The film industry would have needed younger actors for their movies. So, would any contracted young actor be exempt or would it just apply to more established stars?
I imagine even with an exemptions, plenty would have wanted to exist. Or perhaps they weren't exempt. But I'm curious as to the rules during WW1 and WW2.
Seems a strange omission. Easily my favourite label. They're so consistent and their releases are so interesting. Love all their niche and foreign language releases.
Seems a strange omission. Easily my favourite label. They're so consistent and their releases are so interesting. Love all their niche and foreign language releases.
I feel like these labels have been releasing a hell of a lot of material. Each month, they have a whole new catalogue of delights. Even the labels considered "small" like Radiance, are putting out around 5-10 films a month. And lots of these are older titles that need restoration work doing.
So how long does it typically take to restore a movie and how many people are working on the project? Obviously it depends on the type of movie, but it would be great to have a rough idea.
I think Bogie as he had this acerbic sense of humour and attitude towards life and he seemed so principled. Plus, he had no airs or graces, and took a range of interesting roles ranging from heroes and villains.
I watched such a great documentary on WB's YouTube channel about the film....called An Unlikely Classic: Behind the Scenes. It's a great watch and 35 mins long. The title doesn't do it justice as it goes into everything. Some great interviews on there from seasoned film vets. It made a lot things more clear for me about the movie.
I've always struggled to pin down why I found this film so magical. I didn't like it on my first watch when I was a bit younger. I saw it again last year and it just whisked me away - but at the same time, I was struggling to understand why I felt it was a masterpiece and what was so great about it.
I watched this documentary, and what I found most interesting was, firstly, how all the film people being interviewed on it were saying how it was a perfectly made film, and sort of the apex of the studio system firing on all cylinders.
Then, they spoke about how it was all filmed on WB's lot and their vision of Casablanca didn't match reality whatsoever. It showed pictures of Casablanca at the time which kind of just looked like a normal city.
1940s Casablanca was actually a bustling, modern metropolis with a mix of Art Deco French colonial buildings, a historic Medina, and modern, industrial infrastructure. The film, however, painted it with a more "orientalist" or "seedy" palette to fit the noir-esque atmosphere.
So with the fact it doesn't take place in a real setting, I feel like this gives the film a dreamlike otherworldly magical quality.
Then also the fact the actual scenario is totally nonsensical. The plot centers on "letters of transit" that allow someone to travel freely. Such documents did not exist, and Nazis would likely not have recognized them.
Plus, the idea of enemies casually drinking at the same bar is a huge exaggeration. While wartime Casablanca was indeed a melting pot of refugees and spies, the social dynamics were far more segregated and restricted than depicted in the movie.
They certainly wouldn't be jousting with words across the tables!
But it's a movie, and a great goddamn propaganda film at that. The best movies cause you to suspend your disbelief. That's why I think the actors at the time of filming hated it so much, just because it seemed so silly on paper. All the three main stars had wanted out. Paul Henreid, an Austrian born Jew, particularly despised it.
So to conclude, the film is just so magical because the whole thing is a fantasy. A powerful lyrical one with meaning.