Brooks gets a silent movie made! Surely he deserves some kind of award for this - sure, he got away with it by the similarities between this project and his previous ones: it would be a spoof, a send up of silents, like he'd previously sent up the western, classic horror and the movie business in general. The other way he got it made serves as dramatic irony in the movie itself: "Silent Movie" is about Mel Funn, a movie director who ruined his career with drink, and his misfit friends Dom Deluise and Young Frankenstein's Marty Feldman who try to both resurrect Funn's career and save the studio from being taken over by the evil Engulf and Devour Corporation by putting on a silent movie. The only way Funn gets his studio boss (Sid Ceasar) to agree to the project, is if the picture is loaded with stars! So the primary plot of the movie is Funn and his friends chasing stars around town trying to get them to sign. It is ironic because each time a major star like Liza Minelli or Paul Newman appears for a token cameo, this star by their presence helps Brooks convince his boss to do the picture. Stars are really all that's needed to get a picture green-lit. If you've got Jack Nicholson or Tom Cruise saying they want to do your picture: it doesn't matter WHAT the script is like - it'll happen! There are other ways it'll happen, i'm sure, but the big star is sure-fire.
On to quality control: Brooks ends up with something that's fun, but just not as clever or complex as the thing its trying to send up. Physical comedy is actually a terribly tricky thing to do well, and make funny - and a whole nother ball game from dialogue comedies (the norm for Brooks - if you turned the sound off Spaceballs, you'd be left with nothing. Same for Blazing Saddles. It was presumptuous to think he could make a silent movie. The comic situations he's thought up are just so elementary. Its just a disconnected series of gags sewed Frankenstein-style onto the skeleton of "finding big stars to be in Mel Funn's silent movie."
There's certainly nothing to offend silent film fans here - its all very good natured, just very naive as to how to make a good physical comedy. The man who should actually make a silent comedy is Rowan Atkinson - best physical comic since the masters.
So i guess my main regret is that this will not probably win any fans for silent movies, let alone encourage people to check them out. If you want to see some great silent comedy, check out Chaplin's The Kid, Keaton's The General and Sherlock Jr. Those should be good jumping-off points.
On to quality control: Brooks ends up with something that's fun, but just not as clever or complex as the thing its trying to send up. Physical comedy is actually a terribly tricky thing to do well, and make funny - and a whole nother ball game from dialogue comedies (the norm for Brooks - if you turned the sound off Spaceballs, you'd be left with nothing. Same for Blazing Saddles. It was presumptuous to think he could make a silent movie. The comic situations he's thought up are just so elementary. Its just a disconnected series of gags sewed Frankenstein-style onto the skeleton of "finding big stars to be in Mel Funn's silent movie."
There's certainly nothing to offend silent film fans here - its all very good natured, just very naive as to how to make a good physical comedy. The man who should actually make a silent comedy is Rowan Atkinson - best physical comic since the masters.
So i guess my main regret is that this will not probably win any fans for silent movies, let alone encourage people to check them out. If you want to see some great silent comedy, check out Chaplin's The Kid, Keaton's The General and Sherlock Jr. Those should be good jumping-off points.