This is a great thread filled with opinions about Blazing Saddles, the classic 1974 comedy movie directed by Mel Brooks. Blazing Saddles is known for its irreverent humor and satirical take on the Western genre. This iconic movie follows the crazy adventures of a black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, who is trying to bring law and order to the unruly town of Rock Ridge. With its sharp wit, boundary pushing comedy, and memorable characters, Blazing Saddles remains a timeless masterpiece that continues to entertain and challenge audiences with its fearless approach to social commentary and humor. The things is, Blazing Saddles today would have conservatives burning down movie theaters. The movie is clearly mocking them.
(via: r/tumblr)
Let us know your opinion on Blazing Saddles in the comments below!
You couldn’t make Blazing Saddles in 2023 for one simple reason.
It’s still under copyright, and you don’t have the rights.
Seriously, though, EVERY movie is a product of its time, and most of them couldn’t be made (at least not in exactly the same way) fifty years later.
Anyone know the YouTuber referenced? I’d like to watch the video essay.
Not sure but I found this touched on the subject https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vsPoxKrwIY0
Ladyknightthebrave did a great essay about “Jojo Rabbit” and “The Book Thief” and the righteous gentile trope.
https://youtu.be/zcOVAt13U3w?si=dWp52-YHMo4jgU5-
https://youtu.be/zcOVAt13U3w?si=RHjzxlbJnX1nbz6n
(I found the post and it’s the one I already thought it would be, it’s an incredible video essay)
To be brutally honest, you pretty much couldn’t make Blazing Saddles in 1974. When Mel Brooks screened it for studio executives, the execs were basically an oil painting. They gave Brooks pages of suggested edits, which Mel “took under advisement” while the execs were present and immediately threw away once they had left the room. It took a screening for normal studio employees, who laughed uproariously, to get them to test screen the movie in three cities.
What I find fascinating was how, when broadcast over the air, you could tell how square the broadcast area was by how much of the ‘I’m Tired’ song was edited. If the place was particularly repressed, they even censored Lilly von Scht*p’s last name by plastering a ‘Sold Out’ sign over her name. (Which is really weird because Yiddish isn’t exactly common in the corn-and-rust belts.)
That amount varied over the years, but by the time it went to streaming, almost nothing was left out, though sometimes they muted/shortened the bean scene. (Which, as per the article, was exactly where my elders had us walk out.)
I’ll come in and leave some thoughts of my own about Blazing Saddles. Personally, I love the film for a multitude of reasons. Yes, it’s technically offensive these days to a lot of people and is prolific in its use of racial slurs for the African-Americans and the Chinese, but as so many people have said – it’s played very blunt and over the top to make a very clear point.
One thing that is, somewhat sadly, overlooked is, despite it being 51 years since Blazing Saddles hit the silver screen as I write this, give or take some weeks, the core topic of it is still quite strongly relevant – all you need to do is adjust the themes from racism to gender identity, or to how people are entitled via their ‘positions’. This has not changed in fifty years in American history (admittedly, I’m speaking as an outsider to it as an Australian), and the core motif is that those who are on the lower rungs are still considered infinitely more expendable.
Or need I point out that the lives of two men working who got caught in quicksand were worth less to Taggart than a four hundred dollar (at the time of the pic’s setting) hand-cart for the railroad. That’s, at the time of writing, $11,146.35 USD today. Two mens’ lives – less than Twelve. Thousand. Dollars. And why were they worth so little? Something over which they have no control and are a minority for it – the color of their skin.
This movie does not hesitate to take harsh points like this, and beat you over the head with them – it works the point of this absurdity over, under, and through the lines. It’s played up to an extreme effect when Black Bart arrives in the town of Rock Ridge to assume the role of Sheriff of Rock Ridge, to the armed ire of every member of the town. Blood is coming, so Bart does what he needs to do in order to survive – he takes himself hostage, and plays it up. The fact that the townsfolk of Rock Ridge treat ‘Sheriff Black Bart’ and ‘Bart the N—–‘ as two different people shows the level of absurdity of the whole scene to strong effect! The very people who were just fixing to kill Bart are now watching, fearing for his life, as he backs away into the Sheriff’s office, holding himself at gunpoint and hamming it for all he’s worth. And. It. Works.
Why? Because the people are ‘morons’, as Jim so rightly labels them. Their minds, mired in the fact that they are a ‘superior’ race, are unable to believe that a man would hold himself at gunpoint to get them to stop – and therefore automatically invent a second ‘dangerous N—–‘ in order for them to cope. Which leads to Harriet Johnson, the ‘Schoolmarm’, to call out “Won’t somebody help that poor man?” only to be told “That’s a sure way to get him killed!”
Nobody helps. Nobody does anything. And the man they wanted to kill just seconds ago, gets away scott-free. Unfortunately, there’s a real subtext here: the American people are more drawn to a spectacle occurring in their midst than they are on following through with their intended plans to ‘remove’ their new Sheriff. Today, all you need for a problem to be ignored in America is for a spectacle to occur somewhere else to draw their attention. This point is a very strongly-played one, and one that is quite often missed. It’s not just America – a lot of the world has this same problem.
Take, as an example, the current American stance regarding Ukraine – A certain President is trying to force the leader of another country to give his country mineral rights concessions and force them to the peace table, where his predecessor was leading to provide support for Ukraine. A reaction which, insofar as I can tell with my limited political knowledge, has been pooh-poohed by most of the European heads of state – and makes this President, like William J. Lepetomaine, the ‘leading asshole in the State’.
Even as far back as 1974, Blazing Saddles is calling out the ineptitude of the politicians in solving problems and proving that evil men can flourish and hide behind the law because they do nothing to stop them. All Lepetomaine and his cabinet as Governor care about are their own pleasures and ‘Protecting our phoney-baloney jobs!’, while the Attorney-General, Hedley Lamarr (not Hedy, but Hedley!) holds the real executive power and is actively in control – and using the situation to its own ends.
Fifty years later, we still have the same situation, only now it’s being acted out on the news bulletins and not the silver screen. The work of Blazing Saddles isn’t a prophecy, nor is it predictive – but it is a showcasing of the very human behaviors that bring out the worst in our natures: Our love of a big spectacle, our darker impulses and the rampant risk of mass opinion being guided in one direction while those in power take a very different direction to lead the sheep they are shepherds over into the abyss where the wolves are waiting.
Blazing Saddles is still a very relevant film to watch today – still a major talking point. And unfortunately, its true message has been missed. For the fact that it’s still relevant and still impactful, and not just a snapshot of its time, proves it so.