Talk:Casablanca (film)

As much as I love this film...

This is a wonderful film, but there is an incident of casual racism, when Ilsa asks” who is the boy at the piano?” Sam is an adult man, not a boy. Otherwise the film seems to treat Sam’s character with respect. However, the fact that Ilsa referred to him in this term, bothers me a bit. But It seems that Ilsa has to “play a part” and not let on that she recognizes and values Sam as a full and talented human being. So, I guess I will forgive the screenwriters for putting these words in Ilsa’s mouth. Everyone in Casablanca had to play a part, to escape the notice of the Master Race flunkies.

Also, where is the bottle of Champagne that Renault orders? Why is the “Spanish singer” playing the guitar (solely on the neck, like Eddie Van Halen) in such an odd manner? Bless, her, she certainly doesn’t need the few tiny chord/strums to accompany her lovely voice. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is unlikely to be considered a racist term in this context. Having said that, the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article; it should not be used as a forum to express views about the film itself. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Eagleash, you are entirely correct, and I apologize. WP is not the place for my personal film-viewer observations...thank you for your polite admonishment. I am currently rewatching this classic film. I am very sorry that I went beyond what is WP proper, and abused this talkpage. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Regrettable as it is today, calling adult black males "boys" was very much the norm in the early 1940's. Casablanca was a product of its times, and it holds up better now than does Gone with the Wind, which has even-more blatant racism in depiction of African-Americans. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

      Yes, but what is dumb about Ilsa calling Sam a "boy" is that she is Norwegian, not an American casual racist, and would not have any reason to demean Sam in that manner. They could have just written it, "Who's the piano player? I think I know him."

      It's also ironic in a big anti-fascist movie to have Sam speak in stereotyped ungrammatical dialect. Pascalulu88 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda

Much as I love this movie I must recognize it as propaganda due to its message and its timing. Propagandistic elements include:

1. unflattering depictions of Vichy France and of course Nazi Germany (as if either was likely to be seen sympathetically) 2. introduction of a wide array of people who could be victims of the Nazis 3. depiction of a self-pitying Rick Blaine who forgets that he has cause to be thankful for being an America as someone needing correction for such 4. early small victories for the Allied side (The Marseillaise drowning out Die Wacht am Rhein)

Obviously no American movie from the first few months of World War II that addressed international issues involving the war was going to say anything sympathetic about Nazis or the Third Reich.

It is the third point that is special, and "be proud and thankful that you are American enough that you will fight for it" is a clear message. Maybe people had their doubts before Pearl Harbor, but if they still had those, those needed to be banished, and fast. Propaganda can be distinguished achievement, and it can be subtle. Maybe such is more unlikely than crude expressions that are embarrassments after the fact or must be seen in context to be tolerable (let us say the cartoon "Tokio Jokio"). That propaganda is a cinematic masterpiece (as is Battleship Potemkin) makes it less blatant. It is intended to promote a political position, which makes it no less propaganda than something ugly or incompetent.

I introduced the idea that Casablanca is propaganda in the article on Propaganda.

Pbrower2a (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it have been possible or desirable to depict Vichy France and the "THIRD Reich" (as Claude Rains puts it) in a flattering way? What exactly are you complaining about here? Any objective descriptions of the activities of Vichy France or the Nazi régime ARE going to be unflattering to most decent people.

And the "wide range of people" actually are victims of the Nazis. Pascalulu88 (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Intro takes too long to get to the point

Casablanca is among the most famous and celebrated films ever made, whether you like it or not, but you wouldn't know it from the first three paragraphs or 300 words of this article, which read like the Wikipedia entry on any other old film. Loads and loads of detail before "oh yeah, by the way, it's quite popular." Casablanca's fame should be the first thing the article mentions.

As memory serves me, a minor detail

The entry states: "Laszlo orders the house band to play La Marseillaise" I thought it was Yvonne rather than Laszlo.

No, it was Laszlo. Why would Yvonne do such a thing? Youtube has several clips showing Laszlo doing the deed. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Laszlo tells them to play. Rick nods to the band and gives his approval. MartinezMD (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Medals make witty statement

The medals Claude Rains wears are the World War I Victory Medal, the WW I Commemoration Medal and the WW I Legion of Honor. Whenever Major Strasser asks who will win WW II everybody acts like they don't know, yet there's Claude Rains flashing his victory medals, flash, flash, glint, glint. Since this movie was directed by Michael Curtiz this was obviously deliberate. I think this should be noted in the article. 98.238.220.212 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Has a reliable source discussed it? DonIago (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

General Weygand

When Ugarte explains to Rick that he has "letters of transit" that "cannot be rescinded, not even questioned", he specifies that they have been signed by General Weygand, who was a high-ranking official in the Vichy government. I suspect, however, that generations of Americans, French and perhaps other nationalities believe he says "General de Gaulle". In fact, I recently saw the film in a cinema in France and the French subtitle said "General de Gaulle". On my DVD version, the English hard-of-hearing subtitle also says "General de Gaulle", but the French subtitle correctly says, "General Weygand". Not only is this what Ugarte actually says, but it would make no sense for him to say "General de Gaulle". De Gaulle's signature would have had absolutely no authority in Vichy France. For this reason, I would like to specify that the letters of transit are signed by General Weygand. I would do this toward the top of the plot description, in the sentence that begins "The papers allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe and to neutral Portugal ...". I would expand this sentence to say, "The papers, signed by General Weygand, a high-ranking Vichy government official, allow the bearers to travel freely around German-occupied Europe and to neutral Portugal...". Steviesk (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Who issued the letters is disputed (and this is noted in the Inaccuracies section). You cannot say for certain it was Weygand. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What we really need is a script from the movie. That would resolve it once and for all. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the actual script survives. If, and this is a big if, this is a legitimate script, it says on p. 19 that it was signed by "Marshall Waygand [sic]". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I just looked at the particular line in the movie (in theory the actor could have deviated from the script) and imho while Waygand is bit hard to hear it is clearly not de Gaulle (no l sound at the end) If you want to check it yourself see/listen here. So I'd agree to the suggestion above and also to update the inaccurancy section accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. You hear one thing, others hear another, as confirmed by the inconsistent captioning. If someone has access to a verified script (why would the actor deviate from it?), that would settle(?) the matter once and for all. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No. This is a trivial detail that does not belong in the plot section. It is totally unnecessary to mention either Weygand or De Gaulle or the fictional general Waygand created for the purposes of an obviously convenient MacGuffin. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

General "Waygand" was probably never intended to be fictional. The misspelling is probably that of an American who had only heard the name on the radio and just typed it with American phonetics.

We don't remember Weygand, but he was quite famous (and notorious) for 30 plus years. Pascalulu88 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainly @Clarityfiend: but also @DrKay::

Using the film in this context might actually be less WP:OR than using the original script - if we're making a statement about the film rather than the script. It is not that uncommon during filming an actor might change his lines of somwhat (by mistake or or intention) and it is then up to the director whether he takes another cut to fix that or leaves the deviation in there because he likes it. That's just how filming works in practice.

Howwever here I just mentioned the film that to point out that original film and orignal script actually do agree so, so both yield the same conclusion (and as I said you can clearly hear that it is not de Gaulle, that is not really a question of interpretation or researching some mangled audio tape).

The most likely reason, I suspect, why some subs (in particular) on dvd or video might have it wrong (and unfortunately apparently some literature too) might just be that de Gaulle is much better known than Weygand (in fact in might be fair to assume, that at least outside of France and WWII historian circles, most cultural never heard but Weygand but have heard of de Gaulle.

Now with regard to our article and WP:OR. First of all the (original) movie, the original script and subtitles on various cassette, dvd or streaming editions are all primary sources and the cited book (Robertson) is a secondary source. Now unfortunately Robertson just mentions "letters of transit by de Gaulle" as a movie mistake but says nothing at all about subtitles. So if we're amending Robertson dscription by primary sources (subtitle info) anyway, we might as well (and imho should state) what original script and movie actually say. Even better look for further (better) secondary sources that might deal with the issue explicitly (see below).

Unfortunaly after researching the issue a bit more it yields some clarification but also unexpected additional issues. First of all the movie critic Roger Ebert apparently looked at the issue back in the 90s and kinda confirmed Weygand (see or ), but oddly enough the (not original?) version of the script he looked at contained both names de Gaulle and Weygand. And now for the unexpected, it seems the "letters of transit" issue in general widely known as one of the most famous inaccuracies or "macguffin" of the movie, are not a real inaccurancy at all. The historian Meredith Hindley points out in her 2017 book on Casablanca (Destination Casablanca: Exile, Espionage, and the Battle for North Africa in World War II, see ) that such letters of transit by Weygand did actually exist and gives a concrete example of a person having received one.

I agree that for the plot section "letters of transit" is sufficient and the de Gaulle/Weygand detail of no importance. However the inaccuries section definitely need to be overhauled/partially rewrittten. --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The first Ebert link does not confirm it was Weygand. He reaches no firm conclusion and in fact states scripts have both versions. ("So, which is it? Probably Weygand. But why does the published screenplay give both possibilities?") I couldn't view the second. So it looks like the Inaccuracies section is ... accurate? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not (at least if you want to put a finer point on it, as a secondary source suggest Weygand to be the more probable). If you want to leave the sentence as it is, imho it should at the very least having an explanatory footnote stating what the orginal script says and what Ebert concludes).

That aside the current content of paragraph doesn't really reflect, what is actually stated in the currently cited source (Robertson), which is a problem on its own.

Moreover according to Hindley Robertson's take on the (historical) inaccurancies and the macguffin notion is not correct to begin with anyway. Something which would need to incorporate into the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In Roger Ebert's audio commentary, he says de Gaulle, also noting that it doesn't make much sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Dooley and Veidt Photos and Shocked, Shocked quotes.

Dooley and Veidt play prominent characters and should be included among the cast photos, along with the photo of Bergman and Bogart (I just now attempted to relocate them there to take them out of the plot summary and was blocked by the conflicting edit notice). Dooley, a prominent cast member, sings "As Time Goes By", an iconic song theme within the iconic film. His singing prompts the reunion of Rick and Ilsa and his role is a confidante of both main characters. Veidt plays the primary villain in the film whose shooting by Bogart is the films climax. Both photos are of main characters, have brief captions, portray scenes from the film, and adhere to all the rules.

The quote "I'm shocked, shocked..." is a famous quote, used constantly in ironic contexts in many social situations. Here it is used as a meme on Futurama: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4F7F3Gu3PNw. Here's Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan using it in an economic context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yjHxcHTAW8 Here it is on Youtube as a classic quote from a classic film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxnpY0owPkA. I also saw it used in political context on YouTube just days ago. Like the "beautiful friendship" quote, it's a famous line of dialog that illustrates the film's continuing social influence many years later. It's also within the 700-word limit guideline, grammatical, and relevant to the film's plot. It pithily illustrates how Casablanca includes sardonic humor among its dramatic, social commentary, romantic, and suspense elements.

There was no good reason to roll back these edits, which adhere to theme, good editing practices, word limits, and caption rules. Ariadne000 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion in the plot summary doesn't rest on consideration for what is iconic or memorable, but for what is necessary to convey the substance of the plot. A plot summary being under the plot word limit is not a reason to inflate a plot summary. The enduring popularity is not on its own to warrant inclusion in the plot, especially because a significant chunk of the script enjoys this. The usual suspects and beautiful friendship lines are included in the plot summary because there is production information and legacy analysis on those lines in particular. Their inclusion is sustained because they're specifically the subject of commentary.

And, in my opinion, if anything the article already has too many images that don't meaningfully contribute anything — I do not personally see the need for the extra Bogart and Bergman and the Greenstreet and Bogart images, especially when the trailer is already included, but I did not remove those out of deference to the article status quo, even though I think they should also be removed — and adding more is cluttering. Especially if we were to go with the criteria proposed that the cast member is prominent and is involved in an iconic scene. Everything about the film is iconic. We shouldn't be adding images just because we can and to illustrate every little detail. It's cluttering. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The very iconic status of this film warrants inclusion of one of its most famous lines, specifically for the reasons stated--that the mixture of comic, dramatic, social commentary, romantic, and suspense elements in the film are precisely what makes the film appeal to almost every viewer. The "shocked, shocked" line pithily weaves in an example of the comic elements that nevertheless have been adopted by commentators in dead earnest (Allen Greenspan being just one example). It succinctly adds an element to the plot description that was missing--the genius of the script with lines that remain relevant 80 years later, used as short-cuts to convey irony. These edits add dimension to the description, not fluff.

Citing that the description remains under the word limit is not justification for adding words; it points out that there is room for a relevant point without excessive verbosity. Nor are the edits poorly written or inaccurate, which would justify rejecting them.

As for adding two significant actors to the cast photos--both are major characters and one is the only major minority figure (underrepresented in classic films) in the cast. A very small photo gallery accompanying the writeup of one of the most beloved, iconic films is neither unwarranted nor inappropriate. Ariadne000 (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The plot summary isn't meant to be an illustration of why the plot is iconic or resonant. It is simply meant to convey the plot, with any such elements that are subject to commentary throughout the article. It is not the article's job to replicate the qualitative aspects of the film's execution nor to convey the precise elements of such. I do believe that inserting quotes purely on the basis of "they're well known" or constantly quoted and using the section to recreate "the genius of the script" or repeat line-level jokes is poor plot summary writing. It is missing the purpose of a plot summary in favor of trying to convince a reader of why the film is iconic. Constantly stating "it is iconic, so it should be included" for either the quotes or the photos does not actually advance an argument about the encyclopedic and explanatory value of the additions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

A good plot summary can cover iconic descriptive elements without "commentary." The "shocked, shocked" line succinctly conveys 1. Renault's corruption (he accepts bribes by "winning" at gambling), showing that he's willing to overlook the illegal gambling when it profits him, 2. his obsequiousness to the Germans (his objection to the illegal gambling directly results to Strasser's order in a supposedly neutral French zone, 3. his shamelessness in openly accepting his winnings while suddenly objecting to the illegal gambling. That one line addition economically conveys all of this, which is relevant to the plot. It conveys why Renault is so flexible at the end when Rick shoots Strasser--he's opportunistic. Renault's character is the very point on which the ending hinges. He doesn't arrest Rich for shooting Strasser; he opportunistically does the right thing.

A good plot summary definitely SHOULD convey "the genius of the script" indirectly by inclusion of plot points that "tell" more than just A follows B which follows C. That the quote is "well known" and cited 80 years later is proof that the plot element is noteworthy.

The inclusion of the "shocked, shocked" quote and context is not "trying to convince a reader of why the film is iconic"; quite the contrary, it assumes that the reader can perceive by context within the summary all of the nuance described in the first paragraph above.

Again, the addition of a a quote and its context strengthens the plot summary by giving it dimension lacked without its inclusion. I have 30 years of experience as a technical writer for a Fortune 500 Company, including writing summaries for proposals; thanks for your perspective about "good summaries." Ariadne000 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As an onlooker, while I understand the perspectives given by Ariadne000 and TenTonParasol, I would like to add that there's also the relevant guidelines at the Film WikiProject's Manual of Style, if it helps. Also, about the cast photos, I'm thinking we should move them to the appropriate section (in this case, it's the cast section) where needed, using other FAs such as Back to the Future as a model. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I quite agree about the Cast section. I attempted to move them there but was blocked by a "conflicting edit" and am trying to reason it out to get another editor to understand why my edits enhance the summary and to stop reverting the edits. Reference to the "Manual of Style" does not settle the issue. Ariadne000 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMPLOT, we should keep film articles between 400 to 700 words. When I checked the current summary word count via the "Plot lengths" plug-in, it reads 726 words, so do you think we should keep it as is or trim it down? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The summary is 695 words without the photo caption. That's within the guidelines. (The "guidelines" are not carved in stone. They also say that for substantial works or works with many characters the summaries may exceed that limit. This is a substantial film that served propagandistic purposes in its era and is a highly ranked classic in our own era.) Ariadne000 (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with the cast photos being moved down. I just don't know if there is a need for so many, as being added. But, yeah, no matter what, it's best they're moved into the cast section.

And, yes, the MOS does note: "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." Which, I was attempting to describe. I understand the motivation. I don't think we should be bludgeoning a reader by including as many quotes as possible. Conveying its substance, legacy, and intent is for theme, production, analysis, and legacy sections — not done by quoting for the sake of quoting in the plot summary. The "shocked" line does not even convey well without the verbal component, nor in my opinion convey what it is you're trying to convey to the reader. If the detail must be included, it is better off to simply state: Strasser tells Renault to close the club. Renault feigns shock at the gambling as a flimsy pretense but collects his winnings. It is more concise and doesn't require someone be familiar with the intonation to understand its meaning, and risks less misunderstanding by missing the irony.

Also, please do not make changes to the article that are under discussion. Wait for the discussion to run its course before reintroducing contested changes. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought the discussion had run its course and mistakenly thought you had nothing else to add after reading the rationale (obviously not). As for the photos, SJones23 agreed they should be under the Cast photos; I thought we had reached consensus when SJones23 asked about the length of the edits I restored. I referred to the talk page so that anyone else chiming in would see the discussion.

The "shocked, shocked" quote does illustrate a "main event" in that it illustrates Renault's collaboration with the Germans without blandly saying "Renault feigns shock at the gambling as a flimsy pretense but collects his winnings." You don't need intonation to see the irony of Renault saying he's shocked at gambling on the premises and and then collecting his winnings. Again, the scene's frequent appearance among YouTube video clips of the film supports that it's an important scene. The direct quote serves a double purpose, conveying the plot point while also acknowledging the wit of the scene and the quote's survival in modern usage. You get THREE nuances with an economy of language. Why have a bland description when a text of similar length (only 9 words longer) would serve both purposes.

As for the photos, the small gallery is justified by the cultural significance of the film to illustrate its main characters. Strasser is critical to the plot. Sam, Rich and Ilsa's confidant, sings the classic song from the movie and gives Rick a loyal friend. A feature of the cast is that it encompassed the very types of European refugees (and in the case of Dooley Wilson a rare minority in that era) whose desperation at global events the film depicts. Ariadne000 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

As already stated, the manual of style generally recommends against quotations, and I do not see a reason that an exception should be made for this one as it isn't the subject of any additional commentary throughout the rest of the article. (It's also actually a difference of thirteen words, as my suggestion includes a modification of the previous sentence.) I am also not sure why dryness of the plot summary is an issue; it is a plot summary, and its job is to convey material facts of the plot. "Why have a bland description," because it follows manual of style and avoids unnecessarily quoting. WP:ITSPOPULAR is also not a valid justification, and neither is WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and if we were to include every quote that has been quoted constantly across YouTube, we'd be quoting a much larger chunk of the script.

I generally feel you're very concerned and motivated by weighing what should be included based on what is iconic or in an attempt to communicate the importance of the film, rather than weighing inclusion on what is necessary to support the secondary commentary and analysis within the article: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding." The character is important, and a member of the cast is of a marginalized identity, while admirable, does not necessarily provide an need for illustrative aid — especially when the trailer is already in the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The rationale you are advocating results in lackluster plot summaries (fine for an average film), when they can be so much more reflective of what makes a classic film great.

Few films have as many famously quotable lines as Casablanca, but here are a few examples of Wikipedia articles on classic films that include the very elements you want to exclude. Often these quotes succinctly sum up relationships between characters or express futility much better than a vapid restatement:

Maltese Falcon

Direct quote: “the stuff that dreams are made of”

Trailer plus 6 photos included

The Wizard of OZ

Direct quotes: “there’s no place like home”

“Oh, Auntie Em, there’s no place like home.”

10 photos, often just identifying actor and role

The Bridge on the River Kwai

Direct quotes: Nicholson exclaims, "What have I done?"

Warden, turning toward the group’s horrified guides, pleads, "I had to do it! They might have been taken alive!".

Witnessing the carnage, Clipton exclaims, "Madness! ... Madness!"

6 photos illustrate the article

A Streetcar Named Desire

Direct quote: “always depended on the kindness of strangers"

Trailer plus 5 photos – 4 in cast section showing main characters

Citizen Kane

Only one iconic quoted word: “Rosebud”

Trailer and 24 photos – 4 in the cast section with principal actors

The Princess Bride

Direct quotes: Whenever she tells farmhand Westley to do something, he always complies, saying, "As you wish", as his way of telling her he loved her.

While tumbling down, he shouts, "As you wish!"

The sick grandson eagerly asks his grandfather to read him the story again the next day. His grandfather replies, "As you wish."

Top Gun

Direct quotes: Maverick's rival, Lieutenant Tom "Iceman" Kazansky, calls his behavior "foolish", "dangerous", and worse than the enemy, to which Maverick responds "I am dangerous".

Jerry Maguire

Direct quotes: Jerry tells Rod, "help me help you," convincing him to stop complaining and start playing with his heart.

The group watches as Jerry gives an impassioned speech telling Dorothy he needs her and "you complete me," to which she responds, "shut up… you had me at hello."

Dead Poets Society

Direct quotes: Keating encourages his students to "seize the day", referencing the Latin expression carpe diem.

Despite the threat, Todd stands up on his desk and says "O Captain! My Captain!".

A Few Good Men

Direct quotes: "You can't handle the truth!"

Kaffee pointedly asks if Jessep ordered the "code red", to which Jessep bellows "You're goddamn right I did!"

In the Heat of the Night

Direct quotes: In the final interaction between Gillespie and Tibbs, as the detective ascends the stairs onto the train, for one last time Gillespie calls out to him and sincerely tells Tibbs: "You take care, you hear?" After a moment of hesitation, Tibbs gives a warm smile and says "Yeah" in reply. Gillespie smiles back at Tibbs as he boards the train.

Double Indemnity

Direct quotes: When Neff asks how long Keyes has been listening, Keyes responds “Long enough.”

Chuckling ruefully, Neff says that Keyes couldn’t solve this one because the culprit was too close, right across the desk. Keyes responds, “Closer than that, Walter.” Walter responds, “I love you, too.”

2 trailer clips and 5 photos illustrate characters and mood

Summation: Many such iconic films contain quotes that produce a summary that gives a taste of what makes the film extraordinary. To argue that these should be changed to be flat and vapid restatements is to advocate for mediocrity. A mediocre summary is fine for the average film, but not for a classic. The guidelines exist to delineate desired content and reign in editors who would describe minutiae. As with every "rulebook" they can be too rigid; an experienced editor can color with a few brief strokes. Again, a good plot summary definitely SHOULD convey "the genius of the script" indirectly by inclusion of plot points that "tell" more than just A follows B which follows C. A well known quote cited 80 years later is proof that it conveys a noteworthy plot element. A few photo enhancements of classics that are not curtailed by copyright infringements are a plus, not a negative. The rationale for a beige plot summary when a dash of color enlivens just doesn't make sense. Ariadne000 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a compelling argument, and I've already said I feel there are reasons for exceptions—a couple of these satisfy that to my opinion, and the majority don't. I don't feel most of these need to quote either! I feel like the MOS is also for this kind of thing: when there is a felt need to include details or dialogue simply on the basis of it being iconic or well-known. Personally, I feel relying too much on quotes is unskilled summary.

A significant chunk of the script is a well-known quote. This particular quote isn't even among top five for the film. The gin joint and Paris lines are just as well-known and commonly invoked too, and unlike the shocked line, they're listed in the AFI quotes list. But we're not arguing about whether those should be added.

"A mediocre summary is fine for the average film, but not for a classic." The state of the film itself as a classic should not have bearing on the writing of the plot summary, and it feels to me that you're veering into seeing articles as a form of advocacy for classic films. The purpose of articles is to summarize, not to convince. We are not, in fact, writing to "give a taste" of the quality of the film. We're writing to state events in the story. We are not marketing or promoting the film. And, generally, I think images should be chosen carefully, even when free, to avoid clutter, as that overwhelms the reader and makes navigation difficult. I am not necessarily against adding to or changing which images are in the article; I just feel that the proposed number is cluttering and the motivation is simply to highlight cast members for the sake of highlighting them, without consideration for how they contribute to understanding or support the article prose.

Generally, I feel we're at an impasse and largely restating our own points. So, I'm posting a neutral notice to WT:FILM to get further opinions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Except that my argument isn't "other stuff exists" which may be misapplied to justify subpar articles. My argument is to show that articles on classic films that have quotes have been accepted by other editors who spend time reviewing new entries and are quick to object when an edit is unwarranted. No one editor is the "arbiter" of applying the guideline rules to the exclusion of creativity.

Also, I'm not "seeing articles as a form of advocacy for classic films." I'm stating that for exceptional films, greater care may be warranted in creating a summary that's not dull and flat. No need to "market" any film; just provide a summary that reflects its appeal (every summary should do that to the extent practicable for the quality of the film).

As for the "shocked, shocked" quote not being among the "top five", that doesn't negate its relevance to sketching an incident in the film that in few words reveals Renault's character (as stated in my previous argument), pivotal to the climax of the film.

The proposed TWO additional photos do not "clutter" the article. I would argue that the solo photo of "Bogart in the airport scene" (without representing Rick's climactic "hill of beans" speech to Ilsa) is more redundant by your reasoning. Cast photos of Dooley Wilson and Conrad Veidt would be more warranted for reasons previously stated.

I've given sound justifications for my edits to the Casablanca article that show that the few words and two photos added to the article--still within the word limit guidelines--are not frivolous, inaccurate, unreasonable, or excessive. Usually that's enough to warrant acceptance of a literary "good faith" edit. Ariadne000 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I've said my perspective already. I feel many plot summaries are not strongly written, and many other articles ignoring best practices is not a reason to do so here. Just because "everyone" does it means that it is best practice, especially when it contravenes the MOS. I don't feel the article should prioritize liveliness and "reflect[ing] its appeal" because I find doing so to be a subtler emphasis on promotion of the subject over maintaining encyclopedic tone, best practices, and clarity, even if it is a little dry. (I don't think dry is a sin in an encyclopedia.) I think the same point is conveyed by simply stating what happens, without the quote, which is more concise, clearer, and more in keeping with MOS.

I've said find the existing article already a little cluttered with images, but, as stated, did not remove those out of deference to status quo; I am not opposed to a better selection of images, but I don't feel we should be motivated by representing everyone we subjectively feel is important or groundbreaking. Personally, I feel the current image of the four in the plot summary and an image of Veidt would be sufficient, all moved down to cast. I don't oppose nixing the airport one on the basis of being fairly decorative or replacing it with a different shot that's more useful to the production section, unless the point is illustrating the fog.

And, I agree that you're editing in good faith, and I understand the justifications, but I don't agree that the edit is a clear improvement. Consensus for the state of an article isn't merely based on "the edit is not harming the article".

At any rate, we're just going in circles and repeating ourselves. I'm simply going to wait for any further opinions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that "many plot summaries are not strongly written". Many are dull and do a poor job of truly reflecting the films (whether classic or not) that they address. We have a difference of opinion on what makes a good summary. Encyclopedic does not have to be dry and boring. I grew up with the "Illustrated World Encyclopedia" (1965 edition) that had the usual A - Z volumes of facts, with each volume including an appendix with summaries of classic literature (also by A - Z title) with illustrations that stimulated my interest in reading those works (my sister used them to cheat on her book reports through high school, even after we updated to the 1970s World Book Encyclopedia that lacked the summaries). Those synopses were anything but dry. Ariadne000 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've asked an uninvolved editor with experience in editing film articles, Erik (talk · contribs), for his take on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO, the shocked quote is unnecessary. The synopsis already says Renault is "unabashedly corrupt". That is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As for the claim that "A good plot summary definitely SHOULD convey 'the genius of the script' indirectly by inclusion of plot points that 'tell' more than just A follows B which follows C." where did you get that? That's contrary to WP:FILMPLOT: "The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue". The bribery is not a main event. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Actor backgrounds

Actually, descriptions of the actors includes in many cases their backgrounds, especially in film. For example, read Ingrid Bergman or Conrad Veidt. My intent is to parallelize descriptions of these other actors. This is additional information for the reader and is related to their roles in Casablanca. Wigly Pigly (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Cast info unrelated to the film

This is not done in general. Why should it?

• Citizen Kane: none at all
• Vertigo: none at all
• Bicycle Thieves: none
• 2001: A Space Odyssey: none
• Seven Samurai: none Clarityfiend (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We are editing Casablanca. In this article the majority of the cast have background descriptions. I agree that many other films do not have such information, but this film does. If there are no background descriptions for these actors, there should be none for the others. Yet there are. The additional information is for the reader. Wigly Pigly (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The additions are unsourced and tangential. Content in this article should be related to the film and its production. The only 'background descriptions' left in this article are related to the film, as they should be. DrKay (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Two endings

There were 2 endings to this film,I have seen both.In one version Rick is friends with Claude Rains as Ingrid Bergman flies off and in the other Rick shoots and kills Claude Rains and then Bergman gets on the plane. ~2026-33671-43 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs this up? DonIago (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking Rains (or rather his character) for Conrad Veidt's. He shoots Major Strasser. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)