Throwback Review: To Be or Not to Be (1983)

USA

107 mins.

Directed by Mel Brooks

Starring: Mel Brooks, Anne Bancroft, Charles Durning, Tim Matheson, Jose Ferrer, Christopher Lloyd

I wish my movie-viewing habits were less random. That would help me see originals before remakes, no matter how old or new they were. Case in point: Mel Brooks' '83 remake of the 1942 film To Be Or Not To Be. I've had plenty of time to see either one, yet I still gravitated toward the remake. The lure of the new (or most recent) is a powerful thing and may be why we are seeing so many older movies dusted off and completely remade. This is definitely not one of Mel Brooks' greatest films, but it deserves to be seen regardless.There's no way a film like this could get made today at all and it's even harder to believe Mel Brooks is no longer making movies. Though he peaked early, his lesser films are funnier than most Hollywood comedies released these days.

Brooks and his real-life wife, Anne Bancroft, play a pair of Polish stage performers, Frederick & Anna Bronski, who run their own theater and a nightly variety act with songs and comedy and Shakespeare thrown in for good measure. Their troupe of actors are a wacky bunch of hams and feature the likes of George Gaynes (Commandant Lassard from the Police Academy films) and Brooks vet George Wyner (Colonel Sanders in Spaceballs). Also in their midst is Bancroft's gay assistant Sasha, played by James Haake. Everything is going along fine, despite threats of invasion by the Nazis, with Frederick even doing a song and dance number mocking Hitler called "Naughty Nazis." Frederick is a sucker for Shakespeare and one of the running gags in the movie is how much he sucks at playing Hamlet. Tim Matheson is along for the ride as a Polish flyboy working for the underground resistance who is smitten with the sultry Anna Bronski. I won't get too into the interplay between all of the characters, because it's more interesting to just watch it play out. Some of the gags are funny (like the Hamlet stuff) but a lot of it comes off like old-timey Vaudevile shtick that doesn't really hold up any more. Maybe that was the point and meant to be a tribute to those old days and the original movie, but nonetheless, it just wasn't all that funny.

When the Nazis finally do arrive, they are led by Colonel Erhardt, played by the ridiculously hysterical Charles Durning. To say Durning is the best thing about this movie is an understatement. Without him, the movie would just be a forgettable and mediocre dud in the Brooks library. He should have won the Oscar and not just nominated, but that was also the year for Terms of Endearment, so he had no chance whatsoever. Christopher Lloyd shows up as Erhardt's aide Captain Schultz and is the second funniest person in the movie. His flustered spasms when confronted by Durning whenever something goes wrong (and it does over and over again) is worth watching the movie alone for and his response that gets him out of trouble every time is one of the best jokes in the movie.

The film also features Jose Ferrer as the duplicitous Professor Siletski. His character is actually the reason for the plot of the film itself and Frederick Bronski's antics posing as both Siletski and ultimately Hitler himself results in a few good laughs. And that's the problem, when the Nazis or Durning aren't on screen or being talked about, the movie isn't funny very much and strays away from being interesting. The subplot of Sasha being gay, having to wear a pink triangle and being persecuted just like the Jews tiptoes toward being interesting. However, instead of going for the throat with the comedy, they instead pull back and try for a dramatic moment which doesn't work at all given the context of the rest of the film. It seemed that after Blazing Saddles, Brooks strayed away from vicious humor and opted for more good-natured comedy, no matter how dirty it was covered up to be.

All in all, it's a very flawed film with a hilarious and Oscar-worthy performance by the great Charles Durning. Once again, it's not Mel Brooks' finest hour (and some of it feels like a rehash of The Producers) but it's easy to see it was a labor of love for Brooks. Everyone looks like they're having fun and it's great to see Brooks and Bancroft together on screen. It's just that it doesn't reach the crazy slapstick/situational comedy heights of his other classics. It is, however, better than "Dracula: Dead and Loving It". But then again, that's not hard to do.

lMC