
There exists a relationship between language and the way it is spoken, particularly in regards to the sources: “The Problem of Speech Genres,” an essay by Mikhail Bakhtin, and the film To Be or Not to Be by Ernest Lubitsch. Bakhtin uses his essay, in a very opaque style due to the time period it was written in, to explain the problem of speech genres and how different ones require different utterances. He further elaborates on the idea of speech plans and that an utterance is never only the speaker’s, but requires an audience. The repetition of certain words/phrases in the film are spoken in different speech genres, and therefore, become different utterances with different meanings. When the film repeats certain dialogue, these utterances are used as tools to communicate contrasting ideas through language. This is important to analyze because it provides the basis for how individuals communicate every day and supports the idea that genres exist outside of literature.

In the film To Be or Not to Be, a group of actors in Warsaw, Poland during 1939 use their acting skills to trick the Nazis occupying the country. Throughout the film there are various utterances that are repeated, although they are put in completely different contexts. An utterance can be defined as “-- not the phoneme, the word, the sentence or the text -- that is the basic unit of analysis for understanding language (oral or written)” (Hunt). This repetition of certain phrases supports Bakhtin’s theory of speech genres, and how it is important to recognize the different genres in language to be able to distinguish their different meanings. Even though the actors are using the same literal words, it is clear “observations about it in one context (that of literary or linguistic study, for example) cannot be transferred back to the original context. We are never not engaged with an instance of language, we can never be only observers of it” (Hunt). Bakhtin stresses that communication is unsuccessful unless we understand the difference in genres in which the utterances are being used. Additionally, he argues that utterances are constantly being generated in return to one another and shaped in “anticipation” of a utterance in response. We must change our position on texts, moving towards the idea that language is a sharing of ideas between “cross-connected utterances” and that no piece of language is complete, but rather open and unfinished. Language is an exchange of ideas, and cannot be taken out of context or the utterance’s distinctive meaning is altered, as seen in the film. Bakhtin believes that it is absolutely essential that speech genres are used and understood because they provide the link between language and life. 

A close examination of Bakhtin’s “The Problems of Speech Genres” explores the complexity and diversity of speech genres in language. One of the main arguments he proposes is that there is such a variety of speech genres that it is nearly impossible to study them at the same level of analysis as “the wealth and diversity of speech genres are boundless” and “because each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire of speech genres that differentiate and grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex” (“Bakhtin on Genre”). He establishes the difference between primary and secondary speech genres, the former being more simplistic and the latter being more complex. One of Bakhtin’s main arguments is the role of the audience in receiving the message the speaker is conveying, “We imagine to ourselves what the speaker wishes to say”( Bakhtin 365). He elaborates further on the speaker’s speech plan, or speech will. This results from the particular choice of speech genre the speaker uses and how their individuality contributes to create a stable, generic speech form. The better we are with directing our speech genres, the easier it is to apply them more freely and to inject our own individuality into our free speech plan. Likewise, there exists more imaginative, artistic, and stimulating genres outside the general ones that apply to more social, intimate conversations that we typically have every day. These genres are constantly open to new interpretations and may be manipulated; however, this is not the same as creating a new genre from the start because they must be fully understood and acquired first. Additionally, the contrast between speech genres and language forms demonstrates that speech genres are more adjustable, whereas language forms tend to be more imperative and stable. 

One of Bakhtin’s main arguments is the importance of emphasizing of mastering a genre, and how if we did not use speech genres or they did not exist, it would be nearly impossible to communicate because the utterances would have to be formed on the spot every time. From an early age, we are taught how to construct utterances, learning the importance of speech genres and how they help systematize our speech. Some genres can develop to be so diverse “depending on the situation, social position, and personal interrelations of the participants in the communication” (Bakhtin 366). The tone of a speaker/author plays an important role in the structure of a certain genre and cultivates the speaker’s individuality. When entering an unknown sphere of communication, it can be difficult for certain people, not due to their lack of capability of language, but rather their unfamiliarity with the concepts being presented within the utterances. Essentially, Bakhtin creates a new perspective on 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 (To Be or Not to Be).

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) Joseph is imitating the real Ehrhardt, and 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. Americans were stunned that a Hollywood film made a joke about concentration camps in the year of 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 satirizing 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, a treacherous spy, 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, Joseph 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 Erhhardt 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 the Nazis, which gave 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. It is imperative to emphasize that words in different contexts have separate meanings to distinguish between literary and every day communication. Through this essay and film it is apparent that diversity in speech styles can be and are utilized to produce different connotations of utterances.
