History of Mel Brooks: Both Parts
jewishreviewofbooks.com
jewishreviewofbooks.com
The Producers is amazing. Put in time, to take things as raw as recent history (less than 20 years) and cast zero mostel into the stereotype role...
The sad part is the 'do you have to be unhappy to be this funny'
Like Robin Williams, but less brilliant and with a shorter arc.
So yes, I've always thought that there was a connection between inner depression and outer zanyness.
If you like Mel Brooks make sure you check out Tommy Cooper as well.
Both definitely suffered from Pagliacci syndrome. My personal take on this is that you have to get roughly down to the zeroth floor of life when humor is all that will keep you going in order to be that funny because afterwards everything will be funny.
There is - or rather was - a Dutch humorist named Max Tailleur, whose byline was 'I laugh so I don't cry'. Food for thought.
Several comedians I've come across seem to share this attribute. Robin Williams and Jonathan Waters immediately come to mind. To a lesser extent Martin Short. They seem almost desperate to get a laugh. It can become overbearing to those watching.
>Politically, Brooks was a liberal—or so people assumed after Blazing Saddles.
Ooof...some of the liberals you see these days (I consider myself liberal) would be outraged at "Blazing Saddles". I re-watched it recently and wasn't sure if the film would survive today.
It doesn't really poke fun at the racism of the 1970s but is instead immured in it. Parts are cringey and insulting in the way almost any reference to race from the period is. It's a bit like watching original Star Trek: progressive and chauvinist at the same time.
Many people can enjoy the film, including black people. But I'd be leery of white people explaining to black people why they shouldn't be offended by it. It's important and a classic, but I wouldn't recommend it to people.
I think Blazing Saddles still does OK with audiences, although it would be tough to make it in the first place.
IMO, The History of the World Part 2 has a much tougher time of it. The movie's attitudes towards women don't have any satire to lean on. It just comes across as crass and lecherous.
No it wouldn’t survive today. Too many people would have their feelings hurt and we can’t have that - even if it’s just for laughs. I recently watched it with my 13 year old daughter and I was shocked that she loved it (surprisingly) - after which I explained to her that these kinds of movies can’t be made anymore because too many people would be outraged.
I don't get this attitude. I think movies like this aren't made any more because they wouldn't be original or worth making. They wouldn't be commercially viable. Outrage is only going to come from a minority, and everyone else just won't care.
I think we have so far passed the degree of shock that people don't even notice any more.
Borat, South Park, Tropic Thunder, Shameless, The Boondocks, examples are easy to find and I don't even care for this flavor of humor.
I guess these examples are mostly from several years ago or more, but I have been hearing "these kinds of movies can't be made anymore" for the last 20 years.
But the main obstacle isn't snowflakes (lol) it's that not many comedians match up to Mel Brooks or Richard Pryor. At worst it might be more difficult for a white guy to make it (I've seen lots of satire from black comedians that's more raw and uncomfortable then anything in Blazing Saddles) but if he was smart and was making fun of the racism it would be fine.
Your girlfriend is the exception.
I bet it would get more backlash from people who like to pretend racism doesn't exist then supposed liberal snowflakes.
Are we thinking of the same film industry?
The artistic voices of this generation are making different art.
I'm also sad to say that I had the tune of "The French Mistake" stuck in my head for an entire week.
From "Life stinks":
Where's your sense of loyalty, honesty, decency?
Mr. Bolt, we're lawyers.