best12bars "offended" by PRODUCERS movie...

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:22am

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.

[Kass983]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:40am

I get what you're saying and I'm pretty hard to offend myself. Mel Brooks isn't known for leaving ANYONE out, or leaving anything sacred. Blazing Saddles definitely comes to mind. That movie was fraught with stereotypes; gay, foreign, black (N-words; "where all da white women at"), white 'hicks', etc. It was all funny too. That came out in the 70's, have we now backtracked with the PC? It's a shame if we have.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:40am

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:00pm

First of all, you're both talking about Mel Brooks of 30 years ago. Blazing Saddles could never be made today.

Second of all, I have it on NO authority. I never said I did. But they certainly filmed it, and they cut it. That's all I know. And there are no other African-American "slams" in this film. So, by cutting the one, they cut them all... thereby showing a lack of sensitivity to all other parodied groups. The playing field was skewed, and that's what bothers me.

I didn't find this one "joke" to be any more lame/offensive than anything else in the show. Why remove this, then? The only slam against African-Americans?

It's pretty obvious why. They are being "selectively" sensitive.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:02pm

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

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:06pm

I'm with Margo on this one. I don't think there was a hidden agenda.

[Jon]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:10pm

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.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:19pm

And the other funny thing about Pryor's involvement with Blazing Saddles is that he didn't write any of Cleavon Little's stuff or the race-based humor. According to Brooks, that all came from the very white and Jewish Andrew Bergman, while Pryor is the one who came up with most of Mongo's material, namely "Mongo merely pawn in game of life."

[YankeeGal#24]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 12:28pm

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.

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:06pm

Wow. I'm not sure that this post isn't premature, because I really have to think about this. First, I don't really think that, in this particular movie and this particular instance, Brooks was bowing to a hidden agenda, except to bring in a movie of a reasonable length.
However, that said, I think Best12bars is right about the power, or selective use of hypocrisy, as I tend to see it, in our culture in general. It's true that in the '70's, there was more dialogue about the pluralistic nature of American society, (some of it pretty explosive) but there was also more dialogue about our similarities, too. I agree that Blazing Saddles and All in the Family wouldn't be made today. Truthfully, I don't think Roots would be either. At the time, they really were groundbreaking. I do think we've back-tracked in some ways since then. Of course there has been progress in areas, but I think as a whole it's less candid. What is "PC" puts curbs on expressing what can be discussed. It also gives tacit permission to bash certain groups, or to create new stereotypes, which are just as invalid as the old ones. When was the last time you saw a person with a strong, Christian faith protrayed as something other than a dogmatic bigot? And I don't need to mention the inaccuracies of media protrayal of the gay experience. Or for that matter, when was the last time you saw a stay-at-home mom protrayed as a well-rounded and intelligent person? Or an elderly person who is simply an elderly person - neither senile or quaintly feisty? The list is endless. Another long post, I know, but I don't think Best12bar's complaints are necessarily invalid.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:28pm

Sidebar: Richard Pryor also wrote the campfire scene!

[theatreboi11]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:46pm

I am a gay male and the first time I saw this mucial I laughed my ass off. The majority of the people who see this movie will understand that it is only a gay sterotype. I think you might be a little too senesative with this.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 2:40pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:08am

Yeah, I'm probably a little too sensitive about this. As funny as it was, it just BUGS me to see Roger Bart do the gay equivalent of "Aunt Jemima" on the screen, and at the same time the "black joke" gets cut.

I'll get over it.

And I DID enjoy the movie very much. This didn't ruin it for me. It just kept gnawing at me, so I wanted to get it off my chest. But I think I liked the film a hell of a lot better than the critics did.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:33am

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.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:13am

Oh please if you wanna talk about an offensive movie lets talk about Crash where anyone who is white is made to look like the devil for the most part.

In The Producers I have never even felt like it is offensive. And if we want to complain about Roger Bart acting like a big queen how about you all rent The Stepford Wives he is more flaming in that.

Do you people forget that one of the big points of Mel Brooks is to push buttons???

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:21am

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

It's a double standard.

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

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:26am

I just feel like you are reading way to far into this. I mean i am sorry that you felt offended by it, but i didn't let it get to me because i knew what i was getting myself into.

If anything i find Rent way more offensive. It just lives up to that whole if your gay you die of AIDS....why doesn't the heroine addict die of AIDS? Oh what that is cause she likes a boy.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:32am

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.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:39am

I don't know i guess i just feel like you are reading way to much into this. And if it was cut because they didn't want to offend an audience does it make you like the movie less? (that was a serious question, not a sarcastic throw back)

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:42am

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.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:58am

Get a life. They cut it because regular movie-going audiences in general wouldn't get it (opposed to a theatre going audience). You are looking at something to tirade at and it is pathetic. I didn't notice your name as the editor or were you one of the moderators of the test screening? Or, are you Mel Brooks???

Didn't think so...
Updated On: 12/20/05 at 11:58 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:11pm

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.

[littlechap2]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:18pm

I understand your reasoning for feeling the way you do, though the cut of the black accountant only bothers me because of the loss of a great comedic moment. However, it seems to me that you wouldn't like the Producers period, since it really isn't an "equal opportunity offender." You cannot say that the show is offensive to all ethnic groups. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no jokes about the English, Australians, Japanese, Chinese, Canadians, Spanish, Mexicans, Eskimos, etc, etc, etc. We could go on for quite a while with all of the groups that Mel and Tom left out. I get what you mean that the joke was once there and now its gone, but I wouldn't let it bother you too much, unless you want to start worrying about everyone that was left out.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:31pm

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