Part of ongoing series: Hollywood and Higher Education: Teaching Worldview thru the Stories We Live By
By changing the foundational story of Rick’s life from that of a self-centered love-betrayed to the story of a other-centered love renewed, Ilsa transforms Rick’s values and rule of life as well.
by Gary David Stratton • Senior Editor
Since its initial release seventy-five years ago, Casablanca has grown to become one of the most beloved films in the history of American cinema. Winner of three 1942 Academy Awards in (best picture, best writing, and best director) Casablanca is now recognized by the Writers Guild of America as the greatest screenplay of all time, and by the American Film Institute as the second greatest American movie ever.[1] Even in the high-tech world of Blu-ray players and streaming video, this black-and-white masterpiece remains an enduring favorite with both contemporary audiences and critics alike.
Casablanca also provides a compelling example of the four levels of worldview, and how change at the story level can lead to dramatic change in every level of worldview. Character development (both cinematic and moral) “flows” from the hidden recesses of our life story, where our unexamined presuppositions about reality form a worldview that guides our life in ways we rarely think about in our day-to-day existence. In life and great films, we experience our worldview on four overlapping, but distinguishable levels. [2]
Four Levels of Worldview
Level 1) Actions and Behaviors: The countless personal decisions and moral judgments we make on a daily basis make up the visible tip of the iceberg of our largely hidden worldview. We glide through thousands of “preconditioned” responses each hour—what to wear, where to live, who to befriend, when to lie, how to speak—simply doing what we do, without ever examining why we do them. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred these decisions predictably emerge from the lower levels of our worldview, usually without any conscious awareness of why we make them.
Level 2) Rule of Life: The next level of our worldview is found in the rules and roles defined for us in the traditions and ‘scripts’ society develops to maintain equilibrium, or the personal strategies developed by us to cope with the difficulties of life. At this level our worldview provides a ‘rule of life” that defines our relationships, and the boundaries and maxims we use to guide our own personal behavior. The clothes we buy, the worship we express, and even the words we use, are dictated by cultural expectations and personal habits far beyond our normal self-awareness.
The countless decisions we make each day are but the visible tip of the iceberg of our largely hidden worldview.
3) Value and Belief System: The rules and roles we follow on a daily basis are normally based upon a presuppositional value and beliefs system that undergird these conventions, (once again, usually sub-consciously.) These principles, doctrines, aphorisms, and symbols are the often unspoken “commanding truths, which define the ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ of our experience, and accordingly, the good and evil…” [3] They provide the language and categories by which we unconsciously interpret reality and make sense out of our experiences of our life.
Level 4) Stories and ‘Scriptures’: The deepest level of our worldview is normally found in the stories of our life-shaping personal experiences and our community’s authoritative ‘scriptures’ that form the basis of our principles and strategies for living. The three upper levels are “embedded within narratives that often have overlapping themes and various myths that often reinforce common ideals.” [4] The personal and corporate stories we live by are self-evidently true to us (even if they are, in fact, hopelessly false). To question them is to question reality itself. [5]
Constructing a False Worldview
At first glance Rick seems the model narcissist, longing only to catch the last plane out of Casablanca while sticking his neck out for nobody.
Casablanca provides a beautiful example of all four levels of this process. Originally entitled, “Everyone Meets at Rick’s,” this masterpiece traces the worldview transformation of American expatriate and nightclub owner, Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart). Set against the backdrop of Nazi-controlled but unoccupied north African territories of Vichy France during WWII, the movie opens with a bitter and cynical Rick Blaine making his daily decisions (level 1) out of a fairly consistent rule of life (level 2). He never drinks with customers, never commits to a woman, never takes sides in a political debate, and never intervenes to help others. His narcissistic value and belief system (level 3) leaves little room for anyone but himself, his alcoholism, his business, and his business partner, Sam. His value system (level 3) is clearly expressed in his famous rule of life (level 2), “I stick my neck out for nobody.”
Captain Louis Renault is the first to recognize a deeper story rumbling beneath Rick’s cynical shell
However, as the movie progresses we learn that Rick’s worldview wasn’t always so jaded. In fact, both French prefect Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains) and Nazi Gestapo Major, Heinrich Strasser (Conrad Veidt) express concern that Rick’s current story might not be his true self. They note that there was once a time when Rick’s value and belief system led him to a rule of life marked by a heroic willingness to sacrificially fight against tyranny even in a losing cause. They don’t want Rick returning to this old rule of life by aiding Czech freedom fighter Victor Lazlo (Paul Henreid) in his attempt to escape Casablanca (and the Nazi) by means of a pair of stolen letters of transit granting the bearers free passage on a flight to neutral Portugal.
Movie Clip 1: Captain Louis Renault Accuses Rick of a Deeper Story
The beautiful and enchanting Ilsa Lund stole Rick’s heart in a whirlwind Paris romance Paris only to break it as the German tanks rolled into Paris.
What Louis doesn’t know, is that Rick’s current rule of life and value system are driven by a heart-wrenching story (level 4). Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman), a beautiful and enchanting Norwegian once stole Rick’s heart in a whirlwind Paris romance at the outset of WWII.
Movie Clip 2: Paris
However, after swearing her undying love, Ilsa abandons Rick just as the German army descends upon Paris. By the time Rick gets to Casablanca Ilsa’s betrayal provides the seething caldron of molten anguish driving Rick’s cynical value system and narcissistic rule of life. Like the city where he dwells in exile, his life is a desert with but one goal: escape.
A Different Story?
A guy standing on a station platform in the rain with a comical look on his face, because his insides had been kicked out.
This is the story Rick is living when Ilsa turns up in Casablanca as the traveling companion for none other than Victor Lazlo. Confronted anew with heartache of Paris, Rick’s narcissistic behavior only intensifies. Despite his admiration for Lazlo, Rick refuses to help the desperate couple. He stubbornly retains his “I stick my neck for nobody” rule of life even as Ilsa desperately tries to convey a different story than the one driving his current behavior.
Movie Clip 3: Ilsa Tries to Explain Her Story
Just when Rick’s journey toward the dark side seems complete, something happens that radically changes the interpretation of his entire life story. With the Nazi’s closing in and their every effort to escape Casablanca thwarted, the stolen letters of transit in Rick’s possession are now Isla and Lazlo’s only hope. A desperate Ilsa turns up at Rick’s apartment intent to do anything to obtain them.
Movie Clip 4: Midnight at Rick’s apartment
Ilsa’s startling admission begins to change Rick’s worldview at every level.
Ilsa’s startling admission that she still loves Rick begins to change Rick’s worldview at every level. He now knows that Ilsa left him behind in Paris only because she learned that Lazlo, her husband, was still alive. She was not living a story of a self-centered love betrayed, but rather one of heroic sacrifice. While no one yet realizes it, this new story of a sacrificial love-renewed (level 4) begins to invisibly reenergize Rick’s heroic value system (level 3), displacing his values of narcissism and his “I stick my neck out for nobody” rule of life (level 2).
In the iconic airport scene, Rick’s new worldview based upon his new story suddenly erupts into full view with a startling decision (level 1).
Clip 5: Rick and Ilsa at the Airport
Change the Story, Change the World
At the airport, Rick’s new story empowers him to not only give up his ticket to freedom, but Ilsa as well.
It turns out that Captain Louis Renault was right about Rick all along. The real Rick Blaine is, in fact, a hero. The pain of losing Ilsa had created a false life narrative, but once he knew the real story, his value system and rule of life came back on line. Rick decides to give away his tickets to freedom to Ilsa and her husband (level 1), because he has (re)embraced his rule of life of to fight against tyranny even in a losing cause (level 2), rooted in his rediscovered value of self-sacrificing heroism (level 3), birthed by his true life story (Level 4). By changing the foundational story of Rick’s life from that of a self-centered love-betrayed to a story of an other-centered love renewed, Isla transforms Rick’s values and rule of life as well. He now sticks his neck for everybody, even the husband of the woman he loves.
In the end, the power of Rick’s true story is becomes so compelling it returns Louis to his own true story, values, and rule of life.
Movie clip 6: A beautiful friendship
Everyone Meets at Rick’s
“This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” In the end, even Louis is caught up in Rick’s heroic transformation.
One reason why Casablanca resonates so deeply with audiences is our strong identification with Rick. We have all been hurt deeply. We all develop belief systems and strategies to protect ourselves from further pain. We all know what it is like to have those rules of life sabotage our heroic journey. We all know what it is like to be trapped in a life story that hurts everyone around us and yet we are powerless to change. We all want to believe that we are the master of our own fate, freely making our own choices at any given moment, when in reality our unexplored stories, unexamined values, and unexamined rules of life dictate much of our daily decision-making. Sooner or later, everyone meets at Rick’s.
For those who are willing to listen, the deepest longings of our heroic life story may be churning just beneath the surface and well worth the journey of further exploration. Over the course of this ongoing series I hope to help you do exactly that. I’m hoping this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Next posts in series:
Fiddler on the Roof: Worldview Change and the Journey to Life-Interpreting Story
The Volcano in Your Backyard: Micro-Worldviews and the Honeymoon from Hell
See also:
Hollywood and Higher Education: Teaching Worldview Through Academy Award-winning Films
Crash goes the Worldview: Why Worldview Transformation Requires Changing Scripts
It’s a Wonderful Worldview: Frank Capra’s Theistic Masterpiece
Bungee-Jumping to Eternity: The Existential Angst of Dead Poets Society
Deep Culture: Is Winning an Oscar a Reliable Indicator of a Truly Great Film?
If you Live it, They Will Come: The Blind Side and Better Faith-Based Filmmaking
Related Posts:
Using Zombie Movies to Teach Politics, by Daniel W. Drezner
The Joker Is Satan, and So Are We: René Girard and The Dark Knight, by Charles Bellinger
Notes
[1] Casablanca is currently #25 rating on the IMDB all-time best film list. Michael Curtiz, Julius J. Epstein, Howard Koch, Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, et al. Casablanca (Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 1999). [2] Followers of Arthur F. Holmes’ will notice that I am using his categories for evaluating ethical decisions. See, Ethics: approaching moral decisions. Contours of Christian philosophy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 52-80. See also, Lawrence Kohlberg, The Development of Children’s Orientations Toward a Moral Order (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press); Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press); and, James W. Fowler, Stages of Faith: the Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981). [3] James Davidson Hunter, To Change the World (Oxford University Press, 2010), 32. To be fair, Hunter considers all four levels to be overlapping elements of “culture,” not worldview. However, this is at least somewhat a matter of semantic disagreement between philosophers (who study worldviews),and sociologists, like Hunter (who study cultures.) [4] Hunter, Change, 33. [5] What I am calling the ‘Story’ level of worldview is what philosopher James K. A. Smith refers to as the ‘pre-worldview’ level of ‘social Imaginary.’ “The social imaginary’ is an affective, noncognitive understanding of the world. It is described as an imaginary (rather than a theory) because it is fueled by the stuff of the imagination rather than the intellect: it is made up of, and embedded in, stories, narratives, myths, and icons. These visions capture our hearts and imaginations by “lining” our imagination, as it were— providing us with frameworks of “meaning” by which we make sense of our world and our calling in it. An irreducible understanding of the world resides in our intuitive, precognitive grasp of these stories. Desiring the Kingdom (Cultural Liturgies): Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Publishing Group, 2009), p. 68.
Pingback: Ricky Gervais, the Golden Globes, Atheism and Sentimental Hogwash | Two Handed Warriors
Pingback: Top Blog Posts of 2010: Casablanca and the Four Levels of Worldview | Two Handed Warriors
Pingback: Worldview and the Power of Story | Two Handed Warriors
Another way to approach the multiple levels of a character's worldview is to understand the moral virtue and vice that motivates the character. I have yet to do a formal analysis of Casablanca but from what I remember from multiple screenings the values in the film that each character confronts are selfishness v. selflessness; or put another way perhaps more in keeping with Casablanca's themes: self-preservation v. preservation of others. All successful films are really about a single set of values and the natural consequences of choosing the virtue or the vice in the lives of each of the main characters. Those same values can be layered however in the various aspects of a character's life, not unlike what Gary explains above w.r.t. worldviews. For instance, Rick's life is a composite of layers–personal, family, professional, and political, and in each layer or sub-storyline, Rich has a goal that becomes a moral motivation. Personally: Rick wants to be shown respect; Romantically: he wants to be loved; Professionally: to be paid; and Politically: to be neutral. In the first half of the film Rick's value of self-preservation in those four character sub-plots drive him toward tragedy. But during the second half of the film, after he realizes the error of his ways, he moves toward a resolution that requires him to embrace the opposite value: the preservation of others, or selflessness. This is a transformational arc that Rick follows, and because it rings true for the audience on all those different layers or story levels, the film sticks with us. All of this is explained in my book The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success (http://www.moralpremise.com)
Stan,
Thank you for your insight on this. I absolutely love your book. Thank you again for sending me a copy. Your concept of moral premise has been extremely helpful in my connecting ethical decisions to film narratives. Your comment here, "All successful films are really about a single set of values and the natural consequences of choosing the virtue or the vice in the lives of each of the main characters," is a great encapsulation.
I actually have you referenced in a series of posts I am doing next week on worldview in It's a Wonderful Life. I'd love to send it to you in advance if you'd be willing to read it and jump in early with a comment. Key Payton and Jim Hull have been helping me try to make this material more helpful to filmmakers. I would covet your help on this as well if you have the time.
Hope all is well for you and yours this Advent,
Gary
Oops, Jim! I re-looked at my Dramatica Dictionary, you are so right, and I'm glad you "caught me" on that missed distinction! Your clarification exactly demonstrates the kind of rigorous precision that makes the Dramatica Theory so one-of-a-kind among story paradigms.
As to worldviews, Gary, I hope all this is helping flesh out how often humans have both conscious and un/subconscious worldviews; e.g., how Scout in *To Kill a Mockingbird* can so support her father Atticus's fight against an anti-black racist, even while nurturing all sorts of her own anti-weirdo prejudices against her odd neighbor, Boo Radley.
As Jim has pointed out, good stories force their main characters (and we hope those in the audience as well) to pull up and try to examine their closely held un/subconscious worldviews — that inner "je ne sais quoi" that *might* be contributing to their difficulty in solving the Story Problem.
Of course in most good stories this is typically not a clinically detached analysis; most often, instead, this "examination of my own worldviews" happens in a character's desperate, last-ditch effort to figure out "what else could possibly be perpetuating this problem?!?!"
Tommy Lee Jones's climactic process in *The Fugitive* (where he is the Change character, costarring with a Steadfast/starring main character) is among many great illustrations of this kind of sudden, cathartic realization of a flawed worldview.
Key
@Key
As someone who has a deep passion for design and information architecture I appreciate your kind words about my site. Glad to see someone has found value in it!
Just a quick little slight correction to the concept of the Main Character's Approach. Most Main Character's are unaware of the justifications that drive them — that's the purpose of story, to unravel them and present them with the option of carrying on or adopt a new one. So it's not so much that a Do-er sees the problem coming from outside or a Be-er sees the problem as relating to their attitudes. It's more that their justifications are leading them to approach problems either externally or internally.
Both Rick in *Casablanca* and William Munny in *Unforgiven* have taken to drinking as a way of coping with their own problems. Neither is really aware that their problem requires them to change themselves (Be-er), it's just that their own blind spots have developed this preference for a particular coping mechanism.
It's a subtle difference but an important one. Your explanation of how stories often challenge a Do-er to Be more and a Be-er to do more though is absolutely correct. In both *Casablanca* and *Unforgiven*, the Main Character is driven to take action — one for the better, the other for the worse.
@Gary
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to elaborate on some of these ideas. If you find anything worth linking to on my site, by all means do – I could always use the traffic!
Jim,
I now have you linked on my main page. (I think I did it right.) Hopefully people will follow Key's trail to your door. I really appreciate your insight.
Gary
Just an addendum to my note that "neither the [Do-er or Be-er] Approach to problems is ALWAYS correct… some stories will challenge a Do-er to practice some Be-er Approach styles, while other stories will challenge a Be-er to practice some Do-er Approach styles."
A universally frequent acknowledgment of this truth is the "Serenity Prayer" credited to theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and adopted widely by Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve-step programs. It says:
"God, grant me the
Serenity to accept the things I cannot change (a Be-er Approach);
Courage to change the things I can (a Do-er Approach); and
Wisdom to know the difference" (a balance between these two Approaches, often forged via a story that pulls the starring and costarring characters between the two extreme poles of these approaches until they find a middle ground).
My ears are burning!
While I never thought of Maximus living for eternity, it certainly works in describing him as the classic Steadfast Main Character. When determining the Resolve of the central character within a complete story all that matters is comparing where they ended up at the end of the piece with where they began. If they maintained the same worldview they began with, then regardless of any backtracking, they are thought to be Steadfast in their Resolve. Your description of him starting out for eternity, wavering, then finally realigning for eternity is a great example of this steadfastness.
As far as Tony Stark goes (first Iron Man), those first 30-45 minutes in the cave are Backstory and not part of the actual story itself. Part of the purpose of Backstory is to describe how the Main Character developed the justifications that end up motivating them throughout a story. His experiences within that cave created the drive within him to be the classic superhero Steadfast Main Character for the remainder of the film. Instead, it is his friend Rhodey (Terrence Howard) who has the significant Change of character, exemplified by his hanging up the phone during the climax. With this act he became an accomplice of Tony's, sharing his worldview on how to best approach fighting the bad guys.
Most of the time films make reference to the Backstory (flashbacks, dialogue, etc.) but don't actually portray it on-screen. Because the first Iron Man was an origin story, it only makes sense that his Backstory would become part of the action.
Jim,
Okay, I admit it. You're right. I had not thought of the back story element of Iron Man. Even better, I can see that you're right about Gladiator as well. I LOVE your take on this. It IS a great example of a steadfast character who transforms the people around him.
I think you've pointed out a blind spot in my approach. In using film to teach worldview I've gravitated toward films that emphasize dramatic worldview changes. This is rather ironic, in that (as Key pointed out) the Main Characters in many of my personal favorite films (above) are Steadfast.
Thanks providing some much-needed expertise! (You too, Key). It is the exact kind of conversation I had hoped to evoke in this blog.
Please jump in again… and again.
I obviously need the education!
Gary
PS Care to do a guest post to help drive people to your site some time?
Gary and Jim:
Thanks for bringing me into the discussion! Jim, as a script consultant and long-time Dramatica advocate, I more and more frequently recommend that my screenwriting clients and friends visit your site and immerse themselves!
While the Dramatica.com site continues to offer prose explanations of "Dramatica Theory" concepts, Jim, your photo- and video-illustrated explanations make the theory much more approachable and vivid. Thank you!
To both of you, something else I think is very relevant to the whole "worldview" discussion: The Dramatica Theory's insistence on knowing whether your main character is instinctively a Doer or a Be-er.
In story after story, this divide hugely determines where a problem-confronting main character will tend to look for solutions, and in which direction his or her worldview change (or growth) will likely need to go.
Do-ers tend to see the story problem as coming from outside themselves (so they act outwardly against it), while Be-ers tend to see the story problem as probably, somehow, related to their own attitudes and approaches (so they seek ways to rethink things and adjust themselves).
But neither Approach to problems is ALWAYS correct; thus some stories will challenge a Do-er to practice some Be-er Approach styles, while other stories will challenge a Be-er to practice some Do-er Approach styles.
In both cases, these main characters are growing toward a more-balanced worldview, where they recognize that some problems lie outside us, but many lie within; and that while sometimes we need to take action to solve problems, there are unquestionably other times where the best solution is to do some serious introspection and alter our prior views.
So Jim, I commend Gary to your "starter" article on "How Main Characters Approach Problems" —
http://storyfanatic.com/articles/story-structure/…
— and I am trying to get through reading your other articles on The Main Character.
Finally, this is just another example of how complexly variegated worldviews are, and how many different aspects of worldview have been (and I hope will continue to be) examined through screen stories!
Key
Gary:
Among my "newer" favorites is "The Lives of Others" (2007), the film which one that year's German Oscars. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend.
As to characters and their multiple "worldview levels," Jim Hull (storyfanatic.com) has posted a robust article on "What Character Arc Really Means."
http://storyfanatic.com/articles/story-structure/…
Hull offers a penetrating analysis of how many different ways writers can actually blend in and defend their worldviews in stories, and why we should avoid thinking that every worthwhile movie has to have a gloriously happy ending and a massively transformed main character. (As evidence, your "best" list above still contains its fair share of "steadfast" main characters and tragic, semi-tragic, or bittersweet endings.)
Hull's article focuses on this common myopia among screenwriters (Christian AND secular): That the only kind of meaningful change is that of having the main character UTTERLY transform his/her worldview by the end of the story.
And yet many a successful-and-enduring film (including several on your "best" list) centers on a main character who "grows" or "deepens" in the worldview with which s/he originally began the story; s/he grows, but does not "transform/switch worldviews."
(Yet, still, there is always SOME "worldview-changing" character in stories where the main character "remains steadfast," and it's almost always the primary co-starring character.)
For both the above points, consider "The Fugitive", "Iron Man", "Gladiator", "Sense & Sensibility", "The Iron Giant", "Forrest Gump", "Amadeus", "The Silence of the Lambs", "Braveheart", "Saving Private Ryan", "Whale Rider", "Chinatown", "Star Trek" (2009), "Crimson Tide", "Moulin Rouge", "Field of Dreams", "Wall-E", "Being There", "Searching for Bobby Fischer", :Akeelah and the Bee", "Almost Famous", most of the James Bond films, and many more.
In terms of screenwriting craft, it's crucial for us to have the full range of worldview-presenting tools in our boxes, and the "grow" or "transform" distinction should ALWAYS come early in our storyforming considerations.
Keep comparing cinema, stories, and worldviews!
Key,
Well said. Thank you for introducing me to Hull's work (and website.) I like his emphasis on growing and deepening by overcoming. It certainly fits a lot of great films, and is a lot more common in life than worldview changes. If a protagonist is "a character who pursues a goal and is changed by the journey," then there are a lot of ways to make it work. Of course, it works if there is a strong moral premise, that is challenged by conflict, obstacle, and complications along the way.
Forrest Gump seems to be a great example of what Hull preaches. Lt Dan and Jenny change dramatically, while Forest functions more like an antagonist creating their change. Forrest changes too, but in the "growing and deepening" sense Hull references.
Thank you!
Gary
PS I probably would have left Maximus (Gladiator) and Tony Stark (Iron Man) off Hull's list. Like Rick in Casablanca, Maximus loses his story only to rediscover it. He starts the movie living for eternity, loses his soul living for revenge, and ends the movie living for eternity again. And I don't know about you, but I think Tony Stark is a fairly typical protagonist. His his hedonistic lifestyle never changes, but his "vocational" worldview changes dramatically. What do you think?
A good film for similar evaluation would be my all-time favorite, TENDER MERCIES, starring Robert Duvall. His APOSTLE would be good as well. I use Tender Mercies as one of the films that can teach us about faith in my class<Faith Goes to the Movies.
Paul,
Tender Mercies is a gorgeous film. It's on my list of 41 classic films everyone should know. I never thought about the 4 levels in it, but you are absolutely right! How often do you teach your Faith Goes to the Movies class. It sounds great.
Thanks for your help on this,
Gary