need some advice for a friend in analysis of a scene from a movie "casablanca "

djgvinny

Well-known member
need some advice for a friend in analysis of a scene from a movie "casablanca "

friend of mine have done analysis of a scene frm a movie "casablanca" and i would like any of you to take a look at it , and let me know what you think .
where can i find a better place then dvx user members
here it is thank you in advance for taking the time , i would love to hear any feed feed back it will help her a lot


There is growing acceptance of cinema as an area of study .As a look at the history of cinema shows that the first machine patented in the United States that showed animated pictures or movies was a device called the “wheel of life”. Then, Overtimes, video capture technology has become more advanced to create new forms of representing the culture and society of that specific time ,through ,recording photographic images with cameras, or creating images using animation techniques or visual effects in order to help us more to larger the study area .

The aim of my research paper is approaching and analyzing a scene from the film “Casablanca” which is a film that has won an Oscar for Best Director, Oscar for Best Picture, Oscar for Best Writing-Screenplay, Sierra Award Best DVD & 1989 National Film Registry. Casablanca was nominated for; Oscar for Best Actor, Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, Oscar for Best Cinematographer, Oscar for Best Film Editing, Oscar for Best Music, DVDX Award & NYFCC Award .which all credit goes for the talented director Michael Curtiz who thrived in the studio system as the top helmsman at Warner Bros .Studio in the 1930s and 40s.Tirelessly hammering out four or five films a year, he relentlessly tackled both low-budget pictures and more prestigious Oscar-baiting fare, all the while proving amazingly adept at creating lavish results on minimal budgets in a wide variety of genres .Therefore , just like any form of art ,the film Casablanca invites the study of its mode and techniques to provide a deeper understanding through watching it and analyzing it.
Accordingly, I decided to work on one of my favorite scene which is the last scene “The beginning of a beautiful friendship”. Because, it shows the bittersweet finale with it is inarguably classic and filled with great lines, most courtesy of Rick’s farewell speech to Ilsa which illustrate the combination of love, rejection, passion, sacrifice, war, and suspense .Moreover, this scene is the coronation of the whole work of art because it was convincing to the point of imitation the original


Overview of the film
Casablanca is a film that is heavily driven by its characters. It is, at first glance, a powerful love story; to merely call it a love story, however, would be to ignore the larger ramifications of the actions of its characters. Rick especially is placed in the middle of not one, but two conflicts: a complicated love triangle, and a global battle between the Axis and Allied powers. As we see, Rick cannot take part in the latter without first overcoming his issues with the former. Through various stylistic elements, Casablanca draws parallels between Rick’s personal struggles with neutrality and the necessity to take action in the larger context of World War II .The setting of Casablanca plays a key role in the dichotomy between Rick’s personal life and a larger societal issue. A town ripe with refugees, Casablanca provides the perfect backdrop for the struggle of freedom against the newly-empowered Nazi regime. Rick’s Café American similarly serves as a microcosm for the events in the world. The use of “American” in the title of Rick’s café is significant, in that the American café can provide refuge and salvation much in the same way America could do for the conquered French. Like America, however, Rick must first break his neutrality. The fact that the action takes place in December of 1941, the same month in which the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor took place, provides a further parallel between Rick’s and America’s struggles with neutrality. It is this struggle which drives Rick’s transformation and thus the film as a whole. Rick is presented as a very mysterious character at the beginning of the film. We hear his name and some minor details about the man before we actually see him, lending an aura of isolation to his character; he doesn’t, for example, ever drink with any of the customers at his bar. At this point in the film, the range and depth of knowledge are quite narrow and shallow, respectively. We’re not quite sure why Rick is the way he is, but he states several times that he “doesn’t stick his neck out for nobody!”Slowly but surely, however, the viewer begins to see that perhaps there is more to Rick than meets the eye. While he may claim to not risk his well being for others, we can identify a bit of a leaning to one side or the other. He still offers papers of transit to refugees, albeit at a price, and at one point prohibits a man from a Deutsch bank from entering his bar. Rick, however, is almost embarrassed of these actions, refusing to acknowledge Louis’ claim that deep down, he is a “sentimentalist.” Perhaps most significant is the fact that Rick had fought twice, both times on the losing side, against the Nazis. A sense is conveyed to the viewer that Rick was not always as he is now, and that something had happened to him to change his entire outlook on life. If there is to be any hope for both Rick as a person as well as Lazlo’s struggle against the Nazis, his character must change back to what he once was.


Part 2
This famous that I have chosen to work on is a scene that takes place at the airport which comes right after Rick’s meeting with Ilsa and her revealing and explaining of the misunderstanding of what had happened in Paris and why she did not show up. Which was the turning point, even though Things get complicated as they often do in relationships, but it is more the plot twists that are complicated, the characters still feel the same about each other now it’s down to the choices people make. Ilsa wanted Rick to make the choices and he has done so. It seemed like he had chosen at first that Ilsa and himself would go leaving Laszlo behind, or as Ilsa seems to see it that they would get Laszlo to go on alone and that they would stay behind. Whatever he may have planned or considered Rick now has other plans – insisting that Ilsa and Laszlo go, and that he should stay. He chooses what’s right despite the rekindling of his relationship with Ilsa. In what he says at the airport it’s hard to know when he’s stating what he really believes or what he reckons will persuade Ilsa to go. In a sense the love triangle is dismissed by Rick: “the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world”. And yet human relationship is still valued – Rick arranges for Ilsa and Laszlo to be together “inside of us we both know you belong with Victor. You’re part of his work, the thing that keeps him going”. And he also shows he values his relationship with Ilsa: “We’ll always have Paris”. To make the relationship between Ilsa and Laszlo easier he plays this down when talking to Laszlo: “that was all over long ago. For your sake she pretended it wasn’t, and I let her pretend”. Once again there is no overt rivalry between Rick and Laszlo – they shake hands and Laszlo is grateful – “Thanks. I appreciate it”. I noticed in this scene how in relationships a parting can be painful. Counterbalancing this, to an extent, is the progression of the relationship between Rick and Renault. Up to now it has seemed a cat and mouse relationship, each using the other for personal gain, swapping favours, making bets .In this scene they find a common patriotism - Renault: “ … you’ve become a patriot”. Rick: “… it seemed like a good time to start”. Renault: “I think perhaps you’re right”. Though earlier he had been prepared to betray Rick to Strasser, now he covers up for Rick. We see that relationships can take interesting and unexpected turns – “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”.
Furthermore, this scene deals with a wider context which illustrates the ideals of love and sacrifice in the backwaters of World War IL which is the prominent context – the intrigue, the danger of capture (for Laszlo and Rick in particular), the violence (the killing of Major Strasser), the last minute escape (for Laszlo and Ilsa). There is a suggestion of a new patriotism in Renault that symbolised by the way he throws the Vichy water in the bin and in Rick in one of their final exchanges: Renault: “ … you’ve become a patriot”. Rick: “… it seemed like a good time to start”. Renault: “I think perhaps you’re right”. There’s an awareness of the wider war context, as Renault suggests to Rick that he go to “a Free French garrison at Brazzaville”.
Generally, Casablanca is a superposition of fictions and a mixture of genres. It is a pastiche. A dynamic, heterogeneous, and exuberant text, that builds its own imaginary universe using the base of other texts (films, characters, genres) with different laws and different codes. This is one of its major attractions and a principal reason for enduring… as time goes by.



The significance of some symbolic images in Casablanca:
In a film, meaning can be explicit or implicit .The implicit meaning is usually found in signs, images or codes. My primary purpose in this paper has been to attempt to analyze key images and the techniques used to illustrate those implicit meanings.
In Casablanca, Curtiz relies on a mode of cinematic storytelling that had existed in Hollywood for a number of years. Most of the scenes in Casablanca, for example, unfold accordingly: establishing shot, camera movement, medium shots, close-up shots/reverse shots, point-of-view shots, and reactions. Which the last scene include the most of them in order to make us adopt his point of view.
Firstly, after Renault and Victor leave the momentarily, the camera tracks in dramatically for a medium close-up shot of Rick and Ilsa, the camera is from the side which means neither person’s point of view. Rick begins to play the groundwork for his plan to send Ilsa off with her husband Victor “You’re getting on that plane”.





Then , the same camera set-up a reestablished after a cut-away to Renault in order to emphasize the dramatic conversation as the camera tracks back in from Long shot to Medium close-up shot of the two ,again from the side but at the last minute shifts to Rick’s point of view.

Afterwards, the point of view shifts through series of reverse angle shots, from Rick to Ilsa, then Rick, then Ilsa, then Rick, then Ilsa. Each time point of view shifts their face is featured to emphasize the dialogue as in Rick’s case or to emphasize the understanding as in Ilsa’s case.




Finally the point of view shot that had shown both characters in the frame changes to an interpretive point of view shot Ilsa, the aura of light softening her face and the tears growing her eyes.


We hear the voice-over of Rick’s continuing dialogue, almost as if she is hearing this in her dreams “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.” In this same close-up, Ilsa drops her chin, as if feeling defeated by fate, and this staging position is altered when we see Rick’s fingers lift her chin “Now, now.”

Then, Curtiz cut to Isla’s point of view so that the audiences sympathize with her situation. While Rick state a motif that has run throughout the film “here’s looking at you kid.” .The camera moves to a close up shot to her face in order to show the acceptance and understanding. Then cuts back to her point of view so that we can soak of the face of the man she truly loves.
The emotion is temporarily halted with a quick cut-away to Major Strasser, the Nazi commander in charge of Casablanca, who is racing to the airport.

Then, the camera return to the airport, where a private drama is going on between Rick and Victor begins. In the first section were Rick and Ilsa alone, now it is time for Rick and Victor to have a heart to heart talk.

The first shot show all three in the frame together but the staging positions establish the relationships: Victor and Rick are equal facing each other. Ilsa is turned away from the scene. She’s crying, trying to hold herself together.
After a quick reaction shot of Captain Renault, he reestablished with Rick points of view that shows he’s in charge also to emphasize his explanation. Then, the two shot of Rick and Victor cuts away to show a three shot .Ilsa on the right, still turned away from the main action. Thereafter, a return to the two men alone in the frame, while Victor says, “Welcome back to the fight .this time I know our side will win.”
Afterwards, the camera turns to the engines of the plane starting up. Then a cut back to the principle characters. All turn toward the plane and then we see their point of view by a series of close up shots in order to see their reaction through their eyes


A cut to a wide medium shot of all three and then, the camera tracks in and to the left in order to set up important character. Rick is alone as he stands in front of them. But the camera movement make us indentify with him at this moment .Then Ilsa says “Good bye, Rick,” in a perfect close up shot with softening light on her face. While they are walking away a Long shot emphasizing how they’re disappearing from Rick’s life.

Finally, the last scene resolves the fate of each of the five principle characters in the story: 1) Rick redeems himself by sacrificing his one true love for a greater cause. 2) The Nazi Major, Strasser got shot by Rick and died. 3) Ilsa, the romantic angle sacrifices her love for a greater cause.4) Victor, the idealist patriot fighting for freedom .5) Renault the foil to Rick’s character will become friends and he redeems himself with the forces of “good” .which can be seen as Renault and Rick walk away, side by side, to the right as they engage in some playful banter .then they walk past the camera and keep walking, as the camera raising up to look down on a high angle at the two men walking away from the action, we hear Rick say , “Louis , I think this the beginning of new friendship .” and the two men continuing walking into the distance as the music comes up
 
I'm not quite sure what you are expecting as a response. It's a pretty thorough analysis of the scene. What kind of feedback does she need? Accuracy, in terms of omission or accuracy as in terms of detail? Language is fine, typical of undergraduate study. Use of English is nice (to a Brit). There's a word missing
Part 2
This famous that I have chosen to work on is a scene that


I'm not certain what the research element actually is. The first paragraphs make lots of assumptions that are not qualified with evidence, so the project appears to be that she liked the film, so decided to analyse a scene. With my lecturer hat on, is there actually analysis? Most is merely comment, and some comment is lacking in objectivity.
Casablanca is a film that is heavily driven by its characters.

That's interesting - is it true? It could be argued that many minor characters are actually throw away, moving scenery components?
Apart from being a favourite, what makes this scene the subject of research? Is there something special, critical, groundbreaking - or is it just 'nice'.
I get the impression we're being asked to comment on the plot, the history, the relationships and other features, but NOT at the physical staging, or the characterisations the actors use, or even the directing or cinematography - the comments suggest she loves the story - so these results would apply to the novel, and only maybe the screenplay. All the background information is interesting, but was all of this picked up from the movie? It's a painful memory for me, I saw it once, years ago and hated it - mainly because I really disliked the acting. Maybe just me, but I always felt our leading man was actually playing himself in almost every movie he was in. I saw this movie and have never watched it again, turning the TV over if it comes on. I have to admit that I missed many of the
described features, so does this indicate something went wrong with me, as a viewer?

My concern with this is that it's almost like a fan's critical review, as in it's 100% positive, and negative comment is absent, as if it's a sacrilege to not like any bits.

It's subjective, not objective, and I'm just not convinced there really is any research, all comment being based on what we see (or in my case, didn't!)
Finally - the ending section.
Generally, Casablanca is a superposition of fictions and a mixture of genres. It is a pastiche. A dynamic, heterogeneous, and exuberant text, that builds its own imaginary universe using the base of other texts (films, characters, genres) with different laws and different codes. This is one of its major attractions and a principal reason for enduring… as time goes by.

That's a conclusion based on unproven features (and amazingly wordy - I'm not sure it even makes sense!)
Nowhere can I see the different genres explored. I have no idea what a superposition of fictions means. Is it really a pastiche? Of what? Exuberant text? Boring works for me instead of exuberant! An imaginary universe - eh? She hasn't compared any other characters, genres or films has she? Laws and Codes.

There's a lovely English expression for the last sentence - Arty-Farty Clap-trap. A lot of words, very little accurate comment, fact limited but opinion heavy, and worse still - overuse of rhetoric and hyperbole. Primary and Secondary evidence is thin, subjective comment throughout - but many of these comments 'could' be valid, if she'd explained them, but she just gushes. I expect she loves it so much that she's unable to consider anyone cannot understand the accuracy of the comment, because it's obvious - to her! It's a piece of English Language exploration. I can't accept it as analysis, and there seems to be no conclusion - it's very nice, descriptive, fairly elaborate comment. In a film studies context, there is almost no comment on 'the look'. Do you think telling people why it is not in colour would be useful (not everyone knows) and it was a war time movie - so no mention of the needs of an audience at that time. Wasn't it a bodge up from a stage play? Last comment - no mention of the music, or even the weak scenery and staging?

It's a fan report, in my humble view it's NOT an accurate analysis of the scene in the movie. Needs some tweaking. For high school, not at all bad. For university, a bit less than I'd expect. Paul

 
thank you paulears
by the way her first native and first language are Arabic and french ( morocco )
Paul you mad very good analysis of the analysis :) i couldn't even comment on her paper cause i never watched the whole movie , always saw bits and pieces
and once again i appreciate for taking the time and helping .
now i know who to turn to if i need an English text to be revised ( paulears ) :)
 
It's quite funny that an Arabic/French speaker writes in this quite British way. This bit:
There is growing acceptance of cinema as an area of study

This is an introductory statement I've seen quite often - not cinema. It usually gets a comment along the lines of "does it???" Kind of a blanket phrase that really means not a lot. In a 3rd language - she's done amazingly well (we Brits are useless in general at foreign languages).

I've actually been searching my DVD collection for the movie - because I wanted to see why I didn't pick up on some comments, and to also see if my memory was totally accurate - so she did make me think. Maybe she is just too enthusiastic about the movie? I do know I really hated it myself, and this colours my opinions too. In the analysis she should perhaps look at a feature, describe it, and break it down into it's components. I've often wondered why the "play it again, Sam" line was universally misquoted from the movie. I've also been reminded at some time that the scene had also been thought of in Star Trek, the Next Generation, when Jean Luc Picard in a very Cassablancaish moment says "We'll always have Paris". A bit of theory would be useful to -
linguistic Semiotics - would tidy up the signs, symbols and codes bit. I had a year teaching Communication Studies - I really hated it!
 
I had a year teaching Communication Studies - I really hated it![/COLOR]

The dark side of semiotics... steal the farce...

I really don't know what 'project' criticism is actually engaged in, other than providing certain university academics with a reason for being.

On the other hand, the 'in passing' you allude to of 'why' for the misquote, and its continuance, is an interesting topic, that of the 'spread of ideas', and their longevity in language.

As for 'growing acceptance'... I had thought 'film studies' 'cinema studies', had pretty much gained academic acceptance... and is 'accepted' just about as well as any other similar study area by the 'general public'... which is negligible...
 
well as we all know English is the main language in the world , specially in third world countries where i'm from , we always depend on businesses abroad
now that i started this topic i don't have a choice but to read whats in it , and thank you guys i found it very interesting , I'm glad that she ask me for a feedback about her seminar and how can she makes it better if it need so ( a general feedback ) thanks to you now i have to watch Casablanca and star trek next generation , and while I'm reading your comments i cant help it reading it with a British accent :)
thank you all for your time
 
Whatever you do - do not fall into the trap that British actors on US TV and movies speak proper English. They have to speak what the average American thinks is proper English. My favourite US product is NCIS, and I cringe everytime they cast an English person - especially MI5 or 'posh' people. Oddly, David McCallum manages to retain his British, rather than Scots accent without much mangling. Here in the UK, we're moving to RP - regional pronunciation, where it's now acceptable and promoted to use accents - so we have Irish, Scouse, Geordie, West Country and East Anglian accents on mainstream TV - and I think most people wish we didn't. If you Google some of those, you'll hear what we really hear and not the mangled version Holywood gives you all as accurate! We're just as bad with US accents, I'm certain. Somebody should write a paper on Hugh Laurie - we're all amazed at his American accent - if anyone watches his US TV shows and has not ever listened to Black Adder IV or Jeeves and Wooster, they really should pop onto Youtube and be amazed.

This topic is quiet different for this forum, and interesting!
 
Somebody should write a paper on Hugh Laurie - we're all amazed at his American accent - if anyone watches his US TV shows and has not ever listened to Black Adder IV or Jeeves and Wooster, they really should pop onto Youtube and be amazed.

This topic is quiet different for this forum, and interesting!

I watched "Velvet Goldmine"(1998) the other day, and there Ewan McGregor was cast as an 'american rock star'...

Then there's Benny Hill who would affect a 'texan' accent... but totally botch "Houston"( Hews-ton, not House-ton...)...
 
i'm so glad that my friend had me started this topic , i never had the chance to learn how to analyze or critique a film "objectively" , i see my self i have to do a lot of reading .
all my time has been spent on researching how to make a film or directed , camera , but i never went to the paper part
well im grateful for your time
and if you have any interesting paper to be read please let me know
 
Back
Top