Mel Brooks is, without a question, one of the greatest comedic minds
that has ever come into film. Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein
have and will continue to stand the test of time as two of the greatest
comedy films ever made, not to mention History of the World Pt. 1,
Spaceballs, and The Producers. Brooks has always worked best when
digging in with both the broad slapstick and metacommentary has works
may be best known for, but when working within genre satire. Blazing
Saddles and the history of the western. Young Frankenstein and horror
hysterics. Which leads to the question: what satire is Robin Hood: Men
in Tights presenting? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be none.
The 1993 film starring Cary Elwes, Dave Chappelle (in his first onscreen role), Richard Lewis, and Roger Rees is not a satire, but a parody. And while all of Brooks’ films are parodies, without a satirical edge to them, they do not resonate as strongly as they could, or maybe should. The film isn’t responding to something, but reacting to it. Now it could be said that, in doing a Robin Hood story there might not be much the pilfer through a satirical lens. But that does not mean that it should not be attempted.
It is disappointing that the film does not touch upon class relations, always a strong theme within Robin Hood lore, and an easy topic for Brooks to skewer. And that’s the easy answer. There are likely other levels, other ideas and topics that could have been humorously portrayed through Brooks’ writing and direction, topics a smarter man than I could dispense. As the film stands, though, it lacks depth, and while this does not feature as a detriment to the enjoyment level of the film, it does firmly cut away from what it could be.
This is not to say that parody and slapstick are not worthy of the audience’s time. On the contrary, Brooks’ sense of timing and broad stroking absurdity is as strong in this film as in any of his previous work. Cary Elwes is fun and charming as the classic crusader, his performance playfully jabbing and his face always a canvas from which the slapstick lives. Richard Lewis is always fun to watch as Jon Stewart’s impersonation of a uptight Jew. Rees also has fun with his role, scenary chewing in only the way a true Sheriff Rottingham could be. All the cast, even the admittedly dull female characters (dull through story placement more than anything) are in full force trying their best.
The bits that hit hit hard. From Elwes direct jab at Kevin Costner’s portray in the film that most directly inspired this one Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, to almost any scene that features Tracey Ullman as the haggard witch-who’s-not-a-witch Latrine, the broad strokes are fun and light, much like Brooks’ earlier work. In fact, the forest song and dance number by the Merry Men will make me laugh until I am old and grey, and Little John drowning in a puddle is both a sight gag and a deadpan bit that will never not work.
The problem comes that the edge hasn’t just dulled on Brooks’ satirical sword, but on his general wit at times. It is unfortunate that those barbs and rings that Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles are well known for (as well as a few well placed fart jokes) are further between each other here. This is Brooks’ second last feature, his final one being Dracula: Dead and Loving It! which does show the ultimate loss of those qualities. Men in Tights was a precursor to that, better (though that’s not a hard bar to beat) but not particularly remarkable.
I’d say the greatest compliment I could give to the film is that it is a perfect introduction for younger viewers into the world of Mel Brooks. Though the sexual humor may be a bit heavy at times, I do know that I watched this at quite a young age, and those were not the parts that I remembered. No, I remembered the blind man in the foundation, the fierce knights becoming dominoes, and the silly absurdity of the cast reviewing their scripts in the film. The films lack of having a point of view through which it filters things helps in the broad sense of how children view the world. And if you have children, and are reading this review, you know you want them to have a healthy sense of humor. Who better to teach them than Rabbi Tuckman?
The 1993 film starring Cary Elwes, Dave Chappelle (in his first onscreen role), Richard Lewis, and Roger Rees is not a satire, but a parody. And while all of Brooks’ films are parodies, without a satirical edge to them, they do not resonate as strongly as they could, or maybe should. The film isn’t responding to something, but reacting to it. Now it could be said that, in doing a Robin Hood story there might not be much the pilfer through a satirical lens. But that does not mean that it should not be attempted.
It is disappointing that the film does not touch upon class relations, always a strong theme within Robin Hood lore, and an easy topic for Brooks to skewer. And that’s the easy answer. There are likely other levels, other ideas and topics that could have been humorously portrayed through Brooks’ writing and direction, topics a smarter man than I could dispense. As the film stands, though, it lacks depth, and while this does not feature as a detriment to the enjoyment level of the film, it does firmly cut away from what it could be.
This is not to say that parody and slapstick are not worthy of the audience’s time. On the contrary, Brooks’ sense of timing and broad stroking absurdity is as strong in this film as in any of his previous work. Cary Elwes is fun and charming as the classic crusader, his performance playfully jabbing and his face always a canvas from which the slapstick lives. Richard Lewis is always fun to watch as Jon Stewart’s impersonation of a uptight Jew. Rees also has fun with his role, scenary chewing in only the way a true Sheriff Rottingham could be. All the cast, even the admittedly dull female characters (dull through story placement more than anything) are in full force trying their best.
The bits that hit hit hard. From Elwes direct jab at Kevin Costner’s portray in the film that most directly inspired this one Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, to almost any scene that features Tracey Ullman as the haggard witch-who’s-not-a-witch Latrine, the broad strokes are fun and light, much like Brooks’ earlier work. In fact, the forest song and dance number by the Merry Men will make me laugh until I am old and grey, and Little John drowning in a puddle is both a sight gag and a deadpan bit that will never not work.
The problem comes that the edge hasn’t just dulled on Brooks’ satirical sword, but on his general wit at times. It is unfortunate that those barbs and rings that Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles are well known for (as well as a few well placed fart jokes) are further between each other here. This is Brooks’ second last feature, his final one being Dracula: Dead and Loving It! which does show the ultimate loss of those qualities. Men in Tights was a precursor to that, better (though that’s not a hard bar to beat) but not particularly remarkable.
I’d say the greatest compliment I could give to the film is that it is a perfect introduction for younger viewers into the world of Mel Brooks. Though the sexual humor may be a bit heavy at times, I do know that I watched this at quite a young age, and those were not the parts that I remembered. No, I remembered the blind man in the foundation, the fierce knights becoming dominoes, and the silly absurdity of the cast reviewing their scripts in the film. The films lack of having a point of view through which it filters things helps in the broad sense of how children view the world. And if you have children, and are reading this review, you know you want them to have a healthy sense of humor. Who better to teach them than Rabbi Tuckman?
Comments
Post a Comment