Cassablanca, greatest script ever...

[mysterygal]

even though she did do the right thing...the ending still bugged me

 

[jake_fink]

Looking over the entire list, I have to wonder where they are coming from. I mean, they put Groundhog Day at #27, two behind the Wizard of Oz, and about 20 ahead of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Snap:
http://www.thefedoralounge.net/showthread.php?t=7950

Who decides these things?...KC

The Writers Guild of America

 

[Zemke Fan]

Of course, this is all subjective...

... but you've got to remember that this was NOT about the 101 best movies but the 101 best screenplays. When this list came out late last week I immediately looked at the top choices and picked one that I hadn't either read or watched: All About Eve (Written by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950)

Many people consider this (I find out through some sluething) the best screenplay ever written. AND I can see why: (1) it's a fast and interesting read (Mankiewicz is a whiz at hiding stage directions in the midst of dialogue for one thing); (2) the story is well developed and compelling; (3) the character arcs and subplots are good and satisfying (except for "Birdie"); and (4) what makes the story jump off the page is the snap and sizzle of the dialogue.

It's a terrific screenplay... just as Casablanca is a terrific screenplay... just as Chinatown is a terrific screenplay. Ask me to pick a favorite of these three and I couldn't do it.

Ask me to pick a favorite film from these three and I'd pick Casablanca (with Chinatown as a VERY close second). Is All About Eve in the same league? Maybe/maybe not. It's a terrific story and the three female leads: Bette Davis, Celeste Holm, and Anne Baxter all give performances that will blow you away. But in the same league? I don't know... AND... the AFI voters place it at #16 on their "100 Years 100 Movies" List.

BTW, there are a HECKUVA lot of movies on the AFI list for which the screenplays are NOT available online. I'd put the total at 50% or less, which as I said in the other thread makes it difficult for WGA members (and FL members) to get their hands on the scripts for reading/review.

ZF

PS: My favorite online source for scripts: Drew's Script-O-Rama

 

[jake_fink]

The WGA list didn't bother me as much as some of the AFI lists have. Their list of comedies had no Preston Sturges! None, nada, scratch, zippo!!! That's just wrong. As well, you'd think - at least I thought, and though I've never really been much of a literalist I may be being too literal - that the 100 Years 100 Movies list would pick a best film from every one of the years in question. But then how can you pick a best of 1896 or even 1898? "Train Entering Station" is just going to confuse people, isn't it.

So I answered my own daft question.

But what the heck is The Graduate doing in the top ten?

Actually, there is a strange sense of deja vu in reading both lists.

I'm babbling.

Any-hoo: Casablanca. A fine script, damn fine. Where else should it be on the list? What should be ranked higher? And would this film have crept into our cultural memory so thoroughly if Ilsa had not left Rick?

 

[Zemke Fan]

Sturges...

... should have been on the list for The Lady Eve or The Miracle of Morgan's Creek...

 

[Zemke Fan]

Alternate endings for Casablanca...

... in today's world we'd be able to see the three alternate endings on the DVD and could be assured that the one selected was the one that did best with test audiences...

Casablanca could only end the way it does. It would be a lesser film with any other ending.

 

[CWetherby]

I agree that movies and scripts are very subjective. A good script needs good actors or at least good acting, but then again, if it's got a director everyone likes....or if it gets enough publicity....

It's hard for me to compare contemporary films to those from the 30's and 40's, and when I do it's usually along the lines of, "That could have been made in the 40's, it was so well done." I guess I'm a movie snob!

I really like "Casablanca". I watched it several times over the years, and only when I began a serious study of history did I understand the complexities of the plot (loyalty, politics, patriotism). Great actors whom I enjoy watching, a time-period I enjoy, snappy well-delivered lines---what's not to like?

Now "Citizen Kane" on the other hand....in my opinion THE most overrated film of all time, and I don't care what my film professor in college thought! I think Orson Wells never learned to be subtle about anything, much to his detriment. Sheesh!

And yes, Preston Sturges was a (slightly disturbed) genius! Recently re-watched "Sullivans Travels"--so great! And "The Lady Eve" and "The Palm Beach Story" are so funny.

In conclusion, I bet they come up with those 100 greatest lists just to get people talking and hopefully buying the movies they list! Suckers!

 

[jake_fink]

... should have been on the list for The Lady Eve or The Miracle of Morgan's Creek...

...or Sullivan's Travels or The Great McGuinty or Palm Beach Story (especially Palm Beach Story) or Hail the Conquering Hero. All pitch perfect comedies with fantastically great supporting casts (or, if you prefer, A great supporting cast)

Casablanca could only end the way it does. It would be a lesser film with any other ending.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this that comes out of semiotic theory (if anything perfectly reasonable can come of semiotic theory). Narrative is made up of circuits that open and close, openings create questions (the phone rings - who can it be?) while closings provide closure, usually at the end of a narrative sequence (a scene, for example) and usually to allow a transition to another narrative sequence. Openings, or questions, throw us back into the narrative, while closings tend not to (which is why we will stop reading for the evening when we reach the end of a chapter - a closing). Happy endings are classic closings, providing closure - exactly what you wanted and expected all along. Sad, twist or otherwise ambiguous endings provide openings, create questions instead of providing closure, which means we leave the narative thinking about the question, actively reflecting on it rather than passively moving on to the next narrative. Ilsa jilting Rick does not provide the expected closure, it provides an opening, it asks the question, is this the right thing? and leaves us thinking about it after - even long after - we've watched the film.

So you're absolutely right. Without the ending we all know, we wouldn't love the film as we all do (though some seem to love it more grudgingly than others).

... in today's world we'd be able to see the three alternate endings on the DVD and could be assured that the one selected was the one that did best with test audiences...

Which would be Rick and Ilsa 2gether 4ever. Blah.

Film endings are now just a terrible game of second guessing. Minority Report was typical in that it had three, count 'em, three different endings. First, there was the nihilistic ending, then the dark ending with a ray of hope, and then the happy ending, providing closure. Our culture is getting to be like our food. There are so many films in the marketplace that it's all about opening weekends and immediate pleasure, whereas films of another era - the 70s, which has been discussed here before, for example - were released to much less competition and for much longer runs. The films and the structure that put them out encouraged (though not always on purpose) reflection. Now, movies are in and out of theatres in a blink. They've become as quick and empty as fast food, and everyone knows that the "fast" in fast food has nothing to do with service, but with how fast they can make you buy more.

 

[Quigley Brown]

I guess I've just seen too many films with more realistic and emotional screenplays so to go back and rewatch Casablanca the dialog really seems corny.

 

[Pilgrim]

That's a good point, Quigley - one of my friends once posited that the critical element in enjoying a film was "suspension of disbelief".

If you find that the film helps you suspend your disbelief - and you believe the characters and the situation - then you will enjoy it. If not, then you will either enjoy it less or spend your time hooting and throwing popcorn at the screen.

I suspect the latter case is where the premise for Mystery Science Theater 3000 comes from.

When I watch a noir film, I think the B&W film image helps me suspend disbelief and attribute the dialog and circumstances to that bygone age.

 

[jake_fink]

I guess I've just seen too many films with more realistic and emotional screenplays so to go back and rewatch Casablanca the dialog really seems corny.

Styles come and styles go. The style of film-writing and melodrama in the thirties and into the forties was highly mannered, a series of bon mots and aphorisms tied to a story that was largely romantic. Within this style Casablanca succeeds better than most, if not all.

Generally I agree with you, though. The naturalism of the 70s is still my favourite style of film-writing and I'd place the scripts for The Godfather I & II, Chinatown, The Conversation, The Last Detail, Five Easy Pieces, The Last Picture Show, Paper Moon, Harold & Maude, Withnail & I, even Get Carter... and a few others above Casablance in my personal list. I think almost any episode of The Sopranos or The Shield, or even Deadwood is an example of writing that is, to my aesthetic, superior to the writing in Casablanca, just as I think James Gandolfini is a much better actor than Humphrey Bogart ever was, much more subtle and much more natural. But it's a different era and a different style and some of that difference is a reaction to the earlier, cornier styles.

But Casablanca is still an enormously entertaining film, and much of that entertainment comes out of a very well-crafted screenplay.

 

[Twitch]

The script WAS a romantic grabber with lines like "we'll always have Paris," and such.[huh]