670 To Be or Not to Be
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
I really wish someone would go and release another box of Lubitsch's early work. There's so many silent films just floating around everywhere, whether on DVDs, as TVrips or from elsewhere.
Definitely picking this up now.
Definitely picking this up now.
- manicsounds
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
-
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:52 pm
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
Wow! I just now noticed that the Criterion's 1.37:1 presentation is roomier than the SC's 1.33:1 image. I knew there would obviously be less visual information in the SC, but I didn't expect it to now look so tight!
- Dragoon En Regalia
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:52 pm
- Location: Art Theatre Shinjuku Bunka
- Contact:
- Moe Dickstein
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
Someone on eBay was naughty and sold this early. The Kalat commentary is outstanding as you'd expect, I've not yet had a chance to get through everything else but I'm probably going to run the commentary again this weekend with my boss as he's a big Lubitsch fan.
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
It's odd that the part of this movie I love most is
SpoilerShow
the fact that Siletsky's false beard is never explained. It's just a great gag that gets a bigger laugh because of all of the tension built up before the reveal.
- Shrew
- The Untamed One
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:22 am
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but
SpoilerShow
isn't the beard explained ahead of the joke? I recall one of the troupe telling Benny to bring an extra false beard because he always loses his, or something to that effect, and I think a razor or scissors is also with planted with Benny for some reason, or is on a table in the room. At least, I always understood it as Benny shaving off Siletsky's beard and sticking a false one on. But either way, it's still great that Lubitsch doesn't force in some awkward shot of Benny flashing a razor or trying to hide it afterwards, and simply lets the comedy and tension play out to its greatest effect.
- eerik
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
- Location: Estonia
- Kokomo Blues
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:43 pm
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
I thought Kalat's commentary was excellent. One point did bother me:
SpoilerShow
Kalat implies that Greenberg did not survive. Maybe he doesn't by remaining in Poland but that is outside the context of the film. There is nothing in the film to suggest this, am I missing it? True he was not on the plane with the seven that escaped but neither were the two fellow actors who escorted him off. If Benny had said, "take him to my office by way of the train station" then I could see it, but that scene was there so that Benny would stick his head out of the car window and lose his mustache.
-
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:55 pm
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
Kokomo Blues--you're absolutely right that the fate of Greenberg is left ambiguous within the film, but I don't believe he is carted off by other actors in that scene. Those are actual Nazi soldiers--the whole gimmick of Greenberg's big stunt was to attract their attention, and it looks to me like the soldiers who arrest him are part of that group of guards. It's hard for me to imagine that they have anything happy instore for him.
This was a detail that was changed in the Mel Brooks version, because it does kind of sour the triumph of the ending otherwise.
But if I'm wrong, please call me out on it.
(By the way--I never had a good space in the commentary to fit in a nod to the great James Finlayson, who cameos at the end as the farmer who finds "Hitler" in his haystack. So, I'll say it here--Jimmy Finalyson rocks. If you ever get a chance to see LADIES' NIGHT IN A TURKISH BATH, make sure you take that opportunity).
This was a detail that was changed in the Mel Brooks version, because it does kind of sour the triumph of the ending otherwise.
But if I'm wrong, please call me out on it.
(By the way--I never had a good space in the commentary to fit in a nod to the great James Finlayson, who cameos at the end as the farmer who finds "Hitler" in his haystack. So, I'll say it here--Jimmy Finalyson rocks. If you ever get a chance to see LADIES' NIGHT IN A TURKISH BATH, make sure you take that opportunity).
- Kokomo Blues
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:43 pm
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
And get voted worst forum member? I don't think so.davidkalat wrote: But if I'm wrong, please call me out on it.
Anyway it wouldn't change the argument, Greenberg does take the greater risk by playing that part - exposing himself as being Jewish in Nazi held Poland, and then remaining there.
I really enjoyed the commentary and analysis of the film!
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
Note to David K: check the "Who gives good commentary?" thread split off, then you'll get Kokomo's little quip about Worst Forum Member.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be
Having just watched this twice in a couple of days, the fate of Greenberg still seems worth considering. Tura says in the limo that he's going to play Shylock again on the London stage, and to my eyes, the soldiers who grab him look like part of the troupe- they're wearing slightly different uniforms to the main crowd, and Tura appears to know their names. It's true that we don't see him again, but that would seem to that if anything, something happened to him en route, as it wasn't part of the plan to sacrifice him. Leaving that turn offscreen would seem strange.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, February 27th
Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.
This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.
Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.
This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
I watched this very early in my film education and loved it so much that I feared revisiting it for years. I finally did when Criterion put it out and it thankfully did not disappoint. Owing partly to the circumstances of its timing, there's a playful edginess to this that I just don't think could ever be replicated. Not even in Trump's America. Because who working today has the deft wit of Lubitsch? Also, Trump is not actively killing people (yet) (that we know of).
Oh, and the Kalat commentary is great as you'd expect.
Oh, and the Kalat commentary is great as you'd expect.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
Not just the timing, but who is doing the film as well. This was made by a bunch of Jews a few of whom had just waltzed out of the parts of Europe Hitler was sinking his teeth into. Though on your point about Lubitsch's wit the Brooks remake really hits that home.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
It's... it's genuinely hard to get across what an appallingly awful idea this movie is. It's a farce about the occupation of Poland, starring Jack Benny, where one of the catchphrases involves the phrase 'concentration camp'. People talk about how daring The Great Dictator was, and it's true, but that is fairly straightforward in mocking Hitler and humanizing his victims- this one broadly winds up at the same place, but in getting there it spends a LOT of time mocking the victims, mocking patriotism and nationalism, and having a cast lead by a broad comic who isn't a good actor playing a bad actor, who is doing assassination missions. Kalat underscores this a lot, but it deserves to be underscored- the only reason this movie got made is that Lubitsch was Lubitsch, and allowed to get away with murder.
And thank God for it, because somehow this movie has all the humanity, hope, and decency of something like The Grand Illusion- the repeated use of Shylock's soliloquy is genuinely heart-rending (and also hilarious, by turns)- while also being one of the funniest movies I know, while also not accidentally minimizing the degree to which the Nazis were genuine monsters, and were not merely the same kind of people wearing different uniforms. It's hard to get into actually analyzing this thing, because it's all a beautiful, clockwork machine (as so many Lubtisch movies are) that isolating a gear and saying why it's a good gear seems ludicrous.
And thank God for it, because somehow this movie has all the humanity, hope, and decency of something like The Grand Illusion- the repeated use of Shylock's soliloquy is genuinely heart-rending (and also hilarious, by turns)- while also being one of the funniest movies I know, while also not accidentally minimizing the degree to which the Nazis were genuine monsters, and were not merely the same kind of people wearing different uniforms. It's hard to get into actually analyzing this thing, because it's all a beautiful, clockwork machine (as so many Lubtisch movies are) that isolating a gear and saying why it's a good gear seems ludicrous.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
Haven't seen the remake. In what way are you suggesting it makes that point?knives wrote:Not just the timing, but who is doing the film as well. This was made by a bunch of Jews a few of whom had just waltzed out of the parts of Europe Hitler was sinking his teeth into. Though on your point about Lubitsch's wit the Brooks remake really hits that home.
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
I suspect "knives" will concur: Brooks is no Lubitsch; there is not a glimmer of what made the original so memorable in the remake nor is there much, if any, of the kind of broad zaniness that Brooks could orchestrate in his best work.swo17 wrote:Haven't seen the remake. In what way are you suggesting it makes that point?knives wrote:Not just the timing, but who is doing the film as well. This was made by a bunch of Jews a few of whom had just waltzed out of the parts of Europe Hitler was sinking his teeth into. Though on your point about Lubitsch's wit the Brooks remake really hits that home.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
Yeah, it's not a bad movie, but it is mediocre in just the right way to show how rare a treat the original is.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
Matrix, Jack Benny is not a bad actor or giving a bad performance. He's merely inhabiting his usual comic persona with little differentiation (calling Benny "broad" is like calling John Wayne "emotive"), which Lubitsch has formed the picture around.
I don't think there's anything "appallingly awful" about this film's concept. The sheer all-encompassing approach to how the war was depicted in Hollywood cinema at this time is unlike anything that will ever be seen again: every audience was exploited, including those who would enjoy a film like this. In a period that gave us incredibly brazen works like the Devil With Hitler, it's impossible to view Lubitsch's film as some great shakeup! It's one reason I pause at calling Lubitsch's film daring-- I think it implies, intended or not, that other war-centered films of this era did not possess the supposed sophistication of this film's targets or treatment. It's fair to hold Lubtisch's film above many others from the era for its craft and comic voice-- but as for its "daring"? Nah.
I don't think there's anything "appallingly awful" about this film's concept. The sheer all-encompassing approach to how the war was depicted in Hollywood cinema at this time is unlike anything that will ever be seen again: every audience was exploited, including those who would enjoy a film like this. In a period that gave us incredibly brazen works like the Devil With Hitler, it's impossible to view Lubitsch's film as some great shakeup! It's one reason I pause at calling Lubitsch's film daring-- I think it implies, intended or not, that other war-centered films of this era did not possess the supposed sophistication of this film's targets or treatment. It's fair to hold Lubtisch's film above many others from the era for its craft and comic voice-- but as for its "daring"? Nah.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
I might not have been clear- my point was that this comes off like it would be a terrible idea, which is instead an incredible one; that it shouldn't work, and is therefore all the more miraculous for how well it actually does. 'Broad' might not be the best word for Benny, but it's like putting W.C. Fields or someone in- you could really easily describe this movie in a way that would come off as though it were along the lines of The Day the Clown Cried, and Jack Benny playing the Jack Benny character is part of that. Your description is more precise, but my point is that it's asking someone who is more comedian than actor to hold down a movie about the Nazi occupation of Poland, which by modern standards would sound appallingly tasteless.
It is also true that those standards weren't yet in place with the war still going on- obviously, the historical weight of Nazi atrocities wouldn't mean anything to people who didn't know about them yet, or before they happened- but if I recall correctly, the movie was frequently attacked for tastelessness at the time, and for humanizing the enemy too much. I do think it's remarkable how much this movie does manage to humanize Ehrhardt without actually making him any less a monster- it never tips into Hogan's Heroes territory, where the Nazi becomes loveable, just recognizably human in his incompetence and cowardice.
I don't necessarily think this movie is more sophisticated than all other war movies made at the time- something like Hangmen Also Die! carries a moral calculus and reflection on Naziism that's as complex and challenging as anything I've seen- but it's hard to think of a war comedy made, then or now, which flirts so insistently with disaster and succeeds so impressively.
It is also true that those standards weren't yet in place with the war still going on- obviously, the historical weight of Nazi atrocities wouldn't mean anything to people who didn't know about them yet, or before they happened- but if I recall correctly, the movie was frequently attacked for tastelessness at the time, and for humanizing the enemy too much. I do think it's remarkable how much this movie does manage to humanize Ehrhardt without actually making him any less a monster- it never tips into Hogan's Heroes territory, where the Nazi becomes loveable, just recognizably human in his incompetence and cowardice.
I don't necessarily think this movie is more sophisticated than all other war movies made at the time- something like Hangmen Also Die! carries a moral calculus and reflection on Naziism that's as complex and challenging as anything I've seen- but it's hard to think of a war comedy made, then or now, which flirts so insistently with disaster and succeeds so impressively.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
Thanks for the clarification, Matrix! Interestingly, one of the major markers of the post-war WWII Hollywood cinema (from the 50s onward) is the recurrence of the sympathetic (or, failing that, openly conflicted) German figure (capped in '67 with the Night of the Generals, in which every character good or bad is a Nazi). But then again, I would argue an earlier film like the 49th Parallel shows an incredible amount of humanity (and, admittedly, cunning and duplicitous &c) in its depiction of Nazis. It's important to remember that humanizing a target doesn't necessarily neuter them, it can also make them more dangerous. Countless films from this era gave us the slick, charming, erudite Nazi (who would nevertheless murder you for no cause whenevs). I think Hollywood propaganda from this era gets a bad rap for being one-sided in its attacks, but again, I must stress, it came at the target from all sides!
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
I don't think comparing to Lewis is fair since at that later time the war had a completely different significance. A better comparison to me would be something like Four Lions or Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.matrixschmatrix wrote:I might not have been clear- my point was that this comes off like it would be a terrible idea, which is instead an incredible one; that it shouldn't work, and is therefore all the more miraculous for how well it actually does. 'Broad' might not be the best word for Benny, but it's like putting W.C. Fields or someone in- you could really easily describe this movie in a way that would come off as though it were along the lines of The Day the Clown Cried, and Jack Benny playing the Jack Benny character is part of that. Your description is more precise, but my point is that it's asking someone who is more comedian than actor to hold down a movie about the Nazi occupation of Poland, which by modern standards would sound appallingly tasteless.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)
I mentioned in the ballot thread that this has one of my favorite Lubitsch openings, but it is also a toss up between this and Ninotchka for my favorite Lubitsch ending (and if Lubitsch had been allowed to keep the titular ending to Heaven Can Wait, it would no doubt factor into the rankings as well)-- no one could end a movie on a bigger laugh or a funnier note than Lubitsch (when he wanted, at least-- not all of his endings land at the same level)