I cry at this scene, every time. I start to cry thinking about it.
From the wiki, which contextualizes what I was told by my parents (who were young adults in London during the war)
Much of the emotional impact of the film has been attributed to the large proportion of European exiles and refugees who were extras or played minor roles (in addition to leading actors Paul Henreid, Conrad Veidt and Peter Lorre): such as Louis V. Arco, Trude Berliner, Ilka Grünig, Lotte Palfi, Richard Ryen, Ludwig Stössel, Hans Twardowski, and Wolfgang Zilzer. A witness to the filming of the "duel of the anthems" sequence said he saw many of the actors crying and "realized that they were all real refugees".[25] Harmetz argues that they "brought to a dozen small roles in Casablanca an understanding and a desperation that could never have come from Central Casting".[26] They were frequently cast as Nazis in war films, even though many were Jewish.
Oh my gosh, I cried again, just watching the clip. The battered pride and defiance are so palpable. I think everyone knows that feeling of when you're getting shat upon for no real reason, and all you want is a little dignity.
It is a truly powerful scene, and I consider it one of the greatest in the history of cinema (as you might have guessed from my username). Thank you for sharing this.
Same here. Not sure when I first watched the movie - sometime in middle school - and I can picture and feel the whole thing. Maybe something I've still been chasing in creating emotion in my own works.
In the scene which sets up the Marseillaise scene, Yvonne comes into the bar with the German officer and he orders the only drink mentioned by name in a movie with a whole lot of drinking, the French 75, named after the French WWI 75mm field gun.
I'm not sure the reason but this is the third time that I have seen the French 75 (something I had never previously heard of) come up in either conversation or as a bar special within literally the past two days. One of those times I can write off as awareness but still...
I remember reading that the Germans were supposed to sing the Horst Wessel Lied, Nazi Germany’s unofficial anthem, but in that case, the studio would have had to pay royalties to the Nazis. So instead they chose Die Wacht am Rhein, which is apparently royalty free...
I've found that a lot of "this is the best X ever" is often just hype, but when I watched Casablanca for the first time I was super happy to find out that wasn't the case for this movie.
All these years later it's still powerful, relatable, and timeless.
Great break down of this scene. It's made me want to watch it again.
What I find fantastic about Casablanca is that while watching it, you sometimes find yourself thinking, "OMG, what a cliche!" (flashbacks, closeups, famous one liners, etc.) only to realize that it's all the movies that came after Casablanca were what made the cliches, this is the original.
I think the author of this article is right that La Marseillaise is the most important scene in the film, but for some reason the line "I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue" affects me the most.
I'd never read this before -- thank you! Especially liked this bit:
>But precisely because all the archetypes are here, precisely because Casablanca cites countless other films, and each actor repeats a part played on other occasions, the resonance of intertextuality plays upon the spectator. Casablanca brings with it, like a trail of perfume, other situations that the viewer brings to bear on it quite readily, taking them without realizing it from films that only appeared later
Agreed. It's interesting to me how some cultural products are completely dated and "of their time" when you experience them decades later, whereas others remain timeless. I'm reasonably sure that Casablanca will still be receiving praising like this in the 2210s. Part of what makes it so compelling for me is exactly what the author identifies toward the end -- a lot of the actors in this movie really are WW2 refugees, and you can see it in their performances. It's impossible for me not to cry when I watch the scene in question.
I don't see why movies should be any less "classic" than books. A Tale of Two Cities was published in 1859 and is still a classic - why not Casablanca many years after its creation?
Because books are a more or less mature art (we've been writing for millennia).
Movies, on the other hand, can date because of technological changes (silent vs spoken vs color etc), ways of acting (we don't expect modern actors to act in the theatrical way of those in early cinema), different editing techniques (a 70s series like Kojak looks unbearably slow compared to a modern police series), and even what they were allowed to say (movies being more heavily censored than books can look way more quaint the older you go).
An overuse of special effects and fast editing since the 80s has also done much to alter the tolerance of modern audiences for subtler movies.
Well yes it's still hype. Obviously subjective in many ways. "Greatest" is nothing more than routine clickbait. Casablanca can be a great achievement without needing to call it the greatest, which is an attempt at both ending and starting an argument. Clickbait.
It's a shame that article writers can't use a sensible title such as "re-visting Casablanca's greatest scene." or similar. When the subject matter strikes a chord, that's no reason to elevate a scene's achievement relative to other cinematic scenes in other movies unrelated to war.
Absolutely. All lists such as "Top", "Best", "Greatest" etc are usually bogus. Even assuming that you had a quantitative criteria, you would need to apply that criteria to all movies ever released and has to watch every scene that was in each of those movies. It's a sorting operation across vast number of movies. Even than I would think that any such criteria can not be universal across the cultures, demographics, individual preferences and long enough time spans. A lot of people try to get away with this by measuring aggregate of social signal but one needs to understand that we have heard mentality. Once someone makes "Best" list, more people checks out the items in it and inflate their importance. Crowd sourcing the "sort" operation hasn't worked yet.
The list of good movies is incredibly long, but IMO most are just that good movies are not really in the running for best movie. Take Life Is Beautiful it turned a 20m budget and 10x that at the box office in large part because it's a good movie, but not really 'the best'. Rocky horror picture show is a very different move though again popular, but not really in the running for 'the best movie of all time'.
So, while I don't think you can get a definitive list, you could get 7/10 on most peoples top ten lists out of perhaps a few hundred movies though I suspect significantly less than that.
My only and excellent experience of the Castro theatre is watching Hitchcock's Vertigo there, just days after my brother-in-law had given me the tour of city, of which I was a visitor. Suddenly you realize how central to the movie the city is. There's what's now a good joke about the Mission, too.
My grandfather was a real Czechoslovak resistance leader, like the fictional Victor, which adds extra poignancy to "Casablanca" for me.
Unfortunately the reality was such that the Germans were unlikely to release such people. My grandfather was tortured and executed as "an enemy of the Reich".
Yes, but how ironic that the sinister Nazi officer was played by a German actor who opposed the Nazis and fled his country for fear of persecution of himself and his Jewish wife (Conrad Veidt, also the inspiration for the Joker character in the Batman franchise).
I cry every time I see this scene.
Great unpacking of a powerful few minutes of cinema. I could hear the song thundering in my ear just from reading the article.
Before a scene is shot, who figures out where the camera will focus? Is that primarily the director's job -- or the cinematographer's?
In this scene, I'm struck that there are so many crucial close-ups: of Renault, Ilsa, Rick, Yvonne, and Laszlo. I'm assuming that someone planned that. Maybe with storyboards?
I don't have an answer to your question, but I remember watching some commentary by a person involved in the making of the film. This is about the final pivotal scene where Captain Renault must quickly decide whether to implicate Rick as the killer of Strasser.
The first version of the scene had the police arrive just as Renault shouts to "round up the usual suspects." Whoever was in charge of the film (I assume the director) said this was all wrong, and told the editor to instead add a dramatic sequence of short cuts back and forth between Rick and Louis, showing that Rick was desperately wondering what Louis would do -- praying he wouldn't turn him in -- and Louis was thinking basically the same thing, realizing he had the option to switch sides in the moment.
As with the Marseillaise scene, this is minutes and minutes of incredible storytelling condensed into just a few frames of dialogue-free film. And apparently (finally getting to your point), it wasn't originally filmed that way; they probably had a bunch of shots of each actor glaring in various directions, and they used them in the editing room to powerful effect.
If anyone has a link to the interview I'm describing, I'd appreciate watching it again.
I believe most times, a director will design all the shots and camera motion before shooting begins. Later he will collaborate with the director of photography and/or cinematographer to bring the vision to life.
In the case of Casablanca, it seems a given Curtiz would have had that planned in advance and would been directly involved in the technical details of the shot. There's a bit about his style on his Wikipedia page:
I imagine it varies from movie to movie. Generally, the director of photographer is in charge of the camera and lights, but how much independence they have depends on the director.
> Casablanca is widely remembered as one of the greatest films of all time, coming in at #2 on the AFI’s top 100 list ...
1. CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2. CASABLANCA (1942)
3. THE GODFATHER (1972)
4. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
5. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
I just don't enjoy CITIZEN KANE anymore. It's like a film school movie. I watched it maybe 10-15 times when I was younger and I just don't enjoy it anymore. Like so what? GONE WITH THE WIND is the pinnacle of Lost Cause propaganda. I enjoyed when I didn't understand it. (I'm sure glad I didn't watch Triumph of the Will when I didn't understand it.) I damn sure don't enjoy GONE WITH THE WIND now that I understand it.
But I can watch CASABLANCA, THE GODFATHER and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA over and over. And this was a good article telling me things I didn't appreciate and still I can go back and watch CASABLANCA again.
You're looking at a list from one perspective: AFI's. It's going to be different from the Director's Guild of America's perspective, or BET Television's perspective, Roger Ebert's perspective, or IMDB commenter's perspective, or Teen Vogue's perspective.
I personally think 4 of those 5 movies are way overrated, including Godfather. And I'm sure "But I'm a Cheerleader, Too" is going to be near the top of Teen Vogue's list, but is going to be nowhere near anyone else's list.
We really need to not think of these lists as authoritative. It's just another data point.
Yes, lists are lists. However, the DGA's list is not so different:
1. The Godfather
2. Citizen Kane
3. Lawrence of Arabia
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. Casablanca
2001 falls apart with that impenetrable ending and I rather like 2001. However, I can't watch it nearly as often as any of the other movies on that list. Once a decade maybe.
Pftt! This scene is nothing. The best scene of all times is the bank robbery scene in the movie Heat and what happens after. Al Pacino and Robert Deniro were lethal. It makes me cry every time when Deniro leaves her behind:
“Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.”
Also got to say Al Pacino is so insufferable. De Niro was excellent though. My favorite scene is the end in stand up guys (also Pacino is far more mellow and tolerable in that one)
This is the greatest scene, and not the scene where Arnold rips off Richter's arms in the elevator in Total Recall and Richter falls to his death and Arnold throws him back his arms and yells "See you at the party Richter"?
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Tossing this sort of flamebait into an HN thread is vandalism, let alone going full Hitler once people take the bait. We're trying for an entirely different kind of site here.
I appreciate that you also post the occasional substantive comment, but your balance is negative and it isn't worth it. If you don't want to be banned on HN, though, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com and commit to using the site as intended from now on.
Hmm, interesting. A shadow ban. I agree that my first comment was too without substance. However, I feel that the entire thread was rather without substance.
I don't really see the problem with the second comment though, or how it is going "full Hitler". Godwin's law doesn't apply to discussions that are literally about WWII. Yes, it may be negative, but is negativity wrong in of itself it if my negativity is backed up by rational discussion?
It's hardly a shadowban when we explain it to you at length!
The issue is that your comment history has frequently violated the site guidelines. That's not just about negativity—it's possible to say critical things in civil, substantive ways. But you've been doing it in a way that damages thoughtful conversation, and that's a net negative here.
"La Marseillaise" is the French national anthem. Here are the words in English:
"Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!
To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
Lest an impure blood
Soak our fields!
What does this horde of slaves,
Of traitors and conspiratorial kings want?
For whom are these vile chains,
These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage
What fury it must arouse!
It is us they dare plan
To return to the old slavery!
To arms, citizens...
What! Foreign cohorts
Would make the law in our homes!
What! These mercenary phalanxes
Would strike down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Great God! By chained hands
Our brows would yield under the yoke
Vile despots would have themselves
The masters of our destinies!
To arms, citizens...
Tremble, tyrants and you traitors
The shame of all parties,
Tremble! Your parricidal schemes
Will finally receive their reward! (repeat)
Everyone is a soldier to combat you
If they fall, our young heroes,
The earth will produce new ones,
Ready to fight against you!
To arms, citizens...
Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors,
Bear or hold back your blows!
Spare those sorry victims,
Who arm against us with regret. (repeat)
But not these bloodthirsty despots,
These accomplices of Bouillé,
All these tigers who, mercilessly,
Rip their mother's breast!
To arms, citizens...
Sacred love of the Fatherland,
Lead, support our avenging arms
Liberty, cherished Liberty,
Fight with thy defenders! (repeat)
Under our flags, may victory
Hurry to thy manly accents,
May thy expiring enemies,
See thy triumph and our glory!
To arms, citizens..."
It is a patriotic military song about defending France from attackers. It's not fundamentally different from many other such verses in the anthems and patriotic texts of competing nations. The Quran contains similar wording when describing calls for Jihad to defend the fatherland.
While the Nazi's were evil, that does not mean we should be brought to tears by any nation which stood against them. Stalin's propagandists also wrote hymns which brought tears to many a Russian's eyes during and after the war.
And France was far from perfect at the time of WWII. Hitler is still admired by a large minority of Arabs because the Nazi's helped "liberate" former French colonies! [1] I'm not picking on the French here though. My point is, that we shouldn't be confused in our passions into worshiping "something anything so long as it's against the Nazis". While it is not true that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". In a broader sense, it is not true that every ally is your friend. And you should not equate a champion with their cause.
Flawed reasoning: "Communism is the main force against capitalism, therefore if I want to fight capitalism I should become a communist."
More flawed reasoning: "Russia has the most troops fighting against Hitler. Therefore, if I want to fight Nazism I should become a Russian."
More flawed reasoning: "Hitler attacked France, therefore, if I lived in France and feel harmed by Nazism, I should love France." (Remember, France was all for getting rid of the Jews [2]. They just didn't like being invaded... )
> It is a patriotic military song about defending France from attackers. It's not fundamentally different from many other such verses in the anthems and patriotic texts of competing nations. The Quran contains similar wording when describing calls for Jihad to defend the fatherland.
But it is different. La Marseillaise isn't about how great France is, and why it's worth defending. It's about how our enemies are coming to rape, pillage, and murder everyone, and we need to fight to the end to prevent that from happening. It's also quite notable in that it doesn't specifically insult other countries or lay grandiose claims to land in its lyrics, which were quite common features in national anthems in the 1800s.
One should also point out that the song the Germans are singing is literally about how Germans need to stand on the Rhine to defend Germany from France--it antagonizes France both implicitly and explicitly. So in context, you have Germans singing about how they need to defend themselves from a country they've already defeated which is drowned out by the French singing about how they need to defend themselves from enemies come to destroy them (which, for them, had already happened).
> It is a patriotic military song about defending France from attackers. It's not fundamentally different from many other such verses in the anthems and patriotic texts of competing nations. The Quran contains similar wording when describing calls for Jihad to defend the fatherland.
Some real mental gymnastics going on there. I'm not sure what your point is: that nationalism is bad? That France isn't perfect? That anthems are bad? I don't get it.
One thing is clear, however: you fundamentally misunderstand the Casablanca La Marseillaise scene.
Well, European style nationalism was the single most destructive force of the 20th century. So, bad is putting it mildly. La Marseillaise is an exhortation to form battalions, march on to war and to water the fields with the blood of the impure. It represents exactly the kind of militant nationalism that led to war in the first place.
Also, as someone from a country that was colonized and exploited by the British for centuries, I can't but help roll my eyes when the Allies are portrayed as the champions of freedom.
La Marseillaise is undeniably martial. It is not particularly nationalistic, however. It does not extol the virtues of France, it does not affirm territorial claims, it does not attack any other country directly or by allusion. All of these are fairly common in national anthems in the era. By contrast, the central theme here is basically "Fight! ... Because we're really screwed if you don't."
While I don't deny the issues with nationalism, nor that national anthems were a major tool of fomenting such nationalism, I think it improper to assert that La Marseillaise was a major contributing factor to that end.
Your viewpoint is myopic to say the least. I was also born in a country that was exploited for centuries by the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians (and before that the Romans and the Ottomans). But I can keep things in perspective and make the (pretty obvious) conclusion that yes, the Allies were champions of freedom.
What you express is the kind of cynical misanthropy that leaves men powerless in the face of grave danger perpetrated even by egregious evil. Thankfully, there has existed, even in the 20th century, men and women immune to this kind of mean minded guilt trip.
I'm sorry, but the French would have to have force fed human infants to fatten them up and eaten their little livers before any sane person would have to wonder what side to take in a contest between them and the Nazis. But, you enjoy your sophisticated moral calculus, and bon chance!
"Qu'un sang impure abreuve nos sillons" translated by "let’s water the fields with impure blood." is often a very misunderstood line.
A lot of people claim this song is racist because they think the "impure blood" mentioned belongs to the enemy. This is both wrong and an anachronism since there was no racial theories at the time when this song was written.
"Impure blood" is in opposition to the pure blood of the nobility, that is the blood of simple peasants and poor people fighting to defend the Revolution. This is the blood of the French revolutionaries that is "impure". This is in the same spirit by which they called themselves "sans-culotte" in opposition to the nobility.
This is a revisionist thesis that first appeared in 2005 and has enjoyed quite a good fortune since. It's false.
La Marseillaise is a war song written in 1792 after France declared war to Austria.
Louis XVI, who was still King (albeit no more an absolute King but a more humble constitutional one like the King of England) and who still had his head on his shoulders, was in favor of the war because he thought (hoped) Austria would win and would help restore a "proper" (absolute) monarchy.
The Rhine Army (meaning, a French army stationed in Alsace) wanted a song to accompany it while going to war. Rouget de Lisle, with others, wrote and composed that war song and titled it Chant de Guerre pour l’armée du Rhin (War Song for the Rhine Army).
The words of the song rest heavily on propaganda placards plastered throughout Strasbourg, that included injunctions such as "Immolez sans remords les traîtres" (immolate traitors without remorse) or "dissipez les armées des despotes" (dispel despots' armies).
The specific image of blood as fertilizer seems to come from a poem by Nicolas Boileau from 1656 (about a possible war with England): "Et leurs corps pourris dans nos plaines / N’ont fait qu’engraisser nos sillons" (And their rotten bodies in our plains / Only fed our furrows).
It has been obvious for everyone for at least two centuries that the "impure blood" was the blood of the ennemies. It's true that it's not "racist" because there was no real concept of race in the sense given to that term in the 19th century, but it is demeaning. The pure ones are the French and the impure ones are the others. (Rouget de Lisle was himself a nobleman and a monarchist).
A possible, non-polemic translation of "impur" would be "alien": let the blood of the aliens rain on our land.
No, please stop spreading revisionist interpretation of the Marseillaise.
Here's a book extract back from 1848 that clearly shows that everyone, even back then, understood "sang impur" as the blood of the enemy. That was just 50 years or so after the Marseillaise was created.
> Cinq mois sont à peine écoulés et dans la fièvre de civilisation des esprits chagrins disent de dissolution qui nous travaille nous avons tout usé république sociale démocratique bourgeoise gouvernements d avocats de savants dïgnoranls de poëles de utilitaires et au milieu de ce tohu bohu de recherches de tortues gouvernementales l art musical s est tu comme OII le pense bien car il n y avait rien de bien harmonieux dans la rlIarsei laise provoquant à verser le sang impur des soldats étrangers qui ne sont guère plus féroces que nous et ne songent nullement ù venir mugir dans nos canzpagnes Même avant que la guerre civile vint rugir dans la cité chants avaient cesse Il faut espérer qu ils vont reprendre c un des meilleurs moyens de persuader à l Europe pour la France Paris surtout est un objet Œanæieuse curiosité notre capitale peut redevenir le centre des arts et de la civilisation
It's also painfully obvious that your "sang impur" interpretation is wrong when you read all the other verses of the Marseillaise (not just the chorus), since so many other parts of the song refer to killing the (foreign) invaders.
> Quoi ! Des cohortes étrangères
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers !
> Tremblez, tyrans et vous, perfides,
L'opprobre de tous les partis !
Tremblez ! Vos projets parricides
Vont enfin recevoir leur prix.
> Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire !
And to your point, the Marseillaise is not a racist song anyway, but it's a nationalistic one. It fits extremely well in its era of emerging nations in Europe (spreading the idea that you belong to something bigger than your direct community/village/town/city). France was on the brink of being annihilated at the time of the Revolution by foreign kingdoms trying to take power and restore the monarchy, and it was a song to gather popular support.
Your quote is very poorly transcribed (I assume machine-transcribed) and has all the punctuation stripped, making it unreadable. Here my hand transcription:
> Cinq mois à peine écoulés, et, dans la fièvre de civilisation, --- des esprits chagrins disent de dissolution --- qui nous travaille, nous avons tout usé, république sociale, démocratique, bourgeoise, gouvernements d'avocats, de savants, d'ignorants, de poêtes, de militaires; et au milieu de ce tohu-bohu de recherche de formes gouvernementales, l'art musical s'est tu, comme on le pense bien; car il n'y avait rien de bien harmonique dans la Marseillaise provoquant à verser le sang impur des soldats étangers qui ne sont guères plus féroces que nous, et ne songent nullement à venir mugir dans nos campagnes. Même avant que la guerre civile vint rugir dans la cité les chants avaient cessé. Il faut espérer qu'ils vont reprendre: c'est un des meilleurs moyens de persuader à l'Europe pour laquelle la France, Paris surtout, est, est un objet d'anxieuse curiosité, que notre capitale peut redevenir le centre des arts et de la civilisation.
What's the title and who is the author of this book? I would like to check its credibility.
I don't see how the other samples of the anthem that you mention make any reference to an impure blood. Yes it's violent, of course. The entirety of Europe declared war on the country to prevent the ideas of the revolution to spread everywhere, what else was to be expected?
From the wiki, which contextualizes what I was told by my parents (who were young adults in London during the war)
Much of the emotional impact of the film has been attributed to the large proportion of European exiles and refugees who were extras or played minor roles (in addition to leading actors Paul Henreid, Conrad Veidt and Peter Lorre): such as Louis V. Arco, Trude Berliner, Ilka Grünig, Lotte Palfi, Richard Ryen, Ludwig Stössel, Hans Twardowski, and Wolfgang Zilzer. A witness to the filming of the "duel of the anthems" sequence said he saw many of the actors crying and "realized that they were all real refugees".[25] Harmetz argues that they "brought to a dozen small roles in Casablanca an understanding and a desperation that could never have come from Central Casting".[26] They were frequently cast as Nazis in war films, even though many were Jewish.