Wordiezett So much average

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

pyrocitor If you're one of the many who sneer that contemporary comedies play too much on offensive shock value, try this on for size: an American comedy, released only months after the country had shipped troops over to join the war, with the image of Adolf Hitler casually strolling down the street, only moments after his moustached grimace would have graced the screen in the newsreels. Indeed, between the film's brazenly audacious topicality and the horribly tragic pre-release death of its leading lady, it almost boggles the mind to imagine any audiences chancing a viewing of Ernst Lubitsch's To Be or Not To Be, let alone laughing at it. Thankfully, the benefit of hindsight reveals a true classic waiting in the wings. Taking its place alongside Chaplin's The Great Dictator as one of the bravest (and, by proxy, funniest) films of the era, To Be or Not To Be is a savage satire and comedy of errors, wordplay, and mistaken identities worthy of Shakespeare himself, in addition to being a palpably tense and engrossing war film in its own right. If the notion of making an irreverent wartime satire while at once being sincerely deferential to the fears and hardships of the war might seem contradictory, it's a paradox that Lubitsch embraces full steam ahead. The genius of To Be or Not To Be is its being equal parts comedy and war film, vindicating the struggles of overseas troops while employing laughs as cathartic levity from the fear and uncertainty surrounding them. Appropriately, Lubitsch plays the claustrophobic, paralyzing outrage of the encroaching invasion of Poland and the nailbiting suspense of spying within the Nazi ranks to the hilt, while simultaneously lampoons the blustering bureaucratic ineptitude of a Nazi force fumbling to uphold their own doctrines, often side-by-side within the same scene. The film's screenplay is deftly intricate, with enjoyable meta-Shakespearian plays on disguises and mistaken identities seamlessly blending the strains of espionage and comedy. Still, Lubitsch is the master of the 'verbal repetition as punchline' gag, with several slow-burning bits (ranging from initially innocuous lines of dialogue to Benny's hysterically cringeworthy rendition of the titular soliloquy) building from chuckle-worthy to uproariously hilarious in tandem with the film's steadily mounting tension. And, amidst the beats of irreverence and reverence (and moments of shocking, jarring darkness), Lubitsch leaves room for heart. Although the film's 'secret love' subplot between Lombard and Robert Stack's heartthrob pilot plays as a tad histrionic, the clarion sentiment Lubitsch invests into the film's overall agenda is far more resonant. Above all else, the film serves as a galvanizing wartime call to action: a bold parable to the propensity of every citizen to combat oppression, regardless of profession (or even competence). Here, the goofy dysfunctional troupe of actors are held as equally worth of heroic valourization as Stack's matinee idol pilot by being willing to lay down their lives to combat the Nazi uprising. It's an empowering testament to the human spirit that rings true without the artifice of propaganda, and, while lacking the infectiously rousing power of Casablanca's 'La Marseillaise,' Lubitsch's film is equally uplifting, albeit in a quiet and fundamentally sillier way. Carol Lombard's tragically untimely swan song performance is truly one for the ages. Commanding the screen with effortlessly affable ease, she infuses the film's tenser sequences with palpable stakes and tension, while weaving in the reprieve of a mischievous twinkle in her eye to break the ice and invite laughter back into the frame. Jack Benny is similarly magnificent as "that great, great actor, Joseph Tura," being as reliable a repository of laughs in his subtly scathing facial expressions as his perfectly rapid-fire banter and quipping. Stanley Ridges is perfectly smooth riddled with menace as a suave Nazi spy, while the wonderful Sig Ruman blusters and sputters to jubilant perfection as a perennially outwitted Nazi officer. Minor quibbles of pace and tonal balance aside, To Be or Not To Be is a remarkable juggling act, and as enjoyable as it is a triumphant feat of irreverent wartime defiance. Ticking dual boxes of being one of the most resonant and memorable comedies or war films of the Classical era, Lubitsch's film is an eminently revisable time capsule of the best gallows humour of the WWII era. Ah, what the hell - let's do one for the road: "SCHUUUULLLTZ!!!" -9/10

Djayesse Warsaw, august 1939. The theater company led by the GREAT Jozef Tura (Jack Benny) is rehearsing a new play: Gestapo, a mockery of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. And in the evening, they perform Hamlet, where the same Tura tries to be the young Danish prince. Every time he starts his famous soliloquy, Stanislav Sobinsky (Robert Stack), a young aviator walks out... To meet Maria Tura (Carole Lombard), his wife ! Meanwhile, the war breaks out, and the company has to kill a traitor. Once the man is dead, someone has to take his place to meet the Gestapo chief, Erhardt (Sig Ruman). Guess who will take his place? Yes, the grrrreat Tura himself! Then, we have a series of quid pro quo and fool's games, while the Nazis organize their deadly activities.Can we laugh at everything? Lubitsch confirms that we can. And it was a very difficult thing to do at that time : when the movie is presented in February 1942, it's been three months since the Americans declared war to Japan and Germany. The story of the film was very close and up to date for the spectators. Hitler had become a real enemy for the actors in the film, and the spectators of the movie halls. At that time, Hollywood had started to make films about the war in Europe. When the film was shot, Pearl Harbour had not yet been attacked. The public opinion had to be ready to enter the war with England against Germany. But other films had been presented to the American audiences: Foreign Correspondent (Alfred Hitchcock, 1940) or The long Voyage home (John Ford, 1940), for example. Here, the two facts contributed to its success: the up-to-date context and the tragic death of Carole Lombard... In a plane crash: "what can happen in a plane?" was her last words in the movie before they were taken off. Therefore, To be or not to be has become instantly a very strong propaganda film with its topic and its message: "the Resistance will remain and hold on against the Nazis". But this is Lubitsch, so everything seems very light: very little blood is spilled, a few realistic elements, and a very large amount of comedy. Even in the most tense moments, a little something can evacuate it and bring us laughter. The situation comedy is the basis of the movie. The situation gets weirder and weirder, the characters are less and less at ease as the film goes on. We start with a little cheating between husband and wife (which is not very important): a comedian meets a young man while her husband performs Hamlet's soliloquy, a fake "secret" code ("to be or not to be"), and we end up with the intervention of Hitler himself! Moreover, the Nazis are very ridiculous, and above all Erhardt and Schultz (Henry Victor), his subordinate! The actors chosen to play in this film are very relevant. They create this comical mood which enlightens the film, and especially Jack Benny. Tura is a poor actor and a jealous husband, but nevertheless, he manages to perform the role of his life while defending his country. Carole Lombard is a wonderful actress, but here, Benny is stupendous. He is the main character of the film. Last reason why this film is great and very funny, the quotes: "What he did to Shakespeare we are doing now to Poland." (Erhardt) "So they call me Concentration Camp Ehrhardt?" (Jozef Tura, then Erhardt) "What a husband doesn't know won't hurt his wife." (Anna) "Shall we drink to a blitzkrieg? - I prefer a slow encirclement." (Professor Silesky & Maria Tura) And, of course: "to be, or not to be"!

chenxiaomao Is difficult to imagine is that comedy so at ease, without the exaggerated facial expressions and movements jokingly, completely just script operation, distinctive characters show and the storyline of the conflicting collision out a very exciting laugh, or a fine sense of humor and amusing humor. Let me think later "La Grande Vadrouille" in the group play interspersed and coincidence echoes. As amazing actor, hapless Colonel, loyal soldiers, war machine heartbeat.Revisit the classic comedy, from beginning to end immersed in the plot to create out of the atmosphere of joy, the director of the comedy elements with effortless, structure, lines, performing, narrative and music and drama are called perfect, textbook style comedy film.

lasttimeisaw An enthralling and ebullient double bill of two versions of TO BE OR NOT TO BE, Lubitsch's Black & White masterpiece, also famous for being Carole Lombard's swan song before a plane crash brought her away from this world at the prime age of 33, and Mel Brooks' (almost) faithful color remade (although the director title falls on the head of his longtime collaborator Alan Johnson) starring him and his wife Ms. Bancroft. It is the same story being transcribed under two different palettes, the remake owes its tongue-in-cheek drollness greatly to the screenwriter Edwin Justus Mayer of the 1942 version since many one-liners are copied verbatim, both versions are abounding with witty caricatures of Hitler and his Nazi regime, embellishes a tall order in the wartime Warsaw with conspicuous burlesque, a Polish acting troupe's collective endeavour to hunt down a German spy and a subsequent flee from war zone to England, during which a crucial tool is that our hero, the ham actor Joseph Tura (Benny) / Frederick Bronski (Brooks), has to playact different characters, from the spy professor, a Nazi colonel and even Hitler himself (in the remake), to bluff his way out; meanwhile he is also vexed by the budding romance between his actor wife Maria (Lombard) / Anna (Bancroft) and a young aviator Lt. Sobieski (Stack) / Lt. Sobinski (Matheson). But there are also apparent differences which can bear out why Lubitsch's original is a much better piece of work, taking the opening sequences for example, Lubitsch starts with a voice-over narrating an unusual happening in Warsaw before WWII, Adolf Hitler is spotted on the street, then a following revelation reveals that it is after all an act, Hitler is played by a character actor who tries to test his resemblance by walking among the mass, what a pleasant surprise! But in the remake, Mel Brooks doesn't adopt this route, instead, he opens with a vaudeville number SWEET GEORGIA BROWN with Bancroft, a fairly impressive stunt but fails to match Lubitsch's ingenious gambit, later audience will discover, one main reason behind this alteration is that there is no role of the character actor who resembles Hitler in this version, as Brooks himself will disguise as Hitler in the final escape scam, so probably it is a sacrifice to fulfil Brooks' own ego to enlarge his part as the star.For most part, the silver-screen magnetism of the original is beguilingly outstrips the remake's more mundane touch, and being a well-intended fairytale, the mundane touch is unfortunately an impediment particularly in the elongated escape plan, the entire operation feels preposterous with the all the chase (don't let me start on the doggie Mutki's eleventh- hour jump) and what happens to the real Hitler in the theatre, he doesn't feel absurd when clearly no actors are on the stage to perform? In the original, this passage is fast-paced with a whimsical take of the fake Hitler ordering two pilots to jump off the plane without parachutes, to mock Nazi's blind obedience.With all my respect to Brooks and Bancroft, but in the remake, they are just too old for their roles, egregiously jarring is Brooks as young Hamlet in his ridicule titular monologue, seriously? I don't consider myself as an ageist, but this is more than a farce to swallow. Bancroft is two-and-a-half decades past her prime as a seductress in THE GRADUATE (1967, 8/10), her comedic bent can never pass beyond the slinky postures. OK. we get it, it is a family business, let the profit kept within one's own turf. However, a big thumb-up for the remake to introduce an openly gay character Sasha (Haake), Anna's dresser, into the plot, in order to carry through the side-splitting wisecrack "how can a theatre survive without Jews, gays and gypsies?". Also Charles Durning usurps an Oscar-nomination for the remake as Col. Erhardt, but having watched the original first, his farcical rendition feels a shade forced compared with Sig Ruman's effortless spontaneity.In the original, the Lombard-and-Benny pair forms a more organic liaison thanks a lot to the retro flair, she is a classic lady with glamour and dignity, he is somewhat childlike but self- consciously over-proud of his acting, their bickering is crammed with spark and tease, even Robert Stack's handsome pilot is dreamier in the vintage silhouette. All in all, it might be unfair for the remake to be viewed immediately after the original, but also the double-bill viewing is a telling corroboration of why vintage classics can obtain their timeless appeal, nostalgia aside, they are absolutely one-of-a-kind in their visual tactility, their characters' mannerism and the streamlined narrative tactics, if you are into it, you cannot get enough of it, as for the remake, maybe it is just not vintage enough, nothing we can do about that, as least for now.