Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

In the early 70s, five British comedians and one American illustrator created what, in my opinion, is the funniest TV show ever made, with “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”.   The group’s first foray into the cinematic world was a re-filming of their most beloved skits from the show.  When it was time for them to create an entirely original story for their 2nd movie, they chose to do an extremely satirized retelling of the medieval legend of King Arthur.   Choosing to make fun of what is probably Britain’s most beloved literary story was a perfect choice, as nobody could laugh at the English like the English themselves.  The Pythons, however, went beyond even that, as the resultant film not only parodied its source material, but all cinema as well.   The movie, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, attacks all that is cinema, from classic adventure movies to movie musicals and even the French New Wave.    The result is over 90 minutes of non-stop laughter.  

Since the Python’s had a very low budget, they could not afford to hire a large cast of actors, yet they were making a parody of an epic adventure story which would usually include a large cast of characters.  For this reason, all six members portray countless different roles in the movie, some as many as nine different parts.   Seeing the same actor as a different person and sometimes together with themselves adds to the way the film feels like a great indictment of the falsehood of adventure films in general.    Another example of this self-parody resourcefulness was due to the fact that the teams’ low budget would not allow them to rent out any real horses.    This was overcome by all the cast members pretending to be galloping with their feet and in the air while clicking together two coconuts made to imitate the sound of a galloping horse.   Throughout the movie, this is how the characters move from one location to the next.  It is so absurd that it continues to be funny throughout the film.   

The story of King Arthur and his knights within this movie revolves around their involvement in a quest to retrieve the Holy Grail, which, for the sake of the movie, is a magical cup that has godly healing powers.   They are sent on this quest by none other than God himself, who appears like a cut-out animated version of King Arthur floating in the sky.  This ploy is just an excuse to run through their various scenes incorporating comedic skits and movie parodies interlaced with an abundance of social satire that continues non-stop from the beginning until the very end of the movie.  

Chock-full of very funny scenes and skits, all of which make great fun of not only the King Aurthur legend, but medieval adventure films in general.    For example, in an adventure film, usually when the hero and his team are riding anywhere, they are accompanied by expansive, heroic music.   This is done with extreme exaggeration in the movie and the fact that the hero and his team are pretending to ride horses results in the music emphasizing the absurdness of the humor even more.   There are so many legendary funny segments in this movie that I hardly remember ever stopping to catch my breath in between bouts of laughter the first time a saw it.   Even now, after countless viewings, I find myself laughing out loud at various points in the film.   Some highlights of this are, King Arthur’s duel with the Black knight, Sir Lancelot’s massacre of the wedding banquet, the battle against the monster bunny rabbit, the crossing of the bridge of death, the knights who say Ni! and many more.     I will leave it up to those few who have yet to have seen the film to discover these hilarious gems for themselves.   

The Monty Python group consists of Graham Chapman- (King Arthur, the hiccupping guard, and the middle head of the Three-Headed Giant, as well as the voice of God), John Cleese (Sir Lancelot the Brave, the Black Knight, French Taunter, Tim the Enchanter, and many other roles), Terry Gilliam (Patsy Arthur’s servant, the Soothsaying Bridge keeper, the Green Knight, Sir Bors, himself as the Weak-Hearted Animator, and other roles), Eric Idle (Sir Robin the-not-quite-so-brave-as-Sir-Lancelot, Lancelot’s squire Concorde, the collector of the dead, Roger the Shrubber, Brother Maynard, and many other roles), Terry Jones (Sir Bedevere the Wise, Prince Herbert, Dennis’ mother, the left head of the Three-Headed Giant, and other roles, and Michael Palin (Sir Galahad the Pure, Leader of the Knights Who Say Ni, Lord of Swamp Castle, Dennis, right head of the Three-Headed Giant, film’s narrator, and other roles).  In each of their roles, the actors are clear as to who they are while clearly defining a different character.   As for ensemble acting, this movie has one of the greatest comedic ensemble casts found anywhere.  Their comedic acting talents are what define the Monty Python group.  

Terry Gillam and Terry Jones co-directed the movie as well.   While Jones would later direct my favorite Monty Python film (The Life of Brian) on his own, it is Gilliam who would develop into one of cinema’s more imaginative and creative directors.    As an animator, he knew how to create reality from nothing, allowing many of the repetitive landscapes to look different and authentic with some ingenious gender bending lighting.    There are scenes that are given the look and feel of a Hammer gothic horror film, while others have historical tones to them.  These creative set-ups are definitely due to the artistic sensibilities of Gilliam.    There is also quite a bit of showy parodies to art films, such as the breaking of the 4th wall that would then blend in together with the storyline.    You see, every once in a while, two characters will have a philosophical chat about the scientific possibilities of what is being depicted, or they will straight out state that a castle, for instance, is just an animated cut-out model (thanks to Gilliam, who drew all the Pythonist animation for the film).  Characters will also suddenly reference a scene number when speaking about what is currently occurring.

“Monty Python and the Holy Grail” is a movie that will always continue to make me laugh.  It is a timeless smart classic and one of the greatest comedies ever made.   That is saying something considering that it is not even my favorite Monty Python movie.  

Blazing Saddles (1974)

In the early days of cinema, the Marx Brothers thrived in surrealistic stories that were based on loading as many gags and one-liners as was humanly possible into their films.   When those jokes had impeccable timing, and great delivery (The brothers were the best at this), the gags and jokes hit their mark.    With “The Producers”, Mel Brooks worked from a glorious story to match his sometimes vulgar and inciteful humor.  In 1974, by using the premise of satirizing the clean wholesome façade of the classic Hollywood western, Brooks went the route of the Marx Brothers by concentrating on theme and non-stop set-ups, stealing some of Godard’s 4th wall idiocy in the process.    The resultant movie, “Blazing Saddles”, is so ridiculous and off the wall that it compares very favorably with some of the Marx Brothers’ best work.

What places this movie apart from those classic comedies, is its straightforward and in-your-face attack on racism.     Brooks took a timeworn and simple western plot of an evil railroad baron wanting to own and take control of a town that his incoming railroad will pass through that he borrowed right out of Leone’s, “Once Upon a time in the West”.  He then turns this plot upside down by making its hero a black man.   His understanding as to how this would affect the paranoid racist citizens of the wild west and expanding on that with no-holds-barred exaggerations is what makes the movie work.   The town’s citizens send a letter to the Governor asking him to send a new sheriff to protect them from the railroad villains.   Said villain has the corrupt Governor in his pocket, and they agree to send a black man about to be executed as the new Sheriff of the town (Rock Ridge), with the understanding that the townsfolk would never accept a black man as their savior.   

The beauty of the movie is the unapologetic way it depicts the western and racial stereotypes that existed throughout the history of the Hollywood Western.   Cleavon Little stars as the Black Sherrif Bart, and he is a delight.  Of all the movie characters, it is Bart who is the least lampooned and Little mostly plays him straight.    He is charismatic and full of an unearned form of confidence that could only survive in the world of cinema.  He is, of course, a bit flashy and extravagantly dressed (for the West), sporting his white hat with flair and pride.   He is probably the least crass person in the movie.   Brooks emphasizes the cartoonish depictions of all the characters throughout the film, and with Bart, it comes in his Bugs Bunny delivery of a letter bomb to the character Mango.    Other than that scene, Little mostly plays Bart straight. 

The rest of the cast are a different story, and they are played by many Brooks regulars.   Harvey Corman is delightful as the evil Hedley Lamarr, and the running joke of people consistently pronouncing his name wrong never fails to amuse.   It is his idea in making Bart the Sheriff, rightfully thinking that he would not be accepted by the ignorant town folks.  Corman goes over-the- top in his portrayal and embraces the evil in Lamarr while expanding on his utter stupidity.   In fact, all the white characters, except for Gene Wilder’s, are shown to be very stupid.    

Gene Wilder is once again marvelous here as Bart’s sidekick, Jim, who will tell you used to go by the name, Jim, which is in itself a joke, since he will, a bit later, say that he is known as “The Waco Kid” (Pun intended).   Wilders’ character type was portrayed in the past by the likes of Dean Martin and Kirk Douglas. A former fierce gunfighter turned alcoholic due to all the people who want to kill him.   For Jim, it was being challenged by a 6-year-old that finally breaks him.   As you can see throughout the movie, there are these added silly exaggerations that lampoon and satirize well-loved icons of western movies.  Wilders’ character is a bug-eyed Shane or Clint Eastwood on steroids.   He is so fast on the trigger that we never see him move (yes, I mean literally), as everything in this movie is exaggerated.  

There are many more off the wall character spin-offs, such as the delightful Madeline Kahn who is a hooker hired by Lamarr to seduce Bart out of town, but instead gets enamored by his physical endowment (another stereotype expanded on for laughs).   There is the football player Alex Karress portraying the fearsome killer Mango as a cross between Leatherface and Jerry Lewis.    He is such a bad ass that he knocks a horse out cold with one punch.   

At another point, Brooks works to insert reality into a typical western scene in order to show that scene’s actual outcome.  For example, how many western TV shows or movies show cowboys eating cooked beans at an evening campfire?   Quite a few, but this is the only movie where we find out what eating beans can do to your bowel movements in the famous and legendary campfire bean eating scene.    The old westerns either had the Native American Indians speak an untranslated foreign language or broken English.  Here Brooks uses the foreign language aspect and has them speak Yiddish.    Sure, maybe the Indians were one of the lost Jewish tribes.    When things like this happen, they caught me by surprise the first time I saw the movie, and then it became something I looked forward to seeing at all subsequent viewings.  Each time they also made me laugh out loud.    

During the few times I didn’t laugh while watching the movie, I was struck by the strong and effective way that the movie tackles racism, stereotypes, and political correctness.   The N word is used all the time, and usually in a mostly uncomfortable and vicious fashion.    In the end, when we laugh at how almost all the white people callously use it, we are laughing at the damnable stupidity that is racism.  This movie is one of the more effective condemnations of racism I have ever seen in a Hollywood movie that I thought was just meant to entertain.   One of the brightest, sharpest comedy minds of the 70s was a black man named Richard Pryor, and Pryor contributed with Brooks in writing the screenplay.  It was his insistence on the use of the N word consistently in the movie that leaves a mark on the viewer while making him laugh at the same time.   All the white people in the film are also characterized as ignorant and extremely idiotic.  This I believe was also done purposefully to further emphasizing racism as a terrible blight on American history.

To top everything off, Brooks ends his film with the most outrageous breaking of the 4th wall ever put on film.   Godard said that it was smart and meaningful to have his movie characters speak directly to the viewing audience.   When Brooks does the same thing at the end of his movie, I was already clearly aware that there was nothing real happening in the movie.    When the characters leave the movie’s period and story to enter a movie set in a Hollywood backstage, they are not only speaking to the viewer but carry with them all the set-ups, props and, of course, gags.    This had the strange effect of making me feel even more of a conspirator to the racist stereotypical behavior that I was laughing at while watching the movie.   It was a bit of an unnerving feeling for me, and I believe that was Brooks’ point.  

While it is not very visually arresting, “Blazing Saddles” has a marvelous cast who give good performances, with exquisite timing, and non-stop jokes that work about 80% of the time.    The fact that, at the same time as I was laughing out loud, I thought about the evils of racism within our society attests to its success in getting its message across.  For a comedy to succeed in doing both of those things is quite an achievement, making “Blazing Saddles” one of the greatest comedies of all time.  

Young Frankenstein (1974)

Mel Brooks has never tried to claim to be anything other than a writer, performer, and director of outrageous comedies.   All his films are silly, and some too infantile for my taste. However, he has a few movies that contain so much wit, charm and, above all, timing that they can be considered brilliant.   For my money, his best movie is his satire on the old classic James Whale Frankenstein films from the 1930s.    His “Young Frankenstein” pays homage, makes fun of, and sometimes reinvents these classics.    It is also one of the funniest movies ever made.

Fredrick Frankenstein is the grandson of Victor (the Frankenstein from Mary Shelly’s original novel, as well as named Henry in the first two classic films), and at the start of the movie he rejects the ideas and experiments of his grandfather.    It is only after he finds out that he inherited his grandfather’s estate, that he travels to Transylvania for a visit.  It is there that he encounters sinister house manager Frau Blucher (Cloris Leachman), hunched back house boy Igor (Marty Feldman) and sexy assistant Inga (Teri Garr).     He then discovers his grandfather’s old laboratory and a book titled, “How I did it by Victor Frankenstein”.   The movie which this film pays great homage to, renamed him Henry, but Brooks decided to also give respect to the book and retain the name Victor.     In reading the book, Frederick realizes that reanimating life from the dead is possible and goes about repeating his grandfather’s work.   The resultant monster (a brilliant portrayal by Peter Boyl) is captured and escapes again before the extremely hilarious conclusion.

The casting in the movie is first-rate.   Included here are many Brooks regulars.  There is Gene Wilder as Frederick Frankenstein (who he makes a point of pronouncing Frankensteen, as to both reject his heritage and emphasize a possible Jewishness in a prideful way).   Wilder has never been better than as the edgy, bewildered Grandson of the man who created the Karloff monster.   He succeeds in successfully conveying intelligence and silliness at the same time.   His comedic timing with all the other characters is pitch perfect.     

One of those characters is the hunchback Igor, played by Marty Feldman, who has never had a role more suited to his strange buggy-eyed persona than that of the deformed hunchback sidekick Igor (Pronounced Eyegor).    With a movable hunch on his back and a tendency to repeat himself, Igor is a hilarious parody of the original Igor from 1939’s “The Son of Frankenstein”, and exaggerates the stereotype that deformed people are also simple-minded.  For example, the brain that Igor steals for the created monster is labeled Abnormal, which he deciphers as being the brain of someone named Abby Normal.   Of course, for those of us who loved the original films, we always wondered about the level of intellect of the brain used in those stories.     Here it is straight out stated and adds to the laughs.   

Leachman as Fau Blucher, Garr as Inga and another Brooks regular Madeline Kahn as Elizabeth (Frankenstein’s fiancée) are all superb, but special mention needs to be made to the performance of Peter Boyle as the monster.  Boyle was not a comedic actor per se and had some terrific dramatic supporting roles in the 70s, but here instills the pathos from Karloff’s original monster with an endless stupidity and the appearance of bewilderment that results in some of the funniest scenes of the movie.   Especially the scene that lampoons the blind hermit in the hut scene from “Bride of Frankenstein”.  Here the hermit is portrayed in a cameo by none other than Gene Hackman, which shows off Hackman’s ability to embrace comedy.    Boyle and Hackman are so funny in their lampooning of one of the classic films’ signature scenes, that it was hard for me to recover from bouts of extreme laughter while watching it.   The original scene showed how a lonely hermit embraced the monster as a friend and human companion, and Brooks retains that theme while emphasizing his blindness, which includes some shocking funny results of not being able to see.     The scene is priceless, and I could tell that both of these fine actors were having a lot of fun making it.

As in all of Brook’s movies, “Young Frankenstein” is a satire that lampoons other iconic films.   He took elements from the first three original films from the 30s for his story.    In my opinion, this is Brooks’ funniest and best movie.    His decision to film it with the same tone and feel as the original movies, was a superb choice that helped enhance the satire.   Filmed in Black and White, while making use of old studio sets and the original laboratory props from the original movies helped it to keep the movie centered on that which it was making fun of.   While anyone could enjoy the movie for its story as is, it is only those of us who know and loved the original 1930s films who can truly appreciate the brilliant satire for what it is.   Madelin Kahn’s hairdo would just seem like a strange mistake unless you were aware of the female monster’s hairdo from “The Bride of Frankenstein”.   The belly aching laughter induced by the monster, little girl, playground scene would not be as funny if you were not familiar with a similar serious scene from the original “Frankenstein” film.       

“Young Frankenstein” is a homage to a classic influential series of films while seemingly creating its own unique identity of superb atmospheric comedy.     In fact, after watching “Young Frankenstein”, it is not really possible to watch the original films without thinking of this movie and smiling.   Not only does this movie allow us to remember the old classics, but watching the old classics will now allow me to remember this movie.    That is a great testament to the power of Brooks’ masterpiece in comedy.   This is his best movie and one of the greatest comedies ever made.  

A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

Movies about insanity are as varied and different as movies about love, yet it is rare that a story or film dwells on what it is like to be in love with someone suffering from mental illness.  Is it not true that the people who suffer the most from mental illness are those innocent bystanders who care about the mentally ill?   John Cassavetes deals directly with this truism in his hard-hitting drama, “A Woman Under the Influence”.

Boasting one of the greatest performances by an actress ever seen, Cassavetes’ movie is set within a seemingly regular working-class family in Los Angeles.   The film opens with a normal looking scene of a homemaker named Mabel (Gena Rowlands in that aforementioned performance), sending off her three small children to an overnight stay with her mother.    The children seem very well-behaved and the grandmother very caring.     Mabel also appears in this opening scene as pretty normal, as she worries about details and demands to be informed about any irregularities that may occur during her children’s absence.      In this opening scene, Mabel still seems a bit neurotic, which is a hint as to what and who she truly is.    The children are sent away because Mabel and her husband Nick (Peter Falk in a role that fits him like a glove) want to have a romantic evening together.    Nick, who is a foreman for a construction team, is forced that night to work due to a water leak at the construction site, causing their plans to fall through.    This, it seems, is a trigger for another (it appears that there were many in the past) psychotic lapse for Mabel, who ends up picking a man up at a bar that evening.  Yet this is not a story of infidelity.  For Nick, if only it was that simple.   Mable’s descent into madness quickly ascends within the next day and night until Nick is forced to commit her to an institution.    This is the first half of the movie.  The 2nd half concerns her return from the institution six months later as the very same person she was when she went in.

 

Mabel has a hard time controlling her thoughts, and an even harder time understanding them.   She is OK when alone but is so petrified about not knowing how to behave, that she becomes unglued when accompanied by many people.     If this is true, then why does her husband Nick, who loves her deeply, keep inviting large amounts of people to the house?   My guess is that he is afraid of being alone with her and is constantly looking for support for his difficulties, which are quite substantial.    

The people who suffer the most from mental illness are the immediate family who live through the irrationality that is the insane.    Of all those who suffer from Mabel, it is only Nick who chose this life.    The others, being Mabel’s parents, Nick’s parents and the three children were thrust into the predicament through fate.      By choosing to fall in love with Mabel, Nick chose to suffer through their lives together.   Only love can be a strong enough motivator to make anyone chose this type of life.    For all her irrationalities, Mabel has something that is sweet and tender and one of the successes of the film is its ability to allow me to see this.   To care for not only all the immediate family suffering but also for Mabel.   

One of the fascinating aspects of all of Cassavetes’ films, is the feeling that you are watching a reality show with real people going through issues.  I never felt while watching the movie that I was watching a play.   Cassavetes wrote the script for the movie, while allowing his actors the freedom to enhance and act on the script as they felt.    While not true improvisation, this style becomes a hybrid of the acted written word and free-flowing dialogue.  When added to stunning performances all around, this method results in a powerful viewing experience.   I was riveted to my seat throughout the movie, but I also had a feeling of hopelessness to the unchangeable situation, which is the mostly incurable disease that is mental illness.    When Mabel returns from the institution, we are told that she went through intolerable ignorant treatments, such as shock treatments and mind-numbing medication.    The fact that she returns from her six months absence the same person with the same illness is illuminating.

Gena Rowlands, who is the real Mrs. Cassavetes gives an unforgettable performance as Mabel.  She moves from calm to blusterous at a moment’s notice and by the film’s end I felt I knew what she was feeling.    This is a woman who wants nothing more than to be good and accepted, yet her sickness does not allow this and, on realizing this, she is constantly in a state of fright.     As a mother, she treats her kids like her friends and, in so doing, leaves them at dangerous unprotected levels of dependency.    Her love for them is not less than any other loving mother’s love for her children, but the expression of this love veers from care to fear to despair.   Rowlands will sometimes, in one scene, show all these emotions, and she does not do this by over-the-top showboating that another lesser actor would revert to.  It is all done through her facial expressions and physical body language.   At one point, she looks adorably gorgeous, while, in others, ugly and deranged.    None of these transformations occur through make-up or lighting, rather through pure acting.   Cassavetes films her like a documentarian using handheld kinetic camera styles and his camera follows her in a free-form manner that adds insight to her erratic actions.    

 

Peter Falk, who at the time of the making of the movie was a major TV star as the disheveled detective Columbo, shows his true range in the role of Nick.     His Nick is not stupid, and he truly understands who his wife is.  He also deeply loves her, and I was not sure if he would love her if she was sane.  Part of her attraction to him is her off-kilter, erratic behavior.     Nick is also a bit neurotic, and I believe he needs her cracked behavior to justify his own off-the-cuff energy.   We know, and he knows that Mabel has no self-control when surrounded by people, yet he invited his entire work crew to eat a spaghetti breakfast at his home, after his romantic evening with her was canceled.      Surely, he did not expect her to behave in an acceptable manner.    In another scene, after committing their mother, he takes his kids out of school to spend a forced fun day on the beach during the late fall or winter, and then feeds them beer on the way home.   At that point, I felt that the only thing keeping Nick from himself going over the edge was his love and protective need of Mabel.

The supporting characters in the movie are no less relevant with both set of parents showing two different viewpoints towards Mabel and her actions.   Her parents are petrified of her, and too scared to respond in any way other than sadness and acquiescence.  Nick’s parents, or more specifically his mother, are angry at Mabel and blame her for ruining her son’s life.     These are both two very insightful and realistic depictions of people in their situation.   Their inclusion into the story adds depth and meaning to the film.

The movie ends with a quiet functional view on how the couple work together within their unorthodox lifestyle and perfectly enhanced for me those themes inherent throughout the film.   Love is a strong emotion that pulls humans through everything.    I did not feel sorry for either Nick or Mabel by the film’s end.   I admired their love and their love gave me a bit more meaning as to what constitutes life.   For a movie to have this effect on me shows how great a motion picture it truly is.