I am constantly disappointed and angered when some 27 year old who doesn't know Bogart from Gable says to me, "I watched Casablanca. It was so boring."
How can this be? It is there lack of a proper education. (many do not know who fought in WWII) or their lack of attention spans or is it the inability to appreciate the subtleties of the acting and characters?
No, they are watching it without all the hype and the hype just doesn't live up to it. That's all there is to it. The movie has a strong connection to its time and that's what made it popular. Those times don't exist any longer. The vary idea of an American leaving the US to go live there to be subjected to Nazis is really a flawed concept today, but for its time it was considered to be romantic. And it was the casting which now look like caricatures. It would be like you being upset with kids today not loving re-runs of Captain Kangaroo. It was special for its time only.
shareI must disagree with great vehemence.
This explanation, although containing some logic to it, really doesn't fly. You are saying that the film is, essentially, dated. Hmmmm. . . how many films from this era are "dated," yet work very well still. This is what makes them "classics."
You use the phrase, "A strong connection to it's time." For me, this is a positive thing, something that makes it enduring, as it does in all the arts. Bach, Brahms, Michaelangelo, Picasso, all are emblematic of their times and helps define and appreciate them. I am a child of the sixties, yet, I recall sitting in the Regency Theater here in NYC with a sold--out house of people mainly my age, (20 - 40) who hung on every word, cheered, shouted and cried, during a showing of Casablanca. None of us lived through that era.
Good Lord, I recall seeing "It's a Wonderful Life," at the Theater 80, St. Mark's Place back in the early 1980's with a very young audience, who was genuiney enthralled, as was I. If ANY film may be seen as dated it would be that. But no, everyone got caught up, emotionally, in George Bailey's life, and predicament, and at the end of the film, the cheering was profound. I can name a litany of pre-1960 films that had a similar effect on post 1970 audiences that I have seen with my own eyes. No, you're explanation doesn't hold.
And, your criticism of the film based on the "idea of an American leaving the US to go live there. . ." being a flawed concept is absurd. It is one of the complexities of his character -- what makes him interesting and compelling. If characters only behaved according to what YOU thought was rational for them, we'd end up with the most boring theater of all-time (Hmmmm.. . I think I'm on to something).
Comparing this film in any way to the experience of watching "Captain Kangaroo" is also quite ridiculous. Besides, I've watched little children watching old CK shows and they loved it. They are not as jaded as they will, apparently, become later in life.
I look forward to your response! And a response from anyone else!
The idea of Rick leaving the U.S. and living in parts of the world involved in war, is one of the many interesting things about Rick. I'm sure it was less common then, when travel was more difficult, than it would be now.
shareQuite so. And he has a history of being involved in foreign wars.
shareIt's the weakest part of the movie and his motive for even being there. Was he hiding from crime or the mob in the US, so what, this is before computers he could have returned to another part of the US and changed his name. It wasn't like someone couldn't find him living there under his name, being so visible. In the 1940s this was considered daring but in 2016, it just looks like he's a fool who prefers to serve drinks to nazis because he doesn't know how to manage his life.
When people say a film is boring, it is because they aren't vested into the characters. There is little reason for today's audiences or people who can look at this film for what it is without being nostalgic or believing the hype of their college film professors and critics who grew up in a different era, to find this to be the best movie of all time as fanboys claim.
The fallacy and utter silliness of your argument may be exposed by simply recognizing "millennials" inability to appreciate that which came before extends beyond classic films.
They are largely (and exceptions noted) indifferent or express extreme dislike and boredom toward the music of previous eras as well. Imagine thinking the songs of Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern etc, etc, are inferior to those of Madonna and Britney Spears. They do. That Bono is a better singer than Sinatra. And on and on.
Theater we can eliminate altogether as you cannot find more and a handful of millennials in any one population that has ever BEEN to the theater, let alone can distinguish between O'Neill and Pinter, or Moliere and Shakespeare. Are these even taught in schools any longer?
True of all the popular arts. They just don't "get it."
Curious to ask, however, why some actually do. There are some. Why? They've been exposed to those same "superior" scripts, films, etc. as their contemporaries.
You see how ridiculous your argument is upon scrutiny.
No, the answer lay elsewhere.
I don't think you want an intelligent discussion. You simply want to hear yourself talk and argue with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Very intelligent points were made that you are ignoring. The time period for this film, people were RUNNING AWAY to ESCAPE to come to the US, yet Rick hangs out there for some flimsy flakey reason just to support a weak story plot. He's an American and could have decided not to come there to the whole mess or leave at any time. He comes across like the idiots we hear about in the news who decide to stay and ignore the turmoil in another country and end up being killed, thrown in jail or kidnapped or missing. The fanboys of this movie are so locked into it if they are forced to considered those things we wouldn't have a movie. Yes, we would have a movie, but it would be a different movie, and a better one. Not one with a weak plot. Millennials have viewed much better material since this movie has been made and this is just part of the reason why it doesn't appeal to them. They find it boring, because they aren't vested into these cartoon characters and don't care what happens to them, because they know history that you leave a place being controlled by the nazis not sit at tables with them and have restricted conversations. The movie was hot for its time largely because of the crowd scene of them singing in defiance.
shareI'll tell you what I DON'T want:
I don't want the condescending empty verbiage of some random idiot who thinks he's smarter than he actually is and is so attached to his mommy that any show of disagreement causes him to lash out in anger in a clueless rant. That's what I DON'T want. Hence, I ignore your pointless. rather child-like post.
"Millenials have viewed much better material." ~ Yeah, like "Friends," and, "That 70's Show!" My God--- This may be the absolute dumbest thing I've ever read! Yes, you win the prize!!! Congratulations! Wow.
Rick was originally in Paris. Many Americans lived in Paris during the 20-30's to escape the constraints of prohibition. Rick did escape Paris and fled to Casablanca where he decided to capitalize on the unstable environment he was in by opening a nightclub. It's not that hard a concept to understand.
"The end of the shoelace is called the...IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
So, so, SO wrong. The movie still stand up today as a powerful masterpiece and this is a common opinion.
shareby aciolino » 6 days ago (Wed Sep 28 2016 20:07:19)
IMDb member since May 2003
I am constantly disappointed and angered when some 27 year old who doesn't know Bogart from Gable says to me, "I watched Casablanca. It was so boring."
How can this be? It is there lack of a proper education. (many do not know who fought in WWII) or their lack of attention spans or is it the inability to appreciate the subtleties of the acting and characters?
I don't feel that this discussion bears on the right elements that make of Casablanca what it is: an outstanding piece of acting with timeless (the word is key here) characters caught in a couple of classic dilemmas. The important aspects which make of Casablanca what it represents for thousands, tens of thousands of fans all around the world, are not those that may seem absurd or poorly designed for clever minds and hot heads of the 21st century. Those truly basic elements that make it so unique tor so many can only be perceived by open minds eith an open heart because this is a movie for people with a deeper appreciation of the essential values of life, which are timeless. One, not even a millenial, does not have to dismiss the term "classical" as something oldish, outdated, irrelevant to contemporary preoccupations and interests. A "classic" is something that manages to resonate within ourselves because it hits chords that don't change over generations. Yes, I rank "Casablanca" among true classics and along with works that mean something important and essential for any living human being with a soul.
Of course, I'm not shocked by the apparent snobbery of some defensers of those millenials who supposedly reject a movie such as Casablanca as "caricatures" or two-dimensional figures in b&w speaking loud and fast and with a linguo that is in many ways foreign to the English spoken or texted in 2016. I think that people who approve or seem to understand and agree with a dismissal of Casablanca as definitely "out" nowadays have simply not let themselves be absorbed by that wonderful piece of cinema.
It may not deserve all the hype that has been made to put this movie on a pedestal. I do agree that it is not a masterpiece and that there are other true classics out there that even surpass Casablanca. The success and apparent immortality of Casablanca after all these years was in fact not anticipated at all at the time of its release. The success of the movie owes, truly enough, to the timing of its release, and after Pearl Harbour, all the elements were in place to insure its popular success and wide exposure, to a far higher extent than what such a movie would otherwise have enjoyed under "normal" circumstances. After all, it was just another production, one among many, by the studio system of the 40s which used to churn out adventure movies at a crazy cadenza back in those days...
I am 61 and was born in Canada and have never known war personally. Nevertheless, I am old enough to have known and to remember the tensions at the highest point of the Cuban missile crisis, and like most people of my generation, my time has been close enough to the end of WW2 to trigger an interest in its history, and in history in general.
A people without a history is a people without a soul. To ignore the causes of the major world conflicts is very epicurian but also very foolish because no nation is immune to the madness of war. Although we have been lucky so far, situations such as those depicted in Casablanca could be reproduced in a different context, of course, but with the same basic struggle adainst despair as pne's immediate concern. Casablanca has a special resonance because although it presents situations that have been simplified or even oversimplified, we witness emotions that appeal to anybody, thanks to its incredibly rich and competent casting and distribution. Such a combination of several actors at the very peak of their abilities and talent is rarely seen in any movie, and when the plot and the script are that good, lots of details lose their relative importance because perspectives are changed by the outstanding qualities which eclipse everything else. I thus strongly disregard the criticisms seen in this thread about the general artistic value we're talking about here.
Despite the usual negative comments and spiteful remarks on how superior modern movies are to dinosaurs of the past from times long gone and forgotten, comments such as those from Steven Smith who answered the OP are fortunately those that emanate from a pretentious and vocal minority. Lots of millenials whose comments one can read here on IMdB and elsewhere show that large numbers of youths - and I personally know quite a few in my own family - have a more consistent education and deeper knowledge and a better perspective on things, i.e. who we are, and what we are creating vs. what meaningful works have already been created.
Millenials who maintain that people who attach importance to old flicks like Casablanca haven't "moved on" - that dreadful and typically contemporary expression that's constantly uttered to try putting an end to a debate when someone has no valid argument for his/her point - are bound to only one logical outcome: reinventing the wheel and congratulate one another for their marvelous modern genius for doing so, like the marvelous bunch of fools that they prove themselves to be.
Yes, if there's one thing that keeps resounding loud and clear when we are confronted with such attitudes, it's that history repeats itself. For better or for worse. And nobody's immune to ignoring from time to time that bold and simple truth. The important thing is to remain humble enough in all situations to admit it. It's amazing how much truth candor can lead to.....
- But you can't have her again as costume designer, Mr. Hitchcock!
- Really, Peggy? Give me Head!
Those truly basic elements that make it so unique tor so many can only be perceived by open minds eith an open heart because this is a movie for people with a deeper appreciation of the essential values of life, which are timeless.
I'm not shocked by the apparent snobbery of some defensers of those millenials who supposedly reject a movie such as Casablanca as "caricatures" or two-dimensional figures in b&w speaking loud and fast and with a linguo that is in many ways foreign to the English spoken or texted in 2016.
A people without a history is a people without a soul.
Despite the usual negative comments and spiteful remarks on how superior modern movies are to dinosaurs of the past from times long gone and forgotten, comments such as those from Steven Smith who answered the OP are fortunately those that emanate from a pretentious and vocal minority.
It's a showcase for women about how men can be emotionally attached to them
"I do agree that it is not a masterpiece"
Hmmmm... What?
Either you have your passport and tickets and are ready to go, or you're in whatever country hiding out illegally waiting to be arrested.
There's no two ways about it.
I'm no millennial but I have no desire to watch this movie
Don't give up the fight for truly independent cinema!
There's too much "DRAMA" for them.
To be honest, this generation is so disconnected from human emotion, it's scary. They can't read expressions or body language. So, anytime you hear a millennial say some derogatory thing about a performance by an actor, ignore them because they don't know enough about human expression to know what the hell they're talking about.
Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.
Mr. Spock was the original millennial.
shareI suppose I'm a rare case then because I'm a millennial (well, a 90's kid but I grew up mostly in the early 2000's) but I think this film is a great classic. I consider it a great piece of writing and directing, not to mention the stellar cast and performances. It's not my favorite Bogart film (that honor goes to The Maltese Falcon) but it's certainly made an impression on the whole world and you can really feel that as you watch it. That ending scene gives me a lump in my throat. It's so emotional.
To give you guys a bit of optimism and hope for the new generation, I'll tell you an anecdote.
I'm in film school and am currently in a class full of millennial's and when they found out that one of our assignments was to recreate a scene from this film, most of them were pretty excited. And the actors who were playing Rick and Ilsa were really into it. They were so passionate and did a phenomenal job. Mind you, these students average age is about 18. So for people this young to be so enthused about a film from 1942 to me was very inspiring and uplifting. It kind of goes to show how well those films have aged over time. When I saw kids from the millennial generation refer to Bogart as "Bogie" and clearly show respect for him even after all of these years, it really gave me hope for my generation.
So relax, guys. We aren't all as arrogant as we appear to be.
Millennial here. Adore the film. What you're doing is generalising. How would you feel if a milennial said that the baby boomer generation exclusively caused global warming.
shareGlad to see some millenials respond for their love of this film. I'm not of that generation,but I also love this movie. Whenever I see that it's on,you can bet I'll be watching.
shareI grew up in the 70s and 80s. To be fair to the millenials, who are how old, maybe 20, I didn't really start getting into 'old movies' until I was in my early 20s and really into them in my 30s. Give them a chance.
"Loves turned to lust and bloods turned to dust in my heart"
The implication being that someone who is 25 today and says "this film sucks" is going to, at 45, say, "Wow! What a great film!"
Not a chance.
These idiots have had their aesthetic abilities so abrogated, their tastes so poisoned, they can never recover. They are doomed.
Exceptions noted.
[deleted]