The American Masters program airing on PBS recently has reminded me that he's not really a comedian. I know that comedy is highly subjective, and a lot of people will strongly disagree with me, but I don't think his films are all that funny, they're more silly than anything else. I always get the feeling his 'direction' is to tell people to clown around in front of the camera and we'll call it a wrap.
Yeah, silly is the word, I love SILLY!
shareto the OP: You must be a true scholar of not only the humor genre, but also of filmmaking.
thank you for sharing your astute and insightful opinion with us.
Agree with OP, some of his movies are half-watchable but no they aren't funny. His humour is unsophisticated and extremely old fashion if you ask me, its just one terrible joke after another. But sometimes i wonder if its just an endless stream of lame jokes by lack of talent, or if its "suppose" to be that way?
shareI agree, but i like his direction. His movies rarely make me laugh, but I really enjoy his lighthearted style, I find it calming and entertaining. And he doeas a rwally good job when he's not trying too hard to be funny (High Anxiety and Youn Frankenstein, for example).
shareWell, they are supposed to be silly. I do feel that a lot of times the films he has are full of dummies, like the Prehistoric Man in History of the World: Part 1. However, we are all stupid at some level.
shareThe whole point of a parody. Is to exaggerate and point out the absurdity of it all. Mel Brooks films do that just fine. So yes its silly. A Parody would not be effective if it took itself too seriously. Otherwise you might as well make a remake. The only way i can see someone not laugh at a Mel Brook film. Is if your dead inside or don't have any sense of humor. If you want talk about something not being funny. You might want to watch some movies from Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.
shareI didn't ask you.
shareHey...different strokes for different folks, Zippy. He'll survive, with or without your criticism.
share