"1941"--The Film That Nearly Ruined Steven Spielberg

[erik]

There was a time in the late 1970s when any hot young filmmaker who had a hit or two often had the major Hollywood studios at the mercy of his whims; and there were plenty of them, including, among others, Francis Coppola (APOCALYPSE NOW) and Michael Cimino (THE DEER HUNTER). And then there was Steven Spielberg.

Having come off two successive monster box office smashes, 1975's JAWS and 1977's CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, Spielberg decided to make his next film what he thought to be an exercise in anarchic comedy a la his friend John Landis' 1978 smash NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE, but inside a story set in the early days of World War II, based loosely on the sighting of a Japanese submarine off the coast of Southern California in February 1942. The story, courtesy of two USC students, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, and notorious Hollywood right-wing director John Milius, was backdated to a point one week after the Pearl Harbor attack, and became one of the most notorious exercises in Hollywood excess ever seen: 1941. At a cost of $36 million, it was so expensive, it needed two studios, Universal and Columbia, to finance it. And when the end result was released in December 1979, it was panned so mercilessly by audiences and critics alike that it nearly ruined Spielberg's career,



This World War II farce is indeed a loud, raucous, and anarchic series of deranged sketches, not a traditional linear story, of the kind of paranoia that occurs in and around Los Angeles on the night of December 13-14, 1941, when an actual Japanese sub is sighted in Santa Monica Bay. They involve, among other things, a jitterbug dance competition that goes wildly out of control; a deranged pilot named Wild Bill Kelso (the inimitable John Belushi) looking for "Japs"; the cool but bemused General Joseph Stilwell (Robert Stack) wondering what in Sam Hill is going on; a Christmas tree hauler (Slim Pickens) who is captured by the Japanese for the compass in his possession (a sequence that owes everything to Pickens' "survival kit contents check" line in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE) and a hillside home owner (Ned Beatty), who, against the advice of his wife (Lorraine Gary), allows a Howitzer on his property to defend against Jap bombardment. What ensues is the almost-complete destruction of L.A., including, of course, "HOLLYWOOD!" (as the bright young aide-de-camp on the Jap sub exclaims).

It has to be said that there are some genuinely funny moments in it, most of them done in fairly low-key fashion (notably Lionel Stander's appearance in the scenes involving Beatty and Gary), and some incredible special effects work (the destruction of the Santa Monica Pier's Ferris Wheel by a Japanese torpedo, with Murray Hamilton and Eddie Deezen [and a dummy] aboard). But the problem is that it's pretty hard to laugh for real because of all the destruction derbies, the explosions, and the non-stop mugging of a lot of the cast, including Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, Frank McCrae, and others. After a while, it just isn't all that funny. Spielberg himself knew even before he had finished the film that this kind of comedy wasn't his forte; but it was much too late for him to turn back the clock.

The cast, which is huge in a way few films before it were, includes Penny Marshall; Nancy Allen; Warren Oates (as "Madman Maddox"); Tim Matheson; Treat Williams; the legendary Toshiro Mifune (as the Japanese sub commander), Christopher Lee (as a Nazi commandant); Wendie Jo Sperber; Dub Taylor (almost repeating the role he had in BONNIE AND CLYDE, as a cantankerous cook); Elisa Cook Jr.; and tons of others. But what really saves 1941, if anything does, is the often-jaunty comic-military score by John Williams, including the outrageous big-band numbers in the jitterbug sequence. In the end, the film actually did surprisingly well, given how much people panned it; it earned $90 million in its first year of release. But this is still a long, long way from Spielberg at his best, because he throws too much at the audience, and it doesn't generate much in the way of laughs. He showed a sleight-of-hand with darker humor in JAWS, and, later, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and THE TERMINAL, but 1941 itself really doesn't work.

[Deleted]

The film would not have the negative connotation it does if it were not so expensive and were trimmed a bit. It can be kind of fun if viewed in the right context and without too many expectations...

[erik]

Quote by robertaxel:

The film would not have the negative connotation it does if it were not so expensive and were trimmed a bit. It can be kind of fun if viewed in the right context and without too many expectations...

Nowadays, it can; it has improved in stature. But it says a lot that at preview screenings, the biggest laugh it got was in the opening sequence in which Susan Backlinie goes out for a swim and then finds herself attached to the periscope of the Japanese sub--clearly an homage to JAWS, though, for some, it was a little too soon for Spielberg to be doing such stuff. Most everyone thought that the rest of the film didn't measure up after that gag. I don't necessarily think that's the case, but with all the mugging that goes on, and all the noise and the destruction with it, the laughs are so few and so far in-between (IMHO).

[sliderocker]

I thought Spielberg was just trying to stretch himself more as a director with "1941." He was more known for his serious works, even though some of his movies had light comedy touches here and there. I think "1941" was also meant as a tribute to the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s, a genre for which the more serious critics of the 70s didn't like at all. Probably what worked against "1941" was that there was too much going on at any given moment. The critics also complained that for a comedy, it was too long. Apparently, the critics feel any comedy movie can only sustain itself if it's less than 90 minutes. I sometimes felt like I was watching three of four different movies in one. But, I still liked the movie.

Another inside joke/gag or reference: when John Belushi lands his plane at that service station in the middle of nowhere California and refills his gas tank, and then takes off and destroys the service station when he forgets to put the gas pump hose back on the pump saddle, that was the second time that service station had been "destroyed" in a Spielberg movie. The first time was in the movie "Duel." Even the woman who ran the station in "1941" was the same woman seen running it in "Duel."

Ned Beatty and Loraine Gary also looked like older versions of the actor and actress who had played Dagwood and Blondie Bumstead in the late 30s and 40s, Arthur Lake and Penny Singleton. Lake and Singleton were still alive when the movie was made and I kind of wonder if he approached them about appearing in the movie? They could've appeared as the parents of either Beatty or Gary, although I think both were in their 70s and had retired by that point

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

I thought Spielberg was just trying to stretch himself more as a director with "1941." He was more known for his serious works, even though some of his movies had light comedy touches here and there. I think "1941" was also meant as a tribute to the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s, a genre for which the more serious critics of the 70s didn't like at all. Probably what worked against "1941" was that there was too much going on at any given moment. The critics also complained that for a comedy, it was too long. Apparently, the critics feel any comedy movie can only sustain itself if it's less than 90 minutes. I sometimes felt like I was watching three of four different movies in one. But, I still liked the movie.

I think my main objection to it (although I've come around to liking it more, despite the many ways I still think it fails) is that having all these explosions, sight gags, and constant mugging isn't always equated with being funny. People I've talked to who saw the film when it was initially released said they had a hard time laughing because the destruction sequences were so loud, they had their fingers in their ears.

I don't think the film is too long, but I think Spielberg strained himself trying to be funny here. In a natural sense, his kind of humor goes best not in the direction of John Landis (as in this film) but more towards Hitchcock. Some of that, as with the aforementioned Lionel Stander, is in evidence in 1941. But all the rest of it still kind of sits there. There's just something about it that makes me think, "What in the hell was Spielberg thinking?!"

[sliderocker]

Apr 1, 2015 22:16:26 GMT -5 erik said:

I think my main objection to it (although I've come around to liking it more, despite the many ways I still think it fails) is that having all these explosions, sight gags, and constant mugging isn't always equated with being funny. People I've talked to who saw the film when it was initially released said they had a hard time laughing because the destruction sequences were so loud, they had their fingers in their ears.

I don't think the film is too long, but I think Spielberg strained himself trying to be funny here. In a natural sense, his kind of humor goes best not in the direction of John Landis (as in this film) but more towards Hitchcock. Some of that, as with the aforementioned Lionel Stander, is in evidence in 1941. But all the rest of it still kind of sits there. There's just something about it that makes me think, "What in the hell was Spielberg thinking?!"

I remember there was a lot of criticism from the critics and people about the explosions, and with the critics, I think they had some extremely high expectations because it was a Spielberg movie and were disappointed the movie didn't live up to their expectations. Still, I also remember that some of the critics (especially the more pompous and arrogant ones) didn't like comedies at all and weren't prepared to view the movie with the intention of giving it a good review. But, I still believe a lot more people liked it than disliked it, especially when they could watch it on television via cable or home video or over the air TV stations, where they could control the sound to turn down the volume on the explosions.

Spielberg had good intentions and I don't think he could've made a lesser comedy that was less funny, the kind of which passed for comedy movies in those days and even sets the standards now. There are certain things you can't do in comedy movies anymore because they're not politically correct. Maybe a better idea would've been Spielberg getting his comedy feet wet (so to speak) by making a lesser comedy but using a pseudonym so the expectations wouldn't have been so high. But, again, with certain critics, all movies are supposed to be serious works of art and comedy movies appealed to lowest common denominator of the public. Some of the critics were every bit the equivalents of rock music critics who hated the Top 40 pop charts when it came to successful comedy movies. It just killed them that so many people liked comedies and other movies they considered drivel. So, if Spielberg had made a lesser comedy and using a pseudonym so the expectations wouldn't have been so high, the critics likely would still have hated it.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Spielberg had good intentions and I don't think he could've made a lesser comedy that was less funny, the kind of which passed for comedy movies in those days and even sets the standards now. There are certain things you can't do in comedy movies anymore because they're not politically correct. Maybe a better idea would've been Spielberg getting his comedy feet wet (so to speak) by making a lesser comedy but using a pseudonym so the expectations wouldn't have been so high. But, again, with certain critics, all movies are supposed to be serious works of art and comedy movies appealed to lowest common denominator of the public. Some of the critics were every bit the equivalents of rock music critics who hated the Top 40 pop charts when it came to successful comedy movies. It just killed them that so many people liked comedies and other movies they considered drivel. So, if Spielberg had made a lesser comedy and using a pseudonym so the expectations wouldn't have been so high, the critics likely would still have hated it.

I've never thought that critics have really had much time in the day for comedies anyway, but I also think that comedy is probably the toughest thing to pull off. The old saying is "Dying is easy; comedy is hard", and it's a theory I readily ascribe to, because there's no way any filmmaker working on a comedy film, especially one of the slapstick nature like 1941, is going to know what is and what isn't funny. I think Spielberg, surprisingly, missed the boat here because of that. Kubrick pulled it off extremely well in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, but that was a pure political satire, grounded in reality, as opposed to overdone slapstick rent with demolitions galore, in which the potential satire is lost and then it becomes an extremely loud comic fantasy that simply isn't believable (IMHO).

[sliderocker]

Apr 3, 2015 21:24:33 GMT -5 erik said:

I've never thought that critics have really had much time in the day for comedies anyway, but I also think that comedy is probably the toughest thing to pull off. The old saying is "Dying is easy; comedy is hard", and it's a theory I readily ascribe to, because there's no way any filmmaker working on a comedy film, especially one of the slapstick nature like 1941, is going to know what is and what isn't funny. I think Spielberg, surprisingly, missed the boat here because of that. Kubrick pulled it off extremely well in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, but that was a pure political satire, grounded in reality, as opposed to overdone slapstick rent with demolitions galore, in which the potential satire is lost and then it becomes an extremely loud comic fantasy that simply isn't believable (IMHO).

Comedy is hard to pull off and I suspect the reason for that is that everyone's comedic taste is different. What some find funny, others see no humor at all. It's why some think Woody Allen is a comic genius when it comes to making movies and others think he's a bit pretentious and a bore. (I'm in the latter group on Allen, his films put me to sleep.) Kubrick definitely pulled it off with "Doctor Strangelove," and although it was grounded in reality to some degree, but when comedy is done as a satire, the reality is often an exaggerated one. Comedy won't work, I think, if it's too set in reality as you couldn't have people behaving the way some do. They'd either be dead or in prison or in an asylum. Of course, the same is true of adventure dramas. They may seem based in reality but people often behave in a way they wouldn't act in real life. People go to see movies to escape reality, not to see reality - at least as it is now.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Kubrick definitely pulled it off with "Doctor Strangelove," and although it was grounded in reality to some degree, but when comedy is done as a satire, the reality is often an exaggerated one. Comedy won't work, I think, if it's too set in reality as you couldn't have people behaving the way some do.

The way Kubrick did it in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE was to satirize the paranoid that existed on both sides of the Iron Curtain (mostly our side, of course) during the Cold War, and thus force us to ask the question as to how seemingly grown-up "men" could act so irresponsibility with the existence of humanity. And yes, the reality was exaggerated in that film, but only to a certain degree, since historians and documentarians who have studied that era say that that particular film got too many things right.

I think a lot of that was missing in 1941, because Spielberg calculated (wrongly) that a lot of noise, destruction, and the occasional semi-sexual innuendo was funny. Oddly, some of the funniest moments of the film involve the parts that come closest to satire, the ones involving Stander, Oates, and Stack (IMHO).

[sliderocker]

The way Kubrick did it in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE was to satirize the paranoid that existed on both sides of the Iron Curtain (mostly our side, of course) during the Cold War, and thus force us to ask the question as to how seemingly grown-up "men" could act so irresponsibility with the existence of humanity. And yes, the reality was exaggerated in that film, but only to a certain degree, since historians and documentarians who have studied that era say that that particular film got too many things right.

That it did, and I think the paranoia is still with us today, so it's like nothing has really changed. Those on the right see political boogeymen out to destroy our way of life, and the boogeymen they see are both from the outside and from within. But, they don't dare look into the mirror and see that the ones they have the greatest to fear are themselves, for if you are willing to destroy our country and our world, just so you can have what you want, why are you in any way different to those you think are trying to destroy us?

The paranoia in the 60s was referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction but there was some sanity going on as I recall the US's position was they wouldn't push the nuclear buttons, that Russia would have to be the one that started the fight first. But, it would've been the last fight Russia started as I recall the US promised to finish them. In all reality though, the Russian version likely played out the same way and I think both sides didn't want to risk to finding out what the other was capable of doing. What I think is different today is that there are those in our government willing to strike the first blow or encourage other nations to make the first strike on behalf of the US, such as that idiot John McCain encouraging Israel to go rogue by attacking Iran. And that is different to the way we used to be when it came to wars. We didn't start them, ever.

We weren't the bullies. We were the protectors of the weaker countries. I don't see that same sense of caution and that's worrisome, as I see some now in government wanting to be the bully with the chip on their shoulder. And they want to prove to others just how tough we are and that we're not someone to be messed with and pushed around.

I think a lot of that was missing in 1941, because Spielberg calculated (wrongly) that a lot of noise, destruction, and the occasional semi-sexual innuendo was funny.

I know part of 1941 was based on some stories about a Japanese submarine being sighted (but never proven) in our waters off the coast of California as well as an air attack by a lone Japanese plane, which I think was in either Washington or Oregon, but again, I don't know that it was ever verified. People then didn't have access to round the clock news, just radio. I think Spielberg took that story and stretched it into another story but he could've done without some of the noise and destruction. I think he tried to imagine what the chaos might have been like and maybe he did go too far.

As for the semi-sexual innuendos, well, that was part of the fabric of our country back then. Our country was very puritanical and repressed sexually, at least on the face of things but a lot of the time, it was just a facade as behind closed doors, a case of anything goes. A lot of people thought the 60s and 70s were wild eras but I thought this country's true wild eras were the 20s through 40s. The 60s and 70s had nothing on those eras.