It was a pleasure to burn

And so the first shot is fired. This, of course, is how it starts. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get my fire extinguisher.

-------------------------------------------------

1 Author: XXXXXXXXX [name edited for privacy]

I don't know if I agree with the propaganda claim with regards to Casablanca--it sounds a lot like a repeat of some of the older film theory about the film. That isn't to say that Casablanca doesn't have political implications, but I always thought that it was more fun to view the film in terms of how each character might represent their cultural politics of the time instead of as an overly enthusiastic praise for America.

Well, if you call film theory fun anyway.

2 Author: Daniel Tabayoyon

As always, with all interpretation and critical analysis, any number of different approaches can alter the result. Critical thinking creates subjectivity so... it's perfectly okay that you disagree with me :) (re: I'm not mad, k? lol)

However, when you watch the film again, take time to consider that this is an American film made by an American production company that portrays an American who avoids taking sides (just as America did during the early part of World War II) who then changes his mind near the end (as the America did during World War II) and, as soon as he involves himself, is willing to make the Ultimate Sacrifice because he's just so darn noble and righteous (a view of America-at-war by Americans during World War II). Also, as told to us by the narration in the beginning of the film, America (the country) is portrayed as the last bastion of hope in a war-torn world: a "perfect place" for all the displaced children of Europe. (Of course, America actually DID open its doors with the Displaced Persons Act in 1948 for refugees of World War II Europe, so they were right at least about that. Only a mere 6 years after the war, no less)

Look, I realize my criticism of Casablanca might sound like I'm anti-American or something, which is so completely not the case by a long shot. The point I was trying to make with this blog was that all countries during World War II were using film for the dissemination of propaganda during World War II. I just think that Warner Bros. and Hal B. Wallis were better at doing it to the passive subconscious of an audience. Much better at it than Goebbels was, to say the least. Whereas most propaganda films of that era literally beat the audience over the head with the messages of its country's righteousness and steadfast assurance during a time of war, Hollywood put out a film with the same implications wrapped neatly in a romantic story about two star-crossed lovers.

Right? Wrong? I don't have an opinion about that. It's easy and dangerous to cast moral judgments from afar and I'm simply not the guy to do that. I don't think that the film is a "bad one" because of the propaganda aspect. But I look at Casablanca and see a subtext, especially considering the roles of the characters and who they represent in the film.

It is "fun" to look at each character and how they might represent the cultural politics of the time, as you mentioned. You have to do exactly that to see the propaganda aspect of this film. But also consider the time this film was made. Two weeks before the film was to be released, the Allies invaded the real life Casablanca. The film wasn't to be released until the spring of next year but the studio pushed it out for the public a mere two weeks later. I have to believe there was a motive there. And when there's a motive, there's an agenda. And an agenda through media, especially film, could be considered propaganda. Of course, it could have just been Hollywood capitalizing on current events to make a buck too. I don't know: I'm not a 1940's Warner studio exec so I can't really comment as to what their motives were :)

Of course, as I said at the beginning of this response, this can be the difficulty of critical analysis. Once one assigns a lens through which to view something, it's easy to see how everything fits into that view. As I mentioned in my blog post, this particular viewing's revelation is a new one to me. I'm not sure it comes because I'm capable of seeing those sorts of things more readily because I'm older now or if it's just a trick of my paranoid brain. Either way, that's what I got out of the film this time around. And after a dozen experiences of watching this movie, this was a new one; one that "struck me" (as the blog directions stated)... so I thought I'd talk about it.

Thanks for your comment. I'm always glad when something I write gets people to think about what they think, even if it's to disagree with me. It makes me think harder as well... and that can never be a "bad" thing, in my book.

Sincerely,
Dan

---------------------------------


Yeah... so....


-d@n

blog for school

This is a blog I wrote for my ENG 304: Film Studies class. We are watching Casablanca for class and I had some things to day about it, so I thought I'd post it here as well. Enjoy! Oh yeah, SPOLIER ALERT for any of you who haven't seen this movie. You've been appropriately warned.

--------------

The last time I saw this film was in high school for a Film Studies class my senior year of high school, over 25 years ago. In that class, we focused our studies on the aspects of lighting, the use of shadow to highlight certain scenes of dialogue, the underlying themes of the setting, and each role represented by the various actors in the film. After watching the film for that class and trying to pay special attention to all the things my instructor told me to keep an eye out for, I remember thinking at the time that I had ended up looking at this film more than actually just watching it. I was determined not to let that be the case when I watched it again for this class.

But, no matter how hard I tried to ignore those aspects of the film, I still found myself peering into the scenes trying to see where the cinematographer had placed the light so as to bounce off the shoulder of Ingrid Bergman so effectively. Or trying to deduce the implied meaning behind the shadow-box technique used to show Bogey getting the cash out of the safe. I found myself searching websites to find translations of the French quote on the wall painting featuring Vichy in the opening sequence when the refugee is gunned down in front of it.

This is the problem with Casablanca. We end up looking at it rather than watching it. This film has been praised and lauded over for so long by the Hollywood film critic that we've convinced ourselves that it's a good movie by believing the technical depth of it somehow outweighs the mediocre performances, a paper-thin plot device, and the subtle yet prevalent jingoist subtext. Technically, it is a very well shot film. The use of lighting techniques alone make this film a compelling watch. But, "One of the Top 5 Films of All Time"? I just don't buy it.

Bogey is a terrible actor and an extremely unattractive male lead. Bergman is gorgeous but her portrayal of a woman is laughable by today's interpretations. Claude Rains is.... well, Claude Rains is amazing so I don't really have any complaints there. I don't know if it's because I've gotten older and therefore more aware of the media presented reality that has colored my interpretation of a film like Casablanca, but when I finished watching it this time, all I could think about the film was: "Wow, this movie might be the most successful piece of American World War II propaganda ever filmed".

Here is Rick, the "every American": a reluctant hero who refuses to get involved with the foreign policies of a world at war all around him; who only acts when he decides it's the moral right and then selflessly sacrifices everything so that order can be maintained and hope can survive (boldface to indicate rhetorical "buzz phrases"). There is the eeeeevil dastardly German officer Major Strasser (who couldn't have been lit more horribly if they had put him under fluorescent tubing) making everyone's life miserable. And who could forget the French officer, Louis Renault; a truly corrupt cop who spends his days split between entertaining German soldiers and indulging his own hedonistic desires... only to turn on his "masters" at the last minute to help the American when the American finally decides to get involved. The Czech terrorist (read as: "underground freedom fighter") and the pretty girl from Oslo are safe and sound on a plane to America: a fabled land of gumdrop kisses and the warmest reception for immigrants and refugees fleeing their homelands to find hope in the American Dream. There might as well been a footer running along the bottom of the film with the saying, "America is the greatest country of all time and you're welcome, Europe. You owe us one!" and had flag pins handed out to audience members at the door.

Germany at the time was putting out plenty of propaganda films of their own, of course. War is funny that way. There's a deluge of information filtered into the common sector that helps everyone cope with the fact that horrible things are happening somewhere else between warring nations. I think that, at the time of it's release, America was just more subtle and more clever with the dissemination of their propaganda. It's so slick in this film that it practically slips past the viewer completely unnoticed, thanks mainly to the romantic plot. And it's effective! I, too, felt my heart rise with the emotional release of the singing of "Marseillaise" over the arrogant, outnumbered German soldiers in the bar. It's hard not to get wrapped up in the emotion of that scene, especially when trivia sources reveal that "many of the extras had real tears in their eyes; a large number of them were actual refugees from Nazi persecution in Germany and elsewhere in Europe and were overcome by the emotions the scene brought out." (www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/trivia)

I guess the point of my blog entry here is that, when I was young, I looked at this film with a critical eye towards the technical. As I've gotten older and understand better the use of film as a medium to distribute emotive content for the purpose of informing one's emotional bias towards a thing, I examined this film with a critical eye towards its rhetoric.

And, as before when I was younger, I still didn't really get a chance to just watch the film. I was too busy looking at it.

---------------------

Thanks for reading,
-d@n

So whatcha been up to?

Hey there. Remember how I said I'd try and blog more often so as to keep this blog thingy going and thus fill all you great people in on what my life is like, now that travel has come to an end? Yeah... about that.....

So, if you look closely at the date of the last post I put here, you'll notice cleverly that it was dated back in May some time. It's July now. That's two months of stuff that's been going on. Where do I begin? How much time should I spend going over every bit of minutia and melodrama that has gone on in the meager two months time it took to live it all? Well.....

... the truth is, it's life. I've been a busy little bee. So there. I started school last month so, yay for me. I think I even did pretty well in my Spanish class, which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. Tomorrow my online classes start and I'm a little reluctant about them. Mostly this comes from my inner turmoil at taking anything the internet has to say seriously. I have taken online classes before and always, always, ALWAYS, I manage to start flame wars in the discussions room. I don't mean to, I swear! It just sort of.... happens. Someone starts talking about something they know nothing about and I can't help but poke holes in the fabric of their reality... especially if that reality is founded on obviously non-objective reasoning and illogical conclusion. I don't know what they get so upset about, really.

But seriously folks: I don't know how people can get so offended on the other side of a computer screen at things they aren't even fully reading completely, without any kind of interpersonal frame of reference to draw upon, nor inflected tone to create rhetorical context with. Shit, half the time people just get mad because they just imagine you're being rude. Which is hilarious, considering: it's a computer screen and text on white background and very little else. Who knows... I'm just gonna sit back, turn my assignments in on time, and pretend like these types of things matter. I figure that's the best I can do, right? Right.

Speaking of things that matter, I'm headed to Bend soon for my best friend's wedding. No, not the silly Julia Roberts flick with that crazy-ass Cameron Diaz lady. No, my friend Todd is getting married. And guess what, bitches? That's right! Best Man status for moi! EAT IT! UNH! You like THAT?! HUH!?! YEAH!!! SUCK ON THAT, SUCKA!!!!!

Tell the truth, I'm a little terrified at having to be, like, responsible and stuff. But... Todd called and so shall I abide. I am looking forward to getting out of town for a little while. Ever since I got back from travels, it seems like I've been putting myself right back into the positions and ruts I was in before I left. And that's not very conducive to personal growth or Dan's ever-loving struggle to maintain sanity. I have kept busy with company though. The last couple of weeks saw a housewarming party followed by another BBQ get together the next day, Lupe's mom and sis coming to visit for a few weeks, a cousin-in-law I hadn't seen in a few years, her kid, Lupe's aunt, sis-in-law.. again, and basically a bunch of people in my house for a few weeks every day. Of course, now that they've all finally left, I am leaving too so.... yeah. Irony, I suppose.

Today we went and saw "Trek In The Park" featuring the Atomic Arts Performers including my co-worker/friend/guy-I-know, Adam Rosko. It was good. To tell the truth though, I preferred last years performance better (sorry,Adam). It was just tighter all around. But, then again, re-watching "Space Seed" in anticipation for this season's performance, I realized that this particular episode of Star Trek really wasn't very good. Oh, I know... technically, none of them are "good" but you know what I mean. It's a little... I dunno... thrown together? Yeah. That's a good way to describe it. The actors were great, the sets even better this year, and the fight scene is top notch. But still... "Amok Time" was better. Maybe that's just expectation talking. Dunno. Still, go see it if you get a chance. Atomic Arts has done something truly amazing with their little slice of the Portland performance theater scene and it's truly worth checking out.

It's late here in P-town and all the drunken punk hipsters are tucked neatly in their beds, their ill-fitting jeans and thrift-store hoodies piled in mosaic bundles on the floors of crappy, white-washed apartment rooms everywhere... so I shall bid adieu for now. Sorry it took me so long to come back. Are you even reading any more? Or have I put you off with my absence? Only the Internet Gods know for sure if this proverbial message in a bottle will reach your technological shores so.... keep an eye out to the distance and a sharp watch on the horizon. Who knows.... maybe I'll do this again sometime.

-d@n