Lindsay Ellis

Could BLAZING SADDLES or something similar be made today? NO. Here's why. Rather, it’s not that BLAZING SADDLES could not be made today - you could make it, it would just land with a deafening thud. Because the observations are tired and the execution is gratuitous and crass - but importantly, it is gratuitous and crass in a way it was not in 1974. As we have discussed before, comedy is a tricky genre because it is the quickest to age and the most likely to age poorly. A comedy’s success depends just as much on when it hits as the quality of the writing. The same applies to genre - Westerns were in their Twilight in 1974, and one of the most pervasive genres in all of film. So the film is just as much a sendup of the dying Western as it is commentary about race. Also, people seem to forget that BLAZING SADDLES was released LESS THAN A DECADE after the Voting Rights Act was passed. The United States had just gone through a very rapid shift with its relationship to race. Moreover, Hollywood did not really know how to approach portrayals of racial hostility in film, even though it was topical af. This very rapid shift in social mores lead to a broad sort of discomfort in Hollywood, which happened to coincide with the collapse of the studio system. That collapse and the failure of multiple big budget projects (looking at you, DOCTOR DOOLITTLE) was a major reason why you didn't see movies like SADDLES before the mid-1960's - experimentation in film transgression was only allowed after the "mainstream" began to fail. The highest profile example of a high profile "let's talk about race" film before BLAZING SADDLES that actually FEATURED a Black protagonist (we’re ignoring TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD for several reasons) was IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT… it’s like, you know, it’s fine. But it’s a very, straightforward, borderline “racists and Blacks learn to get along” narrative in the vein of GREEN BOOK. It is a Drama that has Serious Things to Say About Race. (also BONNIE AND CLYDE was robbed) So reason #1 BLAZING SADDLES would fail today: comedy about race was only just hitting the mainstream. As we observed in the video about Mel Brooks and THE PRODUCERS, farceur is sometimes necessary to really cut to the bone of difficult issues-that is BLAZING SADDLES’ innovation. This is also where BLAZING SADDLES differs from IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT portrays racism as cruel, but fixable. A logical fallacy, if you will. There’s a redemption element in SADDLES as well, but racism is fundamentally absurd. And it is never portrayed as a harmless kind of absurd, but just fundamentally illogical, stratified, and shameless in its exploitative nature. Like the goofy Nazis in “Springtime for Hitler”, racism in SADDLES is neither cool nor aspirational. (and because I have to tediously acknowledge this every time I talk about BLAZING SADDLES, yes I KNOW it is extremely tone deaf with regard to women and gay people. Stop "educating" me that every time I talk about this movie. I'm talking about its portrayal of race chrissake) (agh bear with me - I'm trying to upload clips but Twitter is just doggedly refusing to cooperate) (HOKAY gdi I had to do this in Tweetdeck) - The joke in this scene is that the “simple” white folks of Rock Ridge are willing to accept Sheriff Bart, but only after he eliminates a major threat, and only if no one else sees them doing it. (CW: this clip has racial slurs) This is just one example of the sort of “Truth to power” humor in SADDLES - the joke is at the expense of the white audience, not only pointing out the woman's hypocrisy but making a joke out of it. That was a fresh take in 1974 - not so fresh today. So Brooks is correct in that good comedy speaks truth to power, but the power in this case is white hegemony. This film DOES state an uncomfortable truth, very explicitly, in a way that drama cannot - and that transgression made the film more honest. In this scene, Taggart’s explicit statement of genocide against all non-whites is the JOKE, but not one at the expense of the people being killed. That it is comedy allows it to be blunt in a way that dramas couldn't be. (CW: this clip has several racial slurs) The observation that “Blazing Saddles couldn’t be made today” is the most tired, unoriginal thing and I’ve been hearing it ad nauseam since the 90’s. It is the sort of thing espoused by people who believe the real problem is the PC police, not the structure of white supremacy. It ignores the many complex contexts and trends the film came in the midst of that made it feel fresh at the time. Yes, I am aware that Brooks himself has oft repeated this line. And I do think he doesn’t realize he’s contradicting himself. In the most recent regurgitation of this line in 2017, he calls the culture “stupidly politically correct,” but then immediately contradicts himself by making a list of topics that he thinks are not funny and never will be and he will never joke about. Mel Brooks: ‘Blazing Saddles’ Would Never Be Made in Today’s ‘Stupidly Politically Correct’ Culture Mel Brooks doesn't think Hollywood would make "Blazing Saddles" in this current "stupidly politically correct" climate. https://variety.com/2017/film/news/mel-brooks-blazing-saddles-pc-culture-1202568893/ Even in the example of BLAZING SADDLES, he's made it clear in multiple interviews that the image of a black man being lynched was a line he would never cross. Even something as subtle as the “Bart almost gets lynched” scene - note that every man in line behind him is white.

So the idea that “oh, no, now there are tribes we will no longer offend!” while immediately going on to list lines he would never cross is contradictory and, yes, hypocritical. @PF Tompkins outlines why on a thread embedded in the Variety article. So the mindless regurgitation of the line about how “The PC Police say we can’t do movies like BLAZING SADDLES anymore” is so disheartening because it shows that the only lesson these people took from the film is “white people yelling the N-word is funny.” Spike Lee has criticized the film for that - less the intent or even the execution, but what audiences (especially white audiences) take from it. That audiences take it not as a critique of white hegemony but as a free pass to say the N-word and laugh about it. Because, let's be real, when people like Rob Lowe bemoan that we would NEVER see a movie like Blazing Saddles today, what they mean is "boy I do miss the days when you could cram your movie full of the N-word with reckless abandon for literally any reason" But that era of film never existed. The vast majority of the history of race in film before BLAZING SADDLES centers white characters, and betrays extreme discomfort with white culpability. Noteworthy also that BLAZING SADDLES did not start a trend, because it couldn't. And I never wanted to admit it before but honestly? Spike Lee was right. Clearly, way too many people didn't "get" the object of ridicule in SADDLES, and just use it as yet another cudgel of oppression. But don't worry, it's just a joke. Anyway, BLAZING SADDLES has always been and will always be one of my favorite movies, but it does get really tedious that it's been twenty years of people boo-hooing that we can't make the film today like it's some kind of fresh take. Good lord, it is not.