Looking for documentation about what Robert McKee says about Rick and Ilsa’s love at the end of Casablanca.
February 9, 2011 10:44 AM Subscribe
Looking for documentation about what Robert McKee says about Rick and Ilsa’s love at the end of Casablanca.
When Robert McKee, author of _Story_, does his famous screenwriting Seminar, it ends with a lengthy analysis of the movie Casablanca.
A friend has a question, for something he is writing. He recalls McKee saying that when Rick tells Ilsa to get on the plane at the end of the movie, it is in some way a demonstration of the depth of Rick’s love for her: That his love is so strong, it can even endure their separation.
My friend is looking for some sort of documentation of this – to get a better handle on what exactly it is that McKee says. But it’s hard to find any documentation of what gets said in the seminar. (We both tried a lot of googling before posting to the green, and also an extensive search trough McKee’s book _Story_, but no luck…)
Can anyone find anything (book, transcript, video, other documentation) that would document what it is that McKee says about this?
When Robert McKee, author of _Story_, does his famous screenwriting Seminar, it ends with a lengthy analysis of the movie Casablanca.
A friend has a question, for something he is writing. He recalls McKee saying that when Rick tells Ilsa to get on the plane at the end of the movie, it is in some way a demonstration of the depth of Rick’s love for her: That his love is so strong, it can even endure their separation.
My friend is looking for some sort of documentation of this – to get a better handle on what exactly it is that McKee says. But it’s hard to find any documentation of what gets said in the seminar. (We both tried a lot of googling before posting to the green, and also an extensive search trough McKee’s book _Story_, but no luck…)
Can anyone find anything (book, transcript, video, other documentation) that would document what it is that McKee says about this?
Why don't you write to him, or to an organization that sponsors his talks, who might forward your mail to him.
posted by theora55 at 4:19 PM on February 9, 2011
posted by theora55 at 4:19 PM on February 9, 2011
I'm ashamed to admit that I can't find my copy of Story right now, but I've read it enough times to go from memory. I can't help ImaginaryFriend's presumably real friend with a direct documentation, but I know enough of McKee to hopefully give context and an explanation of what he was talking about here.
(As a side-note, McKee has a reputation for being a hack teacher of formula which is entirely undeserved, and one of my favorite moments in Adaptation is when that preconceived notion of him is blown out of the water.)
Anyway, Casablanca is definitely McKee's favorite movie, and favorite tool for teaching screenwriting, so thankfully he wrote quite a bit about it in his book, though the elements are dispersed in different chapters. So, then, a little background for how McKee views this film:
1. McKee sees plots abstractly in terms of positive and negative values, reversing themselves during scenes. This is further understood by knowing what types of values you're working with, as defined by the goal(s) of the protagonist. Let's take a fairly simple plot, like in The Terminator to give an example. Sarah Connor's goal is to survive (and defeating the Terminator is actually just an ultimate victory in her primary goal here.) In McKee's view, a true "scene" will generally take Sarah Connor from a spot of somewhat secured survival to a life threatening situation, or vice-versa (this is all highly simplified, of course) until we reach the ending, which in what McKee calls an "archplot" will be final and irreversible. This ending can be either "up" (Connor kills the Terminator) or "down" (the Terminator kills Connor.)
2. "Simple" plots can have either up endings or down endings, which are dependent on how the film ends the value of the primary plot. The Terminator has an "up" ending. The Blair Witch Project has a down ending.
3. "Ironic" plots, however, will have values working against one another. Think of The Searchers, where John Wayne's character is in pursuit of a goal we know is wrong-headed. Every step towards that goal takes him further from humanity, and the other way around.
4. While he does not claim to be comprehensive, McKee lists all of the basic plots he can think of, such as Education, Romance, Disillusionment, Redemption, etc. These plots carry their own intrinsic values which can be played with.
5. McKee reads the character of Rick as a symbol for America itself, and the bar as a miniature U.N. in occupied Morocco. Rick's arc is that at the beginning he "sticks his neck out for no man," symbolizing the U.S. not getting involved in WWII, but by the end he's thrown himself into the game.
So what we get to with the ending is that there have been two major plots going on: Rick's romance with Ilsa, and Rick's redemption. Both begin at "negative" values (Rick and Ilsa are no longer together, and Rick is content doing nothing about the situation around him.) but Ilsa's return, married to Laszlo, throws them into sharp relief. Rick cannot be with Isla if he remains honorable enough to not steal away the wife of a revolutionary who's actually trying to do some real good. Every step towards one goal is a step away from the other.
This is why the Laszlo character is so integral to all of this - he's not just a Baxter or some schmuck. He's not Ilsa's greatest love (a negative for him, and a positive for Rick on the "romance" arc) but he is the better man in terms of what he is willing to do about "this crazy world," (a positive for him but a negative for Rick in the "redemption" plot.)
Casablanca thus serves up, to McKee at least, the greatest of all ironic plot endings. Namely, Rick "sticks his neck out" for his lover's husband, giving him the letter of transit instead of taking it himself. In doing so, he redeems himself (positive) but loses Ilsa for the indefinite future (negative.) But his redemption is tightly tied into the romance thread, for now he has proven himself worthy of someone like Ilsa, by deciding that he isn't.
If your friend has any more questions, well, I am not Robert McKee, but I speak his language well enough that I can hopefully help to answer them, so feel free to MeMail me.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:35 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
(As a side-note, McKee has a reputation for being a hack teacher of formula which is entirely undeserved, and one of my favorite moments in Adaptation is when that preconceived notion of him is blown out of the water.)
Anyway, Casablanca is definitely McKee's favorite movie, and favorite tool for teaching screenwriting, so thankfully he wrote quite a bit about it in his book, though the elements are dispersed in different chapters. So, then, a little background for how McKee views this film:
1. McKee sees plots abstractly in terms of positive and negative values, reversing themselves during scenes. This is further understood by knowing what types of values you're working with, as defined by the goal(s) of the protagonist. Let's take a fairly simple plot, like in The Terminator to give an example. Sarah Connor's goal is to survive (and defeating the Terminator is actually just an ultimate victory in her primary goal here.) In McKee's view, a true "scene" will generally take Sarah Connor from a spot of somewhat secured survival to a life threatening situation, or vice-versa (this is all highly simplified, of course) until we reach the ending, which in what McKee calls an "archplot" will be final and irreversible. This ending can be either "up" (Connor kills the Terminator) or "down" (the Terminator kills Connor.)
2. "Simple" plots can have either up endings or down endings, which are dependent on how the film ends the value of the primary plot. The Terminator has an "up" ending. The Blair Witch Project has a down ending.
3. "Ironic" plots, however, will have values working against one another. Think of The Searchers, where John Wayne's character is in pursuit of a goal we know is wrong-headed. Every step towards that goal takes him further from humanity, and the other way around.
4. While he does not claim to be comprehensive, McKee lists all of the basic plots he can think of, such as Education, Romance, Disillusionment, Redemption, etc. These plots carry their own intrinsic values which can be played with.
5. McKee reads the character of Rick as a symbol for America itself, and the bar as a miniature U.N. in occupied Morocco. Rick's arc is that at the beginning he "sticks his neck out for no man," symbolizing the U.S. not getting involved in WWII, but by the end he's thrown himself into the game.
So what we get to with the ending is that there have been two major plots going on: Rick's romance with Ilsa, and Rick's redemption. Both begin at "negative" values (Rick and Ilsa are no longer together, and Rick is content doing nothing about the situation around him.) but Ilsa's return, married to Laszlo, throws them into sharp relief. Rick cannot be with Isla if he remains honorable enough to not steal away the wife of a revolutionary who's actually trying to do some real good. Every step towards one goal is a step away from the other.
This is why the Laszlo character is so integral to all of this - he's not just a Baxter or some schmuck. He's not Ilsa's greatest love (a negative for him, and a positive for Rick on the "romance" arc) but he is the better man in terms of what he is willing to do about "this crazy world," (a positive for him but a negative for Rick in the "redemption" plot.)
Casablanca thus serves up, to McKee at least, the greatest of all ironic plot endings. Namely, Rick "sticks his neck out" for his lover's husband, giving him the letter of transit instead of taking it himself. In doing so, he redeems himself (positive) but loses Ilsa for the indefinite future (negative.) But his redemption is tightly tied into the romance thread, for now he has proven himself worthy of someone like Ilsa, by deciding that he isn't.
If your friend has any more questions, well, I am not Robert McKee, but I speak his language well enough that I can hopefully help to answer them, so feel free to MeMail me.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:35 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I forgot to mention...
The "We'll always have Paris" line is immensely symbolic, in the terms of WWII. In the setting of the film, Paris is occupied territory, but not yet, during Rick and Ilsa's time there. At the beginning, Rick is satisfied to have his memories of Paris as the romantic city it is in our collective imagination. And Ilsa = Paris for him. In the end, he realizes that it is more important to win Paris back than to win Ilsa back, even if that means (and Ironies abound) sacrificing his own ticket for the man who is currently occupying his own symbol of Paris.
So yeah, it gets deep.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:19 AM on February 10, 2011
The "We'll always have Paris" line is immensely symbolic, in the terms of WWII. In the setting of the film, Paris is occupied territory, but not yet, during Rick and Ilsa's time there. At the beginning, Rick is satisfied to have his memories of Paris as the romantic city it is in our collective imagination. And Ilsa = Paris for him. In the end, he realizes that it is more important to win Paris back than to win Ilsa back, even if that means (and Ironies abound) sacrificing his own ticket for the man who is currently occupying his own symbol of Paris.
So yeah, it gets deep.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:19 AM on February 10, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ImaginaryFriend at 12:03 PM on February 9, 2011