Editing Michael Curtiz (section)

=== Types of stories ===
Before coming to Hollywood, Curtiz always considered the story before he began working on a film. The human-interest side of a story was key, along with having the plot develop as the film progressed. He explains:
{{blockquote|First I look for "human interest" when a story is given me. If that interest is predominant over the action then I believe the story is good. Always it is my desire to tell that story as if the camera were a person relating the incidents of a happening.<ref name=LAT-1927>''Los Angeles Times'', Oct. 30, 1927, p. 41</ref>}}

{{quote box|align=left|width=25em|bgcolor = MistyRose|quote=I hate to see young directors throwing stories back at the studio. They should never throw a single one back because they do not think it is a good story. They should accept them gratefully ... That is the way they will learn.|source=– Michael Curtiz<ref name=Journal />}}
His attitude did not change when he joined a large studio, despite being given large spectacles to direct. As late as the 1940s, he still preferred "homey pictures." He said it was "because I want to deal with human and fundamental problems of real people. That is the basis of all good drama. It is true even in a spectacle, where you must never forget the underlying humanity and identity of your characters no matter how splendid the setting or situations are."<ref name=Pitts>"Curtiz No 'Mr. Malaprop'; Studio Legend Exploded: Famous Director's English is Found to Be Better Than Chroniclers; Likes Simple Stories", ''Pittsburgh Press'', August 23, 1942, p. 21</ref> However, he also felt that even with the same story, any five different directors would produce five distinctive versions. "No two would be alike," he said, as each director's "work is reflection of himself."<ref name=Evening-44 />

Film historian [[Peter Wollen]] says that throughout Curtiz's career, his films portrayed characters who had to "deal with injustice, oppression, entrapment, displacement, and exile."<ref name=Leonard />{{rp|85}} He cites examples of Curtiz films to support that: ''20,000 Years in Sing Sing'' (1932) dealt with the theme of social alienation, while ''Captain Blood'', ''The Adventures of Robin Hood'', and ''The Sea Hawk'' all concerned a tyrant monarch who was threatening the freedom of ordinary Englishmen.<ref name=Leonard />{{rp|90}} Wollen states:

{{blockquote|The case for Curtiz as an auteur rests on his incredible ability to find the right style for the right picture. If he shows a thematic consistency across several genres, it is in his consistent preference for stressing the struggles of the rebel and the downtrodden against the entrenched and powerful.<ref name=Gerstner />{{rp|74}}}}