1941

1941

To kick off our month of underrated comedies, we’re going to take a look at a film that is seriously misunderstood. ‘19491’ was directed by Steven Spielberg and written written by the likes of Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, both big names in Hollywood. Released in 1979, it came out on the heels of ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’, which was highly acclaimed and pretty successful. So the expectations were still running high from this new kid on the block.However, ‘1941’ failed to deliver critically and at the box office. Why is that? It’s got a great cast, it was written by highly acclaimed producers/directors, and directed by Steven freaking Spielberg, who’s a big name even today. All of the base ingredients were there and yet the film flopped so let’s see if it deserves the ire that it’s been given over the years.

First, let’s look at the cast. The list of big names is longer than my arm on this film. Christopher Lee plays a disgruntled Nazi, Slim Pickens is a zany tree farmer, Robert Stack plays an army general and the only voice of reason in the entire cast. Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, John Candy, Treat Williams, and Nancy Allen lend support to the cast just to name a few. These are all accomplished and highly regarded actors. The characters that they’re given to play are pretty one dimensional and archetypal, but there are so many included and they all work together so well, that as a viewer, I didn’t really notice. Indeed, I find nearly every performance in this movie memorable for one reason or another.

Surely then, it must have been the writing that sunk this picture. Well, here’s where a concession needs to be made. This movie’s plot is total nonsense. It’s roughly there, but it plays second fiddle to the characters and the wacky situations that they find themselves in. Is this a bad choice? Normally, I would say yes in a heartbeat, but here, I’m actually going to give a pass to this decision. There’s a reason for that and we’ll get to that soon, but let’s look a few other things first.

From a technical standpoint, this film is good. The shot composition is well done, the sets are well designed, which is key this being a period piece and all, and the sound is well mixed, something I only noticed recently. I can’t fault too much of the film’s technical work as it’s good. Even the special effects are pretty good for a smaller budget film made in 1979.

Then was director Steven Spielberg to blame for this dud? I’m going to say, partially, yes. See, ‘Third Kind’ had only come out two years previous and to date, Spielberg had really only done serious films so critics and audiences had been conditioned to expect certain things going into a Spielberg movie, in much the same way that a person generally knows what to expect from a Chris Nolan film. That’s not to say that he did a poor job in making the picture. Quite to the contrary, I think every decision that needed to be made to make this film as good as it could be were made, and made well. There are a few things that detract from the overall experience. For instance, a great bit of the humor is either sexual innuendo, or racial stereotyping. This does hurt the film somewhat, but at the same time, remember that it’s supposed to depict 1940s Los Angeles so is it really that out of place? The pacing does get a bit slow towards the middle of the movie, but this is a necessity as all the interweaved character threads needed to be set up to come together by the end of the film. Three’s my overall defense of the movie, but I’ve still got an ace in the hole.

At the very beginning of the movie, Spielberg literally spells out the type of movie we’re watching and, therefore, what we should expect. The film starts out with a riff on the opening to ‘Jaws’. There it is, right there! Spielberg is telling us that he’s attempting to make a spoof movie! And when you look at it in that context, suddenly, the film doesn’t seem quite so messy. If you look at war films from the late 40s to the 60s, there’s a definite formula that’s used. Blend with that the disaster films of the previous decade and you’ve got the inspiration for this film nailed to the wall. There’s an unlikely hero who doesn’t fit in with his peers, much like a Clint Eastwood, or certain John Wayne films. There’s the secret enemy plan, pretty much like every war film of the time, that the outcast hero has to foil. From the disaster film end, there’s the never ending roster of characters, each with their own, albeit, brief backstory and their own agendas that contribute to the plot of the film.

You need to understand that when this movie was released, these two previously mentioned genres had all but played out and they were very much on their way out the door. War movies were getting more cerebral and gritty, and disaster films were just getting more ridiculous all the time. By 1979, audiences had grown fatigued with both genres and sales of tickets were universally down for these types of movies. So the time was good to take a hearty jab at them and ‘1941’ did that extremely well. Yes it’s silly and yes’ it makes no sense, but look at some of the movies from these other genres that were released around the same time and you could very easily say the same about any of those movies. For concrete evidence, just watch ‘Airpot ‘79’. Spielberg didn’t intentionally set out to make a bad film just because, he appears to have been doing it as a jab to the industry, at least in this reviewer’s perspective.

And if that’s not enough defense for you, here’s something that most people either don’t know took place or forget about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles That’s a link to the wiki page for the Battle of Los Angeles circa 1942. As if satire wasn’t enough, the primary elements of the film actually happened. I’d recommend reading the article, but the long and short is that an unidentified flying object over the downtown LA area led to thousands of rounds of ammunition being discharged over the city. Again, in 1942. It’s considered one of the best evidentiary tales for UFO enthusiasts to this day because it involved direct military retaliation to an unknown threat. Historical inspiration? Perhaps you should ask Spielberg.

I’m not saying this movie is perfect, no movie really is, but what I am saying is that perhaps there’s at least one stroke of genius fueling the film. At the very least, I’m able to see some brilliance in the movie. Sure, it’s not on par with what Spielberg usually does, but it’s one of his only attempts at a pure comedy and I, for one, think he nailed it. Stay tuned for our next underrated comedy!