golden age of hollywood – Otis Morley’s A-Level Film Studies Blog

Component 1a: Hollywood 1930-1990 (Comparative Study) — Contexts

Compare how far your chosen films reflect their different production contexts.
Sample Assessment Materials

Plan:

Introduction

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) and Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) are two films that are shining exemplars of two starkly contrasting production contexts within Hollywood. Casablanca was a film produced by Warner Brothers under the Hollywood Studio System during the Golden Age – one which epitomises the rigid and traditional Classical Hollywood style of the era. Conversely, Bonnie and Clyde sought to defy the preconceptions of the Golden Age after the dissolution of the studio system, taking influence from the French New Wave to employ modern technology and unorthodox filmmaking techniques. The film foregrounds a gritty portrayal of two real life criminals – one which does not shy away from graphic violence and sexual undertones – birthing the New Hollywood era of filmmaking.

Body

Institutional context: Compare how Casablanca was produced by Warner Bros under the studio system (vertical integration, unbreakable contracts, star system, Hays code etc.). Whereas Bonnie and Clyde was produced after the Paramount Case, allowing for a greater deal of creative freedom within Warner Bros.

Technological context: Compare the styles of filmmaking (Classical Hollywood style vs French New Wave-influenced style). Mention specific examples rooted in key sequences, alongside the technology available to the studios. Filmed in the studio vs on-location.

Historical context: Compare how Casablanca was filmed and set during the First World War (Vichy water implications), but Bonnie and Clyde is set in a Great Depression 1930s (FDR posters plastered on the wall) , but released during the 1960s.

Comparing how the film stars are presented: Casablanca (Ilsa is glamorous and pristine, through key and fill lighting, Rick’s rugged appearance accentuated by lighting).

Conclusion

Ultimately, both films are apt representations of the production contexts that both films were produced under respectively. Casablanca epitomises the Classical Hollywood style typical of the films of the Golden Age, whereas Bonnie and Clyde paved the way for the New Hollywood era – embracing graphic violence and sexual content that defied the typicalities of the more traditional, conservative films of the previous age.

Essay – Version 1

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) and Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) are two films that are shining exemplars of two starkly contrasting production contexts within Hollywood. Casablanca was a film produced by Warner Brothers under the Hollywood Studio System that operated under the practice of vertical integration during the Golden Age. The film epitomises the rigid and traditional Classical Hollywood style of the era. Conversely, Bonnie and Clyde sought to defy the preconceptions of the Golden Age after the dissolution of the studio system. By taking influence from the French New Wave, employing modern technology and unorthodox filmmaking techniques, this appealed to the newly diverse cinematic landscape enjoyed by audiences throughout this period. The film foregrounds a gritty portrayal of two real life criminals – one which does not shy away from graphic violence and sexual undertones – birthing the New Hollywood era of filmmaking.

Casablanca’s conception originated with Warner Bros. buying the rights to a unproduced stage play, Everybody Comes to Rick’s, for $20,000. Afterwards, the studio quickly began work on building bespoke sets for the film, creating the illusion of exoticism by foregrounding the lavish production values that the studio poured into the construction. A clear example of this can be seen in the opening sequence of the film in which an expansively lavish set of Casablanca populated with countless extras takes place. This is revealed to the viewer through camerawork typical of the Classical Hollywood style: a crane shot that tilts down to reveal the opulent set. Conversely, Bonnie and Clyde strove to purport the highest level of authenticity and thus, chose to film the vast majority of the film on location with the implementation of natural lighting. The opening sequence of the film introduces us to Clyde through a wide shot filmed through a mosquito net, creating an atmosphere that feels much more tangible than Casablanca’s constructed reality. Akin to the French New Wave, the use of natural lighting serves to add an extra layer of authenticity to the film.

Casablanca is a product of the Golden Age of Hollywood that exemplifies the concept of film star ‘stables’ that were owned by the studios. Due to ‘unbreakable contracts’ that exclusively contracted actors to specific studios, Warner Bros. endeavoured to make apt use of their stars. With this in mind, the studio chose to cast Humphrey Bogart as Rick, a star who was often typecast as the ‘rugged individual’ archetype in films such as The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941). Through this, Rick’s character was customised to suit Bogart’s acting capabilities, introducing us to him in the ‘Leaving Rick’s’ sequence by filming Bogart from a centrally framed low-angle shot whilst being cast in shadow to accentuate his masculinity. In addition to this, during the Paris flashback sequence, Rick dons a trench coat and hat during the train station scene. This subtly pays homage to Humphrey Bogart’s classic detective roles he was cast as during the Film Noir scene, demonstrating that Warner Bros. attempted to fully capitalise on the ‘stable’ of stars they possessed. The studio also chose Ingrid Bergman to play Ilsa, an internationally renowned actress. Throughout the film, Bergman was highly glamourised through the use of lavish costume design, hair, makeup, alongside the use of key lighting and soft focus to accentuate her beauty. This is highly typical of the Classical Hollywood style that Warner Bros. was renowned for at the time.

In contrast, the titular couple in Bonnie and Clyde are presented in a vastly different light. Instead of conforming to the ‘rugged individual’ protagonist archetype, Clyde is presented in a much more nuanced manner due to his ambiguous sexuality that Warren Beatty (producer and star) campaigned for. Towards the end of the opening sequence of the film, a closeup is displayed of Clyde drinking a bottle of Coke, which both connotes provocatively phallic imagery and is indicative of the Prohibition Era that was in effect during the 1930s. This is furthered later in the film when Clyde appears to be uninterested or perhaps unable to engage in sexual activity with Bonnie. Bonnie is presented in a much more seductive manner in contrast to Ilsa, which is immediately demonstrated to the audience through the first shot of the film – an extreme closeup of her luscious red lips, a symbol of sex. This, alongside the fact that Bonnie appears naked for the first scene of the film, presents her feminine beauty in a more natural and intimate manner than Ilsa’s artificially maintained beauty.

Casablanca’s production was spearheaded by Jack L. Warner – the president of Warner Brothers. A primary agenda of Warner was to feature the ongoing war prominently in the studio’s films, in an attempt to subtly signal America to join the war efforts. This is particularly evident in the final scene of the film, in which Captain Renault chooses to bin the Vichy-branded water bottle, displayed to the viewer through a closeup. This is symbolic of the studio’s negative views towards fascism, perhaps being indicative of the side the country eventually took when America joined the war. Historical context is also important to consider when evaluating the production contexts of Bonnie and Clyde. Although the film was released in 1967, it is set during the 1930s – a time in which the effects of the Great Depression coursed through all of America, particularly the poorer Southern states in which the film takes place. For example, the streets that the couple walk down in the opening sequence are barren, reflective of the Great Depression. The mise-en-scène is also meticulously selected to reflect the time period, such as the FDR presidential campaign posters that are plastered to the walls, serving to immerse the audience in the 1930s. Through this, viewers who had lived through this time period themselves were encouraged to empathise with Bonnie and Clyde’s struggles during this period of poverty and bleakness.

Casablanca was shot entirely in black and white, a typical feature of Warner Brothers’ ‘house style’ at the time. By 1942, colour had been implemented into a number films for around a decade, with studios such as MGM immediately choosing to embrace colour. MGM would go on to produce The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939) a landmark of the cutting-edge Technicolor technology, but colour was considered by many other studios to merely be a ‘gimmick’. During the time of Casablanca’s release, black and white was arguably at its peak, and Warner Bros. believed that choosing to film in black and white – despite the introduction of colour technology – demonstrated artistic nuance, as the iconic ‘noir aesthetic’ had now been refined for over 50 years. Colour was not as ‘sterile’ as black and white was during this time, only being able to display highly saturated colours. Conversely, Bonnie and Clyde was shot in colour, aptly portraying a much grittier and authentic atmosphere in contrast to Casablanca romanticised ‘noir’ aesthetic. The film’s cinematographer, Burnett Guffey, once stated that Arthur Penn wanted the film to be “as real and untheatrical as possible” and the decision to embrace modern Technicolor technology supports this.

During the production of Casablanca, the studio was significantly limited by the Hays Code – a series of regulations that forbade graphic violence and sexual content to be displayed within the film. This is particularly evident in the final scene of the film in which Rick shoots Major Strasser, after which no blood is shown, indicative of the Hays Code restrictions. This conservative presentation of violence soon became a typical convention of the Classical Hollywood style, to which audiences became accustomed during the Golden Age. This greatly contrasts with how violence is presented throughout Bonnie and Clyde. After the dissolution of the studio system that occurred after the result of the Paramount Case, the Hays Code gradually became more lax over time, resulting in Bonnie and Clyde’s presentation of graphic violence as a means to shock audiences who had become accustomed to the conservative presentation of violence typical of Classical Hollywood. At the end of the ‘Botched Heist’ sequence, Clyde shoots a man in the mouth through a car window. This is presented to the viewer through rapid editing, cutting quickly between closeups of the man clinging to the car and reactionary shots of Clyde. The film does not shy away from its presentation of blood, with the film implementing the use of squibs filled with stage blood, which exploded upon impact. These were employed in this scene, alongside many others throughout the film, including the infamous massacre of the titular couple at the end of the film. This graphic display of violence serves to ground the film in reality and forces the audience to confront Bonnie and Clyde’s heinous actions.

New Hollywood: Bonnie And Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967)

Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) is widely considered to be a landmark film in shaping what would later be known as the New Hollywood era of filmmaking that lasted throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. There are several important contexts to consider when evaluating what factors influenced the film’s production.

*Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty in costume as Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow*

One of the most significant factors to consider is the cultural context within America throughout this period. During the late 1960s, a series of significant cultural events emanated throughout America during this period, including both the Civil rights movement as well as the Vietnam War – two majors sources of conflict and tension that manifested films including both Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) and The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978). Bonnie and Clyde arguably spearheaded this new era of filmmaking during this time, often considered to be a reflection of the rebellious spirit of America at the time, coming off the back of the dissolution of the studio system that gradually occurred after the Paramount Case in 1948. It is for the reason why Bonnie and Clyde is often cited as the first film of the New Hollywood era.

Another important context to consider is the historical context of the 1930s – the time period in which the film is set. The real life Bonnie and Clyde carried out their criminal activities during a time in which the lasting effects of the Great Depression were observable all across America, particularly the rural southern states in which the couple’s escapades occurred. The film aptly illustrates this time period, displaying barren streets that are plastered with posters advertising the FDR presidential campaign. As a result, audiences who had lived through this time period themselves were more likely to empathise with Bonnie and Clyde’s struggles within this time of poverty and bleakness.

Institutional and political contexts also played a key role in influencing the production of Bonnie and Clyde. The film was produced by Warner Brothers – one of the ‘Big Five’ Hollywood studios. Throughout the Golden Age of Hollywood, the studio garnered a reputation for making traditional and conservative films, keeping to a ‘house style’ that conformed to the regulations of the Hays Code. Bonnie and Clyde could be considered a drastic departure from this Classical Hollywood style – foregrounding both graphic violence and underlying sexual themes. This was initially viewed as controversial, facing particular opposition from Jack L. Warner who despite his fervent attempts, ultimately failed to block the production of the film. Despite this drastic shift in tone, the film was become a critical and commercial success, in large part due to the support of influential figures within the studio, namely the man responsible for spearheading the film’s release – producer and star, Warren Beatty.

The social context of the 1960s also had an impact on Bonnie and Clyde’s release. The film was released at a time when there was a great deal of interest in the lives of ordinary people and their struggles, which was largely popularised in America through this notion being commonly depicted within French New Wave cinema. Audiences were now exposed to film movements outside of Hollywood after the collapse of the studio system, and as a result, techniques and themes of other movements, including the French New Wave, were gradually imbued into the films of New Hollywood. Bonnie and Clyde took a great deal of influence from this film movement, with the its portrayal of the couple’s relationship and their struggles against the forces of authority resonating with many viewers, aiding the film to inevitably become a cultural touchstone.

Cutting-edge technology of the 1960s also played a role in the production of Bonnie and Clyde. The use of handheld cameras and long lenses served to create a more naturalistic atmosphere throughout the film, with this technology being used in a similar way during the French New Wave to achieve this effect. It was also one of the first films to utilise ‘squibs’ extensively. These were small explosive charges filled with stage blood that would detonate inside an actor’s clothes to purport violence in a more dynamic and authentic manner.

Bonnie & Clyde Close-Up (“Ballet Of Death” Sequence)

Overview

The ending sequence of Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) displays the tragic demise of the titular couple. After sharing one final innocent moment of happiness together, C.W.’s father fools the couple into stepping outside their car, after agreeing to turn in the couple to the police in exchange for C.W.’s freedom. The couple are brutally gunned down by lawmen, led by Frank Hamer – the man that the gang taunted with earlier in the film. This abrupt final scene is both powerful and poignant – serving as a fittingly inevitable end to the couple’s tumultuous journey portrayed over the course of the film.

Key Elements, Context, and Representation

The sequence opens with a wide shot of Bonnie and Clyde framed centrally as they walk out of a shop, donning cream-coloured clothing that serves to emphasise their purity. The couple act playfully, exuding a sense of child-like innocence as Clyde puts on a pair of broken glasses. This final moment of playful happiness is captured through the use of a crane shot, a more traditional filmmaking technique that is closely associated with the Classical Hollywood style.

As the couple enter the car, unbeknownst to the fact that it will be their final journey, no Bluegrass score accompanies this action, creating a much more sombre mood than what is usually associated with the gang’s car journeys. This contrast between the couple’s playful behaviour and the lack of non-diegetic sound creates a foreboding sense of unease. Clyde’s clumsiness and child-like behaviour also serve to juxtapose the couple’s heinous actions throughout the film.

During the journey, the camera work employed is of particular interest. It departs from the utilisation of long lenses throughout the film, a technique associated with the French New Wave that allowed for ease of filming. Instead, the cameras are placed in close proximity to Bonnie and Clyde, bringing the viewer closer to their final intimate moments together. This is particularly evident in a tight two-shot of the couple in the car, which only becomes tighter as the sequence progresses. Bonnie and Clyde also share a pear during the car journey, perhaps serving as a symbol of comfort and familiarity for the couple. We then cut to a sequence edited in parallel between shots filmed from the perspective of the car’s windscreen and shots of Malcolm not-so-subtly beckoning the couple to pull over on the side of rural road he is blocking, encouraging them to check on an apparently flat tyre. This action is displayed through the implementation of a Dutch angle shot, serving to create an off-kilter atmosphere.

We then cut to a rapid frenzy of editing that alternates between reactionary closeups of Bonnie and Clyde. This indicates that the couple just begin to realise what is happening to them in their last living moments, a second before it is too late. The final moment shared between the couple is showcased through an eye-line match, creating one final moment of romance. As the lawmen open fire, deafening gunshots explode into the sound mix which immediately alerts the viewer and heightens the dramatic value of the scene. The excessive display of graphic violence that ensues defies the prior conventions of Classical Hollywood.

Slow motion is also employed within this scene for the first time in the film, serving to emphasise the brutality of the scene. Through this, the shot of Clyde’s corpse rolling to the side is prolonged, inciting empathy towards the character within the viewer. Notably, neither Bonnie nor Clyde are shot in the face – preserving their purity and glamour. The final shot of the massacre is a wide shot that lingers on the two lifeless corpses, leaving the viewer to ponder the journey undertaken by Bonnie and Clyde over the course of the film.

*The final wide shot displaying the corpses of Bonnie and Clyde*

During the brief aftermath of the shooting, the camera glides behind the shattered car window. A bullet hole is displayed out of focus, subtly reinforcing the events of the shooting. Instead, Penn chooses to frame the lawmen in behind the car in focus, distancing the camera from their stoic demeanours. The ringleader, Frank Hamer, is dressed in all black, portraying him as particularly villainous. The abruptness of this ending is perhaps reminiscent of the French New Wave, a movement that strove to present an authentic depiction of reality. There is no superfluous ‘epilogue’ sequence, the film merely ends with this inspection of the couple’s lifeless corpses.

Waving Goodbye: New Hollywood (1961-1990)

The decline of the Hollywood studio system began in the late 1950s, after the Paramount Antitrust Case of 1948. This prohibited the studios from owning the cinemas in which their films were shown, and this greatly encouraged a rise in competition between the studios. This ultimately led to a much more diverse landscape of cinema in America, as each studio became influenced by the filmmaking techniques of other cultures, such as the French New Wave.

Alongside this, the rise of television of also contributed to the start of the New Hollywood era. During the 1950s, televisions became increasingly available due to their price steadily decreasing as the technology became cheaper to manufacture. As more households acquired a TV, the demand for television content increased and this led to an increase in the production of TV programmes. Television was a new and exciting form of entertainment, creating a new array of genres such as sitcoms and game shows. This ultimately resulted in a decline in popularity of cinemas as a form of entertainment, as families chose to watch films and TV from the comfort of their own home.

During the Golden Age of Hollywood, the studio system dominated the distribution of films that were shown in the cinema. Because of this, there was no opportunity for any independent films to be shown to American audiences. After the studios lost their power, independent filmmakers were now able to distribute their own films. This ultimately led to an emergence of new independent perspectives in the landscape of American cinema.

A significant development within the New Hollywood era was the rise of two systems working in parallel – independently produced films and studio produced films. Independent filmmakers, who had been exposed to films from around the world, often took advantage of cutting-edge technology such as 16mm film to produce their own low-budget productions that often experimented with the typical conventions of the prior American filmmaking landscape. These films usually had to be financed by relying on friends and colleagues of the filmmaker.

Simultaneously, the major film studios were producing more adventurous and nuanced films that challenged the status quo of the Classical Hollywood era. These films grew larger in both scale and budget, and were designed to appeal to a wide audience. This ultimately provided a dual filmmaking platform that broadened the cinematic diet of the American audience – viewers were able to simultaneously experience the unique and personal stories of the young independent filmmakers alongside experiencing the classic blockbuster entertainment that they had come to expect from Hollywood throughout the Golden Age.

Throughout this New Hollywood period, Arthur Penn was a prolific filmmaker who paved the way for the rise of independent cinema and the increasing influence of auteurs throughout the film industry. His film, Bonnie and Clyde (1967), was revolutionary in the way of challenging the conventions of the Hollywood studio system. Inspired by the French New Wave, Arthur Penn, alongside other visionary directors of this era, sought to create a film that did not shy away from a raw and violent portrayal of crime – a stark departure from the sanitised, formulaic style of storytelling that dominated the films of the Golden Age.

Bonnie And Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967)

Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) is a biographical neo-noir crime drama that follows the capers of the infamous crime duo: Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty). The film is arguably a landmark of the ‘New Hollywood’ era, epitomising the conventions offered by this new age after the decline of the studio system.

The titular couple meet after Clyde attempts to steal Bonnie’s mother’s car. The two quickly hit it off, and they soon become partners in crime – holding up banks for the thrill of it, despite their attempts being not particularly lucrative. The couple then recruit C.W. Moss, a petrol station attendant, as their getaway driver and later Clyde’s older brother Buck alongside his wife Blanche soon join the gang.

After a heist goes wrong, the gang flee to Missouri before they are located by the police. Two officers are killed in a shootout, and the gang also manages to take a police ranger, Frank Hamer, hostage whom the gang take photos with, before tying him to a boat and setting him free down the river.

A sudden raid catches the gang off guard, killing Buck and injuring Blanche’s eye – Bonnie, Clyde, and C.W. are barely able to escape themselves. The trio seek refuge at C.W.’s father’s house, who believe that the couple have corrupted his son after he sees a new tattoo on his chest that he decided to get after Bonnie’s suggestion. Seeing this, C.W.’s father strikes a deal with Hamer, allowing the police to trap Bonnie and Clyde in exchange for C.W.’s freedom. The film ends with the couple being mercilessly gunned down after being trapped by the police.

The film was directed by Arthur Penn, who set out to break the conventions of the Classical Hollywood style present throughout the Golden Age of Hollywood. Sex and graphic violence is openly depicted throughout the film, which is evident in Clyde’s ambiguous sexuality alongside the brutal violence portrayed in scenes such as the gang’s getaway and the brutal ending. The film was also influenced considerably by French New Wave cinema, which was typically characterised by rapid tonal shifts and experimental editing techniques.

Bonnie and Clyde’s narrative structure is linear, but utilises jarring time jumps to create a film with noticeably unorthodox pacing. I found this to be the main drawback of the film, as although the first third of the film is densely packed with lots of events edited in rapid succession, the film seems to ‘peter out’ afterwards with not much occurring until the very end of the film.

I did enjoy Bonnie and Clyde for the light-hearted crime it had to offer. The film’s implementation of unorthodox filmmaking techniques also kept me intrigued throughout. However, I didn’t feel much emotional attachment towards any of the characters, and the film’s peculiar pacing ultimately resulted in a disjointed narrative experience.

Overall, I would rate Bonnie and Clyde ★★★½.

Unconventional Auteur: Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) is a prime exemplar of the Warner Brothers ‘house style’ that the studio was famously regarded for. Involving the executives of the studio collaborating on each film together, this practice became known as a ‘studio auteur’ style of filmmaking, in which the creative output was a communal effort from the studio, rather than a single creative mind taking the reigns.

Although the director of Casablanca, Michael Curtiz cannot be considered as the sole creative mind behind the making of the film, his trailblazing directorial techniques must be made note of. Boasting a vast filmography of over 100 films, Curtiz honed his skills as a director particularly concerning the implementation of lighting to create a particular aesthetic. Curtiz expertly utilised main, back, and fill lighting to illuminate Ingrid Bergman in a highly flattering and glamorous manner. Ilsa dons a white costume, representative of her purity, and her eyes appear to glisten which serves to accentuate her beauty. Ingrid Bergman even requested to only be filmed from same angle, as she believed it showcased her best features. Conversely, Humphrey Bogart is predominantly shot in dimmer lighting which is emblematic of Rick’s ambiguous intentions. Lighting is used to draw attention to Bogart’s rugged and weathered face, starkly juxtaposing Ilsa’s radiant appearance and portraying him as the noble American protagonist.

A technique frequently employed by Curtiz throughout Casablanca involves pulling out the camera from a two-shot in order to reveal a third person in the frame. This is an example of efficient camerawork, in which the editing is able to naturally blend into the background, and the requirement for any potentially jarring cuts is alleviated. This aligns with the studio’s primary aim of foregrounding the narrative first and foremost. The camera movements throughout the film are also highly sophisticated and seamless. Within Rick’s café, the camera often appears to smoothly glide around the set in a manner reminiscent of a Steadicam, which wasn’t invented until 1974.

The dialogue throughout the film is fast paced, merely serving as exposition to drive the narrative forward. A clear example of this can be seen during the Paris flashback sequence, in which Rick and Ilsa’s dialogue succinctly and efficiently explains why the Nazis are invading France. The couple’s dialogue can also be considered highly melodramatic, which reflects the conventions of the romance genre that the film conforms to. The fast paced nature of the dialogue is perhaps best exemplified in the closing sequence of the film, in which a multiplicity of iconic lines, such as “we’ll always have Paris” are swiftly exchanged between Rick and Ilsa. During this, the couple are framed in a tight two-shot with a shallow depth of field, focusing the viewer’s attention exclusively towards the dialogue.

*A tight two-shot of Rick and Ilsa from the final scene of Casablanca*

Max Steiner, the film’s composer, also played a vital role within the ‘studio auteur’, serving to bolster the emotional weight of the narrative through the apt use of both diegetic and non-diegetic score. During the opening sequence, Steiner’s highly triumphant non-diegetic score enters the mix in a grandiose manner as the credits roll, which naturally segues into the French national anthem. This provides a twofold sense of international exoticism alongside patriotism. The film’s iconic theme – As Time Goes By – was also selected by Steiner to be played by Sam in Rick’s café, acting as a diegetic score. The particular 1931 jazz piece provides an appropriately sentimental and romantic evocation.

Executive producer Jack L. Warner’s name is the first to be credited in Casablanca, being indicative of his influence upon the production. Warner was an interventionist, and vehemently believed that America should join the war efforts in Europe. He is responsible for the war undertones that permeate throughout the entire film. Warner even rushed onstage at the 1943 Academy Awards to collect Casablanca Best Picture Oscar, to the dismay of producer Hal B. Wallis. This demonstrates the contention concerning the film’s true ownership, which was ambiguous due to the ‘studio auteur’ environment that the film was conceived under.

The Golden Age Of Hollywood: Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) is a film that arguably epitomises the landscape of filmmaking that existed in America throughout the Golden Age of Hollywood. It was produced under the context of the studio system, in which the Big Five and Little Three dominated the playing field of Hollywood, operating under a vertically integrated system.

In late 1941, Warner Bros. producer Hal B. Wallis became fascinated by an unproduced stage play called Everybody Comes to Rick’s. In late December of that same year, the studio bought the film rights for $20,000 and changed the title to Casablanca. The studio quickly began work on building bespoke sets for the film, creating the illusion of exoticism by foregrounding the lavish production values that the studio poured into the construction. Key set locations include the streets of Casablanca, the streets of Paris, and of course – Rick’s Café Americain, the primary location of the film. Each of these sets were populated with a multitude of extras in creating an artificial sense of hustle and bustle.

The film is both set and was filmed during the events of the Second World War. Because of this, executive producer Jack L. Warner pioneered the heavy wartime undertones featured throughout the film, as he vehemently believed that it would strongly encourage America to join the war effort. The final scene is particularly notable in this regard, as when Renault chooses to bin the Vichy-branded water bottle, it is symbolic of the studio’s views on fascism. Due to the ongoing war, the studio was not allowed to film at an airport after dark. Warner Bros. instead decided to film on a sound stage using a cardboard cutout of a plane – playing with perspective to create the illusion of a full-sized aeroplane.

*The Vichy water bottle is disposed of by Renault, being indicative of Warner Bros.’ views on fascism*

Casablanca was shot entirely in black and white, which was highly characteristic of Warner Bros. at the time. By 1942, colour had been implemented into a number films for around a decade, with studios such as MGM immediately choosing to embrace colour. MGM would go on to produce The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939) a landmark of the cutting-edge Technicolor technology, but the technology was considered by many other studios to be a ‘gimmick’. During the time of Casablanca’s release, black and white was arguably at its peak, and Warner Bros. believed that choosing to film in black and white – despite the introduction of colour technology – demonstrated artistic nuance, as the iconic ‘noir aesthetic’ had now been refined for over 50 years. Colour was not as ‘sterile’ as black and white was during this time, only being able to display highly saturated colours.

Despite the fact that Casablanca is now a landmark of American cinema, only three actors who received screen credit were born in the United States: Humphrey Bogart (Rick), Dooley Wilson (Sam), and Joy Page (Annina Brandel). All of the other actors were European exiles who had fled the war, landing themselves in Hollywood. Many of the actors who appear as Nazis in the film were in fact German Jews who had escaped from Nazi Germany, with Conrad Veidt, Major Strasser’s actor, being forced to flee Germany after the SS learned of his friendship with the Jewish community. Veidt was convinced that he was aiding the war effort by playing a Nazi villain.

Casablanca is also a product of the Golden Age of Hollywood that exemplifies the ‘stables’ of film stars owned by the studios. Due to ‘unbreakable contracts’ that exclusively contracted actors to specific studios, Warner Bros. endeavoured to make apt use of their stars, The studio chose to cast Humphrey Bogart as Rick. Throughout the Golden Age of Hollywood, Bogart was often typecast as the ‘rugged individual’ archetype in films such as The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941) and Rick’s character was customised to suit Bogart’s acting capabilities.

Ilsa’s actress, Ingrid Bergman, was an internationally renowned Swedish actress known for her radiant beauty. Warner Bros. capitalised upon this by casting Bergman as Ilsa, accentuating her glamour by utilising lighting and costume design to portray Ilsa in a glamorous manner. The fact that Bergman measured two inches taller than Bogart did not align with the gender stereotypes at the time of release. Because of this, Bogart was actually made to stand on boxes during specific shots of the film to make him appear taller than Bergman.

Casablanca Close-Up (“Enemy Arriving” Sequence)

Overview

The “Enemy Arriving” sequence serves to introduce the audience to the main antagonistic force of Casablanca – the Nazis. The sequence also further establishes the shady occurrences within Casablanca, as well as the refugees’ desire to leave Casablanca to depart for America.

Cinematography

The aspect ratio of the film is 4:3, which was the standard practice at the time and was referred to as the ‘academy ratio’. Through the deliberate blocking of the waiter, who perfectly positions himself between the couple, this allows the three of them to be viewed in a single shot within the square frame. They are in prime position for the conversation to take place most effectively.

The wide shot of the couple sitting outside in the cafe is shot in deep focus. Through this, the viewer is able to view the French sigil in the background of the shot, which allows for efficient storytelling.

A wide shot displays the plane landing in the airport, after which we cut to a slightly closer shot with an identical composition, this being an example of subtle continuity editing. As the Nazis walk out from the plane, the camera pulls back to naturally transform the three-shot into a five-shot.

Sound

The diegetic sounds of the plane rise in the mix during the shots that display it landing, but lower when we cut to the citizens of Casablanca gazing at the plane. This allows for the audience to hear their dialogue, providing a more immersive experience.

Mise-en-scène

A model aeroplane is used to create the illusion of a real plane flying in the air. The plane also flies by Rick’s cafe, prominently displaying the sign to the viewer. This suggests it will be an important location. All of the actors are blocked in a way that frames the shot in order to divert the viewer’s attention towards the plane. The shape of the archway in the airport is also noticeably stylistic, reinforcing the exoticism of Casablanca.

Editing

The considerate use of blocking meant that the frequency of cuts was able to be reduced, thus making the editing seem invisible

The shot of the plane in the air cross-fades into a matte painting of the airport, providing a seamless transition.

Performance

The actors playing foreign refugees all perform in a stereotypical manner that immediately gives the viewer an idea as to where they are from.

Renault presents himself in an affable and happy-go-lucky manner, characterising himself as the sleazy police chief.

Context and Representation

Warner Bros. constructed an expensive set of Casablanca purely for the film, which is populated by a multiplicity of extras. This constructed reality serves to provide the highest sense of immersion for the viewer.

The sequence involving the pickpocket is representative of the shady atmosphere present throughout Casablanca.

The residents of Casablanca are wistfully transfixed onto the plane, informing the viewer that they are seeking an escape. A short dialogue exchange also confirms this.

The Nazis behave in a very formal and mechanical manner that is representative of how Jack L. Warner perceived them to be.

Auteur

A typical Michael Curtiz technique involved pulling out the camera from a two-shot in order to reveal a third person in the frame. This technique can be seen in this sequence, when the camera pulls out to reveal a third man talking to the couple who are sitting down. This is an example of efficient camerawork, in which the editing is able to naturally blend into the background.

Casablanca Close-Up (Opening Sequence)

Overview

The opening sequence of Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) serves to aptly introduce the viewer to the film, establishing the setting, tone, and general premise. The sequence is highly expositional, utilising narration to explain the current war situation, as well as why refugees are fleeing to Casablanca. We also learn of the two German couriers suspected of possessing the important documents, and witness a murder occur in broad daylight. This all serves to present the Nazis as the domineering antagonistic force of the film.

Cinematography

The opening narration is accompanied by the animation of a dramatic spinning globe, after which the camera pushes into a visual representation of the journey.

The idyllic nature of the city begins to fade as the camera tilts down into the crowded streets. This reveals an expansive set populated by a mass of extras.

The man speaking into the telephone is centrally framed in full focus as he speaks into the telephone, fully diverting the viewer’s attention towards him and the expositional dialogue he recites. He proceeds to explain the case of the German couriers suspected of being in Casablanca possessing important documents.

Sound

The first notable aspect of Casablanca’s opening sequence is Max Steiner’s highly triumphant score that enters the mix in a grandiose manner as the credits roll, which naturally segues into the French national anthem. This provides a twofold sense of international exoticism alongside patriotism. After the opening credits sequence concludes, the score lowers in the mix and the non-diegetic narration rises in the mix.

The diegetic narration establishes the exposition for the film, explaining the path the refugees take in order to reach Casablanca.

Steiner’s non-diegetic score now lowers in the mix, foregrounding the diegetic busy ambience of the streets.

The French national anthem is played in a minor key after the murder, emphasising the political unrest that lies at the heart of Casablanca.

Mise-en-scène

Casablanca is portrayed as an idyllic destination through the use of narration, which is merely accentuated by a hand drawn matte painting of the city. This illustrates a vivid world of vitality, yet the clouds are dark – suggesting that a force of evil resides within the city.

As we cut back to the streets of the city, an erratic atmosphere is created. Each extra is blocked in a way that creates a sense of business, as the police car enters the scene.

Editing

We cross-fade between each country, after which the camera pulls out to display the scale. The map is superimposed onto live-action footage, providing a dual sense of enticing scale alongside realism. This ultimately provides a sense of heightened immersion for the viewer.

We then cross-fade into the office of a man receiving a telegram.

The pace of the editing begins to quicken, demonstrating the urgency of the situation. This sequence merely serves to assist the narrative, providing a sense of urgency that contextualises the persecution of the refugees in the city.

Performance

A sense of escalation is created through the narration as the man utters the line “wait… and wait”, suggesting that hopelessness is exuded throughout Casablanca.

Although most of these scenarios occur silently, we are presented one where the dialogue is able to be heard. This efficient method of storytelling is highly typical of the Classical Hollywood style prominent during the Golden Age of Hollywood.

The German soldiers speak in highly exaggerated accents, informing the audience that they are not filming locally in Morocco and instead employ American actors to put on an accent.

Context and Representation

The film opens with a large Warner Bros. logo, with Jack L. Warner’s name proudly displayed at the forefront, immediately informing the viewing that it is ‘his’ film. Despite his lack of personal involvement, Warner pioneered the film’s production and oversaw prolific elements of the pre-production stage. The stars, such as Humphrey Bogart and Paul Henreid are listed before the title of the film itself, demonstrating that the stars outweighed the film in terms of influence. It is also interesting to make note of the fact that Michael Curtiz’ name is the same size as the rest of the producers, suggesting a level of equal collaboration between them – reinforcing the idea of the studio auteur.

The film is shot in black and white, which was highly characteristic of Warner Bros. at the time. By 1942, colour had been implemented into a small number films for around a decade, such as The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939), but the technology was considered by many to be a ‘gimmick’. During the time of Casablanca’s release, black and white was arguably at its peak. Choosing to continue a film in black and white despite the invention of colour demonstrated artistic nuance, as the iconic ‘noir aesthetic’ had now been refined for over 50 years. Colour was not as ‘sterile’ as black and white was during this time, only being able to display highly saturated colours.

When the man possessing the out-of-date documents is shot by the Nazis, no blood is displayed at all – he merely falls over and the viewer must assume he is dead. This is indicative of the Hays code: the content regulations that each of the Hollywood studios had to conform to. The effects of violence were not allowed to be shown on screen, and even firing a gun at someone was pushing the limits of the regulations.

The leaflet embossed with the ‘Free France’ propaganda message is centrally framed, being symbolically ironic due to the man being shot under the French message that is promoting freedom. This demonstrates Jack L. Warner’s influence upon the film – he firmly believed that war should feature prominently throughout the film, and it is suspected that the film was his way of signalling America to join the war.

Institution As Auteur: Warner Brothers

A small circle of key individuals were heavily involved in the creative production process of Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942). The idea of the executive producer, producer(s), and director having almost an equal amount of creative control was commonplace throughout the Golden Age of Hollywood, and this became known as the ‘studio auteur’. Below is a list of these individuals, explaining the roles they played throughout the production process of Casablanca.

Executive Producer: Jack Warner

Jack Leonard Warner was a Canadian-American film executive, being the president and figurehead of the Warner Brothers’ Burbank Studio. With a career spanning forty five years, Warner became known for his incisive judgement and confidence, inciting a steep level of fear within many of his employees.

He both acquired Warner Brothers’ impressive ‘stable’ of film stars and also promoted the gritty social dramas that the studio was later characterised by. Warner’s primary duties involved overseeing the films produced by the studio, and making suggestions that he believed would enhance the film. His primary agenda involved accurate representations of cultural customs and atmospheres, and this can be vividly observed throughout Casablanca.

*Jack L. Warner pictured with Bette Davis (left) and Joan Crawford (right)*

Producer: Hal B. Wallis

Harold Brent Wallis was a Warner Bros. film producer, best known for producing Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood (Michael Curtiz, 1938), and True Grit (Henry Hathaway, 1969). Throughout his career as a producer, Wallis received 19 Best Picture nominations. After Warner Bros., Wallis was affiliated with Paramount Pictures during which he oversaw films starring Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, and Elvis Presley.

In late 1941, Wallis became fascinated by an unproduced stage play called Everybody Comes to Rick’s. In late December of that same year he bought the film rights for $20,000 and changed the title to Casablanca. Wallis also wrote the famous final line of the film: “This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.”

During the 1943 Academy Awards, Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1943) won the award for Best Picture. Upon being announced, Hal B. Wallis got up to accept the award, only to find that Jack Warner had rushed onstage “with a broad, flashing smile and a look of great self-satisfaction”. Wallis later recalled that “I couldn’t believe it was happening. Casablanca had been my creation; Jack had absolutely nothing to do with it. As the audience gasped, I tried to get out of the row of seats and into the aisle, but the entire Warner family sat blocking me. I had no alternative but to sit down again, humiliated and furious. … Almost forty years later, I still haven’t recovered from the shock.” This dispute demonstrates the contention of the true ownership of the film, as Jack Warner believed that he was in the right to claim all the glory, merely due to him being the figurehead of the studio.

Director: Michael Curtiz

Michael Curtiz was a Hungarian-American director who became the head of Warner Brothers’ Burbank studio. Curtiz’ filmography is vast, spanning over 100 films, the majority of which were released under Warner Brothers. Within Hollywood, Curtiz pioneered the utilisation of: lighting to create a particular aesthetic, fluid camera movements, high crane shots, alongside the use of unusual camera angles.

Curtiz is considered a highly versatile director, handling an eclectic range of genres throughout his time at Warner Bros, including the likes of: comedy, romance, film noir, musicals, Westerns, and horror. Curtiz believed that the “human and fundamental problems of real people” were integral to creating gripping drama, and often based his films on the foundation of this precept.

Curtiz’s vast body of work is greatly outshined by Casablanca, being a cornerstone of the entire Golden Age era. It is a key exemplar of the ‘studio auteur’ style of filmmaking that dominated the cinematic landscape of the Golden Age, epitomising all of the tropes that the Classic Hollywood style would later be known for.

*Michael Curtiz (director), Ingrid Bergman (actress), and Hal. B Wallis* *(producer) pictured together*

Cinematographer: Arthur Edeson

Arthur Edeson was a cinematographer whose career ran through both the Golden Age of Hollywood – including both the Silent and Sound Eras. He worked on many landmarks of the era, namely All Quiet on the Western Front (Lewis Milestone, 1930) and of course, Casablanca. Co-founding the American Society of Cinematographers, Edeson’s style was built on the influence of German Expressionism brought to America through German cinematographers during the 1920s, whilst also keeping to the style of gritty realism popular within the Hollywood studio system.

*Arthur Edeson on the set of Casablanca with Dooley Wilson (Sam) and Ingrid Bergman (Ilsa)*

Composer: Max Steiner

Maximilian Raoul Steiner was an Austrian composer and conductor who, after emigrating to America in 1914, became a renowned composer for Hollywood. He composed over 300 film scores with both RKO and Warner Bros., being nominated for 24 Academy Awards.

Steiner’s score is an integral component in Casablanca’s long-lasting legacy, providing a rich romantic evocation that serves to accentuate the relationship between Rick and Ilsa that lies at the heart of the film.

Classical Hollywood Style

Throughout the Golden Age of Hollywood, a distinctive style of filmmaking was birthed under the control of the studio system. Being produced between the 1930-1960s, the filmmakers aptly utilised each of the key elements of film form in order to augment the emotional weight of the narrative being told.

The films produced throughout this era often shared a handful of common narrative conventions. These included a psychologically defined individual who is caught in a struggle to solve a problem or achieve their goals. There is usually a conflict between this central protagonist and other external circumstances, before resulting in a clear-cut victory or defeat at the end of the film.

This narrative-driven and newly audiovisual style of filmmaking has been broken down into the key elements below, with a few specific examples from Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) being provided.

*Mind map that details the features of Classical Hollywood style*

Monopoly Oligopoly Panoply

The overwhelming prominence of the ‘Big Five’ studios monopolising the landscape of cinema ultimately led to the United States vs Paramount Pictures case of 1948, also referred to as the Hollywood Antitrust Case.

*The famous entrance to Paramount Studio*

Over the course of the 1930s, each of the ‘Big Five’ owned the cinemas in which their films were exclusively shown, either independently or as a partnership with another studio. This meant that only films produced by a specific studio were able to be shown in those cinemas. By 1945, the film studios owned an overall 17% of cinemas in America, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue. This meant that it was not financially viable to release a film independently, or show any film made outside of America in these cinemas. It was clear that the studios were dominating the film industry, establishing an illegal oligopoly.

This led to a group of filmmakers filing a formal complaint to the US Department of Justice, suggesting that the studios’ tactic of vertical integration was an illegal situation that violated antitrust law. In 1938, the studios were all sued by the justice department, with Paramount acting as the primary defendant due to its status as one of the biggest of the ‘Big Five. With the seven other studios – alongside a multitude of subsidiaries – being co-defendants of the case, each head of the studios were prosecuted and personally at risk of losing their livelihoods. The case was settled in 1940 with a consent decree, allowing the government to resume prosecution if the studios did not comply to four conditions by a reassessment that would take place in November 1943. These conditions included the following:

Each of the ‘Big Five’ studios could no longer block-book short films that would accompany the feature-length main film at the cinema
The studios could continue to block-book feature-length films, but the block size was now limited to five films
The practice of ‘blind buying’ was made illegal. This practice involved the studios selling their films to the cinemas without showing them beforehand
A voluntary industry-wide administration board would be created to ensure that these practices were adhered to

After reviewing the case in 1943, it became abundantly clear that the studios had not fully complied to the conditions of the decree. The studios went to trial once again in 1945, with the District Court ruling in favour of the studios, after which the government promptly appealed to the Supreme Court. After reaching the Supreme Court in 1948, they ruled that the studios did not fully comply with the consent decree, and declared that the studios were not allowed to own cinemas anymore, and must sell all of them.

This, coupled with the rising popularity of television in the 1950s, led to a steep decline in the revenue of the studios. Audiences could now watch films from the comfort of their own homes, and others did not have easy access to a cinema, meaning that television was the more convenient option. This ruling also broadened the range of films that American audiences had access to: smaller, independent films were now able to be shown in cinemas, due to cinemas now being able to freely show films from different studios. This ultimately decimated the fortune of the Hollywood studio system – the studios were forced to diversify their practices and the rise in competition skyrocketed.

The United States vs Paramount Pictures case of 1948 was a turning point for Hollywood. The ruling of the Supreme Court ultimately spelled the end of the Golden Age era and birthed the ‘New Hollywood’ era of filmmaking, in which directors began to claim much more creative control over the studios.

The Big Five And The Little Three: The Golden Age Of Hollywood (1930-1960)

Over the course of the Golden Age of Hollywood, American filmmaking ultimately coalesced around Hollywood – a suburb of Los Angeles. Filmmaking was considered both a huge commercial proposition and a business first and foremost, which led to the emergence of a small number of domineering film studios. These corporations fiercely competed against each other in order to produce grander and more impressive films.

The Studios

By the 1930s, eight American film studios had been established – all being conceived at similar times throughout the previous two decades. Colloquially known as the ‘Big Five’ and ‘Little Three’, each of these studios appeared to be very similar on the surface, however each studio possessed a multiplicity of business intricacies that separated them from one another. Each studio had its own unique selling point, attempting to offer something fresh to the table. The studios that made up the ‘Big Five’ included: Metro Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, and RKO. The ‘Little Three’ studios were United Artists, Universal Pictures, and Columbia Pictures – the latter two of which ironically possess a very prolific presence throughout the cinema of the modern day.

Most of the eight studios established themselves by originating from a small chain of cinemas which went on to merge with an array of production companies in Hollywood. These studios then dominated the filmmaking landscape over the late 1910s and 1920s, before The Great Depression of 1929. A few of the studios, such as MGM and Columbia, were able to weather the effects of The Great Depression, and continue strongly into the 1940s, whereas other studios such as 20th Century Fox and Universal were not as fortunate, and had to sell significant assets to survive.

Studios such as MGM offered films which provided glamour and spectacle, also embracing cutting-edge technology such as Technicolor. MGM produced films such as Gone With The Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939) and The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939). Other studios such as Paramount were known for producing light entertainment, such as comedy, whilst also dabbling in biblical epics, such as The Ten Commandments (Cecil B. DeMille, 1956). Both Paramount and Columbia embraced the invention of television in the 1950s and 60s, increasing the studios’ longevity. One of the ‘Little Three’ studios, Columbia, chose to produce B-movies to sell to the bigger studios. These were secondary films that acted as an accompaniment to the main event being shown at the cinema. Columbia managed to successfully survive the Great Depression with no repercussions, primarily due to the fact that they did not have a ‘stable’ of actors to hinder them.

The majority of the eight studios were frequently passed around by a handful of corporations throughout the 1980s and 90s and underwent a business model transformation, such as Universal who in the 1970s, began to focus primarily on releasing a handful of expensive blockbusters each year. These included the likes of Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975) and Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993) In the case of RKO, the name of the studio died out completely and the company was merely absorbed into Paramount.

Vertical Integration and Unbreakable Contracts

The studios also implemented the business tactic of vertical integration, with each studio overseeing and taking ownership of all the means of production. Studios contracted screenwriters, editors, actors, directors, and even entire cinemas in an attempt to monopolise the film industry. From a business perspective, this meant that little to no money spilled out of the studio and each of the eight studios managed to fully maximise their profits, and dominate the market. Due to the studios owning all of the cinemas in United States, this meant there was no opportunity for American audiences to view films outside of the realm of the American studios and cinemas.

The actors were claimed by the studios through the use of ‘unbreakable’ exclusivity contracts that meant that the actor was required to star in a set block of films for that studio and were prevented from making films with any other studio. These actors were the ‘pull’ that drew audiences into cinemas and were thus a vital bargaining chip for the studios. Through this, each studio proudly possessed a ‘stable’ of stars, all of whom would frequently appear in each of the studios’ films that they would go on to produce.

Because of this, studios began to fear the prospect of losing a specific film star after they were approaching the final film on their contract. Many studios decided to ‘cheat the system’ and decided to simply not produce the final film in an actor’s given contract, rendering the contract ‘unbreakable’. From there, many actors were forced to make an impossible decision: either sign another contract with the same studio or never make another film.

As a result of this, four film stars in particular were extremely unhappy with the state of the studio system, claiming that the studios collected an disproportionate amount of money, and did not treat actors fairly. D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks collectively founded United Artists – a company premised on allowing actors to control their own line of work, rather than being fully dependant upon the domineering film studios.

*The four film stars creating the United Artists studio*

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) is arguably the most prolific and well-acclaimed film released during the Golden Age era of Hollywood. It is an American romance/drama film starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Paul Henreid. Being a landmark of cinema, Casablanca’s characters, quotes, and evocative theme song have garnered an iconic status over the last 80 years.

Plot

The film was both shot and takes place during World War II, centering around the protagonist, Rick Blaine – a cynical owner of a gambling den in Casablanca, Morocco – a French colony. The club is a cultural hub of refugees attempting to acquire visas to depart for America, who remained neutral in the war at the time. Rick’s cafe also hosts a number of Vichy French and German officials who attempt to persecute these refugees. Rick himself claims to be neutral in all matters, but we soon learn that he was a gunrunner for Ethiopia during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War and also fought for the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War, demonstrating to the viewer that he fights for justice.

A crook called Ugarte has obtained “letters of transit” by killing two German couriers. These letters allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe. Being highly sought after among the refugees in Rick’s club, Ugarte plans to sell them and persuades Rick to hold the letters for him. Ugarte is instead arrested by Captain Louis Renault – the corrupt police prefect of Casablanca – and dies in custody, keeping the fact that Rick has the letters secret.

Afterwards, a woman called Ilsa Lund enters Rick’s cafe. After Ilsa asks the club’s pianist, Sam, to play “As Time Goes By”, Rick becomes initially furious at Sam for disobeying his order to never play that song again. However, as Rick spots Ilsa, he is astonished and his anger is relieved immediately. It becomes clear that the couple have a history. Ilsa is married to Victor Laszlo, a Czech Resistance leader who is a fugitive and the couple seek an escape to America. A Nazi leader, Major Heinrich Strasser, enters the club in an attempt to arrest Victor.

After finding out that Rick possesses the letters of transit, Victor attempts to buy the letters off him. Rick refuses his offer and informs him to ask his wife, Ilsa, the reason why. Ilsa then confronts Rick to inquire why he refused her husband the letters, threatening him with a gun. She soon professes that she still loves Rick and explains that she thought that Victor had been killed while trying to escape from a concentration camp. We cut to a flashback sequence, and receive a glimpse of Rick and Ilsa’s time in Paris together. As the couple are about to flee the city together, Ilsa mysteriously abandons Rick without explanation to see her husband, who we learn is in a physically distraught condition after escaping the camp.

After learning this, Rick agrees to help the couple, falsely informing Ilsa that he will stay with her when Victor leaves. Victor enters unexpectedly and learns of Rick’s feelings for Ilsa. After she leaves, Victor tries to persuade him to use the letters of transit to take her to safety. Victor is then arrested by the police, during which Rick convinces Renault to release him by promising to set him up for the crime of possessing the letters. Rick explains to Renault that he and Ilsa are soon departing for America. Renault declines and attempts to arrest Victor, before Rick threatens him with a gun.

Right as the plane to Lisbon is about to leave, Rick tells Ilsa to board the plane with Victor, informing her that she would regret going with him and that “we’ll always have Paris”. Major Strasser attempts to intervene and arrest Victor, before Rick promptly shoots him. After the police arrive, Renault orders them to “round up the usual suspects”, before suggesting to Rick that they join the Free French in Brazzaville. As Victor and Ilsa depart for Lisbon, Rick and Renault walk away into the mist. Rick says, “Louis, I think is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

Context

The film was directed by Michael Curtiz, a Hungarian-American director who became the head of Warner Brothers’ Burbank studio. Curtiz’ filmography is vast, spanning over 100 films that were all released under Warner Brothers.

Released in 1942, Casablanca gained immediate critical success, winning three Oscars including Best Director – despite Warner Brothers’ apprehensiveness towards the film, fearing that it would flop. This was due to the fact that it was filmed over the course of three rushed months, with the actors and Curtiz not working well together on set. Casablanca was merely one of a multiplicity films released by Warner Brothers’ in 1942, and was neither the most expensive film nor the film the studio expected to take off.

Despite taking place in the exotic location of Casablanca in Morocco, the entire film was shot at Warner Brothers Studios in Burbank, California – the only exception being the the opening sequence in which Strasser flies past a aeroplane hangar, filmed at Van Nuys Airport, Los Angeles.

As previously mentioned, the film was both shot and takes place during World War II. Interestingly, the film was shot a mere four months before the events of Pearl Harbour, which is why the United States remain a neutral territory in the film. It exists in a liminal period in which America was fully at war, but not yet fully immersed in a propagandistic war ideology.

*A shot from the opening sequence of Casablanca*

Techniques

The film’s narrative is predominantly linear, with Curtiz making use of one flashback sequence to illustrate Rick and Ilsa’s romantic affairs in Paris. Curtiz also employs lots of centrally-framed closeups of both Rick and Ilsa, with key lighting and fill lighting also being implemented. Through this, both harsh shadows and well-defined outlines of the characters are created. This, alongside the fact that the film is in black and white accentuates the wistful emotion and atmosphere of the film. Due to the lighting, Ilsa appears to be emanating a sort of radiance which contributes to the mythical nature of her character. Rick’s cafe also feels incredibly lived-in and bustling through the use of blocking, mise-en-scène, and diegetic ambience.

As previously mentioned, the film’s main theme is particularly iconic – the diegetic implementation of the 1931 jazz piece, As Time Goes By. The piece provides a strong romantic evocation, and is played by Sam, the house pianist, in Rick’s club.

I really enjoyed Casablanca for the inarguably timeless romance story it offered, underpinned by the hardships faced by the refugees of World War II . It holds up extremely well for an 80-year-old film, and its prestigious pedestal in cinematic history is well deserved.

Overall, I would rate Casablanca ★★★★.

*A central closeup of Ilsa,* *enhanced by key and fill lighting*

From Buster to Bogart

After film was popularised during the 1910s, it soon went from being a ‘seaside attraction’ to a commercial and vastly popular form of mass entertainment. This occurred through the death of music hall as a form of entertainment, during which cinemas overtook the buildings that were previously music halls. American entrepreneurs soon began to view film as a grand business opportunity first and foremost, rather than an art form.

Over the course of the 20th Century, film in America undertook a variety of forms. Throughout the 1910s, short films known as ‘two-reelers’ were the most popular form of entertainment. Focusing particularly on comedy, action, and romance, this style of filmmaking was perfected by the silent stars of the 1920s, such as Buster Keaton.

Film’s exponential gain in popularity over the course of the 1920s led to a drastic rise in competition, ultimately forming the ‘Big Five’ film studios that dominated the playing field. Each studio attempted to provide a sense of differentiation, offering bigger budgets, more exotic filming locations as well as featuring the most prolific stars. The studios also implemented the business tactic of vertical integration, with each studio overseeing and taking ownership of every stage of film production. Studios contracted screenwriters, editors, actors and even entire cinemas in an attempt to monopolise the film industry. Through this, both the ‘studio system’ and ‘star system’ were established.

Four film stars in particular were extremely unhappy with the state of the studio system, claiming that the studios collected an inordinate amount of money from the booming film business. D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks collectively founded United Artists – a company premised on allowing actors to control their own line of work, rather than being fully dependant upon the domineering film studios.

*D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks founding United Artists*

Silent Cinema: Stars And Studios In The States

Originating in the late 1800s, film began when Lumiere brothers discovered that if you displayed images in a rapid sequence (24 per second), it would create the illusion of a moving image. The first films were originally shot at an unmoving wide angle without any sound. At the time, one reel of film lasted around 8-12 minutes. Because of this, most films used two reels of film and were appropriately dubbed ‘two-reelers’. By the 1910s, filmmakers incorporated varying angles and used a multitude of sets within in a single film – portraying spatial and temporal movement.

As opposed to Germany and Russia, America did not view film as a new art form first and foremost. Instead, many American entrepreneurs saw film as a grand business opportunity. Because of this, vertical integration quickly took effect and filmmaking was quickly transformed into an assembly line-esque industry. Romance and comedy films were the genres of primary focus, due to these films attracting the highest cinema viewership, as they were easily digestible and relatable to audiences at the time.

In addition to this, slapstick was a very popular genre during the silent era of film, which displayed the actors’ daring athleticism and seemingly impossible feats. Through this, the first ‘stars’ of Hollywood were born – including Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, as well as many others. The slapstick comedy duo Laurel & Hardy also had highly successful careers both during and after the silent era of Hollywood.

As film continued to grow exponentially in popularity, the rise of production facilities throughout America increased. This gave birth to the first film studios, five of which dominated the cinema. Throughout this Golden Age of Hollywood, the main studios included: Paramount, RKO, MGM, Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox, who had complete control over both production business and distribution firms. It is no understatement to remark upon the fact that these studios were the supreme rulers of the American film industry from the 1920s-50s.

By 1929, almost all films had synchronised sound and film was the most popular art form in the Western world. Audiences visited the cinema primarily to see their favourite stars on the big screen. Because of this, the stars of Hollywood were coerced into signing exclusivity contracts, meaning that they could only work under specific studios. The film studios themselves only continued to grow substantially during the Great Depression, during which actors and directors were merely viewed as assets to possess by the studios. Studios engaged in a practice known as ‘block booking’ which allowed the studio to sell to multiple films to cinemas at once. Each cinema was owned by a particular studio and they had complete creative control over each film that was released under it. Ticket prices were fixed and each studio attempted to monopolise the industry by acquiring film ‘packages’. This meant that a handful of films were immediately owned by the particular studio.

This ultimately led to an over-saturation of uninspired and ‘by the numbers’ films. Filmmakers were restricted to experiment outside of what was absolutely certain to sell tickets. Hollywood’s contemporary association with shallowness, glamour and money originated from this early age of cinema.

A Brief History Of Cinema

Cinema is a relatively new dominant art form, being around 130 years old. It is ever-evolving and was a revolutionary way in which humans could express themselves. It is also a knowable concept, due to the fact that the entire history of cinema is mapped out and is within our great-grandparents’ lifetimes.

*An early cinema – only one person was able to watch a film* *at a time*

The history of cinema starts in the 1800s, when photography was first invented. This was a revolutionary moment in history, as now you were able to capture a moment of reality. This was done through the process of exposing a camera obscura containing photosensitive chemicals to light. However, early photography took hours and the subject was forced to sit still for a prolonged period. Subsequently, photography quickly developed and soon enough became a business. Afterwards, people began to ponder the idea of moving images, and soon realised that if many images were sequenced together in rapid succession, it created the illusion of movement. This led to the production of early films – which were reminiscent of flip books.

By 1895, technologies were competing to produce moving images, however, it was a mere novelty at this point. There was no infrastructure, film now existed but was solely a “seaside attraction”. Despite this, film soon caught the imagination of the population and was consistently developed and commercialised. Two key pioneers for the film industry were the Lumiere brothers, who developed iconic early films such as Employees Leaving the Lumiere Factory and The Arrival of a Train. These short experiments did not tell a story of any kind, but merely showed the audience of the late 19th Century what film was capable of.

At this point in time, theatre was cheap entertainment and music halls were common place. As these attractions fell out of favour, music halls were replaced by cinemas and soon enough – every town had a cinema. Because of this, the snowball effect began to take place and there was a sudden explosion in both cinemas and film production. Particularly in America, film was recognised as an incredible business model and many entrepreneurs jumped straight to it. Filmmaking was quickly transformed into a factory assembly line in which the studio completed every task. This was known as vertical integration and the money was gained from the public. The American film industry was constantly competing to be bigger, better and have more assets and this was done by spending the most amount of money. Every stereotypical trait that Hollywood is associated with (glamour, scale, money etc.) originated from this point.

Another key trailblazer in the world of filmmaking was George Melies, who invented both substitution splices and double-exposure: two key techniques in modern day cinema. Melies’ most iconic work was A Trip To The Moon (1902) which made great use of both techniques.

During 1900-1910, cinema went from being the “theatre of attractions” to narrative-driven. Films were no longer a series of stills – technology had greatly advanced and full stories were being told. 35mm film was used to shoot, process and produce films. Physical film was used for mainstream cinema up until about 15 years ago until digital filming was used. In order for the human eye to be fooled into perceiving a sequence of images as movement, 24 images must be displayed every second.

By 1920, film was the most popular art form in the Western world due to the fact that it was accessible to everyone. However, colour and sound were problems to be solved. The idea of painting sets was briefly considered, but was deemed far too impractical. Dubbing was also attempted to solve the sound problem, but this didn’t work. At this point, all films were shot in 4:3 aspect ratio (square), as widescreen wasn’t considered until much later.

Throughout the later 20th Century, cinema continuously developed and many problems were solved. The first film with synchronised sound was released in 1927 and two key actors who were famous before and after sound were the comedy duo Laurel & Hardy. Film was used for World War propaganda, as well as many other commercial items.

However, the invention of the television instantly established itself as the main opponent for the film industry. Initially, TVs were far too expensive for the average person, but by the 1950s most average families owned a television. Ticket sales began to decline as there was no reason to go the cinema anymore when you could watch the latest films from the comfort of your own home.

The film industry constantly attempted to overcome the TV problem by initially making cinema screens much wider than TV screens. Going to the cinema now became a prestigious event, rather than a day-to-day activity. New films were additionally not shown on television until many months down the line, this was done to increase cinematic demand. The film industry also briefly dabbled in 3D, but this wasn’t commercially viable.

By the 1970s, VCR was a new competitor for the film industry and video rental shops, such as Blockbuster, dominated the market. As each new obstacle arose, cinema threw money at the problem to counteract it. However, this ultimately failed and by the 1980s, almost every cinema in the UK closed down.

In present day society, the film industry faces many opponents such as TV channels, internet and streaming services.