Perfection is impossible to replicate, but there is the possibility of producing something close enough to an approximation that we can at least be thoroughly entertained. As far as comedy goes, there are few films more flawless than Ernst Lubitsch’s masterful To Be or Not to Be, one of an elite group of films that can confidently be proclaimed masterpieces without too much controversy. A film as brilliantly complex as it is deeply hilarious, it seemed inevitable that there would come a time when someone who seek to parrot its success, particularly since it tells a story that contains sobering truths that many may not have expected. I’ve spoken at length about my affection for Lubitsch’s film, so you’d be forgiven for imagining that a discussion on the remake would be spent disparaging the efforts to recreate one of the few truly perfect films of its era. Fortunately, this remake was handcrafted by a team consisting of some of the most brilliant entertainers of their generation. Designed as a vehicle for Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft, who had surprisingly never co-starred in a film together despite their lengthy personal and professional relationship, the film (which was directed by Alan Johnson, a regular collaborator of Brooks who had worked on a number of his films as a choreographer, and who was making the first of two directorial outings here) is a wickedly funny revival of this tremendous story, which follows the trials and tribulations of an impoverished theatre troupe in Poland during the German Invasion, who find themselves thrust out of obscurity and forced into a position where they become part of the resistance in their way. Comparison is the antithesis of proper artistic discussion, so any attempt to expend too much energy finding the similarities between the two films should cease, especially since this version of To Be or Not to Be can stand on its own perfectly well, possessing the charm and candour necessary to tell such an outrageous and peculiar story without veering towards convention without reason. Offbeat and compelling in equal measure, the film is a strong example of the incredible craftsmanship that can go into even the most peculiar of narratives.

The appeal of this story, and something that both films manage to convey with such precision and consistency, is that it is essentially a narrative about the underdog overcoming adversity and going up against a system designed to destroy them. This is precisely the quality that makes each version (as well as any other film that exists within the same thematic territory), so extraordinarily compelling – and to craft it as a comedy is even more interesting since nothing is quite as effective as a story that can tackle a serious subject with humour. It was quite a smart decision to hand the reigns over to Johnson, since while Brooks is a magnificent director (and demonstrated the ability to handle slightly more serious material in The Twelve Chairs, even if that was still very much a comedy), Johnson offers a more grounded approach that doesn’t come bundled with the expectations of an overly zany, off-the-wall comedy, but rather a somewhat more sombre work of dark humour that plays to the strengths of everyone involved while still going in its bespoke direction. There are many intriguing nuances embedded in this film, and while Johnson is not the most dynamic filmmaker, he does showcase a remarkable fluidity in his direction, which only further benefits this film and its somewhat unconventional nature. The idea of making a comedy centred around Nazi ideology and the extermination of the Jewish population (as well as some added commentary on the persecution of homosexuals that was added to this film, one of the most striking decisions made on the part of the writers) had the potential to be controversial, but through gradually exploring these themes, we find that To Be or Not to Be is a very effective piece of cinema, albeit one that keeps its cards quite close to its chest to not give away too much before it is appropriate, instead choosing to approach its themes from a more layered perspective, leading to a richer and more intriguing work that is not simply retreading familiar themes, but rather doing something actively different with these underlying ideas.

The inner machinations of Hollywood and its sometimes peculiar romantic history are not always very interesting and usually tend to feel like opportunities for further publicity. Yet, some couples are so ironclad in their commitment to both their relationship and their art, that even the most cynical of viewers cannot help but swoon when thinking of them. Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft were married for decades, and while they did not collaborate much (although Brooks did produce some of Bancroft’s starring vehicles, and she in turn had a couple of small roles in some of his films), their occasional pairings on screen are always delightful. To Be or Not to Be is probably their most significant collaboration, as it pairs the two as the leads of the story – and if there was any doubt that there was never a moment where they were not entirely smitten with one another, this film removes all hesitation. They’re both brilliant, and Johnson makes sure to underline every one of their incredible skills – they sing and dance, can juggle comedy and drama with equal prowess, and their chemistry is logically undeniable. It all works towards showcasing their impeccable skills as actors, and how they play off each other brilliantly. They’re joined by a terrific ensemble, including the outrageously funny Charles Durning and Christopher Lloyd, as well as legendary thespian Jose Ferrer as the main antagonist (other than the obvious villain, who is not seen on screen), as well as several actors drawn from the theatre scene, who deliver spellbinding performances that compliment Brooks and Bancroft, while also having moments of their own to shine. To Be or Not to Be, in both versions, is a film that knows that it isn’t enough to have strong leads, but rather one in which a film can only be as strong as its weakest link, and we struggle to find much fault in any of the performances scattered throughout this wonderful and eccentric satire.

Other than giving the material to two of the most charismatic performers of the 20th century, there are other elements of To Be or Not to Be that capture our attention. Outside of a few small changes, such as combining characters and adding some additional context to make the story richer, this adaptation is quite faithful to the original screenplay by Edwin Justus Mayer, which is one of the most well-written satires of its era, and one that remains outrageously funny even by contemporary standards. Some may consider it somewhat lazy to use verbatim dialogue and follow the same structure, but when remaking quite possibly the greatest comedy of the 1940s (second maybe only to Sullivan’s Travels), following a strict pattern is certainly not as controversial in practice as it may seem. However, not only do we get the opportunity to see Mayer’s extraordinary writing essentially recreated by an entirely new ensemble, but also didn’t have to endure the process of making this incredible satire too serious, which has always been quite an important element of this story and why it continues to strike such a chord with viewers, regardless of the version we are watching. To Be or Not to Be has always been a film defined by its refusal to adhere to conventions, and its active efforts to avoid overt sentimentality have allowed it to age exceptionally well – and while there are a few moments of heartwrenching tragedy scattered throughout, as well as a few genuinely shocking moments, the choice to maintain that same level of dark humour was a good decision, since it acts as a balm to the heaviness of the subject matter. It’s an intriguing process that gradually becomes part of the film’s overall identity, and we quickly establish a strong connection with these characters based on their merits, rather than having to be explicitly told to appreciate them and what they represent. It’s thrilling, well-crafted storytelling that is both hilarious and heartfelt, neither of which are terms we’d normally expect for a film based around this subject matter, but which certainly proves to be nothing if not entirely truthful in the context of this film.

A good rule of thumb to consistently keep in mind is that if you are going to remake a cherished, vitally important work of comedy, at the very least hand it over to someone like Brooks and Bancroft, who may not be able to capture the same success as the original, but still create something memorable enough to keep us enthralled and entertained in equal measure. There’s something truly touching about this film and how it handles unwieldy subject matter in a manner that is not only fascinating but elegant and charming, despite the challenges that would normally come with exploring such controversial ideas. It is not any match for the unhinged brilliance of Lubitsch’s film – but it importantly never dares to imply that it intends to even come close to replicating that masterpiece. Instead, it goes in its direction, using its brilliant story as a vehicle for two of the greatest actors of the 20th century to have some fun while still delivering exceptional performances that are layered, complex and daring. Johnson’s only other credit is the maligned Solarbabies, so it’s difficult to view this as a work of a major auteur, but his ability to handle these ideas in a way that has a sense of genuine sophistication while still being daring beyond any comprehension is masterful and is one of the many reasons it is difficult to begrudge the effort that went into To Be or Not to Be, a film that is as hilarious and irreverent as it is genuinely compelling, which is all a work of satire like this needs to be, and which it achieves without even a moment’s difficulty, just depending on a strong concept, a charismatic cast and a set of themes that make for truly captivating storytelling.