Ernst Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be -- What Makes This Movie Great? (Episode 177)

[@henrykujawa4427]

I first saw the Mel Brooks film and thought it was pretty good. Then, I saw the Lubitsch film, and was COMPLETELY blown away! I'd been a fan of Jack Benny's since I was a little kid, but this was something else. Years later, I saw the Brooks film again, and was shocked. The whole thing seemed "dumbed down" for modern audiences with no attention span. Too many of Brooks' films go off the deep end of stupid for my tastes, that one was mid-range for him. But what got me was how they had several scenes added to "explain" the situation better to the audience who might not be paying attention. When I saw the Lubitsch film again, it really hit me, there are a few places where you REALLY have to pay attention or you'll get LOST! There's NOT one wasted minute in it anywhere. The other thing that shocked me about the Brooks film was how, even some really fabulous actors, like Charles Durning, PALED in comparison to the originals (in his case, Sig Ruman). One of my favorite scenes in the entire film has to be when Benny goes back to Gestapo HQ, not knowing the real Professor Siletsky's dead body has been found, and they're waiting for him. They have him wait in the room with the corpse, but once he notices, his mind goes into high gear. The resulting scene when he asks them in while mentioning the dead man must be one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my life! "You can KILL a man-- but you CAN'T pull his BEARD!" And he would have totally gotten away with it, if Lionel Atwill hadn't come in to "arrest" him! Has there ever been a film SO DAMNED FUNNY and yet, at the same time, so SUSPENSEFUL? Hilarious but true: I ran it once for my Dad, sadly, via a REALLY bad print from my local PBS station-- fuzzy picture & sound. As usual, we took a food break halfway in. At that point, I had to explain to my Dad that the romantic young man was played by one of his FAVORITE actors-- Robert Stack. The print was so bad, he couldn't tell! (I lated upgraded with a copy I taped off TCM.)

[@kitkatzyy]

Originally the movie was supposed to end with Carole Lombard saying “What can happen on a plane?” But when she ironically died in a plane crash before the movie’s premiere the line was cut from the film. It’s been a long time since I watched this last, I really need to revisit it.

[@22many77]

It's one of my all time favs. Absolute genius. One of a kind belonging to a unique moment; which perhaps one can say of a few films, but I can't think of any other which came out during an event of the magnitude as the Holocaust while retaining its power even after the whole horror of that was revealed.

[@kali3665]

I have always been a fan of the great Jack Benny, and this was his finest film. Lubitsch knew how best to use Jack, and Jack gave an actual performance, not just recreate the "Jack Benny" character as he so often found himself falling back on when he made films. There are elements of the character, of course, but it's in context with the frame. Tura (in disguise): ... [the] great, great Polish actor, Josef Tura. You've probably heard of him. Colonel Ehrhardt : Oh, yes ... What he did to Shakespeare we are now doing to Poland! Such a wonderful line, and the look on Jack's face is priceless. I understand that that was NOT well accepted at the time. Carole Lombard is absolutely gorgeous in this film and never overwhelmed by the comedians or those she opposes. She is perfectly in sync and works well as part of the troupe. And she is perfect as a femme fatale - fully embracing the plot and even guiding it in places. She was a great comedienne in her own right, but also a strong enough actor to cover the more serious aspects of the story. It was a true tragedy that she was killed so soon after filming - it virtually guaranteed that if anyone remembered To Be, it would be only as Carole Lombard's last film. And it really deserves to be remembered more. The movie just works so very well as a farce. It looks like Jack and the troupe are just being carried along by events, but they do work out their plan and follow through with it: It's a Mission Impossible plot run by comedians, and not in the Marx Brothers style of anarchy, but as a true espionage caper. I loved this film. As for the remake, I think that's another misstep from Mel Brooks. It does NOT work as well as the original, and Brooks' character is no Jack Benny. I did not care for the remake at all.

[@clumsydad7158]

Jack wasn't much of an actor, exactly, but this role suited him perfect, quite funny

[@kali3665]

@@clumsydad7158 Absolutely. Like I said, Lubitsch knew how to use Jack. Most other filmmakers just went, "Well, you know all about comedy, Jack - you do what you think works best." Jack himself said that often he needed someone to hold him back and help him work out a character, but he only got that with Lubitsch.

[@jessebbedwell]

What is key in watching movies such as this is to keep in mind the audience it would have originally interacted with. Some might see this as being in extremely bad taste (especially all of the concentration camp jokes). However, comedy is like that spoonful of sugar which makes the medicine go down. This film would have been a slog if it were taking itself deadly serious.

[@pelarinbacosiii448]

Since Hamlet features so prominently in the movie, it might be worthwhile to consider it in relation to the play within Hamlet and the title character's famous quote:, “The play's the thing/ Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.” Perhaps Gertrude's, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." might be relevant. Both the Queen and the usurper King reveal something of their conscience and state of mind to Hamlet and the audience, as does Hamlet himself. Does the viewer of "To Be or Not to Be" reveal themselves by their perception of the movie, or even of the historical events. Maybe it's Lubitsch doing the revealing. I like the idea of War as a Nietzschean "Eternal Recurrence," posing the question of existence (and non-existence), I'll have to look for this movie. Thanks!

[@pelarinbacosiii448]

@@froufroufeatherstone6291 'l'll have to watch the movie, but if someone hasn't already written a paper on the subject, it could be the topic of an interesting metatextual reading--- of a play within a play/movie.

[@Blacklodge_Willy]

I remember watching this movie without knowing there was even a remake done by Mel Brooks and thinking this movie feels like something he'd make. Lubitsch was at his prime here.

[@jessebbedwell]

This film is like the father film (in Spirit) to Dr Strangelove.

[@yosconisi]

I prefer the 1983 Mel Brooks remake. Have you considered doing a comparison between Fail Safe and Dr Strangelove

[@SternCC1]

The beauty of the movie is that, while the laughs are plenty, Lubitsch never loses site of the war and the tragedy going on all around his characters. He speaks about the destruction created by the Nazis and shows us some of it carnage. Then he makes us like and love his heroes, so that we care about them. This allows us to hate anyone that would hurt them and make the laughter stop. We feel wrath towards the Nazis, while having us a jolly good time. That is comedy genius.

[@evimair]

Help! I'm looking for a movie that is very similar to this one. There, the actors speak in Polish at first, but then switch languages. In addition, the actor steps on the prompter's fingers a few times during the sentence To be or not to be, so that the prompter ends up with his fingers linked. What is the name of this movie?

[@sockmonkey22]

Only second to “The Horn Blows at Midnight”. 😊

[@vanessa.jasmine]

Can someone explain to me the on-going the Hitler is a piece of cheese joke 🙂. Since it's repeated throughout the film, I assume it was laugh out loud funny for the original audience. Is it scatalogical humor? Since to "cut the cheese" means to fart, does calling Hitler a piece of cheese mean he's a piece of 💩?

[@DaddyDaughterMovieNight]

Loving your videos. Have you seen Brooks’ own remake of TBoNTB? I haven’t since it came out, probably terrible, but a n interesting side note to your analysis here, re The Producers. BTW don’t you have doctor stuff to do? You’re so prolific! But don’t stop.