blue Parrot.]

Read More...

Sunday, July 03, 2011

"Where I'm going, you can't follow": On chess boards, Casablanca and postmodern space (updated)

A still from Humphrey Bogart's first scene in Casablanca. On the set, Bogart played chess with Claude Rains and Paul Henried; it was Bogart's idea to have the chess board be Rick's stage business as he talks with Ugarte. According to Roger Ebert's commentary in the edition of Casablanca I have, Bogart preferred chess to poker because in chess, no one can cheat. Image found here.

[UPDATE: This piece in chessville.com is something of a summation of attempts to explain Casablanca's enduring appeal. It includes a nice discussion of the details of Rick's chess board and chess's larger semiotic function in the film--in particular, for both chess and the film, the significance of Rick's playing black.]

Humphrey Bogart doesn't have a traditional entrance in Casablanca. He doesn't walk into a scene. Rather, it's more like the audience makes its entrance into Rick's scene--which is to say, his space: the camera, taking on the point of view of a customer at Rick's who moves through the bar's entrance and seating areas and observing all the bargaining and haggling for papers, for money, for favors, then moves toward a table on which we see a drink, an ashtray, a chess board with a game in progress, and the hands of someone signing someone's tab for a waiter. (Perhaps he's signing our tab--after all, the scene is shot to appear as though we're accompanying the waiter who brings it.) The camera then pulls back to show Rick contemplating the board, holding one of his opponent's already-captured pieces.

The board itself isn't the scene's focus, of course; if it were meant to be, director Michael Curtiz would have made it thus. (Ebert in his commentary notes several times on Curtiz's economy as a director; with very few exceptions, every shot we see in Casablanca functions to help move the story along.) Still, in those shots in which we see the board in this scene, there seem to be some continuity problems that are worth pondering in their own right. Each time it appears, it is as though we're seeing a different game: at least two shots show different, well-advanced games; two others show a board whose game has barely begun, if at all. I think, to be honest, that the only work the chess board is intended to do here is just be a chess board and thus serve as an outward sign of Rick's careful, strategic thinking. We're probably not supposed to notice the pieces' very different arrangements on the board; the film's continuity editor (if it had one) either missed the problem or decided (or Curtiz did) that it didn't matter. But let's imagine for a bit that these inconsistencies are in fact intentional. Then, we can read the chess board as conveying the idea of different games being played simultaneously, all of them on one board, as we stand there waiting for Rick to OK our tab. Rick is in his bar all night, every night. Each night is a new series of simultaneous games for him--in those opening scenes, Rick deals with a bewildering variety of customers and they with each other--all playing out in the space of his bar, whose very tables are laid out like squares of a grid. [Aside: compare the interior of Rick's to the chaotic interior of Ferrari's bar, the Blue Parrot.]

Perhaps that is why, in the scene(s) involving the chessboard(s), we never see who Rick's opponent(s) is/are. "Everybody comes to Rick's," Captain Renault tells Major Strasser earlier in the film. Perhaps, potentially, everyone is Rick's opponent. Even--and especially--Ilsa: the one person most capable of hurting Rick . . . because, we will learn, she already has.


Ilsa confronts Rick in his office. Note the shadow pattern on the walls behind her; click in the image to enlarge. Image found here.

More below the fold.



Again: The last thing I'm claiming here is that Curtiz intends for the chess board to work in his movie in the way I've described it above. However, I do want to claim that these apparent errors in fact end up reinforcing Casablanca's strong sense of de-centeredness, of the city's being comprised of façades behind which little if anything (and certainly nothing pleasant) withstands closer scrutiny. Better put, Casablanca shows us a constantly-shifting space with no constants ruling apart from a far-off, bureaucratic System and, within this place on the periphery of that System's domain, most everyone's acting solely out of his/her self-interest. Few if any here are traditionally Good or Bad; all have in them the potential to be either, though corruption in this place is far more likely than redemption is. We have vague allusions to shadowy pasts; multiple rumors of deaths that turn out not to have been true--or, as Laslow says of the five different rumors regarding his death, "True every single time"; language either emptied of meaning or obliquely acknowledging that its speaker cannot freely speak the truth of a matter; and, presiding over all, the rhetoric and machinery of the Surveillance State. In such a place, people alternate between wanting to believe in and mocking the old verities of love and disinterested sacrifice for others in service to a Greater Cause. The verities are no different from any other narrative whose intrinsic value (never mind their truth or the motives of those who act in accordance with them) can be scrutinized and adopted or mocked, too, because, after all, what does anything matter in the end? ("[I]t 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.")

Chess boards are stylized maps on which one can assert power over another. I suspect Rick much prefers them to real maps, which depict spaces divvied up and controlled by others. I hope no one tells him, though, that he happens to be a character in Casablanca, a movie obsessed with maps and grids--human projections of virtual boundaries onto physical space, over which the vast majority of us have little say, much less the power to control. Consider the film's opening sequence: a raised-relief globe which turns to the western end of the Mediterranean; the camera moves toward France and, at the same time, a wipe replaces the relief map with a two-dimensional paper map that shows the circuitous route people fleeing the Germans had to take to get to Lisbon and thence to the U.S.--this map functioning at the same time as a screen on which is projected newsreel footage of war refugees. The film's central plot device is the possessing of Letters of Transit. Rick Blaine's language often wryly comments on the conflicts between what people wish the world were and its stubborn physical and political realities. Rick says he had come to Casablanca "for the waters;" when Captain Renault asks what waters Rick means, that Casablanca is in the desert, Rick says, "I was misinformed." When the German Major Strasser asks what nationality Rick is, he replies, "A drunkard," which prompts Captain Renault to declare Rick "a citizen of the world"--yet Rick's Everyman's homeland--his saloon--cannot hide him from Ilsa: "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she had to walk into mine." When Victor Laslow requests a table as far from Major Strasser as possible, Rick tells him, "Well, the geography may be a little difficult to arrange . . ." This world is a rootless one: with the single exception of Ferrari, the owner of the Blue Parrot, who seems to have fully assimilated into the culture of the place, it seems anyone who speaks on the matter would rather be somewhere, anywhere, besides Casablanca. Everyone here is in some sense a refugee. Moreover, the name aside, no one can really say what Casablanca is on its own terms, apart from the palimpsests the expatriates have turned it into.

Casablanca, in other words, is a virtual-space rendering of a place called Casablanca--and that place's correspondence to a real place by that same name is a tenuous one at best. All we know about these places, really, are what we can say about them via the suspect medium of language.

One of this blog's very first posts asked about the source(s) of Casablanca's enormous popularity among both cinephiles and people who just love good movies. Aside from the usual responses of "good acting" and "good story, tautly told," in that earlier post I couldn't make sense of how this film, shot on a very tight 2-month schedule and "just" one of 50 that Warner Bros. made that year, "just" one of the three films Curtiz would direct that year, is #2 on the American Film Institute's Top 100 films. As I watched it yesterday for the first time in quite a while, searching for possible answers, the simplest one of all is the one that occurred to me: It retains its immediacy despite its precise placement in time (December 1941). For this film's first audiences, it must have felt like a newsreel: A reader for Warner's first read the play on which the film is based on December 8, 1941; in the very week of Casablanca's release, the Allies had begun the north Africa campaign. For us watching it today, I daresay, it feels like we are watching our own world in embryonic form--and, if we're really thinking about the particulars of the film's romantic triangle, we're seeing just how difficult it is to love authentically, balancing self-interest and sacrifice, in such a place.

Some films, their intentions aside, just get really, really lucky. Casablanca appears to be one of those films.

Read More...

Friday, February 06, 2009

A brief comment on Day for Night

This is perhaps my favorite scene (out of many fine ones) in Day for Night (1974; dir. François Truffaut; Wikipedia entry here), which I watched last night thanks to Larry the movie-guy's lending generosity. It shows a dream of Ferrand, the director of Day for Night's film-within-a-film, played by Truffaut himself:



Some comments below the fold.

It may be worth mentioning that at two earlier points in the film we see shorter versions of the dream: in the first one, we just see the boy walking down the street with his cane (Kane?); in the second, we see that and his arrival at the cage, against which he bangs his cane.

What I especially like about this scene is that it works nicely on several levels. For one thing, it stands alone; you don't need to know that it's a film director, much less Day for Night's film director, who's dreaming this. At the level of self-contained vignette, then, this sequence enters into a kind of dialogue with Citizen Kane (1941). The cage closing off the cinema entrance evokes the fence surrounding Kane's Xanadu in that film's opening sequence--a fence which, by the way, also seeks to protect the (figurative) image of its builder. The young Ferrand, then, is able to accomplish something that the reporters in Citizen Kane could not accomplish: penetrate those barriers not by attempting to solve the mystery of "Rosebud" but by taking possession of the story of their failure to solve that mystery--which, as viewers know, also contains the answer to that mystery.

The extent to which Ferrand as a filmmaker is able to solve mysteries through his own art, though, seems to be an open question, at least as Day for Night poses it. Filmmaking is illusory in more ways than one. It's a job: its success or failure depends in large measure on the ability of actors and crew to keep their obsessions and weaknesses from interfering with their job; its making is driven by money and schedules--those of producers and those of actors. Those truths remain backstage, off-camera; viewers see only an illusion that seeks to persuade them that what they're seeing really happened.

If the dream sequence is a happy one in and of itself, as seems to be the case, might Day for Night be in some ways something like Ferrand's waking nightmare--or, if that's too strong, something like the inverse of the boy Ferrand's happy fantasizing . . . like Kane, someone seduced (not always unhappily, to be sure) by illusions of his own creating? (If I'm recalling correctly, immediately before the dream Ferrand is tossing and turning in bed because he's just learned that he has five fewer days to shoot his film than had been originally planned.) It is difficult to say for sure, as it is with so much in this film so intent on blurring the distinction between the film being made and its actual making.

Read More...

Sunday, October 28, 2007

"You could have taken one more online personality test . . . and you didn't! And you . . . you didn't!"

Well--in case you happen to be feeling that way today, here you go: a chance to assuage the crushing moral guilt that has been haunting you.



Altruist that I am, I can take no credit for your acting on this chance to amend your life. This is the man to whom you owe that.

Read More...