Last Friday, we inaugurated posting a weekly Great Scene with the final sequence from Casablanca here. Now some thoughts I have about this famous finale:First, it's a great example of having a plot with a strong "end point." As soon as the romantic triangle is established -- when Ilsa and Victor Laszlo show up at Rick's cafe -- it is inevitable this core question / conflict will have to be resolved: who gets the girl? So all throughout Act II and into Act III, no matter what is happening in any given scene, that dramatic tension is present, either close to the surface of the dialogue and action or suppressed due to events, but always present. That's one of the values of a story having a strong end point.
Next, my theory is that in most every movie, there are five principle character archetypes at work: Protagonist, Nemesis, Attractor (Romance), Mentor (Wisdom), and Trickster. And so I'm struck by how 'neat' Casablanca's ending sequence is because each of the five characters is present at the finale:
P -- Rick
N -- Major Strasser
A -- Ilsa
M -- Victor
T -- Renault
I say 'neat' because the ending allows each character's story arc to resolve:
P -- Rick overcomes his cynicism by letting go of Ilsa and thereby re-enters 'life'
N -- He ends up dead, his plot to keep Victor in Casablanca fails
A -- Ilsa ends up with the 'right' guy
M -- Victor escapes to continue to lead the resistance movement
T -- In true Trickster fashion, Renault ends up not only watching Rick's back -- "Round up the usual suspects" -- but also heading off with Rick to join the resistance, too
The next thing I noticed this reading about the scene are all the plot twists in it:
* Rick orders Renault to give Ilsa and Victor the letters of transit
* Rick explains to Ilsa why he changed his mind
* Rick tells the truth to Laszlo about what happened with he and Ilsa the night before
* Rick shoots Major Strasser
* Renault doesn't turn in Rick for the shooting of Majro Strasser
* Renault joins Rick in leaving Casablanca
It's a long sequence and all those twists provide nice pivot points for the viewer to keep them on their toes.
Finally, I've used the term "scene sequence" and what I mean by that is a sequence of scenes that has its own Beginning, Middle, and End arc. This finale sequence in Casablancais a great example:
Beginning: Arrival at the airport with the big plot point -- Rick insisting to Renault that Ilsa and Victor use the letters of transit.
Middle: Rick dealing with the couple -- convincing Ilsa she has to go with Victor and his 'confession' to Victor.
Ending: Rick's confrontation with Strasser and the plane takes off.
There's even a nice denouement: Rick and Renault concocting a plan to head off together to the French Free garrison.
That's the sequence arc. And you can break it down even further as each of the component parts has their own beginning, middle and ending structure.
Now a few bits of trivia about Casablanca
* Did you know that there was no such thing as "letters of transit?" Completely made up by the screenwriters, the Epstein brothers. But you totally buy it, don't you, because the letters are introduced into the plot in a convincing and plausible way. It's a perfect example of the old adage: a writer doesn't have to write what's true, only what appears to be true. That's verisimilitude
* During production, nobody knew how the movie was going to end, who would end up with whom in the romantic triangle. So the Epsteins were out driving one day, mulling it over and, as legend has it, as they approached the intersection of Sunset Blvd and Beverly Glen, they both blurted out, "Round up the usual suspects." And they knew they had the ending.
* Casablanca was voted the #1 script by members of the WGA. You can see that list here.
I invite you to post any other trivia about the movie and any points of analysis you have about this scene sequence.

3 comments:
i remember reading about how much of a mess the production of casablanca was (though i didn't know about the letters of transit being made up - that's a fun fact). it reminded me of the mess the production of 'the bourne ultimatum' was.
it's always amusing to me when excellent examples of film come out of methods that are diametrically opposed to what we're taught as filmmakers.
so much emphasis is made on knowing the story, having a strong script solid before you start shooting, the importance of the script, etc.
and yet here are at least two examples of productions that were well underway before the script was finished. so much so the scripts were being written on the fly. and yet they're incredible films.
granted, you wouldn't plan on making a film this way - but it does make one wonder about the role of chaos and serendipity in the creative process.
Like the '69 Mets, miracles can happen in the realm of movies, too; and Casablanca is one of them. But then, even armed with a solid script and good cast, I suppose it's arguable that any great movie is a miracle in its own way, a magical collaboration of "chaos and serendipity." Here's a great Robert Towne quote:
"Directing a script you wrote is somewhere between shooting yourself in the foot, shooting yourself in the head, and shooting yourself in the nuts."
"When I direct it's 'Stop that man before he kills again.' And I don't care who it is--most directors are not very good. The only thing we have going for us is that the process is a very forgiving one. You get to shoot a lot of fucking film. You get to shoot anywhere from 200,000 up to a million feet of film and boil it down to 12,000 feet. Well, any jackass can sniff out his mistakes, you know?"
"And then you realize that if you can just keep going in the direction you set out to go, and you're lashed to the mast and hearing the Sirens but not jumping overboard, if you do shoot the script and the script is any good, chances are that in some dumb fucking way the movie will be a reflection of it."
lol! that's an awesome quote. what a wonderfully brutally honest look at the "art" of filmmaking.
Post a Comment