I guess the measure of a good remake is to retell a story and surpass it if not globally, but in enough occasions to make us feel it was worth the effort. Indeed the most remarkable stories aren't necessarily the most "remakable". And the original "To Be or Not To Be" starring Carole Lombard and Jack Benny was a remarkable movie.
Now, to be or not to be... remakable... is the rhetorical question. Ernst Lubitsch made the funniest movie that could mock the Nazis in good taste at Hitler's very expense and lifetime, after Charles Chaplin's "Great Dictator" of course. But while Chaplin used slapstick and silent humor, Lubitch let his unmistakable sophisticated touch hit the Nazis at their most vulnerable spots: their sense of humor. They couldn't understand humor because humor is two things at once: good spirit and intelligence and that doesn't mix well with evil and barbarity.
Now, Lubtisch made the film when America had just entered the war and to add a layer of poignancy, Carole Lombard had just finished the shooting when she joined a war rally bond that lead her to the fatal plane crash (and the post-production cutting of her line 'what can go wrong in a crash?'). The original film can't be separated from its context which is not just the war, but the war... before the Camps. Indeed, had Lubtisch known the extent of Nazi's barbarity, he might have considered them beyond the reach of humor... humor is sometimes too human to target barbarity and maybe Mel Brooks was the only one to go that far with the Nazis.
Now, where does Brooks fit in that preamble? Well, isn't he the performer who made his breakthrough in Hollywood by breaking the ultimate taboo; making fun of Hitler and prove that one could ridicule the Nazis even by knowing what they did. In a way, he completed Lubitsch and he could afford it, he who "rose below vulgarity" and somehow, could find the right balance in that remake. It's not that the film is better, each one belongs to different times, Lubtisch was a master of the screwball and gave a dimension of classy mundanity to all.... Brooks seizes the occasion to showcase once again how versatile he is and reminding the snobbish few that he's an EGOT winner after all.
His musical number: "A Little Peace" where he mocks the Nazi's so-called peaceful nature isn't in the same league than "Springtime for Hitler" but it comes closer. As for the Bronski theater that he owns , it is just a big love letter to the world of stage with variety shows, clown numbers and maybe the greatest dream of any comedy: being believable as a Shakespearien actor.
It's not about playing Shakespeare and his ultimate tormented character but be convincing in the realm of seriousness. Maybe laughs are just such easy and predictable emotions to command that they give enough rope for actors to cheat with it and indulge to overacting. However with drama it's all a matter of nuances and subduing while still deploying energy, ridicule isn't an option. With comedy, it is. I'm glad that, like the original, the Mel Brooks' remake made me think about the purpose of humor. Ironically, the iconic Hamlet soliloquy is precisely played for laughs, it's perhaps the most famous running gag: whenever he says "to be or not to be", the handsome pilot Lieutenant Andrei Sobinski (Tim Matheson) crosses an entire row to join his secret love, Frederick's wife Anna, played by his real-life wife Anne Bancroft.
Bancroft pulls a Mrs. Robinson on Mel Brooks but the adultery is purely secondary in the great scheme of things. When the same pilot tells Bronski that there's a spy (Jose Ferrer) threatening the lives of several Polish resistants, his only concern is to stay consistent in his position as the 'protective husband'. At first it seems that the film has no intent for 'seriousness' but the way I look at it, the film's stance is the following: poignancy is not a matter of timing like comedy. It just comes when you don't expect it. I didn't see coming the mention of the other 'yellow star', the pink triangle worn by the dresser Sasha (James Haake) There's also that cute moment where Bronski made the greatest act of his life, one that fooled S. S. Colonel Erhardt (Oscar-nominated Charles Durning) and he simply wish somebody could have seen it.
(it reminded me of that Jewish joke where God punishes a Rabbi who played golf during Yom Kippur by making him accomplish the greatest shot ever, Moses asks God how that is a punishment, and God says that he can't tell anyone about it.
Naturally it all comes down to the ultimate moment of poignancy, so great I had to check if it wasn't in the remake (it wasn't). It happens when the old Jewish woman (Estelle Reiner) is panicking at the sight of a full Nazi audience. The quick reaction of Sasha and shows three things: talent is one thing, but improvising is the measure of a genius,. That little moment encapsulates the essence of that Jewish humor that made Brooks such a relevant comedian: self-derision and quick wit.
I liked the casting of Charles Durning (and Christopher Lloyd as Schultz) and I thoroughly enjoyed his mimics and grimaces. Now, some would say that it's downright impossible that such a goofy character coexist in the same world where such atrocities happened. But here's news for viewers: it's a comedy and setting it in a real Poland would be indecent.
Now, as I was writing the review, I realized I was misinformed, this is not a Mel Brooks' film but one from his former choreographer Alan Jackson. Well, in spirit and in content, it's as Brooksians as Herbert Ross' "Play it Again, Sam" was Allenian. And Im glad Brooks could 'play 'Springtime for Hitler' again... albeit in a different way.
Now, to be or not to be... remakable... is the rhetorical question. Ernst Lubitsch made the funniest movie that could mock the Nazis in good taste at Hitler's very expense and lifetime, after Charles Chaplin's "Great Dictator" of course. But while Chaplin used slapstick and silent humor, Lubitch let his unmistakable sophisticated touch hit the Nazis at their most vulnerable spots: their sense of humor. They couldn't understand humor because humor is two things at once: good spirit and intelligence and that doesn't mix well with evil and barbarity.
Now, Lubtisch made the film when America had just entered the war and to add a layer of poignancy, Carole Lombard had just finished the shooting when she joined a war rally bond that lead her to the fatal plane crash (and the post-production cutting of her line 'what can go wrong in a crash?'). The original film can't be separated from its context which is not just the war, but the war... before the Camps. Indeed, had Lubtisch known the extent of Nazi's barbarity, he might have considered them beyond the reach of humor... humor is sometimes too human to target barbarity and maybe Mel Brooks was the only one to go that far with the Nazis.
Now, where does Brooks fit in that preamble? Well, isn't he the performer who made his breakthrough in Hollywood by breaking the ultimate taboo; making fun of Hitler and prove that one could ridicule the Nazis even by knowing what they did. In a way, he completed Lubitsch and he could afford it, he who "rose below vulgarity" and somehow, could find the right balance in that remake. It's not that the film is better, each one belongs to different times, Lubtisch was a master of the screwball and gave a dimension of classy mundanity to all.... Brooks seizes the occasion to showcase once again how versatile he is and reminding the snobbish few that he's an EGOT winner after all.
His musical number: "A Little Peace" where he mocks the Nazi's so-called peaceful nature isn't in the same league than "Springtime for Hitler" but it comes closer. As for the Bronski theater that he owns , it is just a big love letter to the world of stage with variety shows, clown numbers and maybe the greatest dream of any comedy: being believable as a Shakespearien actor.
It's not about playing Shakespeare and his ultimate tormented character but be convincing in the realm of seriousness. Maybe laughs are just such easy and predictable emotions to command that they give enough rope for actors to cheat with it and indulge to overacting. However with drama it's all a matter of nuances and subduing while still deploying energy, ridicule isn't an option. With comedy, it is. I'm glad that, like the original, the Mel Brooks' remake made me think about the purpose of humor. Ironically, the iconic Hamlet soliloquy is precisely played for laughs, it's perhaps the most famous running gag: whenever he says "to be or not to be", the handsome pilot Lieutenant Andrei Sobinski (Tim Matheson) crosses an entire row to join his secret love, Frederick's wife Anna, played by his real-life wife Anne Bancroft.
Bancroft pulls a Mrs. Robinson on Mel Brooks but the adultery is purely secondary in the great scheme of things. When the same pilot tells Bronski that there's a spy (Jose Ferrer) threatening the lives of several Polish resistants, his only concern is to stay consistent in his position as the 'protective husband'. At first it seems that the film has no intent for 'seriousness' but the way I look at it, the film's stance is the following: poignancy is not a matter of timing like comedy. It just comes when you don't expect it. I didn't see coming the mention of the other 'yellow star', the pink triangle worn by the dresser Sasha (James Haake) There's also that cute moment where Bronski made the greatest act of his life, one that fooled S. S. Colonel Erhardt (Oscar-nominated Charles Durning) and he simply wish somebody could have seen it.
(it reminded me of that Jewish joke where God punishes a Rabbi who played golf during Yom Kippur by making him accomplish the greatest shot ever, Moses asks God how that is a punishment, and God says that he can't tell anyone about it.
Naturally it all comes down to the ultimate moment of poignancy, so great I had to check if it wasn't in the remake (it wasn't). It happens when the old Jewish woman (Estelle Reiner) is panicking at the sight of a full Nazi audience. The quick reaction of Sasha and shows three things: talent is one thing, but improvising is the measure of a genius,. That little moment encapsulates the essence of that Jewish humor that made Brooks such a relevant comedian: self-derision and quick wit.
I liked the casting of Charles Durning (and Christopher Lloyd as Schultz) and I thoroughly enjoyed his mimics and grimaces. Now, some would say that it's downright impossible that such a goofy character coexist in the same world where such atrocities happened. But here's news for viewers: it's a comedy and setting it in a real Poland would be indecent.
Now, as I was writing the review, I realized I was misinformed, this is not a Mel Brooks' film but one from his former choreographer Alan Jackson. Well, in spirit and in content, it's as Brooksians as Herbert Ross' "Play it Again, Sam" was Allenian. And Im glad Brooks could 'play 'Springtime for Hitler' again... albeit in a different way.