Some very brief and minor cleavage. A married woman has an affair with a man, but nothing (not even kissing) is shown. A few small kisses throughout between husband and wife.
In an effort to seduce Maria Tura, Professor Siletski kisses her passionately. She does not object but instead “plays along with it” in an effort to trap him.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


I like the 1942 version of “you run, I run”, because it is an outstanding comedy film. But in terms of style and theme, it is very different from other Liu bieqian films. The so-called “Liu bieqian’s touch” is not very obvious in the film. I think the reason why Mel Brooks dared to choose Liu bieqian’s work to remake is not only its great influence, but also this.

Most original films are also adapted from other media forms (novels, plays). However, when measuring the quality of the film, the work itself still has a high element of originality. Because of the huge differences between the media, the visualization process of the film also consumes a lot of energy. They want to make a second creation in a new film space. This kind of second creation is completely different from the so-called second creation of Remake in essence. Film remake, whether it is a frame remake or just a theme reference, is carried out on the basis of ready-made predecessors’ film products. This foundation is no longer just a story. Almost all film elements, such as scene arrangement, lens splicing and position, actor performance style and soundtrack, will inevitably become an important reference in the creation of remake directors. In this case, it is almost meaningless to discuss the so-called artistic value of the remake version. But now, let’s put the originality and the status of film history aside for the time being, and really compare the remake version of Mel Brooks with the original version of Liu bieqian. See what’s wrong with the new version.

Start with actors. Anne Bancroft in the new version, too old! In 1983, she had lost the capital of Dustin Hoffman. Moreover, even then, she may not be able to win the 1942 Carol Lampard in beauty and temperament. Most of the audience can’t believe that Xu Niang of such quality can successfully make Polish Air Force officers and Nazi spies bow down under her pomegranate skirt. In addition, the comedy of Bancroft’s role is not very good. So, in the first round, Lampard’s version of Mrs. Polanski obviously won. The role of Air Force captain can be skipped. Both of them are handsome students, there is no big difference. And another important role, the so-called “concentration camp einhart” Gestapo colonel. The gap between the new version and the old version is huge. As one of Liu bieqian’s favorite supporting actors, SIG Ruman appeared in many of his classic works. This person, both in appearance (bulging eyes and funny German beard) and body language, has great comic expressiveness. Charles durning in the new version is obviously not the way of comedy. Especially when the Colonel saw the fake Hitler, he did not show the mixed emotion of fear and excitement about the authoritarian leader through his facial expression. A fundamental reason why American comedy has become more and more ugly after the golden age of Hollywood is that Hollywood lacks actors with comedy professional quality in image and performance. Especially supporting actors. We are all Methodists and want to experience films with different themes and shape characters with different personalities. But in the end, it lost the distinctive role characteristics of some types of film performances. The old version won the second round.

Let’s focus on the hero. Why did you end up talking about the hero? Because the role setting of the hero is closely related to the concept and style of the directors of the two works.

In the plot of the story, the biggest difference between the new and old versions is the beginning. Frankly speaking, when I first saw the 83 edition, I used to like Brooks’s humorous song and dance performance in the opening part. In particular, “piece” and “peace” were used as gimmicks to ridicule Hitler. Considering that the place where the story happened was the theater and the role identity was originally an actor, Brooks’s change did not seem too abrupt in style, and the actual effect seemed good. In addition, from the later performances, although Jack Benny in the old version is also versatile, he has played three different roles: Polanski, professor and Colonel Gestapo. But the key fake dictator Hitler’s role was played by another more similar actor. So the two aspects were combined. In this most critical round, Jack Benny seemed to lose completely to his opponent Brooks. But recently, I revisited the old version, especially the opening part of the old version, and found that it can’t be compared simply.

First of all, what is the purpose of the opening paragraph of the film? Of course, we should introduce the main characters and satirize Hitler by the way. In this regard, the new and old films are no different. But why didn’t Liu bieqian put the satire on Hitler on the stage like Brooks? Didn’t he think of singing and dancing? Maybe. But this is not because he is incompetent. In terms of song and dance comedy, Liu bieqian is a master among the masters. He even claims to be the ancestor of Hollywood song and dance dramas. Then the only reasonable explanation is that he believes that the effect produced by other methods is not enough to meet the requirements.

Then look back, let’s see how Liu bieqian handled his beginning in the old version: a voice over similar to crosstalk tells you that there was a sensational news in Warsaw, Poland, in 1938: Hitler appeared on the street! At this time, the vast majority of the audience generally do not think this is really Hitler. But who is it? We don’t know, so there is a suspense. Then the camera turns to the SS headquarters. Behind the table sat Jack Benny in the SS Colonel’s uniform. Then a child came in, and Benny and his men had some funny dialogues. But the suspense remains, and the audience still doesn’t know what happened. At this time, the guard stamped his feet and saluted, shouting “Hi, Hitler!”, The Hitler who seemed to appear in the street just now got in. He waved his hand and said one of the most classic lines in comedy history: “Hi, myself!”. Suddenly, someone shouted “stop”, and the camera rolled back. Then it dawned on us. I found out I was filming. The so-called SS headquarters is just a stage set. I couldn’t help laughing.

Seeing here, I seem to understand. It’s suspense! Suspense not only creates a comic effect, but also brings the audience’s attention into the plot. And this effect can be fully expressed only by the splicing combination of the film lens, that is, what Hitchcock said: pure cinema! By contrast, Brooks started much worse. Although it is humorous enough, it also plays a role of irony. However, due to the lack of the pursuit of film aesthetics of previous masters, the director is satisfied with a simple and straightforward statement on the stage. Therefore, it is impossible to use the lens expression to produce a suspense effect similar to the old version, which can not make the audience curious at the beginning. Therefore, it is impossible to grasp the audience’s psychology.

At the same time, we further understood why Liu bieqian wanted a special actor to play Hitler. Because only an actor more like Hitler can produce the suspense effect he needs. Brooks cut off this wonderful start because if his own Hitler appeared on the camera, he would probably be recognized by the audience immediately. Therefore, it can not achieve the effect of suspense. But what if you also find a special actor to play? In this regard, Brooks, a new style comedian who likes to take all the roles, is unacceptable. So he simply deleted the play and changed it to the opening of a song and dance drama.

It can be seen that the gap between the two works is actually the gap in the level of directors. One of Liu bieqian’s comedy creation principles is that we must start from the overall drama and comedy effect, rather than deliberately considering the number of plays of a major actor. Brooks shows himself too much, and his control of the work is still in the stage of simple stage comedy.

In addition, Brooks Polanski has an obvious defect: his own image is contrary to the rationality of the story. A stage actor who is keen on Shakespeare’s plays, no matter how he can recite Hamlet’s classic line “to be or not to be” with passion, should first look in the mirror to see if he has a convincing Prince’s face? Obviously, Mr Brooks has lost sight of his image credibility. Of course, the same face earned him a lot of points in comedy performance. Because to be fair, he is more like Hitler. Although from the above analysis, this similarity may not be a good thing.

In addition to the major defects caused by the changes at the beginning, the new version also has an abridgement, which completely loses the comic essence of the original. Polanski pretended to be colonel Gestapo and killed the spy professor in the theater. He pretended to be a professor and went back to the hotel. At this time, Colonel Gestapo’s adjutant was waiting in the room to take him to the colonel. In the old version, Polanski didn’t let anyone out, but used him as a temporary prop to achieve his personal purpose – questioning his wife who came out of the wall. Due to the existence of this special prop, in order to be afraid of revealing her stuffing, the lady had to answer Polanski’s sharp questions awkwardly instead of getting angry as usual. The male and female stars, Benny and Lampard, now accurately and vividly convey the unique comic effect contained in this strange scene with delicate eyes and facial expressions. In the new version, Polanski quickly sent the visitor out of the door, which naturally lost the essence of her husband’s jealousy and resourcefulness and her wife’s strength but helplessness, and directly turned into a plain dialogue between the couple after tearing off the disguise.

Of course, the new version is not always flawed and problematic. Minor changes in some details also make the plot more reasonable. In the old version, Mrs. Polanski was called to the hotel by the professor for the first time. Soon after the professor met and exchanged greetings, he directly asked the question behind “to be or not to be”. He suspected that it was a secret sign of resistance. Very reasonable. But then, just as his wife was about to answer, the professor answered the phone. Then back to the conversation, the issue that is at least very important to the characters in the play is over. The professor directly wanted Mrs. Polanski to serve the Nazis. This treatment is somewhat illogical. The new version is smooth: Mrs. Polanski didn’t hide the truth and told each other that it was just a secret language of love tryst, which successfully dispelled the doubts of the suspicious Professor, and the plot developed reasonably.

Of course, more plots have not changed. Some of them belong to the essence of Lubitsch’s unique style. For example, when the professor came to the fake Gestapo headquarters transformed into a theater, he found that the colonel was disguised, so he drew a gun and threatened, opened the door and fled into the theater. After scanning the searchlight, he was found on the stage. The discovered Professor panicked into the curtain. The pilot then rushed in… Usually, why does an outlaw swagger up? What’s more, why did the stands without performances end? Therefore, at this time, the behavior of the character and the setting of the prop set can not be simply explained by common sense. Their only function is to produce the “door” effect loved by Liu bieqian. The director hopes to block the audience’s sight with a curtain so that they can only hear the gunshot from behind. Then the curtain slowly pulled up from bottom to top, and the suspense suddenly rose. Because the audience doesn’t know who hit who. According to the characteristics of Hollywood comedy in Brooks era, this “martial arts play” will not be expressed so implicitly under normal circumstances. But it is certain that the effect of other ways will not be better than Liu bieqian’s way!

The similarities and differences mentioned above focus on the trunk. The lines, actors’ performances and other subtle links are too trivial and complicated, so there is no time to compare them one by one. Skip here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here