Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 18
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
‘And now for something completely different….’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Here’s the Thursday column…
We got there early, or so I thought. But no.
Some 4,000 people had gotten there ahead us, forcing us to take seats in the far upper reaches of the cavernous, historic Fox Theater in downtown Atlanta. We had all been drawn out of our air-conditioned homes on a warm summer evening, pulled away from our TVs and computers and video games, by the chance to watch a black-and-white movie churned out by the studio system more than 60 years ago, long before most of us in the audience had even been born.
We came to watch Humphrey Bogart lament that “of all the gin joints in all the world, she walks into mine.”
We came to giggle at Claude Rains claiming to be“shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here.”
And we came to hear Bogie tell Ingrid Bergman one more time that “it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”
The enduring appeal of “Casablanca” would probably startle those who made the movie, because it’s such a product of a unique moment in our history. While actors were saying those now-famous lines on a Hollywood sound stage, hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers were being shipped overseas in the opening months of World War II. It wasn’t melodrama to say that the fate of the world hung in the balance, giving the screenplay a power that is sometimes lost on modern audiences.
Early in the movie, for example, Rick pinpoints the exact moment in time in which the events take place.
“Sam, if it’s December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?”
“Uh, my watch stopped,” Sam replies.
“I’ll bet they’re sleeping in New York. I bet they’re sleeping all over America.”
The original audience knew quite well what Rick did not, that on Dec. 7, 1941, a wakeup call was coming in the form of Pearl Harbor.
Casablanca is many things — a date movie, a chick flick, a war movie, a spy thriller. But it is also a profoundly political movie about the importance of surrendering individual desires for the greater common good, particularly when great things are at stake. We can’t all be Victor Laslo, the charismatic, virtuous hero, but as Rick finally learns, each of us must sacrifice to do our part. That too had a particular resonance for a WWII audience.
So why does the movie still fascinate us even now, in a very different time and place? The movie supplies its own answer: Because it’s still the same old story, the fight for love and glory. The fundamental things still apply.
There is also an undeniable magic to the familiar, like the old family stories that get retold every year at the holidays even though everybody already knows every line and detail. When Rick and Ilsa are first reunited, you anticipate the bitter sting of that line you know is coming: “I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.” And when it comes, it never disappoints.
At the end, after Rick walked off into the fog with Louie proclaiming “the beginning of a beautiful friendship,” the audience cheered and applauded. But later, as we made our way to the car, the youngest family member remarked that she hadn’t realized how silly the movie was.
Silly? One of the greatest movies of all time, silly?
Yes, she said. Silly because at the end, they made Ilsa out to be so stupid and helpless.
Oh, that. Yes, there is that.
“I ran away from you once,” Ilsa says, her head lolling on Rick’s shoulder. “I can’t do it again. Oh, I don’t know what’s right anymore. You’ll have to think for both of us, for all of us.”
Those are not the words of the noble, strong Ilsa we’ve come to know. They are the words of a screenwriter trying to wrap things up. If you look too closely, the plot creaks and groans in a lot of places, particularly in its reliance on magical “letters of transit” allowing anyone to flee the purgatory of Casablanca for the heaven of America.
But I guess you learn to overlook the imperfections of old friends as you get older — you know, as time goes by.
Permalink | Comments (23) | Post your comment |
Abortion as a campaign issue
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“Barack Obama believes that the decision to have an abortion is profoundly difficult for women and families, and that these decisions are personal, between a woman, her family, her God, and her doctor, and that politicians should stay out of it. As president, Obama will oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will work to reduce unintended pregnancies through prevention and education by expanding access to birth control and sex education.”
“John McCain is pro-life and on the issue of abortion, he opposes a woman’s right to choose. McCain says that quote ‘abortion is a human tragedy,’ and he believes that we must end abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. As president, he will nominate Supreme Court judges who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states to decide.”
Are those straightforward, accurate and value-free assessments of the positions of McCain and Obama on abortion? It seems to me that they are, but you can draw your own conclusions.
If those are indeed neutral statements not intended to sway a person one way or the other, then the results of a new poll — commissioned by the National Abortion Rights Action League — become pretty interesting. The poll found that after “key blocs of women voters—specifically pro-choice Republican and independent women” heard those descriptions, Obama’s overall poll numbers in battleground states improve from “a net 2 points (47 - 45 percent) to a net 13 points (53 - 40 percent).” That’s among voters overall, not just women.
A candidate’s position on abortion is important to the bases in both parties. This poll — again, commissioned by someone with a dog in the fight — suggests that it also has the power to move those in the middle. And with the the next president likely to name at least one or two Supreme Court justices, the outcome of the November race will be critically important in how this issue plays out.
Purely as a matter of politics, I think a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade would be a political bonus for Democrats, bringing a lot more voters and passion into the debate from the pro-choice side. As the 2006 referendum in conservative South Dakota demonstrated (voters overturned an abortion ban in a 55-45 vote), the public as a whole does not want to ban abortion.
