language and how it is used, which can be applied to different spheres of communication, such as films. 

It is important to analyze the relationship between culture and speech genres, specifically in relation to To Be or Not To Be. One question that has been debated about from the film is the fate of Greenberg, the actor who unexpectedly disappears, and his cultural background. It is important to note when “Greenberg says, ‘Mr Rawitch, what you are I wouldn’t eat’. Rawitch replies, ‘How dare you call me a ham’” leading us to conclude that “More savvy viewers would not need Rawitch’s response; they would know that Jews do not eat ham” (Stuber). Although the film does not explicitly say he is Jewish, there is evidence to suggest Lubitsch purposely acknowledged this culture at the same time. The role of humor changes the way Lubitsch approaches the Jewish culture, “Even Greenberg’s expression ‘a laugh is nothing to be sneezed at’ is a triumph of ordinary modesty, a way of being in the world that does not take itself seriously” (Stuber). This phrase from Greenberg is especially peculiar due to the nature of sneezes being spontaneous and uncontrollable, suggesting that laughter is unavoidable. 

In relation to Bakhtin’s essay, it is crucial that the audience understands the specific speech genre that Lubitsch is using. Because the film was not widely accepted at first, it showed that the message the speaker (Lubitsch) wanted to portray was interpreted differently by the audience due to initial discrepancies in speech genres. However, it is now recognized as one of the best comedy classics due to the audience’s understanding of the utterances, and Lubitsch’s unique way of utilizing speech genres. Ultimately, Lubitsch used speech genres to apply humor to a serious topic, and the repetition demonstrates the opposing contexts of utterances within the film.

In the film To Be or Not To Be, comedy and the “Lubitsch touch” play an essential role in creating a sense of humor that was not largely accepted when it first came out. Americans were horrified that he made fun of Hitler and The Nazis due to the very real threat of them and the devastation he had already brought upon the world. It seemed inappropriate to make light of such a serious topic and belittle the Nazis when they possessed considerable power during the time period. However, Lubitsch’s humor became very popular and seemed to playfully approach a dark and evil topic. Throughout the film when the actors were impersonating Hitler and several Nazis, the phrase “heil Hitler” is overused and exaggerated to show how ridiculous their loyalty to Hitler was. The film even goes as far as having Bronski (impersonating Hitler) say “heil myself” to further satirize Hitler and his Nazis. In one scene, The Polish actors who are pretending to be Nazis/ Hitler ask a real Nazi pilot to jump out of the plane, and without thinking twice he does it, simply because Hitler told him to. 

Another repetition in the film that seemed to take it too far to many initial viewers was “concentration camp Ehrhardt”. Professor Siletsky says, “You know, you’re quite famous in London, colonel. They call you ‘Concentration Camp Ehrhardt.’” Joseph Tura, disguised as Ehrhardt, retorts, “we do the concentrating and the Poles do the camping” (To Be or Not to Be) Because Joseph is imitating the real Ehrhardt, when Siletsky asks him questions that he does not know he repeats “So they call me concentration camp Ehrhardt?” in order to stall. Siletsky becomes suspicious of this and pulls his gun out on Joseph Tura (Ehrhardt), but ultimately ends up being killed. This stunned Americans that a Hollywood film made a joke about concentration camps in 1942. The film gained a lot of harsh critique and reviews from these jokes in the movie, but it is now considered one of the greatest films. The role of humor and making jokes about concentration camps relates to a theme of darkness and evil. But in reality, Lubitsch feels it is important to bring down Hitler by making people realize how ridiculous him and his ideals are. In a way, Lubitsch mocked the Nazis by overly presenting their incompetence and obligations to Hitler, and satirizing how blindly loyal they were to him. All of these examples represent how Lubitsch used comedy and satire to ridicule Hitler and his Nazis. 

The repetition of Professor Alexander Siletsky is prominent throughout the film and exemplifies revenge through the killing of Siletsky by Tura. Shortly after Hitler conquers Poland, Siletsky, the Polish resistance leader is seen singing with other young pilots. He makes a notion that he will be returning to Warsaw soon, and the men give him messages to return to their relatives. Sobinski gives Siletsky a message to Maria Tura, but he does not recognize her. This is significant because she is a very well-known actress in Warsaw, suggesting to Sobinski that Siletsky now has a list of relatives to the Polish airmen who can be used against them. Siletsky reaches Warsaw before Sobinski and orders two soldiers to bring Maria Tura to him to figure out what the message (to be or not to be) means. Maria and Sobinski’s relationship in which they are trying to devise a plan to stop Siletsky and Siletsky’s charming of Maria angers Joseph. Out of jealousy, Tura declares that he will kill Siletsky. As explained above, Joseph Tura is presented the perfect opportunity to get revenge on Siletsky during the “concentration camp Ehrhardt” scene. This represents evil because Tura reacts in an extremely jealous way to get revenge, and ultimately leads to Sobinski killing Siletsky.

Not only did Siletsky’s repetition represent revenge, it also represented an evil and dark aspect to the film. After the real Siletsky is killed, Joseph Tura impersonates him to try to destroy the information of the relatives of the Polish Airmen. He is later discovered and taken to see the real Ehrhardt, who they believe is the real Siletsky. An unfortunate miscommunication leads to Ehrhardt discovering the real Siletsky’s body, but Maria did not tell Joseph in time before he scheduled a meeting still posing as Siletsky. Ehrhardt sets Tura up by sending him (dressed as Siletsky) into a room with Siletsky’s dead body. This is disturbing that Erhhardt disrespected Siletsky’s body and instead of simply calling Tura out, he makes him go into a room with a dead body to force a confession. I think this is very sinister and reflects the mindset of the Nazis who were amused and entertained by the whole situation. Eventually, Tura shaves Siletsky’s beard off and is able to convince Ehrhardt he is the real Siletsky. The repetition of Siletsky shows a dark and evil presence, and the way Erhardt used his dead body to manipulate Tura demonstrates the true evil mindset that the Nazis possessed.

Lastly, the role of Greenberg and his repetition resonances with the audience because he finally is able to perform the speech he wishes to. When the theater performs Shakespeare’s 

Hamlet, Bronski and Greenberg are able to relate on how they always have minor acting parts or are always in the backgrounds of plays. Greenberg expresses how he has always wanted to perform as Shylock from Merchant Of Venice, including the acclaimed “Hath not a Jew eyes?…” speech. This also relates to Greenberg’s suggestion of being Jewish in the movie, although

Lubitsch never explicitly states so in the film. Towards the end of the film, the actors decide to have a show for Hitler and his Nazis to honor them, despite the real events that are about to happen. Greenberg is used to distract Hitler and his men, while the actors emerge disguised as them, 

Tura, acting as a master guard of Hitler, asks Greenberg what he wants, and then Greenberg is given the opportunity to perform Shylock’s speech that he has dreamt of doing. His speech 

finishes with a thunderous, “if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”  before Tura orders him to be taken away by the fake officers. The repetition of Greenberg’s appearance and his audacity to challenge Adolph Hitler with the speech he delivers is uplifting and shows the success that the actors were able to have in manipulating them and giving them the opportunity to safely escape occupied Poland. 

Ultimately, we are unable to determine Greenberg’s fate because the film does not clarify what happens to him after the actors leave. One notable difference between the other actors and Greenberg is that they always have distinction between their real selves and the roles they play. Unlike the other actors, Greenberg is always portrayed as just himself, which can also be attributed to him being Jewish. In order for Greenberg to be depicted as he truly is and represented in the film as he should be, he needs to play a role, which explains the significance of him delivering the Shylock speech. He attempts to personify the role, rather than simply acting it. Greenberg’s fate and repetition positively show the difference between speech genres, especially when he is given the opportunity to deliver the Shylock speech.

After closely reading the essay “The Problems of Speech Genres” by Mikhail Bakhtin and viewing the film To Be or Not to Be by Ernest Lubitsch one can undoubtedly see the connection between the two because there are several repetitions/speeches in the film that correspond to different speech genres. To Be or Not to Be exemplifies this by the repetition of certain phrases and characters, including “concentration camp” Ehrhardt, Siletsky, and Greenberg. Literature is not where genre solely exists—it exists in everyone’s everyday life. Through this essay and film it is apparent that diversity in speech styles can be and are utilized to produce different connotations of utterances.
