Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Casablanca Effect and Its Obverse
I suppose I need to start by explaining what I mean by “the Casablanca Effect”. It’s not my idea or term. A decade or so ago, I read an article by an author whose name I can’t recall who described what he termed “the Casablanca Effect” referencing the classic 1942 movie. He described how both he and his brother (separately) had heard and read for years how great the movie Casablanca was, and when he and his brother (separately) eventually saw the movie, it more than lived up to expectations. When they became aware of each other’s experience they gave it the Casablanca Effect moniker, something which comes highly recommended (a movie, a book, a restaurant, a location, anything really) and lives up to expectations.
Some years earlier, I’d had a similar experience (just 180 degrees out of phase) with a sibling – my sister. One year at Thanksgiving we decided to watch Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Neither of us had ever seen the movie, but we’d both heard only good things about it. It had been nominated for several 
Academy Awards and had won a couple, its theme song was a well-deserved staple, film critics then and now all seemed to have nothing but good things to say about it, it was directed by Blake Edwards of Pink Panther fame, and it starred Audrey Hepburn. What could go wrong? However, when we watched the movie we both had the same thought: what a letdown! This movie not only doesn’t live up to the hype, it’s really just kind of a bad picture. The highlight of the movie is probably the opening sequence.
From there, the movie slides rapidly downhill. There’s no real plot to speak of. Holly Golightly (Ms. Hepburn’s character) is looking to marry a rich man when she becomes friends with Paul Varjak (played by George Peppard) a struggling writer who has just moved into her building. The main characters are neither very interesting nor much worth caring about either. She’s essentially a high-end prostitute who uses people, is unsympathetic and full of vapid thoughts, while Mr. Varjak is a gigolo, the kept man of an older married woman, although he has enough self-respect to dislike the situation. Even the minor characters add little of value to the story. The Buddy Ebsen character is just downright creepy and pathetic, while the Japanese landlord of their building (played over the top by Mickey Rooney with every possible negative stereotype of the Japanese) has not aged well to put it charitably. In fact, the Rooney character is about the only thing modern critics see fit to criticize the movie. But then again, his character existed for the sole purpose of comic relief in a movie labeled a romantic comedy and, while there are bits of romance in the story finding the comedy in the story is a more difficult task.
I mentioned Ms. Golightlys’ unsympathetic nature above. Let me illustrate my point by posting the final scene of the movie in which she kicks her cat out of the taxi in the middle of New York City. Tell me who would treat their own cat so poorly?
Well, I didn’t mean to write a movie review, something I’m not very adept at. In fact, I (and I’m sure you the reader as well) would much rather hear what @titustechera or @jameslileks have to say on the topic. The purpose was to explain the Casablanca Effect and its opposite and to ask the good members here at Ricochet if they’ve ever experienced “the Casablanca Effect” or its obverse, and if so feel free to tell us about it. Again, the Casablanca Effect can be about anything – a locale, a person, an event. – you name it.
Published in General
Has anyone actually read Breakfast at Tiffany’s? Do unpleasant people write unpleasant books that turn into unpleasant films?
Easy Rider is an awful, awful cheesy, slimy home-movie of a movie. Terrible, scumbag characters who act like jerks throughout. I had a friend who once tried to convince me what a great film it was. He said to me, “It’s really a western. Replace those motorcycles with horses and it’s a western.” I replied, “Yeah, so what? It’s a sh*ty western. Then what?”
I’m good with the Casablanca Effect as exemplified by the thread immediately below this one. I love New York at Christmastime and have always found it to live up to expectations. Somehow the commercial aspects seem dulled, the lights have that little extra twinkle, and one can shed one’s cares and get into the holiday mood without watching a single Hallmark movie.
Anything by Hemingway. All that lost generation stuff makes the characters unsympathetic. Just, whatEVER.
But not Fitzgerald.
So that’s a negative Casablanca Effect for Hemingway WC?
Awards are a terrible way to judge a movie. One has to remember you’re watching a film judged best for what was produced in a 12-month period. Being the best of a lousy crop of films doesn’t make it a classic.
Arguably, the best year ever for Hollywood was 1939. The losers of that year’s Best Picture Oscar are better than the winners for most other years.
Actually, I enjoyed Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Saw it when it was first released. Thought it was funny, and sad, and my favorite star at the time was Audrey Hepburn.
And I thank all of you on your review of The English Patient. My cousin sent it to me last year for the holidays. She said it was one of her favorite movies and she is about as left as you can get. I haven’t yet opened the CDC to watch it. Maybe I’ll just give it to someone else for a present.
Matt Bartle
I posted here a while back about how disappointed I was by Breakfast at Tiffany’s when I finally saw it.
A couple non-movie things that do live up to their hype:
Grand Canyon
Mt. Rushmore
Stonehenge
All worth seeing in person!
The Grand Canyon effect was how I had heard it described — seems over-hyped until you actually see it, then the hype is inadequate… Casablanca was like that for me when I saw it in grad school … Dirty Harry had to grow on me!
Grumpy word man says Obverse is the front of the coin and Reverse is the back. Obverse would be like Casablanca. Reverse are the ones like Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Thank you.
I believe tigerlily is going for obverse in the logic sense, though that doesn’t quite work either.
Postulate: All men are mortal.
Obverse: No men are immortal.
Converse: All things mortal are men.
Contrapositive: All things immortal are not men.
Cannot argue with that, as the grandmother of a ten-year old whose ambition this past Halloween was to go trick-or-treating dressed as Audrey Hepburn. Here she is, in Granny’s homemade dress:
Casablanca, Citizen Kane, maybe The Apartment, and that’s about it for me.
I have this reaction to books more often. With apologies to @rightangles, The Hobbit was one of these.
As I’ve said before, there’s no accounting for taste.
Nashville is my biggest example of the opposite: Highly recommended, but a dull, pointless slog with unlikeable characters from beginning to end.
Where the Demons dwell.
Where the Banshees live and they do live well.
I dunno Arahant. Maybe you’re right…OK, probably you’re right. I’m no grammarian, although this dictionary indicates my use of the word might be OK.
I should rephrase that: The best movie I’ve ever seen.
The young Katherine Ross was pretty watchable.
You’re giving me way too much credit Amy.
I’ve been watching a lot of episodes of the Ukranian travel show Орёл и Решка (Heads or Tails) where at the beginning a coin is flipped to see which person has an unlimited credit card to spend for an overnight visit at the episode’s location, and which person has to make do with $100 USD. I should let them know that if they ever do an episode in Detroit they should yell out, “Obverse” and “Reverse” during the coin toss. I’ll tell them that you’ll be watching.
Although it’s a Ukranian show, the main language is Russian. For a few of the episodes, English subtitles are available. But since the lingua franca around much of the world is English, there is some spoken English, too.
Ooh. I see from Wikipedia that they already have done Detroit. I’ll have to see if that one is on YouTube. Well, sometimes they make 2nd or 3rd visits to a location.
By the way, Орёл literally means eagle, which I take to have been depicted on the obverse of some coins. We stayed at an old pre-Soviet-era hotel named Pod Orlem in another Slavic country, where the phrase means “under the eagle.” I’m not sure about Reshka, because that’s not the Russian word for tail that I’ve learned, but Google Translate says it means “tails”. Perhaps it’s safer to say “reverse.”
Maybe it’s the inverse.
You could be literally correct, but not literally.
Is the second clause of your observation the obverse of the first clause?
No, merely a correction to all that has come before.
Ah, so it was all an erroneous obversesation.
The next correction should be an emetic.
I remember being surprised at how different “The Quiet Man” was from most John Wayne films, and can still watch that movie with great enjoyment though it probably wouldn’t pass the #MeToo censors these days.
The one time I watched Gone with the Wind on the other hand I thought, “What a waste of film.” Scarlett O’Hara has to be one of the worst representations of Southern women ever written or filmed.
Obverse v. Opposite … I always get the wrong!
Ah! A good imitation. Excellent job.
What are your thoughts about “Paint Your Wagon” 1969 with Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, and Jean Seberg.