Compare and Contrast Apocalypse Now and Casablanca

Compare and Contrast Apocalypse Now and Casablanca 

Introduction - comparison of their release dates, auteur, studio, a summery of it all 

1st paragraph - studio and auteur + how that links to film form - cinematography, angles, cuts 

2nd paragraph - more film form (?) 

3rd paragraph - how film form is affected by context 

4th paragraph - more context (?)  

conclusion 

Casablanca (1942) and Apocalypse Now (1979) reflect the contrast and advancement in the film industry over an almost forty period. They highlight the differences by how much an auteur can affect the production and how highly regarded studio systems were in the maintaining of a vast majority of films within that time. An main example of the success of Studios providing films is Warner Bros. 'Casablanca', which collaborated the ideas of many important aspects of the film, such as the director Michael Curtiz, to quickly release a film which was one of many. This is a vast difference to Apocalypse Now, which was mainly formed by Francis Ford Coppola, the director who held all the power and finality to the piece. Apocalypse Now was adapted from and inspired by Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ bubble John Milius, a colleague of Coppola which shows the journey of a similar character to Willard’s to rescue (instead of terminate) Kurtz. Therefore the concept is not entirely of the film’s creation. This is similar to Casablanca where Warner Bros. bought the rights to a play called ‘Everybody comes to Rick’s’ yet adapted to fit the current affairs of the Second World War. 

Both films have the major theme of war, however Casablanca shows the escapism and rebellion of citizens whereas Apocalypse Now depicts the soldier going into the war-zone to purposely end the life of a rogue Captain. The auteurs heavily impacted the film formations, deciding how it were to make an impact to the audience. For Casablanca, the studios ideologies were reflected for example in it's invisible editing. This was editing the scenes in a way that made the story seem continuous, making the audience unaware of cuts and more focused on story line. This differed from the artistic shots that Coppola used to reflect the mentality of the main character, Willard. For example, in the first scene, it begins with a fade to a long shot of the jungle with a helicopter passing by as the intro to 'The End' by The Doors plays. This visual scene is over-lapped with an upside angled close up of Martin Sheen to highlight his character's trauma, as if it's an invasion in his personal space. The fade between the two shots, and foreshadowing moments such as the statue of the God which is seen later in the film, creates an abstract feel (almost timeless). This completely contrasts to Casablanca's naturalistic approach to create a sense of the world outside instead of the being inside someone's  mind, like Willard's. Due to the restrictions of camera movement in the 1940s, the angles are simplistic and natural, focusing mostly forward on, using close ups to portray facial expressions and general shots for movements, all to highlight the focus on the plot and using the visual to emphasis the dialogue which was propaganda. Since Casablanca uses a romantic plot to engage the audience, the use of close ups enables us to get an insight into the character's reactions and thoughts. A moment that shows this is when Rick and Ilsa are reunited, the close-up's being evidence that the departure from each other has shocked them both. This contrasts to the use of hand held cameras, since cameras had advanced from the 40s, making them lighter and easier to move, which enabled Coppola to do various angles and shots. A part where this is significant is the soldiers' arrival to the beaches. The multiple cameras were able to capture various shots of the helicopters; some from below which create a dominating idea,  some are panoramic which showcase the quantity of helicopters and some show the reactions of the soldiers to what's about to come through mid-shots. Since the advancement of the equipment over time, there are more cinematic approaches in Apocalypse Now compared to Casablanca. 

Due to the difference of time periods and situations, Apocalypse Now and Casablanca have contrasting mise-en-scene. Casablanca was shot in black-and-white, however the colours of the set and costumes were still important, for example the white suit which Rick wears in his Cafe which showcases the higher  example in which the Cafe sets. Due to the lack of colour though, Casablanca is able to use the more prominent shadows to their advantage, such as when Rick is out of shot whilst Renult waits for him in a highlighting white suit, and the shadow of Rick creates a hidden side to him. This conflicts with Apocalypse Now's use of colour to bring out specific moments, for example the camouflage Willard wears that creates an ominous atmosphere to the foreshadowing of Kurtz' death. There are moments where colouring, such as a sepia filter, is used, such as the helicopter scene where it has a redish-brown tonality which gives a dread-filled atmosphere.  The use of colours is heavily impacted by the lighting, which both use extensively. Within Casablanca, there is a constant search light which highlights key moments, such as Ilsa returning to a light-less Cafe and since it is behind her, it creates a ethereal glow around her which adds to the tenderness of the moment. This is similar to the search light which in Apocalypse Now, is used to occasionally light up the close-up faces of worried soldiers at the Do Long bridge. The costumes stay similar throughout the film, all the Soldiers in American uniform to make it as realistic as possible and show that to be their sole purpose. This differs for Casablanca, where costume changes are more often. Designed by Orry-Kelly, the costumes of Casablanca still maintain a glamour for Hollywood film, especially for Ingrid Bergman, and are historically accurate to make the film realistic to a (then)  modern audience.  The sets combined with the costumes help to add onto the details of the film. In Casablanca, the minor details are shown to reflect a character’s personality, this is especially shown to introduce the character of Rick. Before the audience sees his face, we see a detailed shot showing parts which enable the audience to desipher their own opinions of him. Rick has a cheque book, alcohol and a chessboard which is he is playing by himself. One assumption that could be made is that he is an intellectual who knows a strategy before a problem occurs. This differs from Apocalypse Now, where the set is more vast and open, considering the general outlook in Vietnam, for example the boat scene’s in which they are realistic and include all of the character’s involvement than just being for one at most times.  

The film form for both films was heavily influenced by their context. Both films were being written/imagined during their own wars so this added more depth and heartfelt sincerity to their pieces of propaganda. Due to the fast paced production, Casablanca was only shot in a few weeks, being one of 50 films in 1942 to be made and released. It was evident that the awareness for the War was raised in America by then, since they joined in 1941, therefore this film would keep relevant and audiences engaged in what was going on around them. A week before the film was released, Casablanca had been invaded by the enemies. To make the film more authentic, actual refugees of the war was cast as extras, this is shown to be very powerfully to this day in the famous ‘Les Marseilles’ scene, where the emotion was genuine. Out of the budget, a collaborative team was highered after the rights for ‘Everybody comes to Rick’s’ was bought. The studios assigned the play to Hal B. Wallis, a highly regarded producer. He then assembled the writers and more production team to get ideas. The collaboration from all parts meant that the film was equal between people and choices were made collectively. For example, Max Steiner, the composer, didn’t like the motif of ‘As Time Goes By’ yet was unable to change it due to Bergman having her hair cut short, meaning no retakes and instead he embraced it by using it as a constant love them for Rick and Ilsa, doing variations of it. This is one of the major differences to Apocalypse Now. Francis Ford Coppola was the main person in the ideas of this film. Coppola would have final say on inputs from other members of the team, establishing full control of many positions and showing the break from usual Studios, which was highly common for directors in the 70, since it showed the mark of New Hollywood. 

Both of the films had to be written as they were filming, the uncertainty affecting many members of the crew. For Casablanca, the ending was uncertain, especially who Bergman’s character who end up with. This caused feuds within the crew such as Humphrey Bogart having a disagreement with Michael Curtiz and causing tension on the set. None of the cast or crew knew how it was going to end, therefore Bergman’s confusion as Ilsa was actually her being confused. This meant that  most of Bogart’s speech - ‘we’ll always have Paris’ was improvised. This is very similar to Apocalypse Now, since Coppola was uncertain of the ending of his film, and a tricky cast didn’t help. Marlon Brando, Colonel Kurtz, arrived on set overweight and refusing to do any lines that had been previously written for him, despite being paid $100,000,00 for his role. This meant that not only did Coppola have to pay a large sum of money for filming, he also paid an actor who refused to act. By paying this much, meant that Coppola was losing money and had to invest his own savings in it. When Brando did co-operate, he ad-libbed his lines, like Bogart. Both worked in their scenes, conveying their characters in depth. Due to this problems, the length of filming was elongated, however Apocalypse Now more drastically. Whilst taking Casablanca weeks, Apocalypse Now’s principal photography began in 1976 and was eventually released in 1979, however the concept began in 1971. Coppola’s production involved many problems which delayed the release time, such as Martin Sheen having a heart attack and the cast and crew being high on drugs such as LSD, this is seen in various scenes, for example when Lance takes Acid at Do Long Bridge. 

Casablanca and Apocalypse Now both record the experiences of the war through fictional characters. Yet whilst similar in theme, they have contrasting ways in showcasing them. Both did well in the box office, Casablanca reaching $3.7 million from  a $1 million budget that the Warner Bros supplied collectively which differs from Apocalypse Now’s box office $150 million from a final budget of $31.5 million since the initial budget was not enough and caused Coppola to invest his own earnings. They are both very important contributions to the awareness of Wars, depicting how greatly it affects the world and this makes them still relevant to this day.