NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

Never seen it.

Never seen it.

Seconded.

Never seen it. Have seen about every other Mel Brooks film though. Men in Tights was glorious.

Ugh, why don't people get "Blazing Saddles"?They're painful to sit on?

Never seen it.

Seconded.

Never seen it. Have seen about every other Mel Brooks film though. Men in Tights was glorious.

You three are to go to your local video store and rent "Blazing Saddles" NOW!

*cracks whip*

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

It's not that I don't 'get it'. It's just shit.

I loved Blazing Saddles and think it is one of the funniest movies ever. People should sit down and watch it, could be considered on of the best movies to come from the genius of Mel Brooks.

As for those who say it is racist, have never really watched the movie properly and should be told to shut up and forced to watch the movie carefully. If anything it pays out racism and takes a satirical look at the racist ideals of an earlier period in American history.

Why do you think it is shit Grave n idle?

It's not that I don't 'get it'. It's just shit.

How is it shit?

Never seen it. Have seen about every other Mel Brooks film though. Men in Tights was glorious.

I don't belive it, three of you?

It's troo, it's troo!;)

I loved Blazing Saddles and think it is one of the funniest movies ever. People should sit down and watch it, could be considered on of the best movies to come from the genius of Mel Brooks.

As for those who say it is racist, have never really watched the movie properly and should be told to shut up and forced to watch the movie carefully. If anything it pays out racism and takes a satirical look at the racist ideals of an earlier period in American history.

Why do you think it is shit Grave n idle?

It's fuckin' good don't get me wrong but better than the aformentioned Robinhood - Men In Tights? Or History of The World? Naaaaa of course not.

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

It's not his best, but its ok.

It's a good film, but there many better out there! oh and who call it racist etc? Did they just not get the jokes?
Favourate bit is when the black man holds himself hostage if that any help

Because people are fucking stupid.

It's fuckin' good don't get me wrong but better than the aformentioned Robinhood - Men In Tights? Or History of The World? Naaaaa of course not.

To tell you the truth I have never watched History of the World *takes cover* but Blazing Saddles is funny, a lot of references to a lot of different things, and in order to watch Blazing Saddles ensure you watch the uncensored version.

...the genius of Mel Brooks....

Why...

This is called 'answering your own question'.

It's fuckin' good don't get me wrong but better than the aformentioned Robinhood - Men In Tights? Or History of The World? Naaaaa of course not.

I dunno, I'd put Blazing Saddles above Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

I dunno, I'd put Blazing Saddles above Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Really? I liked them both, but Men in Tights, well I just loaughed more at it. As I say though History of the world, now that I would say is about his best.

Really? I liked them both, but Men in Tights, well I just loaughed more at it. As I say though History of the world, now that I would say is about his best.

I'd put Blazing Saddles and History of the World on the same level, Men in Tights is kinda step below IMHO. I just like controversial humor I guess.

I'd put Blazing Saddles and History of the World on the same level, Men in Tights is kinda step below IMHO. I just like controversial humor I guess.

*shrug* Horses for courses I suppose.

Spaceballs and Young Frankenstein were better

*runs away*

*shrug* Horses for courses I suppose.

If you find me the most controversial comedy film, or stand up comic, I will be laughing until I turn red. The dirtier and more taboo the jokes are, the better. *nod*

This is called 'answering your own question'.

So you don't like it because Mel Brooks was a comedic genius? That still doesn't make any sense.

So you don't like it because Mel Brooks was a comedic genius? That still doesn't make any sense.

No, your question was based on the false assumption of Mel Brook's 'genius'. And, apparently, that it might have been 'comedic'.

No, your question was based on the false assumption of Mel Brook's 'genius'. And, apparently, that it might have been 'comedic'.

OK say if we go upon your false assumption that he wasn't a genius of comedy, why don't you like it? Please take into consideration that there are plenty of comedy shows and movies I have seen where I wouldn't say it was genius but was still funny.

It's not that I don't 'get it'. It's just shit.

It's got a lot of "OMG I can't believe they said that" humor.


Wilgrove, pray tell, what makes a move a "guy movie"?

OK say if we go upon your false assumption that he wasn't a genius of comedy, why don't you like it? Please take into consideration that there are plenty of comedy shows and movies I have seen where I wouldn't say it was genius but was still funny.

I think this phenomenon is called 'lower standards'.

Apparently some require little more than casual racism, a little vulgarity, and an extended fart joke. If it is a fault in me to look for something other than that, it's one I'm willing to overlook.

But, even absent the boring repetition of '******' and the crass toilet humour... it's just not that good. It's neither innovative nor exciting, and - while a subtle reference might be worthy, that kind of parody is just childish.

On reflection, even absent the boring repetition of '******' and the crass toilet humour... the remainign three-and-a-half minutes of film might not have been a total waste.

It's got a lot of "OMG I can't believe they said that" humor.


Wilgrove, pray tell, what makes a move a "guy movie"?

If the women in my family don't like it, then there's a good chance it's a guy movie. If the tomboys that I hang out with don't like it, it is a guy movie. *nod*

Right now no female in my family like Blazing Saddles and only one Tomboy don't like it, so it's in Purgatory between "Most likely a guy movie" and "Is a guy movie."

It's got a lot of "OMG I can't believe they said that" humor.


A workmate thought it might amuse me to play me some Andrew Dice Clay a little while back.

"OMG I can't believe they said that" doesn't equate to humour. At least... not for me.

*snip*

Well at least we finally got your reason out, I think you are wrong but hey it dosen't really matter and I am glad your reasons behind it were based on what you do and do not find funny. As I said I think he kept referencing ****** as a way to tease the white americans of the time.

Your reason is better than one I heard recently on this movie, that reason being that because the movie is old there is no way it can be funny.

I think this phenomenon is called 'lower standards'.

Apparently some require little more than casual racism, a little vulgarity, and an extended fart joke. If it is a fault in me to look for something other than that, it's one I'm willing to overlook.

But, even absent the boring repetition of '******' and the crass toilet humour... it's just not that good. It's neither innovative nor exciting, and - while a subtle reference might be worthy, that kind of parody is just childish.

On reflection, even absent the boring repetition of '******' and the crass toilet humour... the remainign three-and-a-half minutes of film might not have been a total waste.

Ah. I can put up with it for a while. I didn't like Andrew Dice Clay btw, and I don't care for James Bond movies or the "Scary movie" franchise for the reasons you stated. I don't loooooove Blazing Saddles, but I do find it somewhat humorous if I'm in the right mood.

I suppose though you aren't a Sarah Silverman fan?

Ah. I can put up with it for a while. I didn't like Andrew Dice Clay btw, and I don't care for James Bond movies or the "Scary movie" franchise for the reasons you stated. I don't loooooove Blazing Saddles, but I do find it somewhat humorous if I'm in the right mood.

I suppose though you aren't a Sarah Silverman fan?

I'm not much of a fan of 'comedy' at all, to be honest. The sort of surreal humour you might get from Eddie Izzard or some of the better Monty Python stuff... the dark humour you find in something like "Grosse Pointe Blank"... and, somewhat inexplicably, the movie "Zoolander".

I'm not much of a Sarah Silverman fan, but then, I've not really been exposed to any. Apart from the song "Give the Jew Girl Toys". That's about it.

Well at least we finally got your reason out, I think you are wrong but hey it dosen't really matter and I am glad your reasons behind it were based on what you do and do not find funny. As I said I think he kept referencing ****** as a way to tease the white americans of the time.


I've heard it before, and I don't really believe it. If that was the intention (rather than the excuse used), then I find it pretty blind.

Like that Shallow Hal movie that made the (theoretically) constructive comedic gesture about how shallow popular culture is, and how we shouldn't judge based on size... but completely undid all of it's 'good work' potential by making the victim of the joke have to be ridiculously big.


Your reason is better than one I heard recently on this movie, that reason being that because the movie is old there is no way it can be funny.

I certainly don't agree with that. It's only 5 years older than "Life of Brian".

I've heard it before, and I don't really believe it. If that was the intention (rather than the excuse used), then I find it pretty blind.

Like that Shallow Hal movie that made the (theoretically) constructive comedic gesture about how shallow popular culture is, and how we shouldn't judge based on size... but completely undid all of it's 'good work' potential by making the victim of the joke have to be ridiculously big.".

Well I haven't heard that from Mel Brooks that was just the way I interpretued it when I first watched it.

Shallow Hal now there was a shit movie.

I certainly don't agree with that. It's only 5 years older than "Life of Brian".

Yeah and this guy doesn't think Life of Brien is funny either because it is to old. Basically anything that wasn't made in the past few years except for those which he saw growing up, anything is not funny. All I can say to him is that he is a dickhead.

Time for Godwin

"Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Winter for Poland and France..."

The Producers and Blazing Saddles are by far Mel Brook's funniest films.

Well I haven't heard that from Mel Brooks that was just the way I interpretued it when I first watched it.


Well, therein lies the rub. Either it's nothing more than throwing the word '******' around for the giggles... or it's a hamfisted attempt to appeal to absurdity, that can be argued to be just as destructive as it might be constructive.


Shallow Hal now there was a shit movie.


Agreed.


Yeah and this guy doesn't think Life of Brien is funny either because it is to old. Basically anything that wasn't made in the past few years except for those which he saw growing up, anything is not funny. All I can say to him is that he is a dickhead.

Agreed.

Spaceballs and Young Frankenstein were better

Spaceballs was okay, Young Frankenstein was a comedic goldmine. Blazing Saddles was a close second in my book.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

You have to have seen crap westerns to get the references.
So, no, not a big fan.

Men in Tights was worse.

Never seen or heard of it... I don't think.

The Producers and Blazing Saddles are by far Mel Brook's funniest films.

The Producers I could almost stand to watch again.

Perhaps I've seen more musicals than westerns? Now there's a worrying thought ...:(

and, somewhat inexplicably, the movie "Zoolander".

I think we can just go ahead and dismiss Grave_n_idle's taste in comedy as "terrible" and go one talking about how Blazing Saddles is awesome.

It isn't quite the pinnacle of comedy, but it achieved what it set out to - being a completely unserious Western satire - and that's why it's funny.

Never seen it. Have seen about every other Mel Brooks film though. Men in Tights was glorious.

I don't want to debate senses of humor -- to each their own, and taste is as diverse as the population. However, in my opinion, the ranking of Mel Brooks' films that I've seen is:

The Producers (original)
Young Frankenstein (parody of old monster movies)
History of the World, Part One (parody melange of historical dramas)
Blazing Saddles (parody of westerns)
High Anxiety (parody of Alfred Hitchcock films)
To Be or Not To Be (original of sorts)
Spaceballs (parody of Star Wars with digs at space operas in general)
Silent Movie (self-explanatory)
Robin Hood: Men in Tights (parody of the whole medieval genre and Prince of Thieves, specifically)
Life Stinks (a truly rotten original)
Dracula: Dead and Loving It (shoddy attempt at skewering Interview With A Vampire and the like)


Generally, the older Brooks films are the better Brooks films. Some might not get Blazing Saddles because some of the references are dated. My favorite scene invovles the young black family in the covered wagon meeting up with the Indians, with Brooks as the chief. Brooks speaks Yiddish, and it's hilarious -- if you're at all familiar with that kind of Jewish-tinged humor. His last line in the scene: "Hast dir in die Leben geseh'n?* They darker than US!" (*Have you [ever] seen [such a thing] in your life?)

Brooks ceased to innovate on Blazing Saddles and became a mannerist director with History of the World, Part One, which, to me, is his last great film. Spaceballs marks the beginning of the decline (still got some good scenes -- "you morons, you've captured their stunt doubles!"), and the last Brooks film I went to a theater to see was Men In Tights and I regretted it. I laughed a total of three times because the jokes were recycled and telegraphed so obviously that it was hard to sit through, knowing of Brooks' earlier efforts (he even blatantly references Blazing Saddles at the end, and it's truly sad).

Point is, Brooks was a master parodist at his height. He paved the way for satirist filmmakers like the Zucker-Abrams-Zucker troika (Airplane!, Top Secret!, Police Squad!/Naked Gun -- their work, like Brooks' also declined after a peak), who in turn led to the Scary Movie franchise and it's horribly derivative knock-offs.

Satirists are a bit handicapped by the era in which they had the greatest influence and therefore had the easiest time targeting (usually the one in which they lived their 20s-50s). As such, the older they get, the less apt their style tends to be in garnering the same audience it did when the topic and type of humor were "fresher".

I wouldn't expect anyone under 35 to make Blazing Saddles a favorite. That's not to say that there aren't young people out there with intergenerational tastes (I'm a big Marx Brothers fan and love old film comedies like The Front Page, The Philadelphia Story and The Man Who Came To Dinner), but if I had to bet, I would bet on them liking Men In Tights more than High Anxiety, and I'd likely win.

I'm not much of a fan of 'comedy' at all, to be honest. The sort of surreal humour you might get from Eddie Izzard or some of the better Monty Python stuff... the dark humour you find in something like "Grosse Pointe Blank"... and, somewhat inexplicably, the movie "Zoolander".

I'm not much of a Sarah Silverman fan, but then, I've not really been exposed to any. Apart from the song "Give the Jew Girl Toys". That's about it.

I completely understand your point of view, GnI. Grosse Pointe Blank speaks to me in a way Brooks just can't. That's not Brooks' fault, I lived in the era that John Cusack's character is trying to rekindle -- it's more immediate to my understanding. I have to fire up my history lobe (instead of just the memory banks) to access much of Brooks' early films' references. But the dark humor part of my overall sense is just one aspect. Mostly, I just like humor done well, regardless of which kind. When I want to hear outlandish and even potentially offensive stuff, Andrew Dice Clay is not my choice (he's a 12-year-old boy in a mafia goombah's body). I'll listen to George Carlin. Why? He makes me think while I'm having a guilty pleasure at hearing someone mention pussy farts in the same show in which he explains why we don't need all ten of the Commandments.

Sarah Silverman is such a niche flavor of comedy, and while I don't hate her stuff, it's hard for me to like. That whole Seinfeld/Larry David/Garry Shandling school of self-absorption done to absurdity doesn't work on me. The observational stuff is usually funny, but when I'm expected to laugh at someone because they demand that the world revolve around them and they discover it usually doesn't, to me that's not comedy, that's me just looking around at the average American. The Jewish/New York City references just cloud the matter up even further. That said, I respect their work. I just don't like it. Plus, Silverman's voice, no matter how hot she is, could peel the paint off walls (in my book of annoying voices, she's surpassed only by Fran Drescher).

I think we can just go ahead and dismiss Grave_n_idle's taste in comedy as "not like mine" and go one talking about how Blazing Saddles is awesome.

Fixed. Honestly, haven't we grown up more than this?

It isn't quite the pinnacle of comedy, but it achieved what it set out to - being a completely unserious Western satire - and that's why it's funny.

That's why YOU think it's funny. I was never a big fan of western movies, but I've seen enough to understand the set-up for parody. Being a singer, one of the funny things about Blazing Saddles is that they got legendary big-voiced crooner Frankie Laine to sing the title song without even a trace of irony or sarcasm. Brooks never told him it was a parody film, so we have this achingly sincere performance by a legend balladeer of a song written for a film featuring the end-all of fart jokes.

To me, the film works on a few levels, to others, it doesn't work at all. Is it so hard to agree that we're all subject to different tastes crafted by different experiences and stop demanding that everyone agree on what's funny?

Really? I liked them both, but Men in Tights, well I just loaughed more at it. As I say though History of the world, now that I would say is about his best.

Blazing Saddles and Men in Tights are awesome. History of the World, nah. The Spanish Inquisition song is classic but the rest is sub par for Mel Brooks. Spaceballs is also brilliant.

I think we can just go ahead and dismiss Grave_n_idle's taste in comedy as "terrible" and go one talking about how Blazing Saddles is awesome.

It isn't quite the pinnacle of comedy, but it achieved what it set out to - being a completely unserious Western satire - and that's why it's funny.

Ironically, I see it as achieving being a completely unfunny western 'satire'. (Although, I'm not really buying into the idea of Brooks as a satirist at all. Indeed, in the strictest sense, I don't even really consider him a parodist. I think there's an important distinction between real parody, and just being a disrespectful plagiarist.

You're certainly right on at least one point, though. It sure as hell isn't the pinnacle of comedy.

That's why YOU think it's funny. I was never a big fan of western movies, but I've seen enough to understand the set-up for parody. Being a singer, one of the funny things about Blazing Saddles is that they got legendary big-voiced crooner Frankie Laine to sing the title song without even a trace of irony or sarcasm. Brooks never told him it was a parody film, so we have this achingly sincere performance by a legend balladeer of a song written for a film featuring the end-all of fart jokes.


They never told one of the main actors in Dr. Strangelove that the movie wasn't a serious Cold War film. Throughout the entire filming.

I vaguely remember it, it's okay.
There's better comedies, i'd say it's above most of the stuff released recently.
Sure many of the jokes are weak, but it's still good somehow. I forget how.

Point is, Brooks was a master parodist at his height.


See - I don't agree. I don't think what Brooks tends to do, really qualifies as true parody. I find him much alike with Weird Al... he comes across as mocking more talented artists as an alternative to creating for himself. (Having heard Weird Al's 'original' work, of course, it's obvious where the advantage lies in stealing).


He paved the way...


Which is a crime in and of itself.


...for satirist filmmakers like the Zucker-Abrams-Zucker troika (Airplane!, Top Secret!, Police Squad!/Naked Gun -- their work, like Brooks' also declined after a peak), who in turn led to the Scary Movie franchise and it's horribly derivative knock-offs.


And here's why... I'd be pretty much happy for that whole pile to fall of the face of the planet.


(I'm a big Marx Brothers fan and love old film comedies like The Front Page, The Philadelphia Story and The Man Who Came To Dinner)...


Agreed. Personally, I adore Harold Lloyd, over the Marx Brothers, but that's not writing off the genius of something like "Duck Soup" completely. :)


Mostly, I just like humor done well, regardless of which kind.


Not so much, for me. There's just no real appeal to something like the Blazing Saddle's fart scene, no matter how 'well done'.


When I want to hear outlandish and even potentially offensive stuff, Andrew Dice Clay is not my choice (he's a 12-year-old boy in a mafia goombah's body). I'll listen to George Carlin. Why? He makes me think while I'm having a guilty pleasure at hearing someone mention pussy farts in the same show in which he explains why we don't need all ten of the Commandments.


Agreed.


That whole Seinfeld/Larry David/Garry Shandling school of self-absorption done to absurdity doesn't work on me.


Agreed. Nothing on that list holds the least attraction.


Plus, Silverman's voice, no matter how hot she is, could peel the paint off walls (in my book of annoying voices, she's surpassed only by Fran Drescher).


Agreed, again.

I don't belive it, three of you?

It's troo, it's troo!;)

Sorry to disappoint you Ma'am, but you're licking my arm.

I "get" Blazing Saddles, I just don't think it's all that amazing. It's funny, but not Brooks' best, and certainly not, say, one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.

I "get" Blazing Saddles, I just don't think it's all that amazing. It's funny, but not Brooks' best, and certainly not, say, one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.

Yeah, there are tons of movies that are more hilarious, like The Jerk. I can't stand anyone who doesn't like that movie, it was Steve Martin before he lost his freaking mind. Oh, and Woody Allen, I love him, he's hilarious.......I worry about people who can't at least appreciate the humor, you don't have to think it's the best ever, but at least recognize it's there.

We don' neeed no steeenking badges!

There are a few funny jokes in there; I especially love the reaction to the plan to drive the townspeople away by killing everyone's firstborn.

But that being said, it's not a supremely funny movie, simply because it struck me as the effort of a guy who was compensating for a lack of wit and appreciation for the genre he was supposed to be lampooning with the comical equivalent of brute force. Now that approach can work (see Airplane! for what I think is the perfection of this particular "throw everything at the viewer and hope we can keep him laughing" approach), but it's not consistent, and even at its apex it only approaches the kind of laughs you get out of real wit and real parody.

To be perfectly honest, as far as parody movies go Hot Fuzz is far superior to Blazing Saddles because 1) the writers have a better appreciation for what makes action films tick than most of the people who watched the film, 2) they played the whole thing totally poker-faced, rather than the winking and mugging you see in Brooks films, and 3) the work was as much an homage to ridiculously-premised action films as it was a parody, whereas you could have done 90% of Brooks's jokes in a romantic-comedy set in New York ala Woody Allen with only minor differences.

I've been with thousands of men
again and again
they promise the moon

they're always coming and going
and going and coming

Never saw it. 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazing_Saddles)? Way before my time.

To be perfectly honest, as far as parody movies go Hot Fuzz is far superior to Blazing Saddles because 1) the writers have a better appreciation for what makes action films tick than most of the people who watched the film, 2) they played the whole thing totally poker-faced, rather than the winking and mugging you see in Brooks films, and 3) the work was as much an homage to ridiculously-premised action films as it was a parody, whereas you could have done 90% of Brooks's jokes in a romantic-comedy set in New York ala Woody Allen with only minor differences.
Sean of the Dead was terrific, too. But my British friends make fun of me for being yet another American who is totally thrilled by dry English wit. I'm a trendy fucker like that. :(

I think this phenomenon is called 'lower standards'.

Apparently some require little more than casual racism, a little vulgarity, and an extended fart joke.

That was not a fart joke. That was THE fart joke. The first. Mel Brooks crossed a line never crossed before; brazenly audible farts. Never done before in a "mainstream" film.

Those that farted on film afterwards owe their audible flatulence to Mel Brooks. Mel Brooks was the Rosa Parks of the sphincter muscle.

Blazing saddles is not racist.
There are racist characters in the film but they are always portrayed as idiots, inbred, or just plain bad people. In fact the idiot and inbred types over come their racism in the end, and even letting the Irish move into town.


It is a film that tackles serious issues with light humor, and does so very well.
I love British dry wit aswell but at times some of the fans of British dry wit humor will be overly dismissive of what can be accomplished with a lighter humor approach to issues.

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

Saw It, Got it, Was Bored to tears By It.

Time has been most unkind to Brooks' work.

I am quite taken with the suggestion that a film can't be racist if it "also" attacks asians and gays though.

Blazing saddles is not racist.
There are racist characters in the film but they are always portrayed as idiots, inbred, or just plain bad people. .

I don't know if I'd go quite THAT far, but as the Waco Kid put it:

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."

Now, if only Obama would say that.

I don't know if I'd go quite THAT far, but as the Waco Kid put it:

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."

most of the people who call the movie racist think that any using of the N word by a non black is racist.

Now, if only Obama would say that.

yeah he needs to say that about some of the stuff coming out of his former preacher's mouth.

most of the people who call the movie racist think that any using of the N word by a non black is racist.

Oh my god, they DID??? And here all along I thought he said "The Sheriff is NEAR"

It's got a lot of "OMG I can't believe they said that" humor.


Wilgrove, pray tell, what makes a move a "guy movie"?
It's got to be the campfire scene... Girls don't fart.

Blazing saddles is not racist.


That is a subject for debate.


There are racist characters in the film but they are always portrayed as...

If I wanted to make a movie in which I wanted to get laughs for using the word '******' as many times as possible, I'd do it in such a way as to appear sympathetic to the cause of the insulted party, and to appear to be attacking the racists.

Just a thought.

Never seen it.

You should. I like it, and I think you will too.

It's old school sillyness :)

That was not a fart joke. That was THE fart joke. The first. Mel Brooks crossed a line never crossed before; brazenly audible farts. Never done before in a "mainstream" film.

Those that farted on film afterwards owe their audible flatulence to Mel Brooks. Mel Brooks was the Rosa Parks of the sphincter muscle.

The whole point was supposed to be pointing out the inconsistency.... the sides of characters never seen on camera, those that can't be shown. The same cute phenomenon exists in a lot of cinema today, nobody ever has to shit in action movies.

Which makes movies like "On Hour Photo", "Panic Room" or "Spun" much more potent, for what they do - they have characters that are realer than anyone else. Brooks made a gesture towards something... but in making it a joke he actually reinforced the problem. IN making it a ridiculously drawn-out joke, he made a mockery of the point he was supposed to be making.

Instead, what he made, was a big fart joke. (Actually, not even the biggest fart joke in that movie, but certainly the most easily detected).

That is a subject for debate.



If I wanted to make a movie in which I wanted to get laughs for using the word '******' as many times as possible, I'd do it in such a way as to appear sympathetic to the cause of the insulted party, and to appear to be attacking the racists.

Just a thought.


The way you threw that word 'appear' in there makes me think that you perceive some hidden message in Blazing Saddles.

Are you saying that beneath the outward, obvious, blunt, in-your-face mockery of racism, there is a hidden dimension to Blazing Saddles that actually encourages it?

Can this be possible in a movie in which the only characters portrayed as idiots are presumable Christian whites? In fact, all the white characters, even the Good Guys, are flawed people- The Waco Kid is an alchoholic until Bart gets him sober again, Lily von Schtupp is implied to have some very loose morals, and Mongo is, well, Mongo. Does Bart have any character flaws?

That is a subject for debate.
Based on what? The word "******" being used? A tenuous argument at best.

The whole point was supposed to be pointing out the inconsistency.... the sides of characters never seen on camera, those that can't be shown. .

Those sides to the characters are seen in many, many movies, but its thanks to Mel, they can be HEARD.

Based on what? The word "******" being used? A tenuous argument at best.

You're kidding me?

You are seriously suggesting that massive repetition of the word '******' (combined with stereotyping and/or racial 'jokes' on other ethnicities) is a "tenuous" argument that the film might be racist?

One wonders what you think would be a non-tenuous evidence. A note from his mom saying "yes, this movie is racist"?

The way you threw that word 'appear' in there makes me think that you perceive some hidden message in Blazing Saddles.

Are you saying that beneath the outward, obvious, blunt, in-your-face mockery of racism, there is a hidden dimension to Blazing Saddles that actually encourages it?

Can this be possible in a movie in which the only characters portrayed as idiots are presumable Christian whites? In fact, all the white characters, even the Good Guys, are flawed people- The Waco Kid is an alchoholic until Bart gets him sober again, Lily von Schtupp is implied to have some very loose morals, and Mongo is, well, Mongo. Does Bart have any character flaws?

A chap I work with insists that he isn't racist because, while he does call white people 'crackers', he also calls black people 'niggers'.

(wait's for Fass to post)

1. Apostrophes are not used to conjugate verbs in English.
2. Get a life.

there are countless funnier films out there.

You're kidding me?

You are seriously suggesting that massive repetition of the word '******' (combined with stereotyping and/or racial 'jokes' on other ethnicities) is a "tenuous" argument that the film might be racist?
You bet your "oh shit, they said ******!" ass I am. God forbid anyone try to make a point about those people who would call some one a ******. In making said point, they prove they are obviously a racist. You know, instead of being not one. If people wern't all up in arms over the word "******," it would have been aced long ago. When was the last time anyone took a 'white' racial slur seriously? Not since the Jeffersons I would bet.

You're kidding me?

You are seriously suggesting that massive repetition of the word '******' (combined with stereotyping and/or racial 'jokes' on other ethnicities) is a "tenuous" argument that the film might be racist?

One wonders what you think would be a non-tenuous evidence. A note from his mom saying "yes, this movie is racist"?

Non tenuous would be portraying a black person living down to the worst stereotypes of being a black person, and being called a ****** because of it.

To have the flawed white characters use the word on the one un-flawed character in the movie shows the word to be what it is, and thus, the movie is not racist, it is anti-racist.

It is not racist to portray racism. It all depends on whether, in portraying it, you are supporting it, or attacking it.

It's sort of like the black characters at Colonial Williamsburg. Some people think it's racist, having them act authentic roles that black people would have had in an 18th century Virginia settlement, but the actors themselves have explained: it is not racist to accurately depict racism, it is educational, you accomplish nothing by sweeping reality under the rug. In the case of Blazing Saddles, racism is strongly depicted, but it is set up as a target to be mocked. This makes it a very effective un-racist movie. If Blazing Saddles featured a politically correct assortment of characters and avoided all use of "******" and other expressions by the morons, how would it have been able to mock racism?

They never told one of the main actors in Dr. Strangelove that the movie wasn't a serious Cold War film. Throughout the entire filming.

According to Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990711/REVIEWS08/907110301/1023):

Dr. Strangelove's'' humor is generated by a basic comic principle: People trying to be funny are never as funny as people trying to be serious and failing. The laughs have to seem forced on unwilling characters by the logic of events. A man wearing a funny hat is not funny. But a man who doesn't know he's wearing a funny hat ... ah, now you've got something.

The characters in ``Dr. Strangelove'' do not know their hats are funny. The film begins with Gen. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) fondling a phallic cigar while launching an unauthorized nuclear strike against Russia. He has become convinced that the commies are poisoning ``the purity and essence of our natural fluids'' by adding fluoride to the water supply. (Younger viewers may not know that in the 1950s this was a widespread belief.) Ripper's nuclear strike, his cigar technique and his concern for his ``precious bodily fluids'' are so entwined that they inspire unmistakable masturbatory associations.

See - I don't agree. I don't think what Brooks tends to do, really qualifies as true parody. I find him much alike with Weird Al... he comes across as mocking more talented artists as an alternative to creating for himself. (Having heard Weird Al's 'original' work, of course, it's obvious where the advantage lies in stealing).

Fair enough. I even agree about Weird Al. I do like his stuff, but his parodies are best when they're not of a specific song, but of a group's or artist's style signatures. His originals are predictable and the least funny of the lot (with the exception of "One More Minute", which served as a mannerism for many future originals). He's more of a master of alternate lyrics than an actual parodist. In fact, I think his funniest bits are the songs left as they are, but set to a polka medley. I don't know why, but hearing "Black Hole Sun" as a polka cracks me up.

Which is a crime in and of itself.

No argument, except for...

And here's why... I'd be pretty much happy for that whole pile to fall of the face of the planet.

Airplane! and Top Secret! were exemplary gag-machine films. The problem is that one or two of those a DECADE is all you really need (witness the hilarity of Kentucky Fried Movie comapred to its dreadful follow-up Amazon Women on the Moon). Once they took the concept to TV, it worked very well (Police Squad), but once THAT got made into a movie -- which was never as funny as the show -- the downhill slide began and continued through the most recent half-assed effort, Epic Movie. Now it's almost like they're TELLING you the movie you're about to see or rent is going to suck, but you'll get the cultural references in it, so you'll still go see it -- it'll make you feel like you're "in". Ugh.

Agreed. Personally, I adore Harold Lloyd, over the Marx Brothers, but that's not writing off the genius of something like "Duck Soup" completely. :)

Agreed.

Not so much, for me. There's just no real appeal to something like the Blazing Saddle's fart scene, no matter how 'well done'.

I wasn't claiming that the scene was well done so much as seminal with regard to bodily function humor in mainstream films. As someone posted earlier, it cleaves to popular memory because it was the first, and it wasn't just one fart, it was a cavalcade. That alone cements the scene and the film in history, justified or not.

Sean of the Dead was terrific, too. But my British friends make fun of me for being yet another American who is totally thrilled by dry English wit. I'm a trendy fucker like that. :(

Trendy? Dry? Tell him you were laughing your ass off at Monty Python in the early 70s (even if you're not that old -- I've never asked and never seen you post your age, so I've no idea), and then tell him to piss off. Fawlty Towers, The Two Ronnies, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Young Ones, Red Dwarf -- all have long and established pedigrees. Even the crassest of those, which all could be in one way or another, somehow do it with more panache than anyone else. I can't understand why your British friends would mock you for recognizing the obvious.

It's got to be the campfire scene... Girls don't fart.

Then you must know some very bloated women. Two of the last three girlfriends I had were unashamed and blatant about farting. Trust me -- girls fart.

A chap I work with insists that he isn't racist because, while he does call white people 'crackers', he also calls black people 'niggers'.

You're missing a point.

Being called a ****** is not a character flaw.

Being a whore/alchoholic/idiot/racist is.

But none of those are racist terms.

So Blazing saddles achieves its setup that way- the one person called "******" and put down because of his race is the one person who by all rights should be putting down the others.

Non tenuous would be portraying a black person living down to the worst stereotypes of being a black person, and being called a ****** because of it.

To have the flawed white characters use the word on the one un-flawed character in the movie shows the word to be what it is, and thus, the movie is not racist, it is anti-racist.

It is not racist to portray racism. It all depends on whether, in portraying it, you are supporting it, or attacking it.

It's sort of like the black characters at Colonial Williamsburg. Some people think it's racist, having them act authentic roles that black people would have had in an 18th century Virginia settlement, but the actors themselves have explained: it is not racist to accurately depict racism, it is educational, you accomplish nothing by sweeping reality under the rug. In the case of Blazing Saddles, racism is strongly depicted, but it is set up as a target to be mocked. This makes it a very effective un-racist movie. If Blazing Saddles featured a politically correct assortment of characters and avoided all use of "******" and other expressions by the morons, how would it have been able to mock racism?

"It is not racist to portray racism". Even if we assume that to be an accurate statement (which it clearly, intrinsically, is not), what is portrayed IS still racism, yes?

The 'joke' in which white-person-A calls black-person-B a '******', IS racism, yes? Indeed, the whole point of the 'joke' would BE that it is racism?

If there was one 'joke' where the situation was played for the effect, it might be a worthy argument. When the casual repetition of the racist behaviour is the sum and substance of the humour of the whole movie (except a couple of other 'comedic' racism moments, and some flatulence) - it could be strongly argued that one is simply playing the racist jokes for the laugh.

Can this be possible in a movie in which the only characters portrayed as idiots are presumable Christian whites? In fact, all the white characters, even the Good Guys, are flawed people- The Waco Kid is an alchoholic until Bart gets him sober again, Lily von Schtupp is implied to have some very loose morals, and Mongo is, well, Mongo. Does Bart have any character flaws?

When you consider that in Yiddish, "schtupp" means "to fuck", the implication becomes a big ol' flashing set of klieg lights.

"It is not racist to portray racism". Even if we assume that to be an accurate statement (which it clearly, intrinsically, is not), what is portrayed IS still racism, yes?
.

Yes, but portraying racism is not racist!

Was Life is Beautiful a Nazi movie? It portrayed Naziism, yes?

Mel Brooks portrayed racism to ATTACK it. The characters in the movie who use the word "******" are all portrayed as morons. The one who is actually called a ****** is not. This is deliberate.

"

The 'joke' in which white-person-A calls black-person-B a '******', IS racism, yes? .

No. Here is where you totally misunderstood the movie. The joke is NOT that white person A called black person B a ******. The joke is that white person A is a moron.

You're missing a point.

Being called a ****** is not a character flaw.

Being a whore/alchoholic/idiot/racist is.

But none of those are racist terms.

So Blazing saddles achieves its setup that way - the one person called "******" and put down because of his race is the one person who by all rights should be putting down the others.

I don't know where to start. Being a 'whore' is a "character flaw"? Being addicted to a substance is? Being an addict or promiscuous is of a kind with discriminating against other people because of their skintone?

I think, perhaps, you were going for some kind of 'cast the first stone' argument...? No one is perfect, so we shouldn't make these superficial judgements about others (although, of course, you rather hamfistedly did exactly the same thing, in constructing your argument)?

Once has impact. Twice is perhaps shocking. Three times is labouring the point. When you get to the point that '******' is the punchline in every third phrase, you're part of the problem.

Yes, but portraying racism is not racist!


A nice solid absolute. I like those. They're easy.

A group of white youths beat a black youth to death whilst quoting racial epithets from a movie. They are 'portraying' racism. Is it racist?

No. Here is where you totally misunderstood the movie. The joke is NOT that white person A called black person B a ******. The joke is that white person A is a moron.

No, the joke IS that Person A called Person B a '******'. That's the whole point. The comedy value (such as it is) is acquired from the CONTEXT in which that interaction takes place.

Here is where you totally misunderstood the movie.

That is a subject for debate.

If I wanted to make a movie in which I wanted to get laughs for using the word '******' as many times as possible, I'd do it in such a way as to appear sympathetic to the cause of the insulted party, and to appear to be attacking the racists.

Just a thought.

Have you seen the film??? the plot line is nothing but making fun of the racist characters.
African Americans in the film are portrayed as Hard working, smart, and egalitarian. The only way you can make it more sympathetic to the insulted party is if you had the black people killing the white people and thats just not funny.

It's got to be the campfire scene... Girls don't fart.

It's like my father in law told my husband "never marry a girl who claims she doesn't fart, at best she's a liar and worst case scenario she'll explode all over your couch one day"

...the film...is...just not funny.

Fixed.

A nice solid absolute. I like those. They're easy.

A group of white youths beat a black youth to death whilst quoting racial epithets from a movie. They are 'portraying' racism. Is it racist?
An African American studies teacher gives a lecture on racism in America with examples of racial epithets. He is 'portraying' racism. Is it racist?

1. Apostrophes are not used to conjugate verbs in English.
2. Get a life.

You never let me down do ya Fassy?

"It is not racist to portray racism". Even if we assume that to be an accurate statement (which it clearly, intrinsically, is not), what is portrayed IS still racism, yes?
Portraying racism does not make the portrayer racist.

The 'joke' in which white-person-A calls black-person-B a '******', IS racism, yes? Indeed, the whole point of the 'joke' would BE that it is racism?
Have you even seen Blazing Saddles? The point of the joke is that all the people calling him a "******" are small-minded, ignorant, backwards peons. Not to mention complete morons. Mongo is as dumb as rocks, and yet he comes off more insightful and intelligent than the racist townsfolk and villains.

A group of white youths beat a black youth to death whilst quoting racial epithets from a movie. They are 'portraying' racism. Is it racist?
Could that really be called "portraying" racism? :confused:



...though I don't think portraying racism can't be racist, I'm not sure that's what he's trying to say...

Fantastic movie. I like the bit where the sheriff is talking to the old lady and she gives him a pie.
"Oh, hello sheriff. Here's a pie, sorry about the 'up yours n****r.'" Then she walks off and comes back. "Oh, I'm sure you'll have the good taste not to tell anyone about this."

Mel Brooks movies = :fluffle:

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there!


I think it's a difficult movie. You have to know western movies and their stereotypes very well to enjoy Blazing Saddles. Which I do, a lot.

(anyway, Young Frankestein is superior by far.)

I don't know where to start. Being a 'whore' is a "character flaw"? Being addicted to a substance is? Being an addict or promiscuous is of a kind with discriminating against other people because of their skintone?


You should get in within the context of traditional, mainstream western movies. You had traditional, and sometimes oversimplified and exaggerated roles - the white hat, the black hat, and the "flawed characters", some of those were going to become good citizens and some of those were going to rot in Yuma or on the boot-hill. These "flawed characters" carried usually one (or more) characteristics that, at that time (the golden age of Westerns, 1950) were deemed "flaws" by the mainstream american morals.

There you had the "lost girl" aka the good whore who had to redeem herself, maybe dying after saving the sheriff from a sneak attack; and you had the "devil woman" aka the bad whore who had to try and fail to seduce the white-hat hero, maybe after having seduced and betrayed the white-hat's best friend.
Take Dude from "Rio Bravo": he starts off as a "flawed" character - he's always drunk, and then he "redeems" himself.

What Mel Brooks does is a satyre of that kind of movies, and of the hypocrisy of those "moral teachings".

I think the fact that Richard Pryor co-wrote Blazing Saddles dampens the argument that it was a racist movie, seeing as how many of the gags followed his own style in exposing racism in America.

An African American studies teacher gives a lecture on racism in America with examples of racial epithets. He is 'portraying' racism. Is it racist?

You don't understand how the argument against absolutes works, do you?

I think the fact that Richard Pryor co-wrote Blazing Saddles dampens the argument that it was a racist movie, seeing as how many of the gags followed his own style in exposing racism in America.

Watch the movie "The Believer".

It's about a Jewish Nazi. It's also based on a real person.

You should get in within the context of traditional, mainstream western movies. You had traditional, and sometimes oversimplified and exaggerated roles - the white hat, the black hat, and the "flawed characters", some of those were going to become good citizens and some of those were going to rot in Yuma or on the boot-hill. These "flawed characters" carried usually one (or more) characteristics that, at that time (the golden age of Westerns, 1950) were deemed "flaws" by the mainstream american morals.

There you had the "lost girl" aka the good whore who had to redeem herself, maybe dying after saving the sheriff from a sneak attack; and you had the "devil woman" aka the bad whore who had to try and fail to seduce the white-hat hero, maybe after having seduced and betrayed the white-hat's best friend.
Take Dude from "Rio Bravo": he starts off as a "flawed" character - he's always drunk, and then he "redeems" himself.

What Mel Brooks does is a satyre of that kind of movies, and of the hypocrisy of those "moral teachings".

It's not that I don't understand the archetypes of the historical western. It's more that I don't care. One time, and it would have been fine, perhaps... played for almost every laugh in the movie? I don't buy the 'rip the system' argument. It looks a lot more like 'saying ****** because it gets a laugh'.

Portraying racism does not make the portrayer racist.


Okay. Portraying racism could make the 'art' racist though, couldn't it? And... while 'portraying racism' doesn't aotomatically make the portrayer racist, it doesn't automatically make him or her NOT racist either, yes?

That's the beauty of the absolute.


Have you even seen Blazing Saddles?


Yes. Not only that, but I've actually watched it. Perhaps that's the difference?


The point of the joke is that all the people calling him a "******" are small-minded, ignorant, backwards peons. Not to mention complete morons. Mongo is as dumb as rocks, and yet he comes off more insightful and intelligent than the racist townsfolk and villains.

No, the point of the joke is saying '******' and getting a laugh. You think it's done for higher purposes, allegedly. I think it's done for a cheap giggle.

Only idiots think it's racist. Everyone else gets that it's making fun of racism and either likes the way it does so or doesn't.

Only idiots think it's racist.


That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. And, given the context.... that's got to be an achievement.

Everyone else gets that it's making fun of racism and either likes the way it does so or doesn't.

I'm pretty sure you aren't Mel Brooks, right?

The way I figure it, that strongly suggests your opinion is also speculation.

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. And, given the context.... that's got to be an achievement.



I'm pretty sure you aren't Mel Brooks, right?

The way I figure it, that strongly suggests your opinion is also speculation.

How so? It's making fun of everyone. No one is spared in that movie. The racist townspeople are generally portrayed as total morons. It's not the type of thing you take too seriously. Like South Park or something.

You don't understand how the argument against absolutes works, do you?
Do you understand that you can't prove whether a person is or is not racist? Saying "portraying racism" makes some one racist is using circular logic.

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

A great film that many will like and many will not. Either build taboo or break it, Mel Brooks is a definite breaker.

When the end has come and the debaters have laid down their fingers of higher virtue...all that remains is the clarity of how stupid the argument truly was.

Okay. Portraying racism could make the 'art' racist though, couldn't it? And... while 'portraying racism' doesn't aotomatically make the portrayer racist, it doesn't automatically make him or her NOT racist either, yes?

That's the beauty of the absolute.
And yet you continue to use it yourself...


Yes. Not only that, but I've actually watched it. Perhaps that's the difference?
Perhaps the difference being that you are overly sensitive and critical with a shitty sense of humor?

No, the point of the joke is saying '******' and getting a laugh.
Then you don't get it.

You think it's done for higher purposes, allegedly. I think it's done for a cheap giggle.
Oh yeah, because my assertion that the movie is a blatant satire is far more ludicrous than your assertion that it is a glorification of racism.

For further note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.
Me thinks you don't understand satire.

Never seen it.

Can this be possible in a movie in which the only characters portrayed as idiots are presumable Christian whites? In fact, all the white characters, even the Good Guys, are flawed people- The Waco Kid is an alchoholic until Bart gets him sober again, Lily von Schtupp is implied to have some very loose morals, and Mongo is, well, Mongo. Does Bart have any character flaws?

Of course he does he's a ******. jk

A great film that many will like and many will not. Either build taboo or break it, Mel Brooks is a definite breaker.

When the end has come and the debaters have laid down their fingers of higher virtue...all that remains is the clarity of how stupid the argument truly was.

I know it's only wishful thinking, but...

/thread.

Young Frankenstein was light years better.

Young Frankenstein was light years better.

*sings* If you're blue and you don't know where to go to why don't'cha go where fashion sits...

(c'mon, y'know y'wanna!)

Young Frankenstein was light years better.

They're both classics.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Km7WD8wkb1c
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6-pmpgrYQgs&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs&feature=related

Sorry, Kat. They're pretty much a tie for me.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH2nQHPs4aA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fhz6i6JGzIU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DqT9edmTGNU&feature=related

*sings* If you're blue and you don't know where to go to why don't'cha go where fashion sits...

(c'mon, y'know y'wanna!)

PUDDING ONNNA RITZ!!!!!

They're both classics.

My favorite scene from Blazing Saddles has to be the old geezer trying to tell everyone about Bart....


"THE SHERIFF IS A...."
And the church bell goes BOOOOOOOONG!

(cane hitting stage HARD)*FOMP, FOMP*PUDDING ONNNA RITZ!!!!!

I knew I could count on you!

My favorite scene from Blazing Saddles has to be the old geezer trying to tell everyone about Bart....


"THE SHERIFF IS A...."
And the church bell goes BOOOOOOOONG!

Being a jazz fan, Bart riding to the strains of "April In Paris" by the Basie Band, and then having the Basie Band istelf on a rail car playing it, well, that's gold.

I mentioned it earlier, but the Yiddish Natives seeing Bart's family in the flashback scene cracks me up every time.

BROOKS: Hast dir in die Leben geseh'n? They darker than us!

Actually, the funniest bit was deleted: Right after the lights go out on the sex scene, the sheriff was supposed to say, "I hate to break it to you, ma'am, but you're licking my arm."

Lily von Schtupp is implied to have some very loose morals

Okay, any character (in a Mel Brooks movie) whose name includes the word 'schtupp' is not implied to have loose morals. It's more or less stated. (You do know what schtupp means, right?)

Okay, any character (in a Mel Brooks movie) whose name includes the word 'schtupp' is not implied to have loose morals. It's more or less stated. (You do know what schtupp means, right?)


Already addressed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13677376&postcount=81).

You're kidding me?

You are seriously suggesting that massive repetition of the word '******' (combined with stereotyping and/or racial 'jokes' on other ethnicities) is a "tenuous" argument that the film might be racist?

One wonders what you think would be a non-tenuous evidence. A note from his mom saying "yes, this movie is racist"?

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn uses word ****** fairly often. Is that a racist book?

No, the joke IS that Person A called Person B a '******'. That's the whole point. The comedy value (such as it is) is acquired from the CONTEXT in which that interaction takes place.

Here is where you totally misunderstood the movie.

No. Here is where you totally misunderstood the movie.

c wut i did tehre?

Portraying racism does not make the portrayer racist.


Have you even seen Blazing Saddles? The point of the joke is that all the people calling him a "******" are small-minded, ignorant, backwards peons. Not to mention complete morons. Mongo is as dumb as rocks, and yet he comes off more insightful and intelligent than the racist townsfolk and villains.

QFT.

It's not that I don't understand the archetypes of the historical western. It's more that I don't care. One time, and it would have been fine, perhaps... played for almost every laugh in the movie? I don't buy the 'rip the system' argument. It looks a lot more like 'saying ****** because it gets a laugh'.

I'd guess that "Blazing Saddles" hasn't survived its own times, at least in your case. Anyway, why should anyone "say ****** because it gets a laugh"? Does really "saying ******" gets a laugh? I don't think so, but you're welcome to a different idea of course. Meh.

I'd guess that "Blazing Saddles" hasn't survived its own times, at least in your case. Anyway, why should anyone "say ****** because it gets a laugh"? Does really "saying ******" gets a laugh? I don't think so, but you're welcome to a different idea of course. Meh.

lets ask Michael Richards(aka Kramer) about getting a laugh from the N word.

Nope Doesn't seem to work.

lets ask Michael Richards(aka Kramer) about getting a laugh from the N word.

Nope Doesn't seem to work.

Really, here in Italy no one laughs when he hears a black-skinned man being called "negro". Not even the racists laugh. So, meh, I dunno 'bout across the pond.

Really, here in Italy no one laughs when he hears a black-skinned man being called "negro". Not even the racists laugh. So, meh, I dunno 'bout across the pond.

he was a sort of funny comedian and he bust the N word out on stage toward a loud audience member got in a lot of trouble and had to kiss Jesse Jackson's ass .

Blazing Saddles is one of my favourite movies and has to probably be my favourite comedy. The arguments about it being racist are being well addressed, but let us not forget that sometimes the best humour is about making fun of racism and stereotypes. In New Zealand, we had a comedian (Billy T James) who was Maori, and he made fun of all the stereotypes about Maori. Likewise, you have Blazing Saddles, where Mel Brooks through Bart is making fun of all the stereotypes against black people as well as making fun of racism.

My favourite scene has to be the opening credits. The story goes that the man who sang that song thought it was for a serious film, put all his effort into it, only to find out it was for a comedy.

I am quite taken with the suggestion that a film can't be racist if it "also" attacks asians and gays though.


This is also what everyone says about Southpark.

This film is amazing.

Best quote is this bit


*White guy shouts to KKK members*
White guy: Hey boys, look what I got!

*Shoves black guy out from behind a rock*
Black guy: Hey where all the white women at?

Comedic genius.

Well, when a movie is able to make me laugh EVERY single time I watch it...then its good in my books.

A nice solid absolute. I like those. They're easy.

A group of white youths beat a black youth to death whilst quoting racial epithets from a movie. They are 'portraying' racism. Is it racist?

Uhh... no. OK, here is where we start to worry about Grave n idle. He can't tell the difference between portraying and being.

Cluetime: They are not portraying racism in your example, they are being racist. Huuuuge difference there.

Charlton Heston PORTRAYED Moses. He WAS NOT MOSES. Ben Kingsley was not Ghandi, he merely portrayed the man. Heston was not Jewish, Kingsley was not even Hindu, they just protrayed it! Ghandi was BEING Ghandi.


Are we clear on the difference? If not, dude, you are in serious need of medical attention, and your problem is definitely not with Mel Brooks or his movies.

Let's just wait for Grave_n_idle to start calling people "honky" and "cracker" so we can think of George Jefferson and have a good laugh.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn uses word ****** fairly often. Is that a racist book?

I remember hearing some people in America wanted publishers to eliminate words like ****** from all books including such works as Huckleberry Finn, because it promoted racism

Then again some people are stupid.

So does To Kill a Mockingbird, man to think all those times I have read it, it was promoting racism. :rolleyes:

Do you understand that you can't prove whether a person is or is not racist? Saying "portraying racism" makes some one racist is using circular logic.

I didn't say that.

Someone else said that portraying racism is NOT racism - an 'absolute' argument that I showed was easily defeated.

I didn't make an absolute statement - thus, you trying to invoke the same mechanism shows nothing - except that you don't understand how arguing against absolutes 'works'.

And yet you continue to use it yourself...


Not at all. I didn't invoke an absolute argument. Pay attention to who said what.


Perhaps the difference being that you are overly sensitive and critical with a shitty sense of humor?


THat's cute. Anytime anyone is less than happy about the situation they are facing, you can invoke 'over sensitive'. So - when a girl cries during her rape, she's just being over sensitive, right?

Mel Brooks DID set out to offend. That's the mechanism of the comedy - if no one was offended, his 'joke' would have fallen flat. When someone sets out to offend, it is idiotic to think no one will be offended... or to PRETEND that one thought no one would be offended.

Perhaps you think I have a a shitty sense of humour. If calling people 'niggers', and sitting around farting is your idea of humour, I embrace my lack.



Then you don't get it.


On the contrary, I would say you missed the point.

I 'get it'. I just think it's shit.


Oh yeah, because my assertion that the movie is a blatant satire is far more ludicrous than your assertion that it is a glorification of racism.


The racism is extant in the material. I don't HAVE to assert there i racism, there IS racism... the debate is about whether the racism is funny or not.

You would have to show that it is 'satire'.


For further note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Me thinks you don't understand satire.

The purpose of satire is not primarily humour. What Mel Brooks did was for the shits and giggles, thus - not satire. Satire doesn't even have to be funny.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn uses word ****** fairly often. Is that a racist book?


Because it is a realisitic portrayal? No. But then - that doesn't automatically mean the author was not racist, either. Or that the purpose was not racism. Or that the characters portrayed were not rcists. Or - in the event of it's recreation as drama, that there is no racist undertone, or racism inherent in any of the performances.

See - the problem here is that some have taken as an absolute the idea that 'portraying racism is not racist'. That is an aboslute, and can easily be shown to be flawed.


No. Here is where you totally misunderstood the movie.

c wut i did tehre?


Yes, nothing worthwhile.


QFT.

Or not.

I'd guess that "Blazing Saddles" hasn't survived its own times, at least in your case. Anyway, why should anyone "say ****** because it gets a laugh"? Does really "saying ******" gets a laugh? I don't think so, but you're welcome to a different idea of course. Meh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dice_Clay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Chubby_Brown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Manning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_stern

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Rock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_murphy

Uhh... no. OK, here is where we start to worry about Grave n idle. He can't tell the difference between portraying and being.

Cluetime: They are not portraying racism in your example, they are being racist. Huuuuge difference there.


Missed the point, huh?

They WERE 'portraying' racism. They were also BEING racist.

Because, your assertion that 'portraying racism isn't racist' is horseshit - it can be. And, that's the problem with absolutes.


Charlton Heston PORTRAYED Moses. He WAS NOT MOSES. Ben Kingsley was not Ghandi, he merely portrayed the man. Heston was not Jewish, Kingsley was not even Hindu, they just protrayed it! Ghandi was BEING Ghandi.

Are we clear on the difference? If not, dude, you are in serious need of medical attention, and your problem is definitely not with Mel Brooks or his movies.

On the contrary, my problem IS with this particular Mel Brooks movie, because this movie is what we are discussing. I say that the agenda is a racist one, and that the 'comedy' derives almost it's entire momentum from repetition of the word '******'. You say that the word '******' is being used as a satirical tool.

We disagree over the exact net outcome. We both acknowledge the wording, and that the phrasing IS racist - we just disagree about HOW the 'joke' is designed to elicit a laugh.

If the 'joke' only took place once or twice, I'd probably even agree with you. But when your entire move basically falls apart without use of the word '******', I'd say it is being used for the 'comedy' value of racial insult.

Let's just wait for Grave_n_idle to start calling people "honky" and "cracker" so we can think of George Jefferson and have a good laugh.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I remember hearing some people in America wanted publishers to eliminate words like ****** from all books including such works as Huckleberry Finn, because it promoted racism

Then again some people are stupid.

So does To Kill a Mockingbird, man to think all those times I have read it, it was promoting racism. :rolleyes:

It's not an entirely unreasonable idea. While there is educational value to realistic portrayal of something like racial prejudice, at some point it becomes counterproductive.

And you end up with neo-nazi's forming organisations because they are inspired by a movie about the third reich, or something.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Far more than you.

Far more than you.

Stop wasting my time. If the best you have is to suggest that I might one day say 'cracker' or whatever.... so that you can then have some kind of after-the-fact glory or justification, then you are doing nothing here of any worth.

It's not an entirely unreasonable idea. While there is educational value to realistic portrayal of something like racial prejudice, at some point it becomes counterproductive.

And you end up with neo-nazi's forming organisations because they are inspired by a movie about the third reich, or something.

Yeah, I can see the secret Klan meeting where they watch To Kill A Mockingbird...

Yeah, I can see the secret Klan meeting where they watch To Kill A Mockingbird...

"To Kill a Mockingbird" probably isn't starting race riots. A lot of it is context, and a lot of it is peer-pressure. Kids torturing each other after watching Childs Play movies? Real life 'fight club' situations in the wake of the film (proving nothing other than that the film tapped a real vein of something... and a lot of people missed the point of that movie).

At some point, though - just putting the phrase in front of people is going to be doing more harm than good.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" probably isn't starting race riots. A lot of it is context, and a lot of it is peer-pressure. Kids torturing each other after watching Childs Play movies? Real life 'fight club' situations in the wake of the film (proving nothing other than that the film tapped a real vein of something... and a lot of people missed the point of that movie).

At some point, though - just putting the phrase in front of people is going to be doing more harm than good.

The movie Conspiracy with Kenneth Brannagh was an astounding piece of historical recreation. It's extremely informative, and extremely well done. Are you arguing that a movie such as this should not be shown, then, to anyone, because people will be provoked into saying, "hells bells, that's a good fucking idea there..."?

Let Japan Drop An Atomic Bomb On Them And Let Them See How It Feels For The Next 300 Years.
Alternatively, Get All The Film Stars To Run The Country, Polititians Are Actors Anyway, And Not Very Good Ones

I didn't say that.

Someone else said that portraying racism is NOT racism - an 'absolute' argument that I showed was easily defeated.
No, you didn't. His absolute can't be proven or disproven meaning you can't "easily defeat it." And in "defeating" it, you completely skewed the meaning of the word "portray" to include anything and everything including being.

Not at all. I didn't invoke an absolute argument. Pay attention to who said what.
Your entire argument is that Blazing Saddles is racist because it portrays racism. Not in so many words, but that is your argument flat out.

THat's cute. Anytime anyone is less than happy about the situation they are facing, you can invoke 'over sensitive'.
And how many other people are accusing Blazing Saddles and Mel Brooks of being racist because the word "******" is used in the movie?

So - when a girl cries during her rape, she's just being over sensitive, right?
Listen, if you want to start shoveling coal into the logical fallacy train, I'll be glad to join you.

Mel Brooks DID set out to offend.
Yes, to offend our sensibilities. As seen by all the juvenile humor. You are implying he meant to be racist. As seen in the next statement...

Perhaps you think I have a a shitty sense of humour. If calling people 'niggers', [...] is your idea of humour, I embrace my lack.
It wasn't that calling people "******" was funny, it was the method in which it was used. It is none of our problems if you don't understand satire and can't get past "omg, they said ******, I better phone my local NAACP representative and report this." That wasn't the point. This wasn't a Kings of Comedy special where "******" is how people are referring to each other in casual conversation. The word "******" was used for a number of reasons: the offending your sensibilities, a prop for stupid jokes, and as a representative of what a bunch of hick white people would have actually said. You think a bunch of hicks out in boonyland back in the old west wern't going to call black people "niggers"? Not only that, but it was used to show that those people were ignorant hicks.

The racism is extant in the material. I don't HAVE to assert there i racism, there IS racism... the debate is about whether the racism is funny or not.
Yes, the bad guys and townsfolk are racists. That's the point. It sets them up to be the butt of the joke. Eventually the townsfolk grow up after Bart saves them, and that's why it's satire. All the racist people are the butt of the joke and then they learn a lesson. The definition of satire.

The purpose of satire is not primarily humour. What Mel Brooks did was for the shits and giggles, thus - not satire. Satire doesn't even have to be funny.
So you assert because something is funny, it can't be satire?


Missed the point, huh?

They WERE 'portraying' racism. They were also BEING racist.
Exactly. Being and portraying arn't the same thing. You making the example is "portraying racism," them doing it is "being racist."

Portray:
1. To depict or represent pictorially; make a picture of.
2. To depict or describe in words.
3. To represent dramatically, as on the stage. See Synonyms at represent.

Be:
1. to exist or live: Shakespeare's “To be or not to be” is the ultimate question.
2. to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.
3. to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.
4. to continue or remain as before: Let things be.
5. to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.

On the contrary, my problem IS with this particular Mel Brooks movie, because this movie is what we are discussing. I say that the agenda is a racist one, and that the 'comedy' derives almost it's entire momentum from repetition of the word '******'. You say that the word '******' is being used as a satirical tool.
Patently absurd. If you think the driving element of this comedy is the word "******," then you, quite frankly, are an idiot. There are a number of funny scenes not involving the word ******, or even any racism at all. Though, if you were to say the movie derived it's momentum from racist beliefs, you would be right. A number of the jokes revolves around the ignorant townsfolks and bad guy's racists beliefs and their own stupidity because of it.

And that is all that needs to be said. You are being completely ridiculous saying the entire comedy revolves around the word "******," which is wrong to anyone who has actually seen it. The whole thing is a comedy based on offending people's sensibilities and playing up and off of ignorance. Ignorance which is race based, but that's the point. Instead of the main character phoning the NAACP, he makes a joke of it and of the racists themselves.

Stop wasting my time. If the best you have is to suggest that I might one day say 'cracker' or whatever.... so that you can then have some kind of after-the-fact glory or justification, then you are doing nothing here of any worth.
Never seen the Jeffersons I take it.

(proving nothing other than that the film tapped a real vein of something... and a lot of people missed the point of that movie)..
You can cut the irony with a knife.

I love reading this shit. I love internet forums. And I love all the fucking idiots that post ^^^THAT MUCH^^^ to prove a point to somebody you don't know and will never meet.

I love reading this shit. I love internet forums. And I love all the fucking idiots that post ^^^THAT MUCH^^^ to prove a point to somebody you don't know and will never meet.
And there there are the holier-than-thou elitists who ride-by attack posters on their high horses...

And there there are the holier-than-thou elitists who ride-by attack posters on their high horses...

Stop looking in the mirror, will ya?

Personally, I think it's a fun movie, and I think it's an anti-racist movie.

When it comes to Mel Brooks, I think this is his best movie, followed by The Producers (Both the old and the new.)

No, you didn't. His absolute can't be proven or disproven meaning you can't "easily defeat it."


His absolute can be easily disproven. And it was.

Your inability to comprehend doesn't alter that fact.


And in "defeating" it, you completely skewed the meaning of the word "portray" to include anything and everything including being.


No - you apparently just fail to understand that someone can DO something and BE something, simultaneously.


Your entire argument is that Blazing Saddles is racist because it portrays racism. Not in so many words, but that is your argument flat out.


Not at all. My argument is that the movie is 'shit', because it is nothing more than a hour and a half of casual racism and fart jokes.

"Apparently some require little more than casual racism, a little vulgarity, and an extended fart joke. If it is a fault in me to look for something other than that, it's one I'm willing to overlook.

But, even absent the boring repetition of '******' and the crass toilet humour... it's just not that good. It's neither innovative nor exciting, and - while a subtle reference might be worthy, that kind of parody is just childish.

On reflection, even absent the boring repetition of '******' and the crass toilet humour... the remainign three-and-a-half minutes of film might not have been a total waste.

I said the causal racism bored me. My complaint wasn't about the movie 'being racist'.

Now that we've established you've not paid even enough attention to know what my argument was, feel free to attack some other strawman.


And how many other people are accusing Blazing Saddles and Mel Brooks of being racist because the word "******" is used in the movie?


Seven? I don't know. What are you talking about?


Listen, if you want to start shoveling coal into the logical fallacy train, I'll be glad to join you.


Heh.


Yes, to offend our sensibilities. As seen by all the juvenile humor. You are implying he meant to be racist. As seen in the next statement...


Juvenille humour. Fart jokes. Casual racism.

The movie is shit.


It wasn't that calling people "******" was funny, it was the method in which it was used. It is none of our problems if you don't understand satire and can't get past "omg, they said ******, I better phone my local NAACP representative and report this." That wasn't the point. This wasn't a Kings of Comedy special where "******" is how people are referring to each other in casual conversation. The word "******" was used for a number of reasons: the offending your sensibilities, a prop for stupid jokes, and as a representative of what a bunch of hick white people would have actually said. You think a bunch of hicks out in boonyland back in the old west wern't going to call black people "niggers"? Not only that, but it was used to show that those people were ignorant hicks.


It isn't that I don't understand satire, it's that this just isn't it. This is, to satire, what the extended fart joke is to situational comedy.

And that's why the movie is so popular. If you design for the lowest common denominator...


Yes, the bad guys and townsfolk are racists. That's the point. It sets them up to be the butt of the joke. Eventually the townsfolk grow up after Bart saves them, and that's why it's satire. All the racist people are the butt of the joke and then they learn a lesson. The definition of satire.


No - the definition of satire would be if the attempt to change the thoughts of others was the goal. I don't buy it. Based on the intracontextual content, and the remainder of the canon of Brooks - I see no reason to believe that Brooks was NOT just playing '****** jokes' for an easy laugh.

Luckily for him, there are no shortage of apologists like you making excuses for him and claiming him lofty goals. Another few years, and this kind of revisionism makes him a saint.


So you assert because something is funny, it can't be satire?


No.


Exactly. Being and portraying arn't the same thing. You making the example is "portraying racism," them doing it is "being racist."


There's some hope after all? You finally got it that one can 'portray' something without it impacting what one 'does'.


Patently absurd. If you think the driving element of this comedy is the word "******," then you, quite frankly, are an idiot.


So - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

I suppose you can always invoke your 'over-sensitive' argument from before, if I object?

If you think that the constantly reiterated '******' joke is NOT the driving force of the 'comedy', then you are deluded.


There are a number of funny scenes not involving the word ******, or even any racism at all.


Yes. There's the extended fart joke, for one. And the humorous speech impediment. And the other fart joke. And the sexual titillation.

So... a long running '******' joke, and some third-graders. Awesome.


And that is all that needs to be said. You are being completely ridiculous saying the entire comedy revolves around the word "******,"


I didn't. But without the '******' joke and the farting, the movie lacks... well... it just lacks.


The whole thing is a comedy based on offending...
[/QUOTE]

Yep.


Never seen the Jeffersons I take it.


Nope.


You can cut the irony with a knife.

No kidding.

No - you apparently just fail to understand that someone can DO something and BE something, simultaneously.
Yes, but you can't portray and be something at the same time. Especially not in the way you did it. Were those white kids beating up a black kid part of a play where they were portraying racism? If not, they wern't portraying shit. I even gave you definitions. I guess that is why you went and changed words on me and pretended I wouldn't notice.

I said the causal racism bored me. My complaint wasn't about the movie 'being racist'.

Now that we've established you've not paid even enough attention to know what my argument was, feel free to attack some other strawman.
And then you further go on to imply it is racist and repeatedly bring up the "******" argument.



Luckily for him, there are no shortage of apologists like you making excuses for him and claiming him lofty goals. Another few years, and this kind of revisionism makes him a saint.
Let's put you in charge of the Mel Brooks image train. We'll have him renounced as a racist in a week.

No.
Then I suggest you do a better job of making your point.

There's some hope after all? You finally got it that one can 'portray' something without it impacting what one 'does'.
Your example was still wrong by the definition of the words.

So - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?
No, just some one who thinks the driving force of the movie was the word "******." Which you seem to.

If you think that the constantly reiterated '******' joke is NOT the driving force of the 'comedy', then you are deluded.
And you are a fool.

No kidding.
As seen here.

Just in case nobody is understanding whats going on here..


the_pantless_hero <-- This guy likes the movie.

Grave_n_idle <-- This guy doesn't like the movie.


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b2/Seriousbusiness2.jpg

*getting tired of eating popcorn*

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

loved Blazing Saddles, but then I also loved Young Frankenstein, History of the World Pt 1, Silent Movie, High Anxiety, To Be or Not To Be...

didn't care too much for Robin Hood. the jokes just seemed... forced for that movie.

as for the cry of Racism. for some people, it's ok to make fun of anyone except the ones they care about. Go figure.

I remember hearing some people in America wanted publishers to eliminate words like ****** from all books including such works as Huckleberry Finn, because it promoted racism

Then again some people are stupid.

So does To Kill a Mockingbird, man to think all those times I have read it, it was promoting racism. :rolleyes:

:p

Because it is a realisitic portrayal? No. But then - that doesn't automatically mean the author was not racist, either. Or that the purpose was not racism. Or that the characters portrayed were not rcists. Or - in the event of it's recreation as drama, that there is no racist undertone, or racism inherent in any of the performances.

See - the problem here is that some have taken as an absolute the idea that 'portraying racism is not racist'. That is an aboslute, and can easily be shown to be flawed.

But I used the same logic that you used to call Blazing Saddles racist. Have your cake, or eat it. But don't try to fool the world into thinking you can do both at once.

Yes, nothing worthwhile.

Incidentally, I just did the exact same thing you did. So by your own admission, you didn't do anything worthwhile with your statement either, which is kind of the entire point I was trying to make.

Or not.

No. No it was QFT.

Yeah, I can see the secret Klan meeting where they watch To Kill A Mockingbird...

LMAO, I hear it is the book they are reading for their next book club meeting.

But I used the same logic that you used to call Blazing Saddles racist. Have your cake, or eat it. But don't try to fool the world into thinking you can do both at once.


Don't waste my time.

My actual complaint was about 'racism' in the movie, not that the movie was 'racist'. I'm not saying it's not racist, or that it is - that wasn't my complaint.

Is there an ARGUMENT for it being racist because of the repeated use of the word '******'? Yes - obviously.

Just because a black person says 'nigegr' in the movie, does that mean it is NOT racist? No - obviously.

But you people just seem intent on shifting the goalposts and making out I am saying things I'm not saying. Good luck with that, but it's not scoring you any points.


Incidentally, I just did the exact same thing you did. So by your own admission, you didn't do anything worthwhile with your statement either, which is kind of the entire point I was trying to make.


If you think you did the same thing I did, I have nothing more to say to you.

Try re-reading those posts, and see if you can spot the not-so-subtle difference.


No. No it was QFT.

Or not.

Yes, but you can't portray and be something at the same time....


Utter rubbish.

The kids in my example were performing the lines from the movie (thus - a portrayal) whilst they were beating the other kid (thus, a racist action).

The racist portrayal clearly does not stop the action being racist.

It's really that simple.


And then you further go on to imply it is racist and repeatedly bring up the "******" argument.


I just showed you what my complaint with the movie is. Quit making shit up to try to make your argument against me work.


Let's put you in charge of the Mel Brooks image train. We'll have him renounced as a racist in a week.


Works for me. HE's a talentless hack.


Then I suggest you do a better job of making your point.


I said "The purpose of satire is not primarily humour. What Mel Brooks did was for the shits and giggles, thus - not satire. Satire doesn't even have to be funny. "

You responded "So you assert because something is funny, it can't be satire?"

The problem here is obviously not me making my point... unless you think I'm using words like 'primarily' or 'doesn't even have to be' in a confusing manner.


Your example was still wrong by the definition of the words.


No, it really wasn't. The action is "represented dramatically' WHILE the violence is 'taking place'.

Come on, really. This really isn't that difficult.


No, just some one who thinks the driving force of the movie was the word "******." Which you seem to.


So - anyone who thinks that - in this ONE case, with regard to this ONE movie - the central focus of the 'comedy' is the constant repetition of the word '******'... is an idiot?

You really like this movie, don't you... I mean, like... 'get a room' like?


And you are a fool.


No, I'm really not. But, I'm having doubt about your ability to debate... this beign your second ad hominem in a row.


As seen here.

Yes.

If you think you did the same thing I did, I have nothing more to say to you.

Try re-reading those posts, and see if you can spot the not-so-subtle difference.

Really? Because the two statements in question are almost word-for-word identical.

Or not.

Yes. Actually. You just can't seem to stand that there are people who find the movie funny. That's really what all this boils down to in the end.

I'm not much of a Mel Brooks fan. All of his movies are funny the first time I see them, and I enjoy them thoroughly upon the first viewing. The second viewing, however, is lucky if it elicits a chuckle or two from me.

Any movie that is only funny once, isn't that funny. Mel Brooks has made many such movies, and as such I find them a bit overrated.

*flees thread*

i love the movie, but i prefer Spaceballs :)

never really met anybody who didn't like either of those two (if they'd seen them)

i love the movie, but i prefer Spaceballs :)

never really met anybody who didn't like either of those two (if they'd seen them)
Usually only the pretentious fail to find Mel Brooks funny. They're too busy trying to laugh at Jerry Lewis.

i love the movie, but i prefer Spaceballs :)

never really met anybody who didn't like either of those two (if they'd seen them)

Hi, my name is Dyakovo, nice to meet you.

i love the movie, but i prefer Spaceballs :)

never really met anybody who didn't like either of those two (if they'd seen them)

Hi PM, Remember me?

I liked SPACEBALLS, just forgot to mention it. :headbang:

people who don't get what mel brooks was trying to do with blazing saddles = dumb. Most people come away from the movie thinking the movie portrayed racism as a backwards outdated mode of thought.


people who don't find it funny simply have a different sense of humor. No need to debate the matter to death it is simply impossible to make everyone laugh with the same joke.

people who don't get what mel brooks was trying to do with blazing saddles = dumb. Most people come away from the movie thinking the movie portrayed racism as a backwards outdated mode of thought.


people who don't find it funny simply have a different sense of humor. No need to debate the matter to death it is simply impossible to make everyone laugh with the same joke.

I laugh at people who say period movies like Blazing Saddles as being racist yet complain about the lack of 'realism' in movies.

hello, back in the time that Blazing Saddles was supposed to take place in, there was ALOT of Racism around.

I laugh at people who say period movies like Blazing Saddles as being racist yet complain about the lack of 'realism' in movies.

hello, back in the time that Blazing Saddles was supposed to take place in, there was ALOT of Racism around.

blazing saddle really followed the traditional black film genre of portraying racism.
just look at Boss *Nword*

It's racist to make fun of racism?

They make the black guy that everyone is racist against into the hero. Yep, that's so degrading to blacks.

It must also be sexist because of the burlesque dancer.

perhaps it's also timeist to have made it portray a time in the past.

Only documentaries with absolutely no commentary are legitimate entertainment.

Usually only the pretentious fail to find Mel Brooks funny. They're too busy trying to laugh at Jerry Lewis.

when did jerry lewis become highbrow?

It's racist to make fun of racism?

They make the black guy that everyone is racist against into the hero. Yep, that's so degrading to blacks.

It must also be sexist because of the burlesque dancer.

perhaps it's also timeist to have made it portray a time in the past.

Only documentaries with absolutely no commentary are legitimate entertainment.

oh, and don't forget... One of them was drunk, so it's making fun of substance abuse.

add to that it was poking fun at the government, so it was obviously Anti-American.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" probably isn't starting race riots. A lot of it is context, and a lot of it is peer-pressure. Kids torturing each other after watching Childs Play movies? Real life 'fight club' situations in the wake of the film (proving nothing other than that the film tapped a real vein of something... and a lot of people missed the point of that movie).

At some point, though - just putting the phrase in front of people is going to be doing more harm than good.

Orrrrrrrr.... showing extremely stupid people who haven't anything to crow about use the word incessantly lessens the impact of the word and makes all racists look more asinine than they already did?

when did jerry lewis become highbrow?

They supposedly adore him in France...

Orrrrrrrr.... showing extremely stupid people who haven't anything to crow about use the word incessantly lessens the impact of the word and makes all racists look more asinine than they already did?
See: The Jeffersons

Really? Because the two statements in question are almost word-for-word identical.


Any two sets of words become identical if you ignore enough of the words.

The two statements were only similar if you choose to ignore all the context.

Usually only the pretentious fail to find Mel Brooks funny. They're too busy trying to laugh at Jerry Lewis.

Mel Brooks just isn't that funny. That's not a 'pretension', it's just how it is.

Who is Jerry Lewis?

It's racist to make fun of racism?

They make the black guy that everyone is racist against into the hero. Yep, that's so degrading to blacks.

It must also be sexist because of the burlesque dancer.

perhaps it's also timeist to have made it portray a time in the past.

Only documentaries with absolutely no commentary are legitimate entertainment.

Don't buy into the strawman here. Saying that I didn't find any worthwhile humour in the casual racism didn't equate to saying the film itself was racist. I still hold, however, that it can be interpreted as being racist.

I think that Brooks played it for more than just the satire, to be honest. I think he wanted the laughs from the repetitiuon of the word '******'. That doesn't necessarily make the movie racist, it just makes Brooks a whore.

Mel Brooks just isn't that funny. That's not a 'pretension', it's just how it is.

Quoted for subjective truth and disagreement.

I find him to be funny. So does the The American Film Institute - evident by their placement of Blazing Saddles on number 6 on their list of the top 100 comedy movies in American cinema. (And The Producers on No. 11, and Young Frankenstein on No. 13.)

But you know this. Just felt like restating that you don't hold the objective truth there. It's all about different tastes for different people. Oh well. Carry on :)

Mel Brooks just isn't that funny. That's not a 'pretension', it's just how it is.
This just makes his point. Especially after the pages of trying to call him racist for using the word "******" in Blazing Saddles.

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

I'd say my favorite scene is either when the Sheriff holds himself hostage to escape or when Mel Brooks dressed as an Indian chief starts speaking Yiddish to the black family.

Also, Mel Brooks isn't the only one who subscribes to the theory that if you just use it enough (not maliciously, the theory seems to go) the word will loose its impact and become harmless.

Others have formulated the theory directly, like Lenny Bruce (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_y_LaMokGM).

And nowadays, people like, um, the rapper Nas
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/53/534/534901/nas12_1210419880.jpg (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572287/20071018/nas.jhtml)
^ Link ^

...takes it further. I don't think his new album is too offensive, nor do I see any of these examples as racists.

Quoted for subjective truth and disagreement.

I find him to be funny. So does the The American Film Institute - evident by their placement of Blazing Saddles on number 6 on their list of the top 100 comedy movies in American cinema. (And The Producers on No. 11, and Young Frankenstein on No. 13.)

But you know this. Just felt like restating that you don't hold the objective truth there. It's all about different tastes for different people. Oh well. Carry on :)

Unless we're going to argue that Britney Spears is - in fact - one of the greatest and most talented musicians of our time, the appeal to popularity is probably not going to win any sympathies, here.

Popular doesn't equate to good.

This just makes his point. Especially after the pages of trying to call him racist for using the word "******" in Blazing Saddles.

I decried the racism, I didn't initially call anyone a racist. There's a difference, you know.

I decried the racism, I didn't initially call anyone a racist. There's a difference, you know.

GnI, you are such a duplicitous bastard.

Here, on the forums, you so emphatically decry racism, yet last thursday, you and me were in north Las Vegas trying to score ferret tranquilizers for that party at Valerie's house because you thought if we brought some cool shit that she'd go down on you on the billiard table again and when we showed up at the usual corner, there was a Korean guy dealing, and a black guy, and I wanted to buy from the Korean guy, but you said let's buy from the black guy, and I said "as reparations for slavery?" and you said "No, the Asian guy will be too good at math for us to shortchange him".

Yet here, all of a sudden you're Colonel Shaw.

Unless we're going to argue that Britney Spears is - in fact - one of the greatest and most talented musicians of our time, the appeal to popularity is probably not going to win any sympathies, here.

Popular doesn't equate to good.

In this thread, you've been going "Mel Brooks is shit" and "it's just not funny". I thought I'd show you what you already know - that your taste in humour doesn't resonate with the general mainstream opinion, but runs contrary to it.

I don't care if it's gonna "win any sympathies" or not. I like it, I find it funny, and I see it as anti-racist, as I've already said. And that's all I care about.

I'm not much of a fan of 'comedy' at all, to be honest.

Somehow, that's not the least bit surprising. I wonder why that is...

when did jerry lewis become highbrow?
When the French became fascinated with him.

Somehow, that's not the least bit surprising. I wonder why that is...

:eek:

GnI, you are such a duplicitous bastard.

Here, on the forums, you so emphatically decry racism, yet last thursday, you and me were in north Las Vegas trying to score ferret tranquilizers for that party at Valerie's house because you thought if we brought some cool shit that she'd go down on you on the billiard table again and when we showed up at the usual corner, there was a Korean guy dealing, and a black guy, and I wanted to buy from the Korean guy, but you said let's buy from the black guy, and I said "as reparations for slavery?" and you said "No, the Asian guy will be too good at math for us to shortchange him".

Yet here, all of a sudden you're Colonel Shaw.

Hey... I got us a 25% discount, didn't I?

In this thread, you've been going "Mel Brooks is shit" and "it's just not funny". I thought I'd show you what you already know - that your taste in humour doesn't resonate with the general mainstream opinion, but runs contrary to it.

I don't care if it's gonna "win any sympathies" or not. I like it, I find it funny, and I see it as anti-racist, as I've already said. And that's all I care about.

The Britney thing holds true. Britney is the equivalent of a long drawn-out fart joke. Some people would say Britney's recording career has BEEN one long, drawn-out fart joke.

To some people, a fart joke is funny. To some, it's puerile, and you really should have grown out of that kind of humour by... well, third grade.

Mel Brooks peddles in lowest common denominator 'comedy'. Of course his audience is large.

Somehow, that's not the least bit surprising. I wonder why that is...

Maybe it's because I'm English, and we have no discernable sense of humour.

Well, there goes the thread.

Well, there goes the thread.

Where did it go?
From what i can tell it was always doomed to obscurity, it's now fulfilling it's predetermined role in the electrical book of NSG.

The Britney thing holds true. Britney is the equivalent of a long drawn-out fart joke. Some people would say Britney's recording career has BEEN one long, drawn-out fart joke.
Sure, but I can't see the comparison. Give it 30 years, and we'll see.

To some people, a fart joke is funny. To some, it's puerile, and you really should have grown out of that kind of humour by... well, third grade.
To many people, a fart joke in 1974 was groundbreaking because it hadn't ever been shown in a movie before.

Of course, that less-than-a-minute-long joke shouldn't define the entire movie either.

Mel Brooks peddles in lowest common denominator 'comedy'. Of course his audience is large.
I disagree. I don't see him doing that at all - especially at the time it was made. Just like George Carlin isn't peddling to the lowest common denominator today. But hey, that's just me. You have a narrow sense of humour, and you don't get the movie. That's OK. To each his own.

Where did it go?
And where did it come from?

Maybe it's because I'm English, and we have no discernable sense of humour.

You have no discernable sense of humor, judging by all of your posts in my three-plus years on this forum, anyway.

Breaking away from that serious bit, what you said actually was somewhat funny... At least, it attempted to be.

great comedy my favourite scene is where the they nearly drown in the quick sand
Taggart: Break's over, boys. Don't just lay there gettin' a suntan, ain't gonna do you no good anyhow. Now take this shovel and put it to some good use.
[Bart grabs a shovel and advances on Taggart from behind]
Charlie: Don't do it, Bart.
Bart: Uh-uh, baby, I have to.
Taggart: [to Lyle] Now send a wire to the main office and tell them that I said
[Bart whacks him]
Taggart: OW.
Lyle: Send wire, main office, tell them I said "ow," gotcha.

When the French became fascinated with him.

no thats just not true.

jerry lewis has never been highbrow. when the french came to love him we all just shook our heads and chalked it up to cultural differences.

although now that that kind of physical humor is popular again he may have some kind of a resurgence in popularity.

I am a BIG fan of Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles". I think it is one of the best film out there! However there are people out there who don't get the film at all. They think that's it's "Racist" or childish, etc. Now I will be the first to admit that "Blazing Saddles" is more of a guy film, but comon. The only reason I think it's not racist is that they make fun of everyone! They make fun of blacks, Asians, Homosexuals (wait's for Fass to post), and Hell, the W.A.S.P. in the film look like dumb rednecks!

It's one of those films that you have to see if you're a guy, and if you're a woman, you still have to see it so you can get a guy's sense of humor. Mel Brooks has always been a comedy genius and I believe that Blazing Saddles is the creme of the crop.

Why some people don't see the humor in it, I have no clue.

So, Blazing Saddles, love it, hate it, and what's your favorite scene?

I like Blazing Saddles. I do not think that this is a movie that anyone thinks is contraversial. I have not read the thread but I would be surprised if a lot of people think tha tit is contraversial or offensive. I saw it as a kid and then saw it again recently. There was some sexual humor that I missed as a kid. It is a funny movie.

You have a narrow sense of humour, and you don't get the movie. That's OK. To each his own.

I 'get' it. I just think it's shit.

That distinction isn't that complex... I'm a little surprised I have to keep re-typing it for the hard of thinking.

You have no discernable sense of humor, judging by all of your posts in my three-plus years on this forum, anyway.


Good. My 'sense of humour', such as it is, is one of those aspects of my life I choose to share very specifically with those I consider worthy of it.


Breaking away from that serious bit, what you said actually was somewhat funny... At least, it attempted to be.

Only attempted? What if I'd farted halfway through... or included more racial epithets?

Good. My 'sense of humour', such as it is, is one of those aspects of my life I choose to share very specifically with those I consider worthy of it.

Only attempted? What if I'd farted halfway through... or included more racial epithets?

It is a well known fact among the more erudite circles that Oscar Wilde, when delivering his works via oration, and I reference his works as uproarious paragons of wit, he would often close with a customary venting of his bowel gas, and as the noses twitched and eyes watered at the most potent byproduct of his digestions, he would say "Ya'll niggers is gay."

I get Blazing Saddles. I just think its a shit movie. Like most Mel Brooks movies.



Heres what I hate. When you say you dont like a movie, and someone says "You just didnt get it." Did it ever occur to you that we may get the movie fine, it just might not be a good movie?


I hear the "You just didnt get it" defense most when I attack Tim Burton movies.

Good. My 'sense of humour', such as it is, is one of those aspects of my life I choose to share very specifically with those I consider worthy of it.



Only attempted? What if I'd farted halfway through... or included more racial epithets?

Ah, so you have an elitist view of your sense of humor... How precious!

Then it'd just be horrible. Randomness is funny if done correctly. If done just to be random, it's shit, and what you proposed is shit, shit, shit. Completely out of context and has no bearing whatsoever on anything. It's shit.

At least the fart scene on Blazing Saddles had something to do with the scene.

I get Blazing Saddles. I just think its a shit movie. Like most Mel Brooks movies.



Heres what I hate. When you say you dont like a movie, and someone says "You just didnt get it." Did it ever occur to you that we may get the movie fine, it just might not be a good movie?


I hear the "You just didnt get it" defense most when I attack Tim Burton movies.

so which movies did you not think were shit?

and no, I never used "You just didn't get it" if someone says they hated a film. but if they mis-interpreted the film... like one person who told me he didn't like 'Grease' because the message was "girls, if you want a man, dress like a slut."

We spent a loong time arguing that one. :p

I get Blazing Saddles. I just think its a shit movie. Like most Mel Brooks movies.

Heres what I hate. When you say you dont like a movie, and someone says "You just didnt get it." Did it ever occur to you that we may get the movie fine, it just might not be a good movie?

I hear the "You just didnt get it" defense most when I attack Tim Burton movies.

Christ, you're such a fucking racist.

Melvin Kaminksy has done more for civil rights in this country than Brando and David Duke combined.

Lambasting Tim Burton, who hired a black actor to play Jack Skellington, only shows what a wretched bigot you will always be.

Now I know why you don't like Rick Astley. Its because he's a negro.

Take it over to stormfront, dickhead.

so which movies did you not think were shit?


History of the World part I was decent. And Spaceballs had a few moments. Otherwise, garbage movies all.

History of the World part I was decent. And Spaceballs had a few moments. Otherwise, garbage movies all.

ever seen "To Be or Not To Be"?

History of the World part I was decent. And Spaceballs had a few moments. Otherwise, garbage movies all.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights was not a garbage film!

What evidence have you?

That Cary Elwes put a shotgun in his mouth after seeing it?

That Richard Lewis ingested six pounds of laundry detergent, leaving only a strangely colored corpse and note that read only "Moses forgive me, that was beneath even me"?

That Dave Chapelle starts shrieking like a woman every time he passes it at Blockbuster?

Two words for you, shithead: Co-fucking-incidence.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights was not a garbage film!

What evidence have you?

That Cary Elwes put a shotgun in his mouth after seeing it?

That Richard Lewis ingested six pounds of laundry detergent, leaving only a strangely colored corpse and note that read only "Moses forgive me, that was beneath even me"?

That Dave Chapelle starts shrieking like a woman every time he passes it at Blockbuster?

Two words for you, shithead: Co-fucking-incidence.



LOL. Im still waiting for you to scare off a newbie who doesnt know you are the resident satirist.

Ah, so you have an elitist view of your sense of humor... How precious!


Not elitist, per se.... more that there are some aspects of my existence that are public access, and others that aren't. I'm pretty sure you do the same.


Then it'd just be horrible. Randomness is funny if done correctly. If done just to be random, it's shit, and what you proposed is shit, shit, shit. Completely out of context and has no bearing whatsoever on anything. It's shit.


Eddie Izzard is often 'random' just for the sake of 'randomness'... I assume you find him unfunny?

And, actually - since my big compaints about "Blazing Saddles" are the fart jokes and the casual racism, a gaseous bowel evacuation and a chorus of racial slurs is perfectly in context.

It would still be shit, though. Funny how you and I agree on that...


At least the fart scene on Blazing Saddles had something to do with the scene.

The scene itself has something to do with the scene itself? How... circular.

The whole movie is one collosal fart joke. The name of the movie. The name of the Governor. The (in)famous fart scene. One big fart joke. And it stinks.

It is a well known fact among the more erudite circles that Oscar Wilde, when delivering his works via oration, and I reference his works as uproarious paragons of wit, he would often close with a customary venting of his bowel gas, and as the noses twitched and eyes watered at the most potent byproduct of his digestions, he would say "Ya'll niggers is gay."

Indeed, as famous last 'words' go "either those curtains go, or I do... ***sound like a fridge door opening***" is top notch.

LOL. Im still waiting for you to scare off a newbie who doesnt know you are the resident satirist.

Nice strawman, KoL.

Don't know why, but I had come to expect better than you.

Lewis's widow's tears won't evaporate in the harsh heat of your flamebaiting!

Not elitist, per se.... more that there are some aspects of my existence that are public access, and others that aren't. I'm pretty sure you do the same.



Eddie Izzard is often 'random' just for the sake of 'randomness'... I assume you find him unfunny?

And, actually - since my big compaints about "Blazing Saddles" are the fart jokes and the casual racism, a gaseous bowel evacuation and a chorus of racial slurs is perfectly in context.

It would still be shit, though. Funny how you and I agree on that...



The scene itself has something to do with the scene itself? How... circular.

The whole movie is one collosal fart joke. The name of the movie. The name of the Governor. The (in)famous fart scene. One big fart joke. And it stinks.

1: Same here, though your wording made it seem as if your sense of humor was something beyond... I'm sure you meant it that way though. :p

2: Mostly, yes. Same goes for Andrew Dice Clay and his ilk.

3: Well, they'd be in context if you take the entire film as your context, but as far as scene context goes, what you suggested for your line there wouldn't make any sense. And it'd suck ass (sorry).

4: The scene was made for a fart joke, and the fart joke was contextual and relevant to the scene. As stupid as that sounds, it does make sense... Sadly. I have a rather neutral opinion of the film as a whole (sorry), as I don't really like or dislike it.

Oddly enough, my favorite part was the whole toll booth bit.

Actually, the mental image of Oscar Wilde letting one rip after oration, and subsequently telling the audience "Y'all niggers is gay" is hilarious.

1: Same here, though your wording made it seem as if your sense of humor was something beyond... I'm sure you meant it that way though. :p

2: Mostly, yes. Same goes for Andrew Dice Clay and his ilk.

3: Well, they'd be in context if you take the entire film as your context, but as far as scene context goes, what you suggested for your line there wouldn't make any sense. And it'd suck ass (sorry).

4: The scene was made for a fart joke, and the fart joke was contextual and relevant to the scene. As stupid as that sounds, it does make sense... Sadly. I have a rather neutral opinion of the film as a whole (sorry), as I don't really like or dislike it.

Oddly enough, my favorite part was the whole toll booth bit.

1) ...

2) I like Izzard. I can't stand Dice Clay type things.

3) ...

4) I get that that particular scene is designed as a vehicle for a fart joke. That doesn't make potty humour any more highbrow, or distract from the fact that the whole movie is a collosal fart joke with the word '******' thrown in a ridiculous number of times to add spice.

Yes. Mel Brooks is a spicy fart joke.

Oddly enough, I don't mind Space Balls, so much. My venom is mainly stored up for Blazing Saddles and Robin Hood.

The scene itself has something to do with the scene itself? How... circular.
But true. it was poking fun that all these westerns, you see people eating beans yet no gastronmical atmospheric phenominom... :p

so yea, the fart scene had something to do with the fart scene.

and it was funnier when it was edited for television... you see people rising up and lifting their legs but no sound! :D

1) ...

2) I like Izzard. I can't stand Dice Clay type things.

3) ...

4) I get that that particular scene is designed as a vehicle for a fart joke. That doesn't make potty humour any more highbrow, or distract from the fact that the whole movie is a collosal fart joke with the word '******' thrown in a ridiculous number of times to add spice.

Yes. Mel Brooks is a spicy fart joke.

Oddly enough, I don't mind Space Balls, so much. My venom is mainly stored up for Blazing Saddles and Robin Hood.

1: Oh come on, you were supposed to bite.

2: Honestly, I haven't seen much of Izzard. But what I have seen, I didn't like. Maybe I got in at the wrong time...?

3: See #1.

4: I agree here. But at least the scene was in context (not that it makes it any better, but still).

I'm largely agreeing with you here --- please don't take my bait the wrong way. It's just a good bit of fun on my part. ;)

1)

Oddly enough, I don't mind Space Balls, so much. My venom is mainly stored up for Blazing Saddles and Robin Hood.

Alright, you skunkfucking dogshit, I've had it.


Never mind that I opened my wedding vows with "Mongo only pawn in game of life."

Never mind that I used the old "Negro takes himself hostage" maneuver to get out of a child custody hearing 15 months later.

Ignore that Blazing Saddles made jokes about gang rape acceptable in Mormon parking lots.

And forget entirely that Lily Von Schtupp is who I was thinking of when my son was conceived.

I can forget all of that, but I will NOT sit here on listen to you render toxicity towards Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

That film and its sincere, courageous commentary on English politics are what finally ended "The Troubles" and years of hate, violence, and blood.

Fuck you.

I personally really enjoyed Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Mostly because I'm a huge fan of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

...mostly because of Alan Rickman.

I personally really enjoyed Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Mostly because I'm a huge fan of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

...mostly because of Alan Rickman.

Alan Rickman once got to pretend he was using a crude eletrical setup to horribly burn Madeliene Stowe's clitoris. Then he made her drink pee.

Last time I brought this up, I wound up getting yelled at in the mod forum, but it was worth it.

I saw it a couple years ago, and it was cheesey beyond cheese

as with all Mel Brooks movies, it is among the one-hit wonder movies - you watch it once and get bored with it the next time onwards

I 'get' it. I just think it's shit.

That distinction isn't that complex... I'm a little surprised I have to keep re-typing it for the hard of thinking.
Because no matter how many times you type it, it doesn't make it true.

Your posts here indicates that you don't get it AND you think it's shit. Two for the price of one.

Oddly enough, I don't mind Space Balls, so much. My venom is mainly stored up for Blazing Saddles and Robin Hood.

What about "The Producers"? Both versions?

But true. it was poking fun that all these westerns, you see people eating beans yet no gastronmical atmospheric phenominom... :p

so yea, the fart scene had something to do with the fart scene.

and it was funnier when it was edited for television... you see people rising up and lifting their legs but no sound! :D

Which is all the 'joke', except the punchline. I may not think much of the joke, but even I can see that it becomes an absolute nonsense if you take out - for want of a a better word - the essence.

1: Oh come on, you were supposed to bite.

2: Honestly, I haven't seen much of Izzard. But what I have seen, I didn't like. Maybe I got in at the wrong time...?

3: See #1.

4: I agree here. But at least the scene was in context (not that it makes it any better, but still).

I'm largely agreeing with you here --- please don't take my bait the wrong way. It's just a good bit of fun on my part. ;)

I got it. Hence, no biting. I'm playing nice. Unfortunately, as a Londoner, "playing nice" mainly equates to "shutting up".

Alright, you skunkfucking dogshit, I've had it.


Never mind that I opened my wedding vows with "Mongo only pawn in game of life."

Never mind that I used the old "Negro takes himself hostage" maneuver to get out of a child custody hearing 15 months later.

Ignore that Blazing Saddles made jokes about gang rape acceptable in Mormon parking lots.

And forget entirely that Lily Von Schtupp is who I was thinking of when my son was conceived.

I can forget all of that, but I will NOT sit here on listen to you render toxicity towards Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

That film and its sincere, courageous commentary on English politics are what finally ended "The Troubles" and years of hate, violence, and blood.

Fuck you.

I didn't mind the "eh, Blinkin?" line.

Hallelujah! you've opened my eyes! I recant my cath.... er... whatever it is.

Because no matter how many times you type it, it doesn't make it true.

Your posts here indicates that you don't get it AND you think it's shit. Two for the price of one.


No, no. I 'get it'. But, like clap, it's not something I want to get.


What about "The Producers"? Both versions?

Never seen it. Either version. No temptation to do so, either. Indeed, the only way I could want to watch it LESS, is if I suddenly found out it had Chevy Chase in it.

No, no. I 'get it'.
We'll keep disagreeing about that then.

But, like clap, it's not something I want to get.
...and this does indeed say it all. Thanks for backing up my point.


Never seen it. Either version. No temptation to do so, either. Indeed, the only way I could want to watch it LESS, is if I suddenly found out it had Chevy Chase in it.
Too bad. It would be a much better indication on your sense of humour if you could include that in the comparison, and you would have a better foundation upon which to judge the work of Mel Brooks. But I shall not try to persuade you to open your mind - it is, after all, your loss entirely.

We'll keep disagreeing about that then.


Yes. ANd, since - of the two of us - I'm the one that IS me, I'll remain the expert on what I 'get' or don't 'get', and you'll remain... well, wrong.


...and this does indeed say it all. Thanks for backing up my point.


Your point was that I don't wish to be exposed to casual racism and extended fart jokes? You hid that pretty well, then.


Too bad. It would be a much better indication on your sense of humour if you could include that in the comparison,


I can tell you other movies I find amusing, just not that particular one. Is this some kind of sacred trinity of 'humour'? You can only ascertain the sense of humour of those people that conform to your rule of three?


...and you would have a better foundation upon which to judge the work of Mel Brooks.


It's like someone dropping stuff on your nuts. Blazing Saddles was a rock in the nuts, and Robin Hood was an anvil. When someone asks you if you want to play the next game in the series, it really doesn't seem too worrying a loss to risk not taking part.


But I shall not try to persuade you to open your mind - it is, after all, your loss entirely.

Yes. I don't want to watch one more movie in a series of movies that has - thus far - entirely failed to satisfy. Thus, I have a closed mind. Because that's the definition. Not liking Mel Brooks.

I think perhaps you have 'open mind' and 'empty head' confused.

Yes. ANd, since - of the two of us - I'm the one that IS me, I'll remain the expert on what I 'get' or don't 'get', and you'll remain... well, wrong.
Look back and you'll see that I said that "Your posts here indicate that you don't get it". You might think you do, but you really don't...

Your point was that I don't wish to be exposed to casual racism and extended fart jokes? You hid that pretty well, then.
...as you yet again prove here. And since your post suggest - time and time again - that you don't get it (and don't even know what you don't want to get, apparently - the anti-racism and the one groundbreaking joke, as others have pointed out before), all I can say is that I'm not wrong in my statement.

So it would seem like you're not the expert on what you get and don't get after all. But don't worry - it's often difficult to see the punchline once you have missed it and you have to have it explained to you.

I can tell you other movies I find amusing, just not that particular one. Is this some kind of sacred trinity of 'humour'? You can only ascertain the sense of humour of those people that conform to your rule of three?
I do believe we were talking about Mel Brooks? Hence it would be natural to, you know, talk about his movies?

And I have never demanded any holy trinity, so I apologize for causing you to make up random things. Heck, you could even talk about Silent Movie or To Be Or Not To Be - or any other movie for that matter, if it would make you feel better.

Yes. I don't want to watch one more movie in a series of movies that has - thus far - entirely failed to satisfy. Thus, I have a closed mind. Because that's the definition. Not liking Mel Brooks.
"Refusing to even entertain the idea that a movie made by Mel Brooks could ever be entertaining after seeing three movies, one of which you didn't mind" would be an example of a closed mind, yes.

I think perhaps you have 'open mind' and 'empty head' confused.
No, not at all.

But I see why you feel the need to be so defensive, you poor thing. :fluffle:

Look back and you'll see that I said that "Your posts here indicate that you don't get it". You might think you do, but you really don't...


You might think that I don't. Apparently, you think that, because I think the racism is so omnipresent and flatulence failed to be worth a giggle sometime before I started school.

You might think I don't 'get it'... but that's more a comment on you, than it is on me.


...as you yet again prove here. And since your post suggest - time and time again - that you don't get it (and don't even know what you don't want to get, apparently - the anti-racism and the one groundbreaking joke, as others have pointed out before), all I can say is that I'm not wrong in my statement.


Silly bunny. Telling me what I know, now? You can argue that the whole movie is anti-racist. It's an argument, and worth making, perhaps. But the racism IN the movie, IS still racism. See what I did there? And - personally - I just don't accept in the same (gullible?) fashion as others, that Mel Brooks designed his movie to actually BE anti-racist. I think he went for the laughs. I think the word '******' is a shockjock cheap shot, that he overused quite extraordinarily, and that others have decided was done for some saintly purpose.

I assume the 'one groundbreaking' joke was the fart scene? It isn't the breaking of ground I have objection to. But, it's not in isolation... the governors name is a fart joke. The movie's name is a fart joke. The fart joke? Just one more in a long series of extended fart japery. And more than I needed.


So it would seem like you're not the expert on what you get and don't get after all. But don't worry - it's often difficult to see the punchline once you have missed it and you have to have it explained to you.


No, I get it.

Apparently, you've thus far managed to actually read any of my responses... since I am now repeating myself.


I do believe we were talking about Mel Brooks? Hence it would be natural to, you know, talk about his movies?


Okay. So... you can't tell what my sense of humour is... (which, apparently, must now be specific to Mel Brooks)... because I've only seen the wrong movies?


And I have never demanded any holy trinity, so I apologize for causing you to make up random things. Heck, you could even talk about Silent Movie or To Be Or Not To Be - or any other movie for that matter, if it would make you feel better.


And now you're just rambling, I assume.


"Refusing to even entertain the idea that a movie made by Mel Brooks could ever be entertaining after seeing three movies, one of which you didn't mind" would be an example of a closed mind, yes.


I didn't say that.

Remember how the Scarecrow replaced the Wizard as the ruler of all Oz, after the Wizard went home?


No, not at all.

But I see why you feel the need to be so defensive, you poor thing. :fluffle:

Apparently you want me to feel defensive. Whatever floats your boat, it's your story.

You might think that I don't. Apparently, you think that, because I think the racism is so omnipresent and flatulence failed to be worth a giggle sometime before I started school.

You might think I don't 'get it'... but that's more a comment on you, than it is on me.
I would say the opposite.


Silly bunny. Telling me what I know, now?
Nosir. I'm telling you what your posts convey, what they present, and what you give the apparence of knowing through this written forum. I cannot read your mind, I can only see what you post here - and your posts suggest a contradiction. I am well aware that it might not be the truth, but it is what it seems to be, going by your statements alone.

You can argue that the whole movie is anti-racist. It's an argument, and worth making, perhaps. But the racism IN the movie, IS still racism. See what I did there?
As have been said before, the movie portrays racism. It does so, however, in an extremely visible anti-racist manner, thus making the racism the protagonist is subjected to look silly and stupid - effectively undermining the racism. To imply brush off the movie saying that it holds "casual racism" is to not look beyond the spoken dialogue and not look at the message of the movie. Heck, it's not that it's not reading between the lines, it's a failure to even read the lines themselves.

It's fair enough that you don't like it or don't find it funny, but I find it strange that you let the display of racism in such a setting overshadow the rather strong anti-racism message.
And - personally - I just don't accept in the same (gullible?) fashion as others, that Mel Brooks designed his movie to actually BE anti-racist. I think he went for the laughs. I think the word '******' is a shockjock cheap shot, that he overused quite extraordinarily, and that others have decided was done for some saintly purpose.
Not only do I think the movie speaks for itself, but interviews Mel Brooks have done about the movie suggest that he did indeed design the movie that way.


Apparently, you've thus far managed to actually read any of my responses... since I am now repeating myself.
We both are, so I'll leave it at this response.


Okay. So... you can't tell what my sense of humour is... (which, apparently, must now be specific to Mel Brooks)... because I've only seen the wrong movies?
I never said that. (And I never said that.) And I never said that. But I do agree that it's fun to make stuff up and ignore topics. :)

I was wondering, in the context of this thread, where we are debating the movies of Mel Brooks, since you have expressed strong dislike for two of his movies but tolerance of a third, what you may have thought about one more movie; a movie that you, it turns out, haven't seen, and that I think is his best. Just for my own curiosity, to better understand your viewpoint.

Alas, I fear I shall never know.

I can tell what your sense of humour is (or lack thereof) in general more by looking at your previous posts, where you yourself explained more about it.


And now you're just rambling, I assume.
Nope.

Well, to be fair... No more that you were in the post I responded to.


I didn't say that.

Remember how the Scarecrow replaced the Wizard as the ruler of all Oz, after the Wizard went home?
No.

Apparently you want me to feel defensive. Whatever floats your boat, it's your story.
Just sayin', you've been defensive for a long time, making comments like "the hard of thinking" and having "'open mind' and 'empty head' confused" etc.

*floats around merrily*

As have been said before, the movie portrays racism. It does so, however, in an extremely visible anti-racist manner, thus making the racism the protagonist is subjected to look silly and stupid - effectively undermining the racism. To imply brush off the movie saying that it holds "casual racism" is to not look beyond the spoken dialogue and not look at the message of the movie. Heck, it's not that it's not reading between the lines, it's a failure to even read the lines themselves.


I read a movie commentary a few months back that suggested a soon-to-be-released Dakota Fanning project will have her being the victim of a brutal on-screen rape. (It might no longer be soon-to-be... I've not kept up). That pretty much put me off watching the movie, there and then. It doesn't matter if the movie is a condemnation of rape, it doesn't matter if she is the victim of rape that indicts the system in complacency... I just don't want to see Dakota Fanning get raped as part of my evening schedule, despite thinking she's a wonderful actress.

I am aware that it is a movie, and that it is acted. I am aware there can be a subtext, or that the context can be greater than the confines of the movie.

Be that as it may, I still don't want to watch a brutal rape... or be subjected to someone's record-breaking attempt to fit the word '******' into 90 minutes as many times as possible.

It's not that I don't see the lines, it's more that I don't care about them.

Apparently, you can't get that.


Not only do I think the movie speaks for itself, but interviews Mel Brooks have done about the movie suggest that he did indeed design the movie that way.


And I think he's full of shit, and is saying whatever it takes.


Just sayin', you've been defensive for a long time, making comments like "the hard of thinking" and having "'open mind' and 'empty head' confused" etc.

*floats around merrily*

Location, location, location. Of, in this case, context.