Curtiz

I actually watched this film twice on Netflix. The second time I had a friend with me who loves Casablanca and claims to have seen it at least 50 times. He really liked this film and found the parts about the filming of Casablanca rewarding. We do wonder how much of the personal story is true, i.e. was Curtiz's daughter really on the set of Casablanca. For those who complained there were no subtitles for the Hungarian language scenes, in Netflix you must turn on subtitles. I have them on all the time as I am hard of hearing. It would be to your benefit to re-watch the film with the subtitles on.

I'm not sure i get why this is panned as much as it is. What was the expectation? I mean anyone w/ an instrument can play 'Wagon Wheel'; but if they play it especially well, what's not to appreciate? It's monochrome to reflect the period & theme & the art form it is an homage to. It is stylized as such & states it is a work of fiction out of the gate. The lighting & cinematography is beautiful, the sound design & editing work hand in hand, & the performances are excellent- tho also a match to the period/genre's somewhat heightened sensibilities. Sure it could be called 'pretentious fim school' stuff; but if anyone can make a movie that looks & sounds & functions as well, they've done a fine job. I'd like to see any disparaging critic show something better. All art is subjective & a matter of opinion in the end. A critic can say the story worked & why; for me, I love the genre & the history, I appreciate the technical effort behind the shooting & editing. The actors are believable & expressive. The editing dialogue & sound all work to move things forward... A critic can point out what doesn't work. If the 'noir' genre &/or period or history aren't your thing, this might not be. If you're expecting a biopic, thisnt isn't that, as details of Cuttiz's life are left as ambiguous as his personal morals. If you're expecting a detailed 'making of' of Casablanca, it isn't that either. As a critic I can say, it is more about the ideas of art vs. artist, & those expectations surrounding the role of that art & those artists in the circumstances of war. So, see it, if that sounds in your wheelhouse & you can decide how you feel about it.

One of the few grinnable moments. Dark and confusing. No sympathetic characters. Depressing account of the greatest film ever made.

I award this film three stars for its somewhat successful mimicking of Curtiz's technique, which in any case was a rip-off of Orsen Welles' techniques, but that is more stars than this film deserves.

Michael Curtiz was hardly an artist, he was a prolific but average studio owned director with a lot, a whole lot, of mediocre sentimental films but nothing notable with the exception of Casablanca.

Casablanca has a huge popular cultural impact, and it is a loved film, but it is hardly an achievement from a directorial point of view. The most notable and loved aspects of Casablanca are the score eg "as time goes by"/a kiss is but a kiss...", which Curtiz himself opposed; the dozen or so immensely notable one liners ("I am shocked, shocked) which were the sole creation of the writers, the Epstein brothers; the casting of Bogart who fit the role perfectly and which Curtiz had nothing to do with; and the serendipitous way the screenplay's narrative fit perfectly with Americana's view about their intervention in the war. None of those were the result of anything Curtis did or decided.

This film also invents a storyline in which Curtiz is harassed by some shadowy US government representatives trying to promote a patriotic message, when in fact the reason d'etre of the film was seen as a vehicle for exactly that by producer Wallis and by Wanrer brothers from the get go. There is no evidence Curtiz ever in the period had has patriotism questioned or that he was threatened by any government officials. He was hired as director because he had a record of getting things done quickly, adequately, and within budget, and despite that he went over budget and well outside of schedule. That garnered pressure from the studio -- nothing else did.

The only alteration by semi-government officials at all in Casablanca was removal of the direct reference to the Vichy French official trading visas for sexual favors out of standard prudery in film standards of the time. This is is a irony lost on the makers of "Curtiz" since they downplay the fact that Curtiz was top predator in the 'casting couch' tradition and he spent his career abusing his power over young actresses. The unintended irony is that Curtiz behaved like that Vichy official! Curtiz also left a trail of illegitimate children (when he could not convince the woman to have an abortion) whom he did not support.

Frankly this is a "message" film with a fake message. I get that the Hungarian makers of this tripe want to celebrate their native son who went to America and did well. But I suspect that they decided on the subject since making it about film-maker they are then guaranteed to get placement in the increasingly narcissistic and self referential film festivals. Frankly a story about Hungarian born Monica Selles, or Edward Teller would have been more interesting.

Lastly there are a few juvenile and artificial attempts to make the film timely. If you are unforgotten enough to watch "Curtiz" look for someone dropping the line "make America great again." That is so snarky and forced that it is beyond idiotic -- especially when we are talking about a time when the US did save Europe and people like Curtiz, and millions of Europeans fled the statist oppression of communism and fascism in Europe specifically because of its greatness.

I expected more of this great director's bio and not just his frustrations on Casablanca.