A Terrific Failure

Rating: Null/10 (24 February 2002)

Except for a small following of fanatics, Spielberg's "1941" is almost universally regarded as an utter failure. Well, I have to admit that, while I am no fanatic, I do count "1941" as one of my guilty pleasures. I'll come right out and say it, though--the film is indeed a failure. But it is a spectacular one. And I must say that the full length version shown on TV, and currently available on DVD, is much better than the original theatrical version. At least the story makes more sense, in any case. And I believe that the folks who like it enjoy it for the film it could have been. Because, you see, the screenplay was a masterpiece.
There is really only one reason why this film was a failure: Stephen Spielberg was the wrong man to direct it. Anyone can point out that his visual style at the time was wrong for the film--too hazy and "flossy", like "Close Encounters." What it needed was an easy to read cartoonish look--kind of like the look Stanley Kramer gave this film's closest ancestor, "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World."
Also, for a film renowned for it noise and action, it is in reality very slowly paced. There are many spots to be bored.
This was due in most part to Spielberg's misunderstanding of how to handle comedy as an art form. It is obvious that he abdicated his directorial command when it came to the actors, concentrating his skills on the visuals and effects (and even much of that effort was inappropriate to the task at hand). He had no idea why any of the material was supposed to be funny, so he just let the actors run wild in hopes that they knew. So, each of them tried desperately to be funny, all in totally different--and sometimes conflicting--styles. And, in almost every case-they failed.

A much better choice would have been to have all the actors play their parts "straight." As George Roy Hill supposedly told a confused Paul Newman during the filming of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid": "You don't need to be funny. The story is funny. You just act." What joy there is in "1941" come from the huge spectacle and tiny intricacies of the screenplay. Ned Beatty, Tim Mattheson, Nancy Allen, that other blonde chick, etc--none of them are naturally funny people--and it is painful to watch them try to be so. The overacting and mugging drags out scenes which should have been played super fast and snappy, like the real screwball comedies of the 1940s. The dialog scenes should have been kept at a minimum, because, by design of the screenplay, the actors are only interesting as props in the Rube Goldbegian plot they inhabit.
It is ironic that "1941" is the rare film that actually would have been improved if the dialog and "characterizations" had been cut to a minimum so we could get to the explosions and noise more quickly. I mean, do we really care to see and hear the lame interactions between Tim Mattheson and Nancy Allen as they each try to "be funny"? Hell no! Just let us know enough to make it somewhat believable when they end up screwing in a pilotless plane over Hollywood as a crazed John Belushi attempts to shoot them out of the sky! The situation is what is funny--the people are just bogging it down.
The only natural comic in the bunch--and the only actor who should have been given free reign to be wild--was John Belushi. The rest of the cast should have followed the leads of Toshiro Mifune and Robert Stack and the wildness of what was going on around them would have been much funnier.
Too bad the studio didn't trust Zemeckis, now a famous director, to begin his filmmaking career with this movie.