You shoot, I shoot too-talk about the differences between the old and new versions

Lola 2022-01-12 08:01:09

I like the 1942 version of "You Run and I Run" because it is an outstanding comedy movie. But in terms of style and subject matter, it is very different from other Liu Bieqian movies. The so-called "Liu Bieqian's touch" is not very obvious in the film. I think that the reason why Mel Brooks dared to choose this Liu Bieqian's work to remake, in addition to its great influence, I am afraid there are more reasons for this.

Most original films are also adapted from other media formats (fiction, drama). But when measuring the quality of the film, the work itself still has a high degree of originality. Because of the huge differences between the media, the process of visualizing the film also consumes a lot of energy for the director. They want to create a second time in a brand new movie space. And this kind of second-degree creation is completely different from the so-called second-degree creation of the remake. The remake of the film, whether it is a remake of a frame or just a reference to a theme, is carried out on the basis of ready-made predecessor film products. And what this foundation provides is no longer just a story. Almost all film elements such as scene arrangement, shot editing and location, actor's performance style, and soundtrack must inevitably become important references in the creation of the remake director. In this case, it is almost meaningless to discuss the so-called artistic value of the remake version. But for now, let us put aside the originality and the status of film history for the time being, and really compare the remake of Mel Brooks with the original version of Liu Bieqian. Let's see where the new version is so bad.

Speaking of actors. Annie Bancroft in the new version is too old! In 1983, she had already lost the capital of the glamorous Dustin Hoffman. What's more, even in those days, she may not have been able to beat Carloland Padd in 1942 in terms of beauty and temperament. Most of the audience certainly couldn't believe that such a quality half-aged milf could successfully make the Polish Air Force officers and Nazi spies fall under her pomegranate skirt. In addition, the comedy feel of Bancroft's role is not very good. Therefore, in the first round, Lampard's version of Mrs. Polanski clearly won. The role of Captain of the Air Force can be skipped. Both are handsome niches, there is not much difference. And another important role is the Gestapo Colonel known as the "Einhardt of the Concentration Camp". The gap between the new version and the old version is huge. As one of Liu Bieqian's favorite supporting actors, Sig Ruman appeared in many of his classic works. This person, both in appearance (bulged eyes and funny German beard) and body language are extremely expressive in comics. The new version of Charles Durning (Charles Durning) is obviously not a comedy performance. Especially when the colonel saw the fake Hitler, he did not express the mixed emotions of fear and excitement towards the dictatorship through his facial expressions. One of the fundamental reasons why American comedy has become more and more ugly after the end of the golden age of Hollywood is that Hollywood lacks actors with professional comedy qualities both in image and performance. Especially supporting actors. Everyone is a methodist, and they all want to experience the role of different personalities created by films of different themes. But in the end, it lost the distinctive role characteristics that some genres should have in performances. In the second round, the old version won.

The following focuses on the male protagonist. Why talk about the leading actor in the end? Because the actor's role setting is closely related to the philosophy and style of the directors of the two works.

In the storyline, the biggest difference between the old and new versions is the beginning part. Frankly speaking, when I first watched the '83 edition, I used to like Brooks's humorous singing and dancing performance in the opening part. Especially the paragraph that mocked Hitler with "piece" and "peace" as a gimmick. Considering that the place where the story takes place is the theater, and the role identity is originally an actor, Brooks's change is not overly abrupt in style, and the actual effect seems to be good. In addition, from the performance later, although Jack Benny in the old version is also versatile, he has played three different roles, namely Polanski, professor, and Colonel Gestapo. But the most crucial role of the fake great dictator Hitler was played by another actor who was more similar. So the two aspects are combined. In this most critical round, Jack Barney seems to have completely lost to his opponent Brooks. But recently I reviewed the old version, especially the opening part of the old version, and found that this comparison cannot be done simply.

First of all, what is the purpose of the opening paragraph of the movie? Of course, I want to introduce the main characters and, by the way, satirize Hitler. In this respect, the old and new films are no different. But why didn't Liu Bieqian put the satire on Hitler directly on the stage like Brooks did? Did he not think of singing and dancing? maybe. But this is not because he is incapable. In terms of song and dance comedy, Liu Bieqian is a master among masters. He even claims to be the originator of Hollywood musicals. Then the only reasonable explanation is that he believes that the effects produced by other methods are not enough to meet the requirements.

Then look back, let us see how Liu Bieqian handled his opening in the old version: the voice-over similar to the cross talk tells everyone that there was a sensation in Warsaw, Poland in 1938: Hitler appeared on the street! At this time, most of the audience generally would not think that this is really Hitler. But who is it? Everyone is not clear, so suspense arises. Then the camera turned, it was the headquarters of the SS. Behind the table sat Jack Benny in the uniform of a SS colonel. Then a kid enters the arena and has a few funny dialogues with Benny and his men. But the suspense remains, and the audience still doesn't know what happened. At this time, the guard stomped and saluted, shouting "Hi, Hitler!" The Hitler who seemed to have appeared on the street just now came in. He waved his hand and said one of the most classic lines in the history of comedy: "Hi, myself!". Suddenly, someone shouted "stop", and the camera panned back. Only then did we suddenly realize. It turned out to be filming. The so-called SS headquarters is nothing more than a stage setting. Can't help but grin.

Seeing this, it seems to understand. It's suspense! Suspense not only creates a comedy effect, but also brings the audience's attention into the plot. And this effect can only be fully expressed by the editing combination of the film lens, which is what Hitchcock said: Pure Cinema! In contrast, Brooks' start was much worse. Although it is humorous and funny, it also plays a role of satire. However, because the director lacks the pursuit of film aesthetics of his predecessors, he is content with simple and straightforward statements on stage. Therefore, it is impossible to use the expressive power of the lens to produce a suspense effect similar to that of the old version, and it cannot make the audience feel curious from the beginning. Therefore, the possibility of grasping the audience's psychology is lost.

At the same time, we further understood why Liu Bieqian wanted a special actor to play Hitler. Because only an actor more like Hitler can produce the suspenseful effect he needs. The reason why Brooks cut off this wonderful start was also because if Hitler, who he played himself, appeared in the camera, he would probably be recognized by the audience immediately. Therefore, the effect of suspense cannot be achieved. But what if you also find a special actor to act? In this regard, Brooks, a new comedy star who likes to overwhelming roles, is unacceptable. So he simply deleted the scene and changed it to the opening of a musical.

It can be seen from this that the difference between the two works is actually the difference in the level of directors. One of Liu Bieqian's comedy creation principles is: we must start from the overall drama and comedy effects, rather than deliberately consider the amount of part of a major actor. Brooks is too expressive, and his control of this work is still in the simple stage of comedy.

In addition, Brooks’ Polanski has an obvious flaw: his own image is contrary to the rationality of the storyline. A stage actor who is passionate about Shakespeare's plays, no matter how he can recite Hamlet's classic lines of "To be or not to be" with passion, he should look in the mirror to see if he has grown a convincing prince. Right? Obviously, Mr. Brooks has disregarded the credibility of the image. Of course, this same respectful face earned him a lot of points in comedy performance. Because to be fair, he was more like Hitler. Although from the above analysis, this resemblance is not necessarily a good thing.

In addition to the major flaws caused by the changes in the opening, the new version also has an abridgement that makes the original comedy essence lost. Polanski pretends to be Colonel Gestapo, after killing the spy professor in the theater. Back to the hotel pretending to be a professor. At this time, the adjutant of Colonel Gestapo was really waiting in the room to take him to see the colonel. In the old version, Polanski didn't let the people out, but used him as a temporary prop to achieve his own private purpose-questioning his wife who had come out of the wall. Due to the existence of this special prop, in order to be afraid of revealing the stuff, the lady has to answer the sharp questions raised by Polanski in embarrassment, and can't be irritated as usual. Leading male and female actors, Benny and Lampard used delicate eyes and facial expressions to accurately and vividly convey the unique comedic effect contained in this weird scene. In the new version, Polanski quickly sent the visitors outside, and naturally lost the essence of the husband's jealousy and the strong but helpless wife, and directly became the couple after tearing off their disguise. Plain dialogue.

Of course, the new version is not always flaws and problems. Slight changes in some details also make the plot more reasonable. In the old version, Mrs. Polanski was called to a hotel by the professor for the first time. The professor immediately asked the question about the meaning behind "To be or not to be" shortly after the greeting. He suspected that this was a signal of the resistance organization joint. Very reasonable. But then, when the wife was about to answer, the professor answered the phone. After returning to the conversation, this question, at least for the characters in the play, is quite important. The professor directly hoped that Mrs. Polanski would serve the Nazis. This kind of processing is somewhat illogical. But the new version is smooth: Mrs. Polanski did not conceal the truth and told the other party that this was just a secret word for a love tryst, successfully dispelling the doubts of Professor Suspicion, and the plot went down in a reasonable manner.

Of course, there are no more changes in the plot. Some of them are still the essence of Liu Bieqian's unique style. For example, when the professor came to the fake Gestapo headquarters that was transformed into the theater, he found that the colonel was pretending to be. After scanning by the searchlight, he was found on the stage. After being discovered, the professor entered behind the falling curtain in panic. The pilot also rushed in... Under normal circumstances, why does a desperate climb high? Moreover, why do the stands without performances come to an end? Therefore, neither the behavior of the character nor the setting of the props and scenery can be explained simply by common sense. Their only function is to produce the effect of Liu Bieqian's beloved "door". The director hopes to block the audience's sight with a curtain so that they can only hear the gunshots coming from behind. Then the curtain was slowly raised from bottom to top, and suspense suddenly rose. Because the audience doesn't know who hit whom. According to the characteristics of Hollywood comedy in the Brooks era, this "martial arts" would not be so implicit under normal circumstances. But what is certain is that other methods will not produce better results than Liu Bieqian's method!

The similarities and differences mentioned above focus on the main aspects. The lines, actor performance and other subtle links are too trivial and complicated, so there is no time to compare them one by one. Skip it here for now.

View more about To Be or Not to Be reviews

Extended Reading
  • Angie 2022-04-22 07:01:44

    2012-11-2. The second time. The details are so good....Lubitsch-touch

  • Idella 2022-03-25 09:01:15

    9.9 points, like "The Great Dictator", Hitler was still alive when the movie was made. Compared with the exaggerated body language of "The Great Dictator", this film is a serious joke, and the plot arrangement is extremely clever. I actually felt a little bored watching "Escape from a Tiger's Mouth", but watching this movie really made me smile.

To Be or Not to Be quotes

  • Dobosh, Theatrical Producer: If we can manage that Greenberg suddenly pops up among all those Nazis...

    Greenberg: It'll get a terrific laugh.

    [a line he says several times earlier in the film]

  • Maria Tura: Think of me being flogged in the darkness, scream, suddenly the lights go on and the audience discovers me on the floor in this gorgeous dress!