Since the start of mankind, art has played an extremely important role in society. There are many different forms of art, which have developed over the years. One of the biggest keys for artwork to be effective is for it to be genuine and come from the heart of the artist. The artist has to display exactly what his or her emotions are, straight from the heart, in order for their art to be viewed as a good piece. This is not possible when other people tell artists what they can and cannot do. This is the reason why censorship negatively affects art, and why all art should be uncensored and unfiltered. Censorship cripples artists, as it takes away their creative ability, because they have to conform to rules that don’t allow them to make whatever they want to. For many years, especially during World War II, Hollywood would try to censor all movies so that nothing was too offensive or too unorthodox. There was a set of standards that all movies made in Hollywood had to follow, or else everyone associated with the movie would be out casted. While many directors and movie makers followed these set of rules, there were a few that ignored them, and chose to make their movies how they wanted the movies to be, instead of how others (those who enforced the censorship rules) wanted them. The movie To Be or Not to Be was a revolutionary film by Ernst Lubitsch, because it went against Hollywood’s standards, as shown by Gregory Black, Susan Ohmer, and Doug Dibbern.

Censorship has been a major topic in the entertainment world  for a very long time, with many people thinking it’s good, to make sure movies are appropriate, but also just as many people thinking it takes away from artists, which is why it’s bad. Those who think censorship is good don’t value art the same way that people who dislike censorship do. Gregory Black states, “Films, moral guardians maintained, were corrupting traditional American values, taught by the churches, schools and parents, by presenting crime and "immoral behavior" as alluring, exciting and, above all, chic and modern” (Black P. 1). My discussion of Black’s quote is to illustrate how strict these rules are, and how different Hollywood used to be. People who supported censorship believed that movies were too extreme and out of the ordinary, and as a result of these movies, children were acting out, trying to imitate the actors they watched. As a result of this school of thought, laws were thought to be necessary to make sure that movies weren’t too inappropriate.

Censorship laws were put into effect by law in 1915, with the hope to fix the “problem” in America of out of the ordinary movies. The Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America set a censorship code that movies had to follow. This code was written by Father Daniel Lord, who was a Catholic priest. Joseph Breen was the man who enforced this code, and he did so very seriously for over 20 years. Breen would frequently get into fights with producers, directors, and writers over this code which they had to abide to; as they thought that it limited their artistic value too much. The book Dame in the Kimono tells stories of Hollywood movies at the time that Breen was in charge, and the arguments he would have with filmmakers. While explaining the book, Black states, “Audiences were startled to hear Rhett Butler tell Scarlett that he did not ‘give a damn’ in Gone With the Wind. Permission to use the ‘word’ took months of intense negotiation” (Black P. 2). Black tells us one example from the book of Breen’s strict rules. This shows how different Hollywood is now, as every PG-13 and rated R movies have many swears in them, while people were appalled that the word “damn” was used in a film in 1939. Black shares other examples that all seem ridiculous compared to movies today and how different Hollywood is. This article is a great piece for people to read and get a grasp on just how strict Hollywood was, and how censorship created many problems with filmmakers. 

The Production Codes had a strong correlation to Catholic theology, especially in the 1900s, which is no coincidence considering Breen was a very religious Catholic man. Many people think of the Production codes as the Catholic Church running Hollywood. Ohmer states, “For McGregor, the Catholic Church’s efforts to control Hollywood films was indicative of a war mentality, one in which the Church felt itself to be under siege from the forces of modernity: communism, sexual liberation, female independence, mass communication” (Ohmer P. 1). Ohmer is introducing the idea held by Alexander McGregor that the Catholic Church acted with the mindset of a militant force when enforcing the Production Codes. She goes on to explain why Catholics were acting like a military when it comes to the Production Codes, and her explanation makes it understandable for why Catholics were so aggressive.

Ohmer points out that Catholics felt like they were under siege from modernity, but later in the paragraph, she gives more examples of how Catholics were under siege. She explains how the Ku Klux Klan openly attacked Catholicism, which put Catholics in “survival mode”, which can explain why they were so adamant in regulating movies and enforcing the Production Codes. In order to make Catholicism seem better, Hollywood movies would include things such as priests fighting in war for America (The Fighting 69th), which showed priests’ patriotism, and make them more well-liked by the general public. The Production Codes were looked at by the Catholic Church as a way for Catholicism to be spread across the country. Ohmer points out, “Films involving doctors or scientists that demystified the creation of life, such as James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931), were believed to undermine the Church’s teachings as well” (Ohmer P. 2). While the Production Codes were a representation of the Catholic Church, they couldn’t get rid of whole storylines such as Frankenstein. When the movie was made, Catholics protested the film, because they believed that it went against God, as he is the only one who can create lives. The Catholic Church was the voice behind the Production Codes, which explains why the codes were so strict, as they went by Catholicism and the Bible. 

Similar to Black and Ohmer’s articles, Doug Dibbern’s commentary illustrates how strict rules were for filmmakers, as well as authors in the early to mid-1900s, but also, how some men were brave enough to go against the status quo. Black’s commentary starts off with him discussing the Production Codes, and how strict they were, especially under Breen’s ruling. The piece contains information about how Breen was a devout Catholic, and based many decisions in regards to what is appropriate in films off of Catholic theology at the time. However, at the end of the commentary, he switches his focus to talk about the book “Orwell Subverted.” This dissertation discusses how George Orwell, the author of “Animal Farm”, was very courageous in writing the book, which was making fun of Stalin for how he tried to change history in the Soviet Union, and take away freedom from his people. Animal Farm was written in 1945, right as the Cold War was beginning. Orwell was British, so he was on America’s side in the Cold War, meaning he was against communism and the Soviet Union in particular. This book was clearly written to show how bad the Soviet Union was, as it would frequently edit details of things that happened in the past to make themselves look better. At the time that Animal Farm was published, many authors were too scared to write a book bashing the Soviet Union, as they hoped to not anger the country and possibly put their country in danger. However, Orwell did exactly this, and was looked up to as a result. According to Dibbern, “but even while he was alive he saw his last novels—Animal Farm and / 1984—embraced by the American and British governments as useful for anticommunist propaganda. The U.S. State Department sponsored the translation and distribution of the books in more than thirty different languages” (Dibbern P. 3). Dibbern is saying that the American government was so happy with Orwell’s two anticommunist books that they paid for the books to be translated and distributed, so that more people around the world could read them and see how bad communism is. This is a great example of how Orwell’s courageousness was greatly rewarded, and how important it is for people to not be afraid to speak up about injustices in the world, no matter how risky it might be. 

The movie To Be or Not to Be by Ernst Lubitsch relates to Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, as both strongly go against a powerful country and satirizes that country. The same way that Orwell mocks communism and Stalin’s ruling in Russia, Lubitsch mocks Nazi Germany.  Lubitsch and Orwell both had the courage to make their pieces during the time of the historical events which they are about. Similar to how Orwell wrote his book at the start of the Cold War, Lubitsch made this movie in 1942, in the middle of World War II, and right after the United States joined the war. America was very tense at this time, as everyone was worried with the war in both the Pacific and Europe. Lubitsch making this movie shows his courageousness, and his patriotism, which mostly results from his Jewish ancestry. The movie To Be or Not to Be shows the effects of censorship (which is ironic due to the censorship in Hollywood at the time the movie was made), and also the importance of comedy both in life and in movies.

Towards the start of the film, the actors are preparing to perform a play about Hitler and the Nazi military, but are told that they cannot perform the play; for fear that it would anger Hitler. The Polish government told the actors that if Hitler heard of the play, it would only make him more likely to attack the country. The actors were devastated to hear the news, and things only got worse once Germany invaded Poland. Maria Tura says “There were no censors to stop the Germans” (Lubitsch), which is relating the reaction from the Polish government to the play they were going to perform to the government’s reaction to Hitler invading. The actors were censored and weren’t allowed to perform the play they had been practicing for months because of fear that it could upset the Nazis, while Hitler and his military just marched right into Poland without any resistance. This shows how scared the Polish government was of Hitler, and how they knew that there was no chance of stopping the Nazis if they chose to attack Poland. Had the Polish government been as focused on finding a way to defeat Germany as they were focused on the play, they would have been in better position to slow down the Nazis, and maybe even stop them. 

Ernst Lubitsch’s movie was a bold statement against Nazi Germany and fascism as a whole, but it didn’t initially receive praise in America, due to the severity of the war. Most Hollywood movies at the time were very conservative and didn’t have any content which could be considered offensive. Lubitsch’s film was thought of as being very offensive and risky at that time period, due to the actors making fun of Hitler. The very sight of seeing actors in Nazi uniforms was thought of as being offensive, and Jack Benny’s father (Benny played Josef Tura) stopped watching the movie when he saw his son in a Nazi uniform (imDb). The sense of nationalism was at an all-time high in America, due to how serious the implications of the war were. His father was so patriotic that he couldn’t stand watching his own son being depicted as a Nazi. Many Americans thought that the movie would anger Hitler, which they feared would result in Nazi Germany putting a bigger target on America and being more aggressive towards the US. Lubitsch was out casted because of the movie, and had many people hate him due to this somewhat irrational fear that they had. Hitler’s plans didn’t change at all after the film, which people should have known, as he had much bigger issues to deal with than a movie. The hate for Lubitsch and the reaction of the movie when it was released was undeserved, but luckily for Lubitsch and the actors, the perception of the movie changed after the war ended.

After the war, the movie was looked at much differently, and people could enjoy it without worrying about how enemy countries would react to it. People could start to see the comedy in the movie, which there was an abundance of. The movie had many ironic twists in it, which could be appreciated more when the Allies won the war. In a scene in the beginning of the movie, Greenberg, who was an actor with a minor role in Hamlet, recited a line from The Merchant of Venice, in an effort to show a fellow actor that he could be Shylock, or at least have a bigger role. Greenberg recites, “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?” (Shakespeare). Shylock is a Jewish character in the play The Merchant of Venice, and he is on trial, and being unfairly treated due to his religion. So, while on trial, he says these lines to the court, reminding them that Jews are people, just like everybody else, and should be treated equally. Then, later in the film, when acting as a diversion for Josef Tura, who was pretending to be Hitler, Greenberg recites the exact same monologue to Nazi soldiers. Greenberg quoting these lines is fitting, because Shylock says this quote in the play because he is being treated unfairly because he’s Jewish, and Greenberg is put in the situation to have to create a diversion from the Nazi military because he is Jewish. This ironic twist that Lubitsch puts into the film is a great example of the film’s comedy. Comedy is crucial to the morale of people in times of war, as many people are so caught up in the war, that they need an escape from reality to enjoy life more. Comedic pieces, such as this film, let people remember that life is still going on outside of the war, and that it is still important to have fun, even with circumstances such as war being so dire. In addition to the movie as a whole, the comedy inside the movie has an impact on people in terms of perception of characters.

Two of the most important Nazis in the film are Colonel Erhardt, a Nazi colonel, and Siletsky, who is a Nazi spy. The two have very different personalities, but still have essentially equally evil. However, due to their personalities, the two characters are perceived very differently by the audience.  Erhardt’s character is liked by many viewers of the movie, as a result of him being so funny. He constantly messes up whenever he makes a decision, and always blames it on Captain Schultz, who is on his staff. He even blames his failed suicide attempt on Schultz. Erhardt is in Maria Tura’s room when Josef Tura walks in, dressed as Hitler. Erhardt believes that Tura is Hitler, and when both Josef and Maria Tura leave the room, Erhardt shoots himself, but doesn’t kill himself. Erhardt’s persona makes him a very likeable character, as he is one of the funniest characters in the movie. Also, when Josef Tura is pretending to be Colonel Erhardt in front of Siletsky, he continually says, “So the call me Concentration Camp Erhardt!?” (Lubitsch). He says this when he doesn’t know what else to talk about with Siletsky, as a tactic of stalling Siletsky. Then, when Tura is impersonating Siletsky to Erhardt, Colonel Erhardt says multiple times, “So they call me Concentration Camp Erhardt!?” (Lubitsch). This is funny because he acts exactly like Tura did before Tura had ever met him, and Erhardt shows how comical of a person he is. On the other end of the spectrum, Siletsky is a very serious character, and hardly ever jokes about anything. He is humorless throughout the entire movie, even when he is trying to seduce Maria Tura, and get her to join the Nazi side of the war. He seems like a cold-hearted man, who doesn’t have any feelings at all. These characteristics make him easy to dislike, especially when combined with his status as a Nazi spy. He talks to many Polish soldiers, and tells them he is going to Poland to help the Polish win the war by going on a secret mission (when he’s actually going to meet up with Gestapo officers). The soldiers are thrilled to hear this, and give Siletsky the information of their relatives, and tell him to get in contact with their loved ones. When getting the list of relatives, Siletsky plans on giving the information to Gestapo officers, to have the relatives either killed or captured. If it weren’t for the Hamlet actors killing him, he would have given the information to Colonel Erhardt, and Gestapo officers would have raided the houses of the soldiers’ relatives. This shows how evil Siletsky is, but it is completely overlooked by most people that Colonel Erhardt was the man who would have given the orders on what to do with the relatives, because he seems so innocent due to his childlike behavior, while Siletsky’s seriousness makes him very easy to hate. Perception of movie characters is based heavily on their sense of humor, which is another reason why comedy plays such a big role in films.

Ernst Lubitsch was a fearless director, and didn’t care about the traditions of Hollywood or fitting in amongst his peers. He was only worried about making meaningful movies, and standing up for what he believed in, which is illustrated perfectly in his movie To Be or Not to Be, where he completely ignores Hollywood’s standards. Lubitsch’s film relates to other controversial pieces, such as the book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell. Lubitsch’s movie was one of the more important works of art during World War II, as it was one of the very few films that dared to mock Hitler and Nazi Germany. Hollywood movies in the early-to-mid 1900s were very cautious, and very rarely had content that could be found offensive. Lubitsch went against the norm, and decided to make a movie that mocks one of the most intimidating militaries in human history. Lubitsch refused to be censored, as many producers and directors were before, so that he could get his movie out exactly how it was meant to be. Ernst Lubitsch was a forward-thinker, who knew that artists should speak their mind, and not listen to rules of censorship, which is evident in his movie To Be or Not to Be.
