How could this film have been made in the MIDDLE of WW2?
Were the Americans continuing to make Hollywood studio films while any able bodied man in Europe was forcibly being conscripted to fight and die battling the terror of Nazism?
Is it morally acceptable to watch such a film these days knowing that it was produced for entertainment, while across the globe the blood of thousands was flowing?
Probably not...
Propaganda is part of a war effort too.
shareHe's a troll. Don't engage him.
shareWhy would you possibly describe the OP question as trolling?
It's a perfectly legitimate question re the morality of watching a film produced during the middle of a world war.
Propaganda could be a considered response - although I don't really remember that being a big aspect of the film.
However dismissing something which you're not comfortable with the ethics of as "trolling" is a pretty low ball, odd response.
People need to enjoy themselves.
shareIndeed. Churchill said that Mrs. Miniver did more for the war effort than a flotilla of battleships. And films like Casablanca were doing the same for America, informing the public of why America was in the war & why the Axis powers had to be defeated, all while telling compelling & highly enjoyable stories.
shareThe troops need to be entertained from time to time - Remember the scene in "1941" when the general was crying watching "Dumbo?"
sharehollywood keeps on truckin'
shareYeah…don’t think this is a big deal.
shareWere the Americans continuing to make Hollywood studio films
Is it morally acceptable to watch such a film these days knowing that it was produced for entertainment
A lot of younger actors temporarily gave up their careers and enlisted: Clark Gable, Tyrone Power, David Niven, Jimmy Stewart, etc., and Carole Lombard actually died when she took a break from acting and went out to sell war bonds. But Bogart was 43, too old for combat duty, and I'll count this magnificent movie as a solid contribution to the US war effort.
PS: Laurence Olivier wanted to do his bit for King and Country, so he learned to fly, and volunteered to become a fighter pilot. But he was a shitty pilot and kept crashing airplanes when they were in short supply, so eventually the War Office told him that he'd do more for his country if he did something he was actually good at. So they gave him a few bucks, and he went out and made "Henry V", and gave his embattled country the "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" speech, and didn't crash any more valuable fighter planes.
The rest of the actors were probably ineligible for combat.anyway.
shareErrol Flynn was eligible for combat, he just wasn't eligible for a draft. His good friend and former roommate David Niven had been an army officer, he walked out on his movie contract when war was declared and served with distinction as long as Britain was at war, and he held no grudge against his pal Flynn for staying in Hollywood making big money and hosting orgies while others died. Niven was a decent sort.
Hollywood did have something of a "man shortage" for a while, it was hard to get men aged 20-40 for a while there. But they still had Bogie!
I was referring to the actors in Casablanca. Flynn wasn't fit for service.
shareActually, there was a point where a physical showed that Flynn had tuberculosis, the studio hushed it up because they didn't want the world to know that their star had something dire and contagious, and they said he was ineligible to serve for a more socially acceptable reason. But as the war stretched on there were times when Flynn was eligible to serve, and he chose not to, as was his right.
John Wayne couldn't be drafted because he had dependent children, but could have volunteered for service, like some of his actor peers. If he chose not to I have no problem with that, I'd just have a problem if he ever said anything unkind about younger men who chose not to serve in later wars.
Flynn also.suffered from alcoholism drugs VD emphysema and recurrent malaria.
shareand John Wayne.
share