Skip to main content

Review: To Be or Not to Be (1942)

 


In Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), Hannah Arendt attributes the criminal mind of Nazi functionary Adolf Eichmann to a “sheer thoughtlessness - something by no means identical with stupidity…” A Report on the Banality of Evil, which is the book’s subtitle, introduces a kind of evil - the worst conceivable kind in human history - that departs from the “radical evil” that is at the heart of Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Shortly after the publication of Eichmann, Arendt wrote to philosopher Gershom Scholem:

 

      […] I changed my opinion and do no longer speak of “radical evil.” […] It is 

      indeed my opinion now that now that evil is never “radical”, that it is only 

      extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension […] 

      It is “thought-defying”, as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, 

      to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated

      because there is nothing. That is its “banality”. Only the good has depth that

      can be radical.

 

That evil lacks a teleological basis is perhaps less controversial now than when the idea first appeared, but the question concerning its exact origin continues to elude us. The existence of evil entails that of good, although one might also say that evil - it seems to be increasingly the case - can exist on its own, beyond the frame of reference to which it is usually fixed. And when or in what circumstance does evil begin to get banal? As we all know, evil is abetted by the non-action of the good: this non-action, in time, may come to be taken as tacit acceptance, from which the banality must stem.

 

Can it be possible, if the banality persists, that some sort of a common ground may be found between good and evil? This is a rather dangerous question, and proposition, on which Ernst Lubitsch’s anti-war satire,To Be or Not to Be (1942), revolves. Lubitsch’s approach, perhaps not to everyone’s moral code, is simple and straightforward: there is no absolute good or absolute evil; and both good and evil, since they are embodied by the humans, are naturally inflected with varying degrees of humanness. In Lubitsch’s vocabulary, what is human is that which is invariably plagued by folly and a proneness to situational comedy. To clothe evil in the garb of humane language seems all but justify its horror, but I doubt that was Lubitsch’s intention here.

 

On a deep level, all comedies are cautionary to some extent. As Henri Bergson famously said, laughter implies an “unavowed intention to humiliate and consequently to correct…” The so-called figure of fun or butt of joke is invariably conferred on an otherness, which in most circumstances is either preceded or followed by a lingering resonance, a moment of recognition when the laugher realises that a reversal of roles (the laugher becoming the joke) is probable. The majority of Lubitsch’s films play with this dualism of the strange and the familiar, generally in a lighthearted mood, only very rarely, as in To Be or Not to Be, with a dark overtone. It is especially disconcerting to see that the monsters behave as all of us do: that they blunder, bungle, fumble, fidget, cry in rage, laugh in sudden delight, subject themselves to various human emotions. To the audience when the film first opened, the shock must be compounded by a reflection on the current events and the latent knowledge that we, the humans, are collectively responsible for the miseries and chaos in which our lives are plunged. Evil is truly a face in the crowd, Lubitsch seems to hint, and if we cannot extirpate it why not turn it into a funny joke?

 

As a rallying call to ramp up supports for the war effort, the film does manage to convey an important and encouraging message: that Good will eventually triumph over Evil, if we have enough faith in our strengths and the good sense to utilise the resources that are at our disposal. In the film, it is the profession of acting, which inevitably bleeds into life, that saves a Polish theatre troupe from the claws of the Nazis. The ineffable “Lubitsch’s touch” is detectable in every of the comedies of errors that ensue, in every arch of the eyebrow, the wrinkle-up of the nose, the conspiratorial look, the whisper of a fateful word. The characteristic style assumes the only personal element in a film that celebrates the fearlessness and patriotic pride of the everymen, and in every way the rhythmic structure and the subtle tone, to which the director’s “touch” amounts, give those qualities a most elegant tribute.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Paintings in Proust: Vesuvius Erupting by J.M.W. Turner

In Proust’s Swann’s Way , the narrator’s grandmother is described as one who inculcates in her grandson a reverence for the “elevated ideals.” Infinitely disdainful of the mechanical nature of replica, when shown photograph of the magnificent Mount Vesuvius his grandmother dismisses it with a lofty query as of whether other more acknowledged artists did paintings of the volcano in the first place. She is having in mind the great J.M.W. Turner, whose depiction of Vesuvius in flame displays, in her view, “a stage higher in the scale of art.” The enduring fascination with volcanoes was especially evident in the 19 th century, which saw an irregularly high frequency of Vesuvius eruptions that, at the time, alarmed many of the imminent cataclysm that a thousand of years before destroyed the city of Pompeii. Turner, according to a number of sources, may not be amongst the first-hand witnesses of those eruptions, but badgered his geologist friends, John MacCulloch and Charles Stoke...
2 comments
Read more

Felix Vallotton

"He was there or not there: not there if I didn't see him."- Henry James, The Turn of the Screw One sees immediately from Felix Vallotton’s paintings that he must had been a gifted raconteur. The painter was possessed of the natural aptitude of unfolding and withholding the narrative flow at the most propitious timing. Mysteriousness emerges. The viewers are bound to be tantalised. Whilst most of Vallotton’s paintings are about the quotidian, the domestic, beneath them their pent-up energy seethes and trembles, threatening to explode at any moment. It isn’t just the quotidian that he depicted, but the interior dramas. Any reader of Ibsen’s or Strindberg’s plays will know that interior drama can be the most frenetic. A woman leans towards a man, her hand entwines his body in show of sensuousness. She whispers into his ears something that the viewers are forbidden the right to privy to. But one has the eye to deduce, from the slightly wrinkled of the man’s nose and t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Review: La Jetee (1962)

In Matter and Memory , French philosopher Henri Bergson posits an implausible notion – the pure present: “The pure present is an ungraspable advance of the past devouring the future. In truth, all sensation is already memory.” Since time is a movement , an unending progression, there is not a definite point as that of a present moment, Bergson seems to suggest, but an admixture of the past and the future, the has-beens rapidly encroaching on, and eventually subsuming, the what-ifs. In a sense, and as absurd as this may sound, the present is ever elusive to our consciousness: what we perceive of the now , at the very moment in which it is being registered, is already relegated to the realm of the past. The past seems, therefore, the only reality we have really experienced; the reality that we are predestined to never possess. Chris Marker’s La Jetee (1962) envisages a future in which man finally discovers the means of triumphing over time’s irrevocable logic: experiments are ...
Post a Comment
Read more