For anyone who hasn't seen the 1942 original film by this title, and especially for younger audiences today, this 1983 remake of "To Be or Not to Be" may be entertaining. Some may find it quite good. But for those who have seen the earlier film, the two films beg comparison. And when so viewed, this 1983 film can't hold a candle to the 1942 original.
Mel Brooks made some funny and very good movies in his day. The best were those in which he satirized the movie industry or society in some way. But, in this film he doesn't satirize the original film. Instead, he plays it straight for the comedy that made the 1942 film. Jack Benny and Carol Lombard starred in the original, which was held up for release until after the U.S. entered the war. But that film was spot-on in its timing and its grilling of Nazi Germany over its invasion of Poland. It was a clear and excellent satire of the time. So, even seeing it many years later, audiences can still connect with it and relish the satire.
On the other hand, what satire is there in a film made more than 40 years later? By then, the lampooning of the Nazis was an old and tiring act. Even done as a straight remake – as one might see a different cast in a Shakespeare play, this newer film is just flat. When it loses the reality and imminence of the threat that the first film portrayed, it also loses the punch and humor of satire.
And, if one sets aside the satire – which is the essence of the story, at least in the initial film – this 1983 version still falls way short of the 1942 movie. I don't fault Brooks and Anne Bancroft for wanting to do a remake of such a fine film. But Brooks' portrayal of the main male character, Frederick Bronski, seems robotic compared to Jack Benny's Joseph Tura. In places, Brooks seemed to force his hammy acting, whereas Benny's was natural and hilarious. Nor was the rest of the cast in this second production up to the performances of all the supporting players in the 1942 film. In short, this film lacks the energy in the players, and the humor just doesn't come across as spontaneous and natural. One has a sense that this was one large staged remake, and that it became weighed down by the staginess of it.
Still, it isn't a total dud. Some of the lines and scenes are funny. They would be, no matter who played them. For those who have enjoyed this film, I recommend getting hold of the original to watch it. It's a wonderful WW II satire made and released early in that war. And the humor is that much funnier, and the satire that much more biting.
Mel Brooks made some funny and very good movies in his day. The best were those in which he satirized the movie industry or society in some way. But, in this film he doesn't satirize the original film. Instead, he plays it straight for the comedy that made the 1942 film. Jack Benny and Carol Lombard starred in the original, which was held up for release until after the U.S. entered the war. But that film was spot-on in its timing and its grilling of Nazi Germany over its invasion of Poland. It was a clear and excellent satire of the time. So, even seeing it many years later, audiences can still connect with it and relish the satire.
On the other hand, what satire is there in a film made more than 40 years later? By then, the lampooning of the Nazis was an old and tiring act. Even done as a straight remake – as one might see a different cast in a Shakespeare play, this newer film is just flat. When it loses the reality and imminence of the threat that the first film portrayed, it also loses the punch and humor of satire.
And, if one sets aside the satire – which is the essence of the story, at least in the initial film – this 1983 version still falls way short of the 1942 movie. I don't fault Brooks and Anne Bancroft for wanting to do a remake of such a fine film. But Brooks' portrayal of the main male character, Frederick Bronski, seems robotic compared to Jack Benny's Joseph Tura. In places, Brooks seemed to force his hammy acting, whereas Benny's was natural and hilarious. Nor was the rest of the cast in this second production up to the performances of all the supporting players in the 1942 film. In short, this film lacks the energy in the players, and the humor just doesn't come across as spontaneous and natural. One has a sense that this was one large staged remake, and that it became weighed down by the staginess of it.
Still, it isn't a total dud. Some of the lines and scenes are funny. They would be, no matter who played them. For those who have enjoyed this film, I recommend getting hold of the original to watch it. It's a wonderful WW II satire made and released early in that war. And the humor is that much funnier, and the satire that much more biting.