Why is this a classic?


I may have laughed ONCE during this movie. I guess it's all a matter of taste...I just didn't think it was that funny. Too much screaming...and jokes that didn't pay off.

The unholy triumvirate:
The Bat, the Trek, the Bond

reply

Yeah, it's a matter of taste. It's very shticky and over-the-top. If that doesn't appeal to you, that's okay.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

I agree about too much shouting their lines, especially by Wilder. That got annoying fast.

reply

I always thought that was Wilder's thing, yelling. I mean name one movie where he doesn't yell once.
But anyway, yeah, it's one of those movies where you have to be in the right mindset, and you need the right kind of taste in humour. I absolutely love the movie, but when I showed my friends they looked at me like I was a freak for liking it.

"Perfection is Imperfection" -Matthew Gray Gubler

reply

Yeah, I've seen this when I wasn't in the right mood to see it, whatever that means, and it just wasn't funny.

I'm watching it right now, and I am in the right mood, whatever that means, and I'm smiling and happy.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

It's probably a generational thing. I saw this when it came out and I'm telling you people were rolling in the aisles laughing. We missed a lot of the dialogue because of the laughter. It was amazing. I still think it's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Most comedies of post 1990 vintage are, to me, unfunny, childish and/or vulgar.

So. . .

reply

I'm definitely with you on this, aciolino. I find this film hilarious, but a lot of recent comedies just don't even raise a smile from me — rather than being absurd or observational comedy, like Brooks' films, modern comedy seems based too often on verbal (and often smarmy!) putdowns, with setups so obvious you can hear the punchline coming a mile away. Doesn't do it for me in the slightest.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

As usual, I think this "generation theory" is a cop-out... not to mention there really doesn´t seem to be a problem of such nature to begin with as at least on IMDb, the weighed ratings from the 45+ age bracket are only very marginally higher than from folks aged under 29.

Also, Brooks himself has a well defined tendency towards the obvious, the childish and the vulgar with a lot of his material being juvenile to boot - the only difference is that his juvenilia has an endearing quality to it, it´s never obnoxious and, at times, it´s somehow actually funny.

And I should also take issue with this blanket dismissal of all contemporary comedy - if you look hard enough, you WILL find funny material from recent years, too (one would hardly have to work ´too´ hard though in order to unearth stuff like Four Lions or The Guard - they´re pretty mainstream).

As for The Producers itself, the only bit I found funny, was the Hitler In Springtime thing; the rest was just different degrees of lame. Alongside The History Of The World, it´s Brooks´s weakest effort.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Maybe it is a generational thing. I never had any interest in watching the remake because the original was so funny. Kenneth Mars has always been able to crack me up.






"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

reply

I'm actually a huge fan of both versions.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

reply

My friends and I are all "millennials" and we loved both versions as well. I don't think it's a generational thing, just a matter of individual taste.

reply

I'm trying to be objective about all of this, but as I type this, Bloom has finally cracked and is fighting back against Bialystock, and I can't stop laughing.

reply

If you don't find The Producers to be funny, you probably don't have a sense of humour. Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel are hilarious and they make incoherent screaming endearing.



No time for the old in-out, love, I've just come to read the meter.

reply

In true comedy, timing is crucial. It sets us up to laugh in spite of ourselves, often flashing a signal in our minds just a split second before the payoff. The gag comes off like a conjuring trick. Brooks substitutes mechanical tension-and-release routines that work on us like cheerleaders and make us feel that we ought to laugh when the payoff arrives: the actors get more and more frantic till at last they scream or burst into song. That's mere begging for a response. The one thing it doesn't appeal to is a sense of humor.

reply

I cannot agree. How does this "mechanical tension-and-release routine" that you mention apply to Gene Wilder's constant non sequiturs? For example, how does this apply for when Wilder exclaims "You're gonna jump on me!"

reply

The "You're gonna jump on me" line was when I decided this movie is intolerable.

reply

I thought the idea was good, there were moments that were funny, worth watching but I don't see one of the greatest comedies ever.

reply

The first time I saw this film (in 1981), I never laughed so hard in my life and nearly bust a gut (maybe I topped it when I first saw Faulty Towers). Mel Brooks has a brilliant mix of subtle humor, over the top stuff, and absurdist nonsense. The lunacy of the plot in this film builds and builds. It is not like a Woody Allen film where his dialogue gets a laugh a minute. You have to sink into the mood of this film.

reply

@mark-1589

Mel Brooks has a brilliant mix of subtle humor, over the top stuff, and absurdist nonsense. The lunacy of the plot in this film builds and builds.

You nailed it----just saw the film again last week on the THIS channel, and it was still hliarious because of all the over-the-top insanity---usually I hate it when things are too OTT in a film (depending on what kind of film it is) but it was actually very appropiate for this film in particular, and it works. And I like how things just get crazier throughout the film, especially after the two guys meet the crazy wanna-be Nazi playwright. Also the idea of two Jewish dudes doing a play celebrating Hitler must have seemed audacious as hell back in the anything goes late '60's---it would not have been made in any other time period, except the '60s and beyond. Plus I've always liked Gene Wilder's genuine weirdness, and it was always to watch him completely lose it in his unique off the wall way, and he and Mostel were an inspired pair-up---too bad they never teamed up again. But, on top of that, the movie's just plain old darn old-school fun,period--that's why folks still like it after all these years.

reply

@ dj-hottie nailed it as well!

it's a classic because of it's subtle humor and brilliant story----Wilder and Mostel are hilarious! and are classics themselves!

reply

Well, the humor is hardly subtle, it is loud, boorish, over-the-top and outrageous which is exactly what makes it one of the funniest movies ever. And this seems to be even moreso with every viewing. of course, if a person does not like the movie the first time, they probably wont see it again.
It is understandable that many people do not get the humor. It is not just a generational thing, although that does seem to have a lot to do with it. Even people in their 50s and 60s have had a problem with it perhaps due to broad, New York in-your-face style of Jewish humor. I am neither Jewish or a New Yorker but still smile at even the mention of this movie.

And if I may, out of a movie with so many great, quotable lines,a personal favorite:

Will the dancing Hitlers please wait in the wings. We are only seeing singing Hitlers.

reply

It's a very good movie, and Brooks was a genius for coming up with the story.

But recently caught a production of the musical in New York, and it was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen. They took every joke and milked it for every gag they could. Imo, the musical is superior to the film, but this film version is still better than the 2005 one.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply