In order to properly provide a background of the controversial discussion of censorship in media and particularly propagation during times of turmoil, I shall first outline the original doctrine that defended our unilateral freedoms granted to all citizens by the Bill of Rights. I will keep this brief, for this initial digression is only to aid in the collective comprehension of the gravity of this topic. While the Constitution of the United States, signed in 1789, stood as the law of the land, it unfortunately did not specifically state protection over the unalienable rights designated to the public in the Declaration of Independence. Immediately, James Madison drafted a federal list of amendments to the previously signed document that he took verbatim from the State of Virginia. The first of these amendments made certain that, among other things, humans legally and unalienably maintain the freedom of speech and press. Understandably, this was written far before the world became so internationally connected through media, but it should still be covered through the elasticity clause and the necessary and proper interpretation of the constitution even to the modern day. Now that we have a collective understanding of the legal rights we hold as citizens, we can move into the debated topic that I intend to argue which of course spawns from Ernst Lubitsch’s revolutionary wartime propaganda film To Be or Not to Be. This film released in 1942 is a magnificent thin skin commentary that provides an under the surface depiction of the censorship that occurred within World War II Europe and has continued to the modern day. With the prolongation of total war from the first world war to the second, film makers, especially in Hollywood, followed an unspoken rule to stay away from most anything related to the turmoil abroad. Prior to 1942, there were very few films released by known names that took a “swing” at the acrimonious discussion of Nazi Germany and one of these was Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. Despite Chaplin’s initial positive press on his silent picture released in 1940, he soon regretted his decision after learning more of the heart wrenching vindictive propensities Adolf Hitler and his party upheld. Hollywood producers took heed and shied away from any topic of the sort in fear of breaking regulation and the expected failure that would descend upon their career. Lubitsch held a different stance upon the situation and created a frame narrative that many people most likely did not fully understand at the time because of the immense obstruction of censorship and fear of offensive material. In fact, many critics at the time simply did not understand or believe in the efficacy of humor in everyday life; Therefore, deemed To Be or Not to Be, a bellicose take on the arduous war effort and environment. Little did the public and critics realize that Lubitsch’s entire goal was to show the world in a multitude of fashions that one should never underestimate the incredible value of laugh. Hindsight is an amazing advantage only awarded to those who stand the test of time and in 2002, the American Film Institute selected To Be or Not to Be as one of the top 50 funniest movies of all time. However, I digress, it is just necessary for the understanding and argument to recognize how the world of censorship has progressed even though it is only a slight advancement. Ernst Lubitsch revolutionized the film industry while arguably violating crippling U.S. production codes and through his use of edgy propaganda and his blatant disregard of unspoken agreements to not delve into hot button current events. Pushing these boundaries Lubitsch also unintentionally compromised the isolationist ideology that the United States initially claimed to hold true and subsequently ignited a comprehensive congressional investigation into wartime propaganda and the evolving film industry. This proportionately defeated the immense censorship “monster” that held Hollywood in a creative confinement and stapled the “Lubitsch Touch” which essentially refers to transcending national politics and becoming a truly international artist. 

The gravity of World War II wasn’t prevalent knowledge until the Japanese launched a deadly attack on the U.S. at pearl harbor in December of 1941. Following this inhumane destruction, animosity spread like wild fire and the U.S. declared war in the pacific but held strong to the flickering isolationism towards the ground war in Europe. Not a soul in their right mind had an inclination to create a satire located in wartime Warsaw. A comedy coming at a time of suffocating disaster that raised the bar and then raised it again by combining both genuine concern and hilarity was beyond unexpected and at the time regarded inappropriate. Bosley Crowther the well known film critic for the New York times made a clear stand against Lubitsch’s precarious film by stating, “Frankly, this corner is unable even remotely to comprehend the humor.” As film enthusiasts from the modern day, these remarks may seem unforgiving and of the past, but while Crowther was one of the most renowned of the censors, he was certainly not unaccompanied in his opinions. The “Lubitsch Touch” may be revered as daring and pioneering now that it successfully passed that treacherous test of time, but at the initial release it was met with comments no better than “tasteless”. Geoffrey O’Brien of the Criterion Collection wrote a comprehensive analysis regarding this very topic of To Be or Not to Be’s incredible significance in the film and the wartime propaganda industry. The bias in his piece is evident due to his admission to his deep admiration for the film, yet he brings to light several concessions that give reason to believe why the majority of people believed it to be crude unnecessarily provoking.  Obrien acknowledges the major concern among the public by saying, “...comic relief was something understood and accepted, and indeed was to become the bane of many a wartime melodrama” (Obrien, Criterion). The reason this recognition is so important is because technique and artistry elusively deployed by Lubitsch within this film set a certain path never before touched, which shocked the masses, but set fire and meritoriously built an entire genre despite the immediate barring disapproval. Obrien carries his message into an interesting analysis of the entirety of the film and mentions several more specific reasons for triggered disgust such as, “Benny’s own father, unprepared, walked out of the theatre in disgust” while watching the premiere in 1942. I certainly don’t intend to offer my personal analysis of the intricacies of this play within a play because that does not really aid in my particular argument, but it is critical to reiterate how advantageous hindsight is when discussing an era of incredible uncertainty. Feeling empathy for those in the midst of such tragedy and fear may cause you to alter previously built in opinions and that is understandable; However, do not lose sight at how aside from mass disapproval, Lubitsch revolutionized the censorship of the early 20th century. 

The United States had prided itself on being one world super power that was able to maintain its isolation through its location and peace keeping ideology. Following United States forced entrance into the second world war, Congress grew worrisome and began to look inward at the entertainment industry and questioned their loyalty to the home country. Starting as early as 1941, the House Committee on Un-American Activities began an investigation into the alleged use of communist and pro-war propaganda in relation to the influence of the motion picture industry. One of many people in question during these allegations was Lubitsch due to his stretch of the set production codes which stated, “shall not give offense to any nation or creed”. Of course through the use of “rigorously structured” farce and disaster Maria and Joseph Tura and the rest of the cast consistently offer offense to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The committee’s fear was that this current event based satire stood for more than comedic value and that its underlying meaning was to proliferate U.S. involvement over seas. Isolationist senator Gerald Nye certainly held a despotic attitude against Hollywood at the time saying that films, including To Be or Not to Be, were “designed to drug the reason of the American people, set aflame their emotions, turn their hatred into a blaze, and fill them with the fear that Hitler will come over here and capture them” (University of Houston Digital History). Fortunately for this artistic field, Nye, the widespread Jewish racial indignation and his condemnation of Hollywood being just a “raging volcano of war fever” were rather insignificant and fairly nothing came about it. Whether the motion picture industry worked under false pretenses and intended on generating fear and action among the masses is still widely debated, nonetheless the publicity, like any publicity, aided the popularity of wartime films and commentaries with Lubitsch and his art as a centerfold. 

Until this point, I’ve kept the general characteristics that truly make this film the controversial spark that created a flourishing genre for both wartime melodramas and hot button satires. It’s challenging to neglect the intensive bombardment of insulting humor that Lubitsch deploys at the expensive of the insecurities that were clearly present within the Nazi Party. Repetition is commonplace for Lubitsch and during each of the several repetitions of lines they hold separate meanings, however in discussion with Colonel Ehrhardt, Joseph Tura, who is impersonating Professor Siletsky, Ehrhardt constantly pleads with Tura to not mention any of his comments or mishaps to Hitler. While this is but one small example, it is meant to insult the weakness of all Nazi officers because they are so devout to the man they are committing inhumane acts under. This particular commentary is very similar to Kenneth Burke’s “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle” because within Burke’s piece he references that Hitler’s rise to power was incredibly well orchestrated and it was done through his incredibly power to inspire devotion among his party. At the same time, Lubitsch wanted to poke fun at the fact that while these officers may be devoted to their leader, they maintain an impressively thin skin when in times of opposition and they also uphold the very definition of hypocrisy. This becomes evident when the play house decides to put of the production of Hamlet, rather than go through with the previously scheduled play that intended to knock the Gestapo. Maria Tura comments at one point that “Its harder to put on a play than it is to invade a country” and while that may seem far fetched its seeded in unfortunate truth. This is just one point where the audience realizes that Lubitsch’s Frame narrative that by itself was defying U.S. censorship codes, contains an internal knock against censorship across Europe as well. 

In the true sense of Lubitsch’s touch, I’ve made an effort to utilize repetition within this argument in one sense in particular and that is that even though To Be or Not to Be faced intense disapproval surrounding its era it has more than lasted the test of time. It actively beat time and to this very day stands as a revolutionary motion picture in that it created an entirely new genre of artistic representation. The precarious choice of setting and time paired with the extensive use of humor stirs up a real mixture of fear, anxiety, hilarity, and true comedic relief. Beyond all of the juxtaposed comedy and context lies a genius who may have lived progressively before his time, but thanks to him we now know to never underestimate the value of a laugh. One specific thing that we learn more and more as media and motion pictures grow larger is that any publicity is welcomed publicity and this is paralleled even to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Unlike Hitler in Germany, Lubitsch’s film struggled with most critics in the beginning; However, with critics and politicians talking about the picture, whether it be positive or negative, it helps the word spread like wild fire. Therefore, even though To Be or Not to Be didn’t gain the initial popularity Lubitsch sought, he productively revolutionized the film industry and subsequently the media by pushing the boundaries of the norm and transcended the previously unspoken confinements of Hollywood during one of the most gruesome times in world history. These progressions sparked by Lubitsch’s conscious disregard of political correctness can be seen as far as CBS’s 1970’s show “Hogan’s Heroes” all the way to political satire news such as “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver. It is unfortunate that large masses of people outside the scope of cinema enthusiasm wouldn’t know Ernst Lubitsch, not to mention his contributions to entertainment as whole. However, I will speak for the community of current event driven satire fanatics and recognize that we truly owe a debt of gratitude to the man who helped the world laugh at themselves. 
