MovieChat Forums > Casablanca (1943) Discussion > Lazlo (Third Reich's most wanted man) ju...

Lazlo (Third Reich's most wanted man) just wandering around Casablanca?


Right, so Lazlo is pretty high on the Nazi's most wanted list:
He escaped from a concentration camp, slipped out of their grasp three times, is a leader of the European Resistance, yet he's able to walk around Casablanca as he wishes, walk into clubs and bars without getting jumped on by the Nazi officers? What gives?

It was the biggest thing that jumped out at me, loved the movie as a whole though (first time watching it).

reply


Well, Casablanca was unoccupied, considered free French soil at the time, sort of like sanctuary.

Formerly tdnh_2000

reply

Yes, this was explained pretty clearly in the film. Lazlo's words were, "You won't dare interfere with me, this is Unoccupied France!" Furthermore Captain Reneau was in authority and was sympathetic to him.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)

reply

[deleted]

Without permission or the means to leave, Casablanca was in essence a cage for Laszlo. The Nazis knew where he was and left him be. Without the letters, he could do no real harm.

reply

« Unoccupied France » was a euphemism for the Nazi-puppet régime at Vichy. Calling Morocco part of France was, on the other hand, very undiplomatic : Morocco was officially a « Protectorate » of France and had Sultan Mohammed V on its throne... although he was supposed to answer to France or France's higher ups — On some occasions he very admirably didn't.

reply

To the OP Lostman, here's a website that may help illuminate the situation in Morocco during WW2. You're absolutely correct that the premise in the movie is not sound. You can all do some more of your own research.
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/hol/holc-mor.html

The entire movie is a romanticized farce. An unrealistic and fantastical fairy tale conjured up in Hollywood to bolster wartime enthusiasm. Except for the mention of 'camps' in Morocco and 'the Resistance' in France, there is not a particle of truth nor reality in this film. My family, which suffered extensive losses in WW2 at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators, hated this glossy trash. I never saw this movie when I was young. I loved Ingrid Bergman and I like the song "As Time Goes By." But I wasn't surprised to hear years later that even Bogart and Bergman tried to get out of the movie because they thought it was terrible. I also know it was 1942, but I still find jarring when Bergman delivers the line "that boy over there, don't I know him?" Something to that effect - it's the use of the word boy to describe a 56 year old black man that still rails me today. Did Hollywood do this to placate the Southern audience? Could Ilsa have delivered the line referring to him as simply "the piano player" instead, without alluding to him in any dehumanizing nor humanizing way at all - as he was literally the piano player? I won't even bother the way a 27 year old Ilsa is degraded by being called "kid" several times. I can assure, in 1942, a 27 yo woman was never considered a child. Not like the overgrown adults we have these days, at all.

OK, those are just my cultural pet peeves with this stupid movie that probably couldn't be helped in 1942. But the outrageous inaccuracies about the ongoing war? Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

reply

Sorry that this "terrible" movie wasn't politically correct enough for you. As for it's accuracy, believe it or not it was based on a play written from personal experience (originally titled, "Everybody Comes to Rick's".
As for the "historical inaccuracy", perhaps you could elaborate on something beyond there "is not a particle of truth or reality in this film."
But assuming all your points are valid (which I strongly question). that you consider this film "terrible" invalidates every word you say. What are your favorite films?
And for the record, yes, this is one of my all time favorites, and not just because it's considered by others one of the greatest films ever made. But yes, it's not for everyone; alot of the depth of this film is over the heads of many film goers.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)

reply

Boy was quite common slang back then, as for Kid . Humprhey Bogart taught Bergman poker imbertween takes and he would often call her kid. It was a nickname that made it into the film. Also kid is quite a common phrase to describe young adults.

reply

cool.



🎍Season's greetings!🎅🌲

reply

Except for the mention of 'camps' in Morocco and 'the Resistance' in France, there is not a particle of truth nor reality in this film.
I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a Hollywood film varies from reality. I'd always thought this was a documentary. 😀

reply

iluvnyc,

I just read all the trivia points about the movie (which did not used to be one of my favorites, but not I see so much more in it and it's become a favorite in my old age), and was surprised to learn how many of those in the cast were actually escapees from the nazis, or otherwise refugees! Only 3 (including Bogie and the piano player were natives of the U.S.! So the errors were not so awful that they could not tolerate working on a movie laced with them. And frankly, as an employment tool for refugees of the 3d Reich it's pretty darn wonderful! It made me happy to think of them working on this movie together.

After all, it was made during wartime (many things were in limited supply), and by a hodge podge of different writers, a director who spoke English with such a heavy Hungarian accent that he often was misunderstood, and, finally, the studio system that fiddled with everything if they thought it might help box office. For example, the location was moved from Southern France to Casablanca by the studio to try to exploit the popularity of Algiers. It clearly worked--it added an excitement that isn't there in the many films located under Nazi Germany's thumb, and created the distance necessary for any form of rebelliousness out in the open to have any credibility at all.

I would not enjoy the idea of a nightclub in Vichy France knowing how the Germans tortured anyone suspected of working against them, the prisons they located inside France, and the way that one occupying force killed off entire towns of men, women and children just as they did on the Russian front. Rick's Cafe could not exist there, at least not in my consciousness.

If I am watching even those boots and uniforms Nazis wore, and the locale is anywhere near an actual camp, much less having any visible sign of the horrors wrought by the 3d Reich, I am not going to be enjoying a movie like Casablance. I'm going to be sick, on the verge of tears. We have documentaries for realism and reality. I feel it's just wrong to locate a movie that mostly occurs in a nightclub and is about people in love though on the run (from an enemy that is mostly absent) where such atrocities were taking place. That would diminish the horror. It would be disrespec tful to those who suffered. This was far enough from the horror, undeniable evil and hideous abuse of humanity that it can serve as a reason d'etre, without turning the the entertainment into something monstrous.

reply

For all its triviality, its loves labour's lost-ness, for its highlighting the beautiful tragedy of the suffering of the fundamental things of life in wartime, it still, to this day, engenders noble posts and resonant respect from those who post. Bravo, cyninbend-149-610489.

🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

reply

He's there for all of two days and nights - if he'd stayed longer the Nazis undoubtedly would have found a pretext to have him arrested. The real implausibility as noted in other threads is the "letter of transit" concept - that somehow he'd be allowed to board an airplane so openly and without question.

reply

It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?" And the other answers, "Oh, that's a MacGuffin". The first one asks, "What's a MacGuffin?" "Well," the other man says, "it's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands." The first man says, "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands," and the other one answers, "Well then, that's no MacGuffin!" So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.
Hitchcock explaining the term "MacGuffin" in a 1939 lecture at Columbia University. Applies to letters of transit in Vichy held french Morocco signed by General DeGaulle as well.

reply