This is one of the great movies of all time, but I think many have been annoyed by the letters of transit. I let them out of my mind to enjoy the movie. However, why say they were signed by Charles DeGualle. He was a traitorin Vichy France. Why not Marshall Petain. They knew who he was, the guy died right in front of the picture in the first scene of the movie. Why not transfer the names. What could would any document signed by Degaulle mean in Vichy France.
shareYour approach of putting them out of your mind is best. Why worry about who signed these wholly counterfactual creations? Why does one more implausibility matter? They're a plot device. Would they be a more credible plot device with Petain's signature? How about a top German countersignature. Maybe the screenplay should specify that they were originally brought down from the mountain by Moses, or given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni. It doesn't matter - they "can't be rescinded, not even questioned." And they work in the movie so that Victor and Ilsa can get on that plane to Lisbon. Without them, they would need those troublesome exit visas. And that would require Captain Renault to come off the fence earlier in the movie. Instead we can remain in suspense about what he will do until the final minute of the film. "Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects."
How about this? Just assume that a General DeGaulle was placed in charge of the Letter of Transit office of Vichy France. So because the letters were issued in the official course of business and signed by the man in charge of the office, they are officially valid documents. (Different DeGaulle entirely from the leader of the Free French.)
I like that, there had to be more than one Degaulle.
shareI'd also note that the "cannot be questioned" nature of these documents is inaccurate within the movie. It's not like they confer much in the way of invulnerability on the bearer. Both Major Strasser and Captain Renault are quite willing to arrest the possessor of the letters. So the letters themselves may not be questionable, but the authorities certainly feel free to question how you came to have them, which reduces their value considerably IMHO. I'd guess they'd also feel free to question whether the letters are genuine or forgeries.
They do apparently work on airline personnel, however.
And they work quite well as a plot device, so long as you don't think about them too much.
It is indeed a slip in the narrative and documentation signed by De Gaulle would have had no authority or legitimacy in Vichy territories outside France. Sometimes there is a fine line between suspending your disbelief to enjoy a film/play whatever and an absolute showstopper where you cannot continue to do so. Interestingly, Casablanca is full of glitches and hitches but I continue to love it. Consider the end sequence - when has anyone been in a desert city that suffers from thick fog? But where would the ending be without it?
shareCasablanca lies on the coast of Morocco on the Atlantic Ocean. Fog may be very rare there, but not unheard of.
shareThis question has come up here on the board in the past, and indeed has been the subject of some controversy for decades.
What Ugarte says is "Signed by General Weygand himself" (with Peter Lorre's pronunciation, it comes out more like "Vay-gahn").
You were close with Petain: Maxime Weygand was appointed Delegate-General to the North African colonies by Petain in late 1940.
Screenwriter Julius Epstein, when questioned back in the '70s upon the apparent inconsistency, stated that what was written in the script - and spoken by Lorre - was "Weygand." It's perhaps significant to note that only the French subtitles on DVD releases reflect this. I call attention also to this PDF (linked below) of the Epstein/Epstein/Koch script, dated 6/1/42, and the dialogue on page 19.
http://mckeestory.com/wp-content/uploads/Digital-CASABLANCA.pdf
Poe! You are...avenged!
Thanks for sharing this. I haven't frequented this board often enough to have gotten this trivia, and it definitely clears up the confusion.
shareLorre's pronunciation is imprecise and because it's difficult to properly hear the name I think the brain fills in the blank and provides DeGaulle because it's a name that is known and fits the gaps.
shareI don't know where people ever got the idea that deGaulle should have signed those exit visas. Maybe back in the old days with lousy sound quality in movie theatres. But today with digitally remastered sound?
I don't get it.
UNLESS you all hold hold this film critic - on the commentary track - as a God whose verdicts 'can't be recinded, not even questioned'.
Because there was never any doubt to my hearing that Ugarte says Weygand - and even an amateur would see his lips not saying de Gaulle. Look at yourself in a mirror if in doubt (and if you dare!😉).
The only excuse could be the subtitles: My DVD has subtitles in a dozen different languages, and only four have Weygand as the signatory. Those are Danish, Swedish (but strangely enough not Norwegian!), Greek and - of course - French.
Also, to 1942 ears these names would all have been a little better known.
shareby jonathanrspalding » Wed May 4 2016 07:35:22
IMDb member since February 2010
This is one of the great movies of all time, but I think many have been annoyed by the letters of transit. I let them out of my mind to enjoy the movie. However, why say they were signed by Charles DeGualle. He was a traitorin Vichy France. Why not Marshall Petain. They knew who he was, the guy died right in front of the picture in the first scene of the movie. Why not transfer the names. What could would any document signed by Degaulle mean in Vichy France.
Because the production team were lazy and didn't do their research.No, that's not the case, because Ugarte (Lorre) doesn't say "DeGaulle," he says "Weygand," as detailed in my post of 7/27/16 above.