Number 118

 Are They Still Funny? Were They Ever?

Two of the "funniest movies of all-time!!" came out in the 1970s. Blazing Saddles (1974) and National Lampoon's Animal House (1978) were both broad, ribald, R-rated comedies where the jokes and gags came at the viewer non-stop for the duration of each film. They both delighted in being naughty and boundary-pushing. I remember a punchline from the Animal House parody in MAD Magazine which declared "There's nothing too gross for this movie." Despite their R-rating, I still managed to see them both (in the theater) before I turned fifteen. Like everyone else in the audience, I laughed my ass off.

As a matter of fact, I've seen both of them multiple times. I can quote from multiple scenes of both movies. Indeed, I purchased both movies (among many others), so that I could watch them whenever I felt the inclination. However, I haven't watched either in a long time. Did I forget about them? No, on the contrary, I found myself thinking about them quite frequently. You see, as part of their 'take no prisoners' attitude towards their jokes and gags; as well as changing societal attitudes, there are some elements from both movie that have left me feeling uneasy. 

Let's take a closer look at each movie.

The main protagonist in Blazing Saddles is a black man (Cleavon Little), who is appointed sheriff of a small town in the old west. This appointment is due to the machinations of the movie's 'villian' (Harvey Korman), who believes that the negative reaction of the town folks towards the sheriff's ethnicity will allow his nefarious plans to come to fruition. The movie was written by Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor (among others), and directed by Brooks.

Watching it now, there is one big problem with the movie - its frequent and carefree use of "n*****." Its use is ubiquitous to the point that Quentin Tarantino, who has a fetish for the word, would declare: "Stop It! Enough is enough!" Now I'm perfectly aware of what has happened here, because it has happened in my own life. In my youth, around the time the movie was made, that word was used by many folks in an almost casual way. For myself, I was aware it was a nasty slur, and I'm reasonably confident that I never said it directly to a black person, but I did use it - usually when repeating a racially charged joke that seemed funny at the time. I haven't used the word or told racially based jokes for many years, and our culture has, at last, invested the word with the weight it deserves. It's no longer used as a punchline in lazy attempts at humor.

The movie has two other problematic scenes. The first is a joke about rape, which, honestly, should have never seemed funny - even in 1974. The other is a scene at the end of the movie where gay men are stereo-typed as limp-wristed, lispy caricatures of effeminacy. There is some attempt to turn the joke in on itself, but it does very little to challenge the hateful homosexual cliches.

Back to the word. The confounding thing about its use, is that it's never really used in anger. It's used as if it's just the word used to indicate a black person in both 1874 and 1974. It could be argued that the film is, in fact, a satire of the racism it seems to wallow in. In Blazing Saddles, the people who use the word can be grouped into three categories: (1) Black people referring to themselves, with pride; (2) The caucasian bad guys, who all face their comeuppance by the end of the movie; and (3) White people who learn the error of their prejudicial ways by the end of the movie. Do those categories earn the movie a pass? I honestly don't know. Along with the other problems, as funny as this movie still is in many places, it am vaguely uncomfortable watching it now.

Animal House has a different issue, although there are a couple of scenes with some uncomfortable racial overtones. The problem with this movie is its attitude towards woman. They are often objectified, and used in derogatory ways to propel a joke forward. Briefly, Animal House describes the antics of Delta House, a fraternity of 'heroic' slobs and outcasts who raise their collective middle finger at the strict social mores of the early 1960s.

Early on, the women of a nearby sorority are exploited in a voyeuristically rendered joke that informs the audience that John Belushi's character is capable of a powerful erection. While using a ladder to reach the second floor so as to spy on the women while they are undressing and getting ready for bed, said erection causes the ladder (and Belushi) to push away from the house and crash to the ground below. We're supposed to think they deserve to be spied on because they belong to the snobby sorority, even though any woman should be able to assume that they have privacy at such a moment.

In another scene, a teenaged girl passes out, just as she and one of the boys are about to begin a heavy duty make out session. He looks down upon her, naked and vulnerable, and begins considering his options as a devil and angel character magically appear, arguing the pros and cons of raping the unconscious and underage girl - she's only thirteen. At one point the 'devil' character encourages him to "fuck her brains out." That he decides not to in the end is irrelevant to the fact that this young woman, a child really, was objectified in such a reprehensible way in order to get the gag across.

Then there's the young boy reading Dad's Playboy magazine who thanks God when a scantily clad woman flies in through his bedroom window during the chaos of a sabotaged homecoming parade. Or that the Belushi character kidnaps another woman at the end. Or that a male professor sleeps with one of his female students.

The problems with Animal House, as compared to Blazing Saddles, are specific scenes as opposed to a generalized racist feeling, but the are just as upsetting. Part of the challenge in combatting violence against women is the ugly notion that it's okay to objectify women if there's a good punchline, primarily written by and for young men, at the end. These women are not treated as people - they're treated as a means to an end, and that's really yucky.

So are these movie's still funny? Were they ever? Did we think they were so funny back then because we didn't know any better? Are we troubled now because our sensibilities have changed? Or maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill? Are we sometimes too earnest for our own good? Do we need to lighten up? Is it okay to appreciate both of these movies as products of their time? Maybe it's some combination of all these questions. I don't pretend to know the answer, but humor is important to me - which is why I took the time to write about it.