Ernst Lubitsch's original is hilarious funny! Unfortunately it is been overshadowed by Mel Brooks's remake, which is more a pathetic (and bad, not even funny) 1:1 copy of a brilliant original. The remake gives the original a bad name, because many have only seen the remake.
shareThere should be a law against remaking classics. Fair enough if it was a crap film in the first place (or at the very least, had some major flaws) but what did Mel Brooks think he could possibly improve about this film? The original makes his version look very amateur indeed, and also makes Brooks' other Nazi parody The Producers seem very lame.
shareI'm not sure that Mel Brooks deserves all the blame for the remake - he produced and starred in the 1983 film (I think he wrote the score too) but did not direct it or make any contribution to the screenplay. I agree though that the remake was definitley nowhere as good as the original (though I enjoyed Anne Bancrot's performance). It's probably true that more people have seen the remake, I saw the remake first without ever knowing it was a remake till I saw Lubitsch's film a few years later.
Crisso
[deleted]
I'm not sure who you are referring to. You seem to be in favor of the "yes, remakes should be made", but I can't believe that you would call someone's remarks here "idiotic sentiment" or call someone a "shallow thinker". I don't see one of the comments applying for that.
I don't mind remakes or covers, but not if it is a 1:1 copy of the original, like Mel Brooks' film, and not making it different. Successful remake or not, that doesn't matter, as long as it is different and original. I don't see the point of redoing something in the same way that already has been done successfully. Like this post, I'm repeating what I already had pointed out. :D
That said, I wouldn't mind if some modern covers of original songs never had been made.
[deleted]
I disagree. First I think the Brooks version is very funny. It's not on a par with the original, but still a decent film in its own right. Second, it was far from a "1:1 copy". The Benny version was a witty sophisticated comedy, while the Brooks version is broad farce. There's no question the creators of the second film knew what they were doing. Brooks plays the Benny role, but the character's name is changed to Bronski. In the original, Bronski is a minor actor in Tura's troupe who'll do anything to "get a laugh."
99 times out of 100, remakes are travesties. Filmmakers with no imaginations of their own suck the life out of a classic in the hopes of making a few bucks. "To Be or Not to Be" is a rare exception to that rule.
I agree with you that the goal of the remake might have been different; making another style of film, in this case a farce. But... as you said, it's not on a par with the original and that's exactly my point. Why make a remake if you can't do it better?! You would be able to do it differently (as proven), and it even could equal the original (not proven!), being done in a completely new way, To Be Or Not To Be should should simply never have been remade. There is no place for it. It is an insult to the original, because it is already perfect! It's a waste of everything, and the remake has nothing to add to the original version.
shareShould West Side Story not have been made because Shakespeare had already done the 'star-crossed lovers' thing better? Should no one ever play Hamlet again, because they can't hope to touch Olivier's performance? Should Brooks not have attempted Young Frankenstein, because the Whale 'originals' were such masterpieces? Lon Chaney's is a classic. Should Charles Laughton have had the humility to turn down Hunchback of Notre Dame because Lon Chaney had done it so brilliantly? Did Sergio Leone have any right to remake Kurosawa's classics?
"Why make a remake if you can't do it better?!"
Because you have something new to bring to it. That is, or should be, the only reason to do a remake. You seem to want to put the classics in a museum behind heavy glass. We can look, but we mustn't touch. I disagree. Art, and especially comedy, should always be a little daring, even a little irreverant. Filmmakers should reach for the stars. They won't always succeed, and sometimes they'll fall flat on their faces. But if they don't try, we'll never have anything but the sort of predigested mush that Hollywood seems so fond of these days.
Many, if not most, remakes are remakes of great success films. That's not because the film makers think they can do better, but because they smell money. How many remakes of complete failures do you know?
Greed. And most of the time it shows, like in Brooks' remake of "To be or not to be". We don't have to see this as fine arts, do we?
(read "studio" for "film makers", rather than "director")
"Many, if not most, remakes are remakes of great success films."
Then "To Be Or Not To Be" is an exception to that rule. The original was by no means a "great success" financially. In fact it did rather poorly at the box office. I don't doubt that the studio agreed to do the remake because they thought it would make money, but the same could be said of the original as well. Studios are in the business of making money, and that's almost always a major consideration in choosing a project.
user-38, are you saying that "West Side Story" is a "1:1" remake of a Shakespearean play?
The original writer of this thread, tunatomatoe, was asking why anyone should make exact copies of movies without bringing anything new to them. You essentially said the same thing in your post, only adding a rant that looks awfully "cut 'n' paste." You're not one of those "trollin' the boards, lookin' to spew" kinda guys, are you?
Also, are you saying we'll only have predigested mush unless we remake old movies? That sounds contradictory. How is a remake not predigested, at least in part? We already know the story. Only now we'll get a Wayans brother instead of Bill Cosby, or something like that.
And I take it you're a big fan of the 1998 version of "Psycho."
Why bother commenting when you know nothing about the subject at hand? The Brooks version is hardly a exact remake, ala "Psycho". It has characters and scenes that were not in the original. Some dialogue is the same, but a lot is new, and it's entirely different in tone.
"You're not one of those "trollin' the boards, lookin' to spew" kinda guys, are you?"
No, but I think I know someone who is.
I remember seeing the original back around 81 and thought it was very funny. Then I saw Mel Brooks' version and thought he did a decent job. Except for the ending where he changed one wonderfully classic scene where in the original, the Hitler impersonater tells the guards to jump out of the plane, and they do. In the remake, they are in a desperate flight from them. And what was that thing with the dog!
For me, "To be or not to be" is like the best comedy ever.
I think Mel Brooks' remake was useless, but he certainly had his reasons for doing it. I gather he is a fan of the movie (he has good taste) and wanted to enlighten a large part of the audience who haven't seen the original and never will because they can't stand to watch an old movie in black and white (yes, such people exist - some will tell you that You've got mail is better than The Shop Around the Corner). That would explain why he didn't try to change or improve it (how could anyone improve it anyway?)
- A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.
I can't agree. Both films are highly enjoyable, just different. One of the few times I have enjoyed a remake as much as the original.
shareI agree with kaiju0. There are differences in the Mel Brooks film that would have been taboo in the original--the Nazi oppression of homosexuals, for example, lent itself to a new character, and a small storyline built around him, as well as some great new lines for the original characters, IMHO. For example, when the Nazis tell the theater owner he can re-open his theater, but can't use gypsies, Jews or homosexuals, he laments that "Without f_gs, Jews, and gypsies, there IS no theater!"
shareI also agree with kaiju0. I think people can give too much credit for the context of the movie at its time of release. The original was very risque at the time but 50+ years later it lacks a lot of its punch.
There is no question that the original is great, classic cinema, but it is not necessarily the definitive statement on comedy, or even on this particular comedic story. What Brooks brings to the remake is much edgier comedy and frankly more poingiant drama, not to mention better comedic timing than Jack Benny. Other supporting actors also had better performances than their counterparts in the original (I'm thinking particularly of Charles Durning and Jose Ferrer). The original was full of the charm that characterizes Ernst Lubitsch's films. Similarly, the the remake is replete with the juxtiposition of broad comedy with social commentary that characterize Brook's "moral" films.
i think the remake is a very good movie, and because of it I have now heard of the original and intend to see it. i would hardly call that giving it a bad name.
http://daria-rat.deviantart.com
Proud Rumrunner and Ringnut
I think Brooks version is a very funny film.
And It does not look to be better than the original. Maybe Brooks loves the original and he produced the remake because he wanted part in it and also make some money with his name.
What´s the deal? It´s a good remake. One of the very very few.
I don't know, I liked the scenes involving Schultz and Earhardt a lot better in the remake. They still crack me up every time.
shareHaving read this entire board up to this point, may I please offer the following for your consideration. 1) Mel Brooks waited 41 years to remake "To Be..." Almost 2 generations had passed since the original movie was filmed, so I tend to think of Brooks' film more of a comedic homage to the original rather than a 1:1 remake. He brought to the plot some gags and dialogue that were more reflective of the time his movie was made in. At the same time, he gave the '80's generation a movie about Nazis, Hitler, war, and how bad things really were, in such a way that they could relate to it.
He's done the same thing with his own, "The Producers". It's an update, not a totally blind copy.
Besides, at the time of the original post, another 21 years had gone by since the Brooks version was released. It took you this long to publicly pan a movie that would be close to graduation from college if it were a child?
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, as am I, but even you have to give Mel Brooks credit for doing an homage to one of his favorite films, much as he did with "High Anxiety" (his homage/spoof of Hitchcock films) a few years later.
Methinks thou doth protest too much....and take thy movies waaaay too seriously.
Ironically, Lubitsch's version has been enhanced by its original critical and box office failure. In less than a year, comedy would become an effective weapon against the Nazis, the more irreverent the better. In contrast Mel Brooks' effort came after decades of Germans as buffoons with memorable examples from Brooks himself in The Producers and Young Frankenstein. Though Brooks did better in the box office, the film will be little remembered, rather than ahead of its time.
shareParentheses?
Thank you, Ann Bancroft for being a remarkable actress.