670 To Be or Not to Be

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#26 Post by TMDaines » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:31 am

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.

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#27 Post by manicsounds » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:32 am


shaky
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#28 Post by shaky » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:24 pm

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!

User avatar
Dragoon En Regalia
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:52 pm
Location: Art Theatre Shinjuku Bunka
Contact:

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#29 Post by Dragoon En Regalia » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:24 am

DVD Beaver.

More depth and sharpness is a plus.

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#30 Post by Moe Dickstein » Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:16 pm

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.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#31 Post by cdnchris » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:09 am

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.

User avatar
Shrew
The Untamed One
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:22 am

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#32 Post by Shrew » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:53 pm

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.

User avatar
eerik
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Location: Estonia

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#33 Post by eerik » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:50 pm


User avatar
Kokomo Blues
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:43 pm

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#34 Post by Kokomo Blues » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:27 am

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.

davidkalat
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:55 pm

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#35 Post by davidkalat » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:03 pm

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).

User avatar
Kokomo Blues
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:43 pm

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#36 Post by Kokomo Blues » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:26 pm

davidkalat wrote: But if I'm wrong, please call me out on it.
And get voted worst forum member? I don't think so.

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!

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#37 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:23 pm

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.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 670 To Be or Not to Be

#38 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:27 am

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.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#39 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:27 am

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.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#40 Post by swo17 » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:56 am

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.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#41 Post by knives » Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:25 pm

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.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#42 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:40 pm

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.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#43 Post by swo17 » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:27 pm

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.
Haven't seen the remake. In what way are you suggesting it makes that point?

User avatar
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)

#44 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:38 pm

swo17 wrote:
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.
Haven't seen the remake. In what way are you suggesting it makes that point?
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.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#45 Post by knives » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:56 pm

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.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#46 Post by domino harvey » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:30 pm

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.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#47 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:46 pm

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.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#48 Post by domino harvey » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:01 pm

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!

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#49 Post by knives » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:03 pm

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.
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.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, 1942)

#50 Post by domino harvey » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:45 pm

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)

Post Reply