In the movie, To Be or Not to Be ,the idea is it appropriate to have a comedy play during  a wartime is challenged.  One would think it would be appropriate because it will help to lighten the mood, and let the government focus on other important matters. However, there is two sides to the argument. In To Be or Not to Be, both sides of the argument are presented when a play was going to be performed; but the government censored it because it would have offended Hitler.  By using the the film and Stuart Hall’s “Encoding /decoding,” I will be able to argue that humorous art, like in To Be or Not to Be, should be allowed in a wartime. 

The film, To Be or Not to Be,  there are three viewpoints on censorship. First, there is the actor's view. Their view and reactions to censorship is the most immediate one. Through the use of the actor’s words and the wide camera angle that include many of the actor’s actions, one can tell that they decoded the message of censorship differently. On the other hand, you have the second point of view which is the government’s view. Their view has  complete control over the actor’s views. The government encoded the censorship message, but the actors decoded the message differently than what the government wanted. Lastly, the last view is the audience's viewpoint. Even though the audience still has to wait and see what happens in the movie. They still get messages sent to them throughout the movie that can be encoded in many different ways.

To decipher these words of “encoding” and “decoding” we will have to use Stuart Hall’s “Encoding/ decoding.” One of the main points in Hall’s work is to understand that when the media or someone is sending a message to you it is not linear. The message does not go from sender- message-receiver, it is much more complicated than that. Hall suggests that the message instead goes through many trials. The first trial is the sender of the message and method of how they create a message also known as encoding a message. On one hand, you have how the sender wants the message to be received and decoded. On the other hand, you have how the receiver of the message decodes the message. Both the sender and receiver of the message have these frameworks of knowledge, which are what people know through life experiences, cultural differences, and even religion. These frameworks of knowledge can cause the sender and receiver of a message to not be on the same page in terms of what the sender wants the receiver to decode (Hall 128 -130). 

The Polish government or the sender of the message has their own frameworks of knowledge. When they sent the message of censoring the play about Hitler, their frameworks of knowledge involved prior knowledge of Hitler’s behaviors. The government decoded Hitler’s messages about invading neighboring countries, and as a result they censored a play that would have offended Hitler. Another framework of knowledge that the Polish government used is militarism. This framework of knowledge was used to encode a message to the civilians to show that the government is in charge and the people should trust that they are doing the right thing by censoring the play. 

The second view or the first receiver of the message from the Polish government is the actors that wanted to perform the play. While the government’s framework of knowledge involved understanding Hitler’s messages, the actor’s framework include understanding of what the people need during a time in war that is humor. The actors know that humor will help the anxieties of the Polish citizens.  An additional framework that the actors hold is nationalism. They hold this framework by the play itself mocking what the Nazis and Hitler do daily. If the actors would have been able to perform the play they would have been able to provide humor and give a sense of nationalism to the citizens that watch it.    

The last and second receiver of the government’s message is the audience that is watching the movie. Their frameworks include all sorts of different ones because they have knowledge of what happens in history and censorship plus their own frameworks. The audience knows how effective art can be to a person. Also, they have knowledge of censorship and how much it is used today. Since the audience has so many frameworks of knowledge, they are the main deciding factor in whether art should be used during war. I believe art should be allowed  in war because of my frameworks of knowledge, but mostly because having art benefits the citizens more than harming them. 

As art has been used as a timeless way of communication, it can have many different messages and interpretations. These interpretations are built upon frameworks of knowledge, that differ from person to person. Varying time periods can also be a framework of knowledge since new discoveries happen. For example, art in the 40s was mostly composed of posters and pictures. Today, we have the internet that brings on more mediums and platforms of art  and the instant access of information. This brings on even more ways to encode or decode a message that people in 40s could not even imagine. So, should these messages of art be censored? To answer that question one must look at two viewpoints, the government's or people who censored the message, and the people who decode the art.  Since, both the government and the people use two frameworks of knowledge, it creates two sides of the argument. The government has the framework of knowledge of prior knowledge and they can use their force with militarism. While on the other hand, the people have the framework of knowing people’s needs and creating a bit of nationalism with it. I believe that humorous art such as the film To Be or Not to Be should be allowed in a wartime because it will benefit the people more and the government can then focus on more important things.     
