To Be or Not to Be (1983)

Simply Perfect

Sick Product of a Sick System

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

A lot of fun.

To begin with, it is unfair to compare this to the Lubitsch classic for any number of reasons. First, of course, is that for Lubitsch and his audience, the Second World War was a living issue: Jack Benny threw himself into the Bronski role with such energy because he was of Polish-Jewish family, and had some idea what Nazsm meant for any relatives he might have had in Poland at the time. Although Brooks is also Jewish, the immediate threat Benny and Lubitsch recognized is for Brooks a thing of the past. Nor dare he overplay that hand; for Lubitsch, the full horror of the Holocaust had yet to be discovered; Brooks and his director have to play against our knowledge of it in a way that avoids raising any thoughts of atrocities involved.Also, due to Hollywood censorship issues of the time, that the marriage between the Bronskis is failing because Anna is a nymphomaniac had to be carefully encoded in the dialog of the Lubitsch film, so that only sophisticated adults could understand the full implications of what was being said; even so, the script actually pushes the envelope quite a bit. By the time the Brooks version was made, there was no longer any envelop to push. While this means Brooks and Bancroft can get more explicit about their marital issues, it also means a loss of sophistication.Finally, there is the very look of the film. Director Johnson has avoided any reference to "the Lubitsch touch" which included a certain sparkle to the lighting as well as hip-to-head two-shots intercut with close-ups, and a sweeping, yet highly detailed, set-design. Johnson has gone for a "classical" feel to his movie, but his visual references - lighting, color, composition - are to the 1950s, which quietly emphasizes the sexual farce element of the film, since the '50s were the era of the particularly American sexual farce - Some Like It Hot, The 7 year Itch, Pajama Game, etc.And as an inheritor of the 1950s comedy style, I think this film works pretty well. The characterizations are lively (this is really Brooks at his best) the timing is solid and the pace swift, inconsistencies rapidly vanish and are easily forgiven, the dialog remains amusing and is not fixated by topical references. And there's an undeniable chemistry between Brooks and Bancroft, as well as an ensemble feel to the film as a whole.Taken in its own right, its no classic - but it's a pretty funny movie.

The older I get, and the more I am exposed to great ideas in film, especially comics in film, the less I tolerate Brooks.That's because he isn't a filmmaker. Never was. He's a vaudevillian, a stage comic. Now, that can be funny, and I suppose he's good at what he does. But there's a magic in cinema, in cinematic humor that bites deeper. Movies have a solvent when done right, a solvent that allows the humor to catalyze change.When you're on a stage, we expect the performer to be different, remote. We even laugh at the remoteness.Consider the film humor of embarrassment. We have a whole industry based on that, dozens of movies a year. They work because we enter the thing and feel embarrassed. That'll never happen with Brooks because he sees these as filmed stage shows.If you watch this, what you'll get is a rather clever acknowledgment of this. At root it is a simple structure: real world with Nazis, stage show with Nazis. (And of course, we chuckle, knowing Brooks' claim to fame is "Springtime for Hitler.") And as the thing goes on, we have the stage show and reality blurring from both ends.Brooks "plays" certain Nazi characters. And as time goes on the Nazis get more and more like stage characters. One device is rather sophisticated, where the real Nazi is made (by Brooks) to appear as a fake. And yes, Jews escaping as clowns from a pretend truck to a real one.At the center of all this is a valentine from Brooks to his wife. She's allowed to mug, and be the irresistible love interest to all heterosexual men, good and bad.If you go into this for laughs, you'll be disappointed. If you go into it as an essay on humor on the stage, you'll find it pretty darn impressive, worthy of the guy who introduced David Lynch to us through "Elephant Man."Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

When I saw this I had no idea it was a remake. I didn't know the original had been rated the 49th best comedy of all time by the AFI or that Brooks neither wrote nor directed it.What I knew was that from the moment it started to the moment the curtains came down I was laughing nonstop in awe of an incredible plot. The film managed to escalate with each passing scene. Just when you thought nothing more could be done to it, they managed to push it further and further. Brook's performance was dead on, as was the entire casts. It's the sort of movie that gives Christopher Loyd only seven or eight lines, and you love him for it and need to ask for anything more.It continually makes fun itself, building on jokes you thought were over half a movie ago. I'd place this movie above Spaceballs and below Men in Tights, but would say that it is without a doubt the best plot of any movie I've seen in some time, comedy or otherwise.This is a movie that you should waste no time seeking out and renting, buying, seeing in whatever way you can.Still not sold? I'll retell one of the jokes. Don't read further if you want the first five minutes to be as fresh as they were for me - if you're debating whether to see it or not, I hope this is able to sway you.They're in a theater, putting on a show. We hear the Polish songs - not quite sure what they're singing about. The curtain comes down on the two actors smiling and bowing together as the audience claps. The moment the audience can no longer see them the actors start bickering in Polish. We're not sure what they're discussing, but it's clearly a heated debate. The curtain then comes up, they immediately are smiling, bowing, curtain comes down once again and it's back to the Polish bickering. They continue bickering, stopping for an announcement over the loudspeakers in this vaudeville theater. "Attention, for the Sanity and Clarity of the Audience the rest of this movie will be English"Then the movie switches into English, and the plot begins.

Mel Brooks plays a bad Polish actor Dr. Frederick Bronski and Anne Bancroft plays his wife Anna.She does that also in real life.When the Nazis take over Warsaw they try to find a way to escape to England.To Be or Not to Be (1983) is a real comedy gem that hasn't got a lack of funny moments.If I mentioned them all I would be charged of overdoing.Of course you find some drama also because of the topic.I mean, there's the II Worldwar, the Nazis and the Jews.You can't make that all comedy.But I have to tell you this; if you got a Jewish master of comedy making fun of the Nazis you can't fail.It is noticed that the Jews are the best of comedians.If there was an average gentile comedian there in the lead instead of Mel this movie just wouldn't work so good.When he disguises himself as Hitler, that's just hilarious.The Führer himself was very hilarious.If only he had been only joking.That would have been a bad joke, but still.He and his fellow Nazi clowns are an easy target to make comedy of.The actors playing Nazi parts are superb here.Christopher Lloyd does an excellent job as Capt.Schultz and Charles Durning as Col Erhardt.The casting in this movie is something you have to give credit for.Mr Brooks and Mrs Bancroft make a marvelous couple in the lead.Tim Matheson is brilliant as Lt.Andre Sobinski and José Ferrer is great as Prof. Siletski.To Be or Not to Be is an eternal question that Hamlet kept asking and also the title of this film.But don't expect another version of Shakespeare's play because that's just something you're not gonna get.What you are gonna get is something much funnier.Watch this movie if you wanna die laughing.