best12bars "offended" by PRODUCERS movie...

Let me start by saying I'm not easily offended. It takes a lot to ruffle my feathers... like, for instance, a double-standard when it comes to being "PC." First of all, the term "politically correct" usually invokes a cringe from me, since it almost always involves censorship of what an individual or group is really thinking. Ultimately I think it's dangerous. Rather than talking out our differences, the way characters on "All in the Family" did 30 years ago, we'd rather sweep our differences of opinion and our bigotry under a table, smile, and pretend it's not there. The bigotry isn't gone... only our ability and our creative platforms to discuss it are (even in an entertaining way, let alone academic).

So, what (you may ask) got me peeved when I saw "The Producers" movie over the weekend? Yeah, I'm familiar with the show. It's very funny. Yeah, I like it. Yeah, I'm into Mel Brooks and "get" his kind of hold-no-punches humor. It's a throw-back to the Archie Bunker days, and that's fine with me. What BOTHERED me... was at first only a minor thing. (And this is a minor "spoiler" as well...)

They cut the little parody in the accounting office, when a black accountant laments that he "Credits all de mornin', and he debits all de ebanin'," etc. Pure Mel Brooks humor, and it gets a big laugh from theatre people who know that he's doing a take-off on Joe in "Show Boat," totin' dat barge and liftin' dat bale.

At first, I was only disappointed that they cut the "laugh" moment. Nothing major. It was only after I walked out of the movie theatre that it kept gnawing at me in a very unpleasant way. Why? Well, they obviously cut it, because it was offensive to African-American audiences, who (most likely) didn't get the Show Boat spoof reference, and just took it as a racially stereotypical moment, done for the sake of humor.

So, then I began to realize, that if you take Mel Brooks's humor and apply sensitivity to it for one group (African-Americans), what are you saying to the rest of the "offended" ethnic and minority groups. You're saying, "well, we really don't care enough about gay people to worry that they might be offended by the parody here."

I was cringing, and always have been, at Brooks' "take" on gays in this show (and film). I somehow thought it was okay, because at least all groups were treated fairly... with irreverence. Cool. I can deal with that, and laugh at cartoon images of "ourselves" with the rest of the audience.

But if one group is singled out, saying it's not cool to do a stereotypical parody... then, why the hell is it cool to do it for other groups? (Gays, Swedes, geriatrics, etc.)

I'm sure they filmed it. You can see the black accountant sitting in the front row... with nothing to say now, since they cut his funny "moment."

Somebody at the studio listened to test audiences, or their own hypocritical "heart" and decided to cut the offending moment.

Thus offending me deeply as a gay male in 2005. Apparently, our sensitivities don't really matter. This is comedy, damn it. And it's okay to offend us... and old people... and Swedish women, and Jews. But not African-Americans. We'll look out for them... because it tested badly, or we got a letter from some organiztion, but not anyone else. Who cares? I mean it's all done in good fun... for a laugh, right?

It's not the humor that offends me. It's the "selective," hypocritical, double-standard choices that were made in this movie that do.

---

Well, there were tons and tons of little snips and cuts in the movie. Do you have it on some authority that the reason for that particular one was due to test markets, studio pressure and political correctness?

Maybe it was cut because it was always a pretty lame joke (as was the "black Irish" bit in Act II) and Stroman needed to edit a somewhat bloated 2 hour, 50 minute show down to something closer to two hours. They also cut all of "King of Broadway" and "Where Did We Go Right," both of which contain funny gags about Jews -- was that also due to political correctness? Or was it purely a time consideration?

Honestly, this Mel Brooks we're talking about. Do you honestly think that the man who created the legendary "One move and the n*gger gets it" scene in 'Blazing Saddles' has even the remotest concern about political correctness? And as for studio pressure, let's also remember that Brooksfilms produced the film, meaning that if Brooks REALLY wanted any one of the hundred jokes cut to go back into the film, it would have happened.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that the editing of that one (again, rather lame) joke had to do with anything other than time constraints.

---

Thank you, Margo, for providing a voice of reason!

---

Speaking of BLAZING SADDLES, did you know that Richard Pryor collaborated with Brooks on the screenplay? Brooks actually wanted him for the lead role, but the studio wanted an actor with more "legit" experience, rather than a stand-up comedian.

I'm sure the studio and Brooks both felt it was important to have a black writer working on the script, to avoid complaints of racism.

I can see where you're coming from best12bars, but agree with Margo Channing here. There is so much in this show that could possibly be construed as offensive, but I'm sure somewhere something potentially offensive to gays, Swedes, Jews, women, the elderly, etc was also cut--most likely in the interest of time, not due to fear or pressure.

---

Sidebar: Richard Pryor also wrote the campfire scene!

---

2 words B12B; Buck Up.


learn to move on, and get over. the movie industry is full of bull****, you have to learn to deal.

---

I agree with you, B12B. Even tho the world seems a bit overly PC, these characters are akin to Amos and Andy.

and I cant stand Roger Bart's interpretation of Carmen Ghia...I think the original actor, Andréas Voutsinas, is less offensive.

---

Yes, BwayBaby18, but ALL buttons... not selectively (questionably) edited ones.

It's a double standard.

---

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 11:21 AM

I guess one man's "offense" is another man's "humor."

Honestly, I think you're actually missing my point. It's not the humor itself that is upsetting. I did understand what I was getting myself into. I love Blazing Saddles. I love South Park. But those are "equal playing fields." Everyone and everything is fair game.

I suppose if I never knew the "black Show Boat joke" in question existed to begin with, this wouldn't bother me at all. But I'm not buying that it was cut for time, when it's 15 seconds long. It's not a 6-minute musical number. Oh sure, it tightens things by a fraction of an inch... but what was lost here was far greater than what was gained. THAT's my point.

---

To answer your question: YES! That's what offends me.

Don't make a movie that is blatantly (and hilariously) offensive to all, and then be selective in the edit bay about who you offend.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth if you do. It's the hypocrisy that offends me here... not the jokes.

---

Wow, that was deep, Thesbijean. Thanks for adding something intelligent to this. I can tell you put a lot of thought into it.

Tell you what... I'll get a life, if you get a brain.

---

I think you're right that it's the fact that it WAS there, and then was cut that bothers me. NOT that every minority group or cultural group wasn't included. It's the sensibility shown here, not the inclusiveness. I have no idea why they cut it... but they did cut it.

And I laughed my ass off at The Producers when I saw it on stage. I also laugh my ass off (usually, unless it's just crappy) at South Park... and they don't go after "all people" in each and every episode.

And... To say that the "teller of the joke's" perspective doesn't matter would be bullsh*t. Let me paint this scenario: Say your best friend who you've known for years and you trust called you a "flaming homo" one day, with a smile on his face. You would probably laugh and either jab him back or not really care. But if the leader of a supremecy group also smiled and called you a "flaming homo" (same jab, same delivery), you would be very offended.

That's why I say the jokes themselves don't offend me, if they're coming from an equal playing field. So, if you remove the one black stereotype joke, I start to wonder why you left the rest of the minority stereotype jokes "in."

It's the "teller of the joke" that is in question, in my mind. The double standard of sensitivity shown, meaning he/she DOES actually care about offending certain people... but not others.

EDIT: Basically, I don't think Mel Brooks sat down with a "tally sheet" at all. There was no "agenda" in his humor. I "get" Mel Brooks. But when the one black jab is pulled out for the film... I start to wonder if someone is standing around with a tally sheet now? Or else, why was it cut? It's a funny joke. People laughed A LOT at it when I saw it in the theatre. It's at least, equally as funny as Carmen Ghia and Roger De Bris's shtick. I see no real reason (in my mind) to remove it... except one.

---

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 01:31 PM