Kunze does an excellent job of outlining his argument and providing evidence that critiques the underlying meaning of the film. I think Kunze uses critical thinking and brings in an analysis that goes deeper than most critics' interpretation of the film. If there was one element excluded from his essay to support his thesis and argument, it would be more of an example of sources internal to his theory. I couldn't find detailed descriptions of how the lighting, editing, and/or cinematography supported his views, but in most of his descriptions of certain scenes in the film these elements were vaguely implied. Kunze does a great job on external sourcing by using references to past analyzes and implementing Sedgwick's theory within his argument. One thing I know after reading this essay by Peter Kunze is that I will never look at Casablanca the same way or at least with more