To Be or Not To Be
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
TO BE OR NOT TO BE
As discussed in class, the film TO BE OR NOT TO BE was not received well at the time of its release because it treated serious subject matter in a humorous way. What are your thoughts about the negative response to the film? Can you make any connections to our current times, in terms of films that take on serious or sensitive concerns--and how they are received?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe the negative reception was a product of the time period in which the film was released. Freedom of expression is way more lenient in today's society than it was in WWII America. This is understandable, given the seriousness of the situation, but it is still never right to judge a work of art by how controversial the subject matter is, instead of its quality. Nowadays it is almost impossible to make a film controversial enough to be censored in the United States.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone! It's Carlos Martinez here.
ReplyDeleteMy personal thoughts on the negativity of the film is that the audiences had every right to be offended by it or not being able to enjoy it to the fullest. When we watched it on Monday, it didn't have an effect on us anyway what-so-ever. We come from a different time period and don't have any emotional connection towards the content of the film, other than knowing that it was obviously not a pleasant period in time. But let's say it was 2001 again and they made a comedy film about Osama bin Laden and the terrorist attack, I'm sure we wouldn't have taken it lightly. So yes, being able to relate to it, having it be something that is currently happening at the moment and is affecting us makes a difference in the way we interpret the film.
"Too soon." This is the reason why the film wasn't well received. Like Carlos said, if they made a movie about 9/11 soon after it happened, most people probably wouldnt like it. I think if they would have waited a little while to release the film then it wouldnt have been as big of a deal. I can't think of any films that relate to this but a tv show comes to mind right away. South Park is the king of making fun of current, sensitive topics. For example, a week after the Penn State and Jerry Sandusky stuff all happened, South Park made an entire episode devoted to making fun of Penn State.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this received a negative reception because of its poor timing. People at that time probably believed it was sacrilegious to make fun of war especially during a time of war. I understand how people felt this way because WWII cost to lives of millions, but the purpose of the film was not to make fun, but rather to make light of a situation. Looking back now, i think the movie can be much more appreciated.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I saw the question posted, I immediately thought of South Park (just like Demetri). South Park is famous, in some cases infamous, for making fun of current situations, even those that are considered very serious. Most recently, they have poked fun at Jerry Sandusky and the 99% movement. Although the show may seem vulgar and outrageous to some, I personally believe that a show like this is rather refreshing. It was difficult for me to be constantly hearing about Jerry Sandusky all over the news. Seeing it on South Park gave people a short reprieve from the seriousness of the situation. Other people that poke fun at serious events who I enjoy are Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Steven Colbert.
Before I read the comments, I thought about Oliver Stone's film about 9/11. i think there are subject matters that are too sensitive for audiences to receive, and these types of films aren't received well both critically and commercially. I think today is a much different society then during WW2. I think the values were much stronger during that time, and respect/honor meant something much stronger then today. South Park is a great example, as it touches upon subject matter that is very sensitive. However, there is no censorship and no guilt about laughing at the material. This is how our current society functions, and you can't argue against it, because its a progression. However, sometimes subject matter is taken too far, and to make light of a tragic event, is definitely in poor taste. I think by todays standerds, To Be or Not To Be, was moderate in its undertones, todays films are a lot more vulgar and crude, therefore, i think audiences are less sensitive to harsh material and undertones.
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty normal that the response was negative towards the movie. The whole aspect of "too soon" is really relevant. During WWII the world as a completely different place than it is today, and subjects involving the war were not taken lightly then. The fact that audiences were bothered by Carole Lombard role in To Be or Not to Be reminds me of how I had seen The Dark Night right after Heath ledger had died. It was really erie watching it, so I can sympathize with the audiences at that time.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that the film would be received negatively. It is dealing with a sensitive topic in a light-hearted way, however in my opinion this is sometimes the best way to bring a serious issue to the surface (although I can't really place judgment as I did not experience the situation personally). There is an Australian TV series called "the Chasers" in one episode they play a prank outside Parliament house when George Bush was visiting, they dressed as muslims and convinced several security forces to let them passed... this was very humiliating for the Australian Government and raised issues for the TV program. When is something actually saying something meaningful or just plan stupid and offensive?
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone. It was a terrible time to do a film like this. Of course, we did enjoy the film and laughed because it wasn't affecting us in any way. I do agree with what Carlos said about 9/11. People wouldn't have taken it lightly if a film about the attacks came right after it happened.
ReplyDeleteI think that the film makers felt comfortable and confident with the because they were European transplants. They had all been dealing with Hitler and Nazis for many years. But, Americans weren't really affected until Pearl Harbor. So we saw Nazis and the war just in those terms. Pearl Harbor was fresh in American minds and that made them feel confused, uncomfortable, and offended by the humor. But the director, writer, and cinematography could see the bigger picture and the global effect. In some ways we have grown since WWII in pushing the envelope, but in other ways we are more careful and PC now than ever so that nothing offends anyone. I think that we face that sort of humor everyday, but now it is more on the internet and television, while our blockbusters play it safe and boring.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the criticism of making light of a serious topic at such a dire time, I still believe, To Be or Not To Be, was judged a bit too harshly. Society and people in general, have to be able to laugh at themselves to survive this difficult world we live in. Lubitsch tried to create a film where humor prevailed despite all the negativity embodying a situation. As a humorist and fellow film aficionado, I will never fault a man for attempting that impossible feat. As far as a recent example in film (some mentioned South Park), I can't really pick one. Most of the recent tragedies (9/11, Iraq War) have had relatively respectful and dramatic pieces and haven't really delved into humorous portrayals of the aforementioned events.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Carman
In my opinion, the film was just released at a wrong time, people just couldn't understand the movie at that big moment, the only thing in their head was the war. But what I want to say is it won't happened at nowadays's world. If they have a kind of movie talk about 911 just like this, it will hit the box too, and people will think they have the introspection in the movie. So it's not a big deal for today.
ReplyDeleteThe negative response, while unfortunate, was to be expected. Had I been alive back then, with the threat of the war and an unknown future, it is likely I would have been as disturbed and unsettled by it as audiences were then. I’m sure I would have felt too scared to fully appreciate it. Today, it is difficult to find comedic films about current politics and the war. Filmmakers seem to steer clear of that heat, at least in the way of comedy. Cartoons and late night shows push the envelope, but movies about war or politics, for instance, The Hurt Locker, tend to be serious and dramatic, treating the subject in an honorable and respectful way. I think this “respect” makes it easier for audiences to stomach a difficult topic somehow, like they would rather have a wound bandaged, than prodded and poked around with.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was surprised to hear that "To Be or Not to Be" was not well received, but then I considered that the film was from 1942. I feel like back in the day people's sense of humor was much more conservative than that of many people's today. Today, society is way more desensitized as we have been exposed to a lot through film and media, so people are more receptive to outlandish comments and jokes. Considering that America was in the midst of WWII it also makes sense that people were appalled by the jokes. I think "To Be or Not To Be" was ahead of its time regarding the use of laughter as social commentary. Five years ago "Borat" made jokes referencing 9/11 and terrorism, and it was a huge hit, grossing over $200 million. Yes, the movie caused a lot of controversy, but it was an overall crowd pleaser. I would say that early 1940's audiences did not like the humor in "To Be or Not to Be" because they were not used to that type of outrageousness.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really that surprised that "To Be or Not to Be" was so controversial. I think if you made a comedy about Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden very very few americans would find it comical. Like we said in class, when you're living in the moment and don't have the foresight to know that everything is going to be okay, it can be offensive to watch something like to be or not to be.
ReplyDeleteAs far as present day goes, I agree with the statement that South Parl is a good example of controversy about current events. It provides a political commentary about current events while they are still current, and they are not afraid to step on as many toes as possible.
i can understand why it was not well received, at that time, hitler was the last person to be made fun of. in today's world, i can't think of any comedies that have been made about iraq as feature films, but more things pop up on the internet that people make. Small videos on youtube or animations or funny pictures. I think we might be less sensitive just because of how society is today and how much we are used to the media.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThomas Perry
ReplyDeleteThere are a plethora of films that concern non-fictitious heinous events, and are usually released relatively short after whatever took place. What separates a number of these films and To Be or not To Be, is the way in which the material is represented. Lets take the documentaries and narrative movies based on 9/11, all of which are historical and insightful interpretations and commentaries. In reference to Jaymes; Granted, much social media and the use of technology (YouTube) has allowed us to weaken certain blows, desensitize the subject, and poke fun (peeing on a picture of Osama while reading a comic strip about Saddam), speak freely, and be opinionated about our uniform awareness of scary and stupid people and events. This aforementioned aspect of today's society is comparable to the intentions of To be or not To Be- But on a larger and more respectable scale such a Hollywood, Government, ect, we generally don't go take that road. To Be or Not To Be skewed a completely different route and chose to offer comedic relief and present some touchy subject material in a not-so-serious manner. Had I lived to watch the release of the film I might have been a bit offended, but nonetheless I would have appreciated the films creativity and boldness as well. I can't think of any comedic films based on tragedy that have been released shortly after the fact, but in general I deem it best to wait till after the storm to present sensitive material in an unorthodox manner.