'History of the World. Part I' is an uneven, overlong, tired comedy of clichés and jokes as old as the time periods it lampoons.
Essentially, Brooks is satirizing epic period pieces, breaking this film into 5 chapters; the Stone Age/Dawn of Man, the Old Testament, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, and the French Revolution.
We begin with an homage to Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' and masturbating apes, laying to rest my suspicions that this was indeed going to be a long 92 minutes. Both the Cavemen and the world they inhabit look like instillations at the American Museum of Natural History. There is one clever joke in the entire segment, one, in which we see a Caveman painting and creating art for the first time. "With the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth... the critic." Then Mel goes and ruins a perfectly good joke by having another Caveman piss on the wall. I check my watch.
The Old Testament has a famous joke about there being 15 Amendments until Moses dropped one.
The Roman Empire contains the lion's share of the screen time, roughly 41 minutes. It tells the story of a stand-up philosopher, a slave, and a virgin who desperately want to flee Rome. Lots of adding 'us' to the end of names.
The Spanish Inquisition is essentially one eight minute Las Vegas style musical number. Its as hit and miss as it sounds.
The movie actually picks up steam with the French Revolution segment, where it takes on a Prince and the Pauper type romp. Of all the segments, this one feels like it could be its own movie and its a shame that Brooks didn't cut the rest and focus on this story entirely. The sever dichotomy between the poor and the wealthy alone is ripe for comedy. Brooks is at his disgusting best as the King, forcing a woman to sleep with him to free her father from prison. Unfortunately, Brooks has little interest in the plight of the peasants and the story rushes to and messy climax before pulling the rug out from under us in an ending so lazy and maddening that it soured the entire movie for me. Alas.
Mel Brooks plays Moses, Torquemada, Jacques, and King Louis XVI but his most substantial role is Comicus, a stand-up philosopher who isn't as funny as Mel Brooks thinks he is. He should be playing Narcissus.
Gregory Hines plays Josephus, a slave who can dance and call people "Honkus."
Dom DeLuise continues to play fat people who used to have more characteristics but they ate them all. History calls him Emperor Nero.
Madeline Kahn plays Nympho, a character who speaks entirely in lame double entendres while Mel Brooks strokes himself off camera.
Harvey Korman appears in the last sketch as Count de Money. The big (only) joke here is that people keep calling him Money, a callback to Korman's Hedley Lamar in 'Blazing Saddles.' A real knee-slapper (sarcasm). A slightly more highbrow joke would be for people to keep calling him Manet, but class has never been in Brooks' wheelhouse. Besides, we have more piss jokes to tell.
Chloris Leachman plays Madame Defarge, whom the more well-read will know as a revolutionary in Charles Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities.' She has little to do and Brooks is merciful by not making a Madame Defart joke. The audience breaths a sigh of relief.
The film also contains the biggest waste of Orson Welles since the infamous Paul Masson commercial but with far fewer laughs.
Far more talented actors only get one role while Brooks gets five. Why not bring everyone back and make this the Cloud Atlas of comedy? Madeline Kahn is a talented comedian and is constantly underused. Why not have her play multiple roles? Because Mel Brooks would get tired of kissing the same pair of tits. That's why.
Almost every scene in this movie is a clunker. Brooks seems to know this, and for the most part, keeps every scene down to three minutes. He never tries to establish a cohesive through-line or purpose to these set pieces. There is no rhyme or reason to their length. Each "story", and ultimately the movie itself, only lives as long as Mel Brooks can think of jokes to pile on to this weary skeleton. He could only come up with 10 jokes for the Spanish Inquisition so its only 8 minutes. He thought there were loads of jokes he could write about Rome. So its five times as long.
This is a comedy of labels rather than ideas. Brooks seems to think that shouting "GAYS!" or "JEWS!" is funny. People are not inherently funny. They are the baseline of a joke. "An alcoholic, a priest, and a child molester walk into a bar" is not a joke. It is a setup. "An alcoholic, a priest, and a child molester walk into a bar... and that's just the first guy." THAT'S a joke. At one point during the Spanish Inquisition, Torquemada cries, "we've flattened their fingers, we've branded their buns, nothing is working... send in the nuns!" At that point, a line of nuns march out, remove their coifs and gowns and diving into a pool for a synchronized swimming routine, where they do nothing religious and cease to be nuns entirely. So why have them be nuns in the first place? Because nuns are funny to look at? Because "nun" is a funny word to say? Nothing is working, indeed.
I feel like a teacher lecturing the class clown. Mel, you're coasting on passing grades and the odd chuckle. I know you can be better than this. I just wish you'd try harder. For the rest of you, go see what Monty Python is doing with 'Life of Brian' and 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail.' Now that's an A student.
No comments:
Post a Comment