Wolfs - A Good Night of Bad Choices

 

Streaming on Apple TV+

    One of the benefits of the modern streaming world is the opportunity for a return to the "Middle Movie, " as in films with modest budgets, A-list stars, and plots that don't require too much set-up or locations (usually). These films were made between the major blockbusters and the Oscar contenders that, in the past, helped elevate rising talent and allowed more risk with experimentation. They were also, more often than not, fillers for the times of year when fewer people were likely to go to the movies. With the rise in demand for nearly every major Hollywood release needing to be extravagant, attention-grabbing noise fests, with a few exceptions that prove the rule, there is little to no space for Middle Movies in the Hollywood system anymore. 

    Apple's original film, Wolfs, is just the kind of Middle Movie we need more of in this modern age. It may not be the most clever or impactful movie this year, but it will be a fun and engaging misadventure. 

    The story follows a professional "fixer" (George Clooney) who is called in the middle of the night by the D.A. to fix a problem, namely, the dead body in her hotel suite. Shortly after arriving at the hotel and quickly assessing the situation, the "fixer" is interrupted by another seemingly equally capable "fixer" (Brad Pitt) who works for the newly built hotel's manager and has also been tasked with fixing the problem. Under protest, the two professionals are forced to work together, and what follows can best be described as a delightful fusion of Adventures in Babysitting with Ocean's Eleven (the Steven Soderbergh version). 

    The film's best asset is the chemistry between its two leads, George and Brad. As mentioned earlier, the two actors work beautifully together and appear to have maintained their working chemistry from their experience with the Ocean's Eleven films. Their chemistry has aged like a fine wine, and seeing them bounce off each other so fluently is a delight. 

    Writer and director Jon Watts, best known for the MCU Spider-Man trilogy, delivers a witty script with a profound focus on character and performance. This is not at all surprising, given that his third MCU film, Spider-Man: No Way Home, was a masterpiece in character exploration and journey and is appropriately recognized as the most emotionally resonating Spider-Man film in the MCU. 

    While I look forward to seeing what else Jon Watts has in store for us, I hope he does so with another cinematographer. Because while the photography in Wolfs is fine, it's not what I would prefer. 

    Photographed by Larkin Seiple, the images sport a visual style that borders on being too dark, which appears to be the style of this time. Granted, the images never become entirely incomprehensible (unlike the final season of Game of Thrones), and a darker style suits the story's themes and subject matter. Still, even in the age of high-quality digital cameras, it's best to not play in the shadows too much. 

    Wolfs is a pleasant mid-level distraction that will make you laugh and feel that your time was well spent. It is just original enough to feel fresh and nuanced in all the right ways. If you have Apple TV+, check it out. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Megalopolis - Did That Just Happen?

 

Playing in Theaters 

    Creative freedom is virtually impossible in the Hollywood system and likely always has been. Even the most prestigious and accomplished filmmakers, who have proven successful in the past, are as susceptible to the whims of studio executives and shareholders as everyone else within the Hollywood system. While it can be possible to deliver an unusual and fascinating creative vision using Hollywood assets, it often comes at a terrible price on the filmmaker's part. 

    This is why legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola decided to independently finance his passion project, Megalopolis, entirely on his own (apparently going so far as to sell part of his winery), allowing himself total creative freedom to bring his unadulterated vision to life, because the sad truth is that no studio on Earth would even consider investing in this particular project. 

    This film is many things, most valid and too numerous to list in this review. Suffice it to say that I don't think I have ever seen anything like this movie in a long time. I can't say it's for everyone, nor does it have a coherent story; it is a waking, sometimes confusing, but ultimately satisfying dream that asks a lot from the audience. It may be a bit full of itself occasionally, and there may be too many instances of disorientation, but at no point during the film did I ever feel entirely lost. Uncertain, maybe, but not lost. 

    The film does not call for a summary of the plot or story because, as I've alluded to before, there isn't really a plot or story. Yes, there are distinct characters who are doing things and have what feels like meaningful interactions with each other, but the reason for any of it isn't quite as clear-cut as conventional wisdom might prefer.

    Rather than go over the details of the plot/story, allow me instead to list the many things this film reminded me of during my viewing: 

Fritz Lang's Metropolis from 1927 

Julie Taymor's Titus 

Elmer Rice's The Adding Machine

Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead 

Terry Guilliam's Brazil

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey

I, Claudius 

Most of the works of William Shakespeare 

Cloud Atlas 

German Expressionism 

Dream Logic 

I suddenly forgot what I was talking about! 

    This short list of previous works and feelings best summarizes my experience with this fascinatingly unusual experience of a film. If any of the things I listed are as appealing to you as they are to me, this film will be as unusually fascinating to you as it was to me. 

    Megalopolis is a film made for a singular audience with limited appeal that will somehow speak more volumes to the right-minded kind of people it deserves to be seen by and will sadly fade away into obscurity, only to be discussed and favored by the true believers who still believe in artistic integrity and rejects the confines demanded by the Hollywood system. Yes, this film is not for everyone, but I wholeheartedly suspect it will hit with the right kind of audience; my kind of audience! 

    We are not a dying breed; this is our time to show up and show off! The Godfather of Cinema has just made it so! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Too Clean - The Case for Grainy/Noisy Images

    The image above is a pair of screenshots from two sources of James Cameron's masterpiece, Aliens, from 1986. The one on the left is from the original Blu-Ray release, and the one on the right is from the most recent 4K remaster. If you look closely, you will notice a massive difference between the two: the 4K remaster is cleaner, as in there are no signs of grain, noise, or blemishes. Popular conjecture would have us believe that this is an enhancement of the classic film, an upgrade of sorts that makes the film "better" or "more visually appealing," and so on. While modern technology has come a long way in terms of restoration and remasters, I find this particular case to be an unfortunate one because, in an effort to "enhance" a classic, they have instead erased a fundamental aspect of the film, which made it so memorable and visually distinct; they have removed the film's tangible texture! 

    Regular readers of my blog will undoubtedly recall a previous entry wherein I discussed and argued for the cinematic merits of grain and noise. While aspects of that discussion will likely repeat themselves here, this particular case is less about defending an artistic style and more about attacking (for want of a better word) a modern practice in restoration and remastering that, in this filmmaker's opinion, is counterproductive, unsatisfying, and, ultimately, a massive disservice to the art of filmmaking as a whole! 

    Our journey began (arguably) in 1997 with the release of Star Wars: The Special Edition. Legendary filmmaker and technological pioneer George Lucas took it upon himself to utilize the rise in advancements in digital technology and remaster his original Star Wars films to fit into the vision he originally had but could not yet practically realize. This included restoring deleted scenes, inserting additional special effects, and cleaning up the original film negative for a sleeker and smoother presentation. Since then, the original Star Wars trilogy has undergone many further adjustments and "enhancements," as George or the rights holders have seen fit over the years. 

    Among the many changes and fixes that have been made, the one thing that many Star Wars fans, myself included, have been demanding is a new release of the original unaltered trilogy in a modern high-definition format. After years of technological advancements, an official release of the original unaltered trilogy still evades us today. The closest we have is the unofficial fan edit of the trilogy, The Despecialized Edition, which is available for download. To this day, it remains the best possible version of the original Star Wars trilogy many of us have come to love. 

    Much like George Lucas, the equally talented and visionary James Cameron has been fascinated with the changes and advancements in filmmaking technology. Look no further than his technologically fascinating (albeit narratively weak) Avatar series. However, just like George, James has an unhealthy desire to "fix" some of the things about his earlier films that, while likely bothersome to himself, became charming aspects of their works that rendered them timeless and endearing. 

    Here's a perfect example:

    In James Cameron's most excellent film, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, there is a chase scene early in the film between the young John Connor, the T-1,000 out to kill him, and Arnold's protector character trying to catch up to the chase. At one point, the chase moves from the city streets to the Los Angeles River. After a few minutes of John riding away from the colossal semi-truck, Arnold's character literally jumps into the fray and makes his way to rescue young John. 

    This chase scene includes a few shots in which it is pretty apparent the person driving the Motorcycle is not Arnold himself, but rather his stunt double with a similar enough build and facial structure (no doubt enhanced with some practical make-up) that allows him to pass as Arnold for those brief seconds of screentime. This little happy accident remained in most releases of the film all the way up to the Blu-Ray copy. 

    However, for the film's most recent 4K restoration, James Cameron took it upon himself to fix that little happy accident by digitally replacing the stunt double's face with Arnold's, or at least the closest approximation to his younger face at the time. This may seem minor, and, for the most part, it is, but making that little change, even so many years after the fact, robs the film of an essential part of its charm. 

    One of the reasons we enjoy movies of this caliber is knowing full well that they're not real and enjoying the little slips here and there that remind us how much of a human endeavor it was to bring the story to life. A good movie with a fantastic story and occasional mishaps that reveal the artifice adds to the charm. But a bad movie with a terrible story will make its technological mishaps more noticeable and highly mockable.

    Also, the 4K restoration only includes the original theatrical release of Terminator 2 and not the superior director's cut, which is still available on Blu-Ray; happy accidents and all, thank goodness! 

     This was the first sign that future remasters of James Cameron's films wouldn't be as faithfully recreated as they deserved to be. This brings us back to the main subject of this blog entry, Aliens.

    This action-packed and dramatically weighted film has endured as one of the best entries in the Alien franchise. Much like Terminator 2, Aliens is considered one of the best examples of a proper sequel. It also sports its own superior director's cut, which is also available on Blu-Ray. But, just like the 4K remaster of Terminator 2, Aliens would not be immune to Jim's hubris and would suffer the indignity of what I consider to be James Cameron's equivalent to George Lucas' Han-Shot-First debacle. 

    Part of what gives Aliens its charming identity is its visuals. Not only in special effects and gripping action scenes but primarily in its overall visual presentation. Aliens was captured on Kodak Eastman 400T film stock with Canon K35 lenses. This combination, along with a lighting design that utilized heavy shadows and high contrast, created images that were not only painterly as described by previous users but also drenched in grain & noise, creating a tangible layer of texture that makes the images pop in a way that, to this day, is nearly impossible to recreate. Not because of technological limitations but because of popular pressure. 

    When James Cameron took on the task of supervising the 4K remaster of the film, the most prominent change he made was to run the film through a denoiser. This program cleans up and removes particles such as grain and other blemishes from the images, creating a brand-new print of a film that is, while perceivably cleaner and smoother, also possesses an uncomfortable effect akin to the uncanny valley. 

    No matter how advanced technology progresses or how much more "intelligence" you put into A.I., no amount of computer power can effectively remove an image's original texture without negatively impacting the human charm that image once possessed! 

    Technology has led to beautiful remasters of classic films for glorious preservation and redistribution. A great example was when I finally saw the masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia in a brand new 4K remaster of the original film negative, with no enhancements or digital adjustments aside from primary color recreation. 

    Despite what television manufacturers, camera designers, and especially famous conjectures would have you believe, not every movie in existence needs to be "fixed" or "adjusted" to look more like it was made yesterday rather than long ago. 

    Sometimes, revisiting a film you created can produce more fantastic depictions and presentations of your intended artistic vision. Look no further than The Final Cut of the science fiction masterpiece Blade Runner. But when you allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking, nay believing, that you must "enhance" your classic film to better suit modern technological demands, you are not only doing your own work a terrible disservice, but you are also abandoning your own artistic integrity. 

    Films endure because of tender restoration and preservation, not to mention the love from audiences worldwide. We fall in love with our favorite movies for everything they are, faults and all. If you can't love something for what it is, how can you be expected to love it if you smear a coat of shiny paint over it? True acceptance applies to anything and everything in the tangential world! The sooner that becomes the norm, the better we will all be as creators and observers. 

    Let the grain stay! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Extreme Redundancy - The Cost of Chasing The "Cinematic" Look

 

    This quote from the late Robin Williams was originally from an observational joke he made about former President Ronald Reagan when he was quoted as saying, "What would this great country be without this great land of ours?" To which many of us understandably responded, "What?" This politically charged joke is the perfect analogy for today's subject: a practice utilized in Hollywood and some independent groups to chase that mythological perception of the "cinematic" look. One that I can't help but feel is far too costly and, as you might expect, redundant for its own good. 

    I have discussed the unhealthy, impractical, and ultimately defeatist idea of defining a "cinematic" look many times on this blog before. Be it regarding color correction practices, production design & lighting choices, and especially camera selection, placing any hard and fast rule as to what constitutes "cinematic" is, and always shall be, counterproductive to the very nature of cinema itself. As far as I am concerned, cinema is the art of creating movement through manipulating images to tell a cohesive and engaging story. That's it! 

    However, some people prefer a more complex definition, especially those well-embedded within the industry. They want you to believe you must have a blurry background or a specific halation of the lights and colors. All of these basically boil down to the aesthetics associated with celluloid film. In an age where digital cameras are significantly superior to celluloid film and have their own unique cinematic aesthetic and identity, the assumption that celluloid film must be the only viable option for cinema remains as absurd as it ever was! 

    This is not to say that making your digital images look more like celluloid film is inherently ridiculous; it is an entirely valid option should the story you're telling call for such aesthetics. There are plenty of creative and affordable ways to recreate that aesthetic regardless of capture format: specialized filters, grain overlays, color LUTs, etc. All of which can assist in creating the desired look for a fraction of the cost of using actual celluloid film. 

    However, one practice has my head spinning with its ridiculousness and not the good kind. 

    This machine from Arri, the company behind much of the equipment used in movie productions, mostly cameras (both film and digital), does something that, while impressive in its own right, seems wholly unnecessary to me personally. The purpose of the machine is to take a digital video file, print it onto a roll of celluloid film, and then rescan that film print to create another digital video file. This aims to create a brand new digital copy of a finished movie that was captured digitally but has now been imbued with the aesthetics and qualities of celluloid film. For more details, check out this video explaining the process: The Arri Machine. 

    Producing a film print from a digital file is more common than it may sound. Most theaters had yet to adopt digital projectors in the early days of using digital cameras for making movies. So, creating film prints from digital video was necessary at the time. Plus, film prints remain the best way to preserve and archive works of art better than any highly advanced hard drive ever could. Yes, physical media has more significant advantages, but film prints only require you to shine a light through the frame to see the action. 

    Making a film print of your digital movie is one thing, but spending the time and money to create a film print only to turn around and immediately rescan the film to create yet another digital file is entirely wasteful. Many theaters have mostly, if not wholly, adopted digital projectors by now, and the ones that still feature classic film projectors seem few and far between. Yes, the new film print may be used in some markets, and having a film print at your disposal can provide a wonderful sense of collector pride, but beyond that, this all seems rather silly and not the good kind.

    As I mentioned earlier, there are numerous ways to recreate the aesthetics of celluloid film when using digital capture that don't require costly machinery and harsh chemicals. At the risk of sounding like an old man yelling at the sun, this practice seems impractical. It comes across as yet another way the film industry is undermining the potential for exploring cinematic aesthetics within digital video itself. 

    I will never tire of saying this so long as it bears repeating: cinema is not defined by what format your story presents itself in but by how well you tell it. If your story needs to look like film but you can't afford it, there are plenty of creative and cost-efficient ways to achieve that look. Otherwise, feel free to present a story that looks like video. It might add more to your story than you think. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Birthday Special - He Walked by Night (1948)

 

Streaming on Amazon Prime and Pluto 

Rent on Amazon and Apple TV

Birthday Special Reviews continue! 

In my last review special, I tackled the ridiculous 80s action schlock fest, Warriors of the Wasteland, A mindless and mostly incompetent mess that tried and failed to skate by its lackluster budget with too much charisma and not enough texture. And yet, despite all that, it at least had some ironic entertainment value with its dumb dialogue and toy cars. At the very least, there was enough to keep me engaged, if only for the wrong reasons. 

Today's subject, He Walked by Night, a film noir crime thriller from 1948, doesn't have the same luxury. While I recognize that it's a product of its time, that still does not excuse the film for being as dull, predictable, cliche, and paint-by-numbers as it is. Sure, it barely skates by with some technical competence (proper lighting, mostly judicious editing, proper pacing, etc.). Still, without a proper emotional core for the audience to grasp, then it's all for not. Film noir may be a cold genre, but at least there's usually some heart within it! 

The story presents itself as a hybrid documentary/police procedural drama following the efforts to take down a suspected cop killer in Los Angeles. In between segments of narrated montages with infomercial levels of staged enthusiasm, we follow the "factual" events of the police's efforts to track down and bring in (or take down) their suspect. There's some cat & mouse, standard investigation efforts, and at least one big chase scene. 

If I sound somewhat apathetic towards this film, it's because it was too challenging not to fall asleep while watching it. Again, I understand that it was a product of its time, and the standards & styles for narrative filmmaking have evolved a lot since then, but I'm sorry, this movie is simply boring. 

The main issue with the film is that it seems to have no central emotionally resonating or relatable core, no in-universe reason for the audience to care about anything happening in the film. To be fair, there appears to be an attempt to build emotional resonance with one of the detectives proclaiming his close friendship with the victim. Still, we have never seen the two characters interact with one another in any meaningful way, nor do we see the victim do anything remotely relatable (thereby earning our empathy and interest) before his untimely demise. Instead, the narrator tells us who they are and what they do and merely assumes we will fill in the emotional void. 

The movie gives no sound reason to care about anything happening within the narrative, insisting that we should root for them purely because they are policemen. While I have a fair amount of respect and appreciation for the police (the good ones, anyway), no film from any era should expect to skate by demanding that we, the audience, care about a character by their occupation alone, nor can we be expected to accept aspects of characters or narrative depths simply because the narrator tells us of its existence. 

He Walked by Night is the equivalent of walking into a bakery and asking for a Chocolate Cake, only for the baker to hand you a bowl containing the ingredients and insist you can make it yourself. And on top of that, you don't have an oven! It's a film that tried to get away with less than the bare minimum of what would be acceptable as a story and refuses to provide anymore. 

    There are many other & far superior film noir classics to watch. Skip this one! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Birthday Special - Warriors of the Wasteland (1984)

 

Released in the U.S.A. January 13, 1984 

Streaming on Amazon Prime, Flexfling, and The Criterion Collection 

Rent on Amazon and Apple TV

    Welcome to the third quarter of the year, my wonderful readers! In addition to regular reviews for July, I will discuss movies released on or around some birthdays you submitted. If you still need to submit a birthday, it's still possible. We kick off this special with a movie released close to my birthday, and, oh boy, is this one special (note the sarcasm 🤣.) 

    Warriors of the Wasteland, a.k.a. The New Barbarians, is one of the many pieces of dumb action schlock that served as little more than filler on the video rental store shelves. However, it's also a prime example of the so-bad-it's-good genre, providing entertainment value despite its low production quality. Another trend back in the day was a slew of cheaply produced and quickly made films cashing in on the action craze of the time, utilizing international talent (typically from Italy) and making a small profit from video cassette sales, often after a deliberately short theatrical run (assuming it would get one at all.) 

    This practice led to several cult classic so-bad-it's-entertaining movies, or as my brother-in-law and I refer to them, "incredibad" movies, such as Samurai Cop, In The Aftermath, and pretty much anything in Reb Brown's filmography. In short, these are the kind of movies you would commonly find on shows like Mystery Science Theater 3000; terrible movies that are unintentionally funny in their unbelievable lack of quality in most areas. 

    Anyway, enough talk! Let's get to the movie itself. 

    Set in 2019, after the nuclear fallout dissipated, humanity emerged from the rubble with a new law of the land: survive. This is easier said than done when a massive cult gang known as The Templars roams around the wasteland, hellbent on eliminating the rest of humanity as some kind of redemption. At least, that's what their great leader has led them all to believe. But when they cross paths with a former member of their gang, who now has a new reason to live, things heat up, as the lone fighter takes on the entire Templar gang, with the help of some friends, to give humanity a fighting chance. 

    This movie is terrible in every possible and unintentionally hilarious way! It has all the staples of an international low-budget action film from the 80s: noticeably awful dubbing on top of already robotic dialogue, acting so wooden it could teach a carpentry class, sloppy action scenes that look more like a kid with a camcorder playing with his action figures, and ridiculously questionable costume designs for the entire cast. How ridiculous? Let's just say it's a funny reminder of the popularity of shoulder pads back then, not to mention the unusual hairstyles that would seem overtly theatrical today. 

    Arguably, the funniest thing about this movie is the vehicles. Taking notes from classic post-apocalyptic films such as The Road Warrior and Death Race 2000, many of the vehicles in this movie, though creatively designed, sound like they were powered by a blender hooked up to a Go-Kart motor; a high-pitched hum that makes all of the vehicles sound like toys and therefore not as intimidating as the filmmakers had likely intended. Never mind that they move so slowly that the people they're chasing with them can easily outrun them, yet they always seem to stop running at just the right moment and spot for the villains to deliver the killing blows. It's almost like they know the limits of these would-be death machines but don't care; they just want out of the movie! 🤣

    Despite these massive and unintentionally entertaining flaws, I enjoy some aspects of the film: The production design is charming in its crude, homemade aesthetic. Despite their silly sounds and lack of credible speed, the vehicles look fun to ride. The sets fit the over-the-top style of post-apocalyptic movies, which I enjoy and would love to play with in my own movie someday. Also, special mention must go to one of the most fantastic and criminally underutilized side characters in movie history, Nadir (Fred Williamson), a bow & arrow wielding badass who could potentially give Hawkeye a run for his money. 

    Warriors of the Wasteland is one of the many dime-a-dozen action fillers meant to pass the time while you wait for the real action gems. If you enjoy watching & making fun of bad movies with your friends over some chips and beer, this will fit the bill and then some!

    Enjoy the laughs! 🤣

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spaceballs Sequel?

 

If you get it, you get it! 🤣

    In 1987, comedic filmmaker Mel Brooks released one of his many classics, Spaceballs, a spoof/parody of the beloved Star Wars franchise, complete with massive Starships, prissy androids, and energy-based phallic symbols...uh, I mean...Lightsabers! Like the rest of Mr. Brooks' films, Spaceballs delivers a loving over-the-top comedic romp poking fun at Star Wars while simultaneously praising what made the franchise so memorable. Apparently, Mel Brooks secured the blessing of George Lucas himself, under the condition that he does not produce any merchandise from the movie. This is a shame because I have longed for Yogurt's plush doll to add to my collection. 

    Not too long ago, it was announced that an official sequel, starring Josh Gad and produced by Mr. Brooks himself, was in production over at Amazon/MGM studios. As of this writing, this project is only in the earliest phases of development. As such, there isn't much to say about it other than it's not a good idea. Not only is there no justification for making a sequel to Spaceballs (other than as a blatant nostalgic cash-grab), but also because no one in Hollywood or anywhere else knows how to make this particular style of comedy anymore! 

    Mel Brooks's style is best defined as over-the-top silliness fused with clever innuendo and a dash of spontaneous creativity and humor the cast encourages. This style has been well demonstrated and perfected by classic comedic talents such as Rowan Atkinson, Monty Python, and Laurel & Hardy. A style that encourages letting go of convention and embracing the absurd. Mr. Brooks also remains one of the few comedic talents who genuinely understands the nature of comedy and has never been afraid to venture into the dreaded questionable realm of "Isn't that offensive?" 

    In my opinion, the comedy genius of Mel Brookes has never gone out of fashion, despite its unfortunate lack of a presence in the modern comedic landscape, which seems to favor adolescent potty jokes and what I refer to as "Awkward Moment Humor," neither of which have rarely (if ever) been actually funny! And before you point out my possible inadvertent hypocrisy with the most fantastic fart joke scene in cinema history from Mr. Brooks himself, please allow me to elaborate! 

    Yes, Mel Brooks has made jokes in his movies that could be categorized as offensive or inappropriate by modern standards, but here's the thing: At least some people perceive EVERYTHING that way in this modern world! 

    Consider this quote from another comedic icon, Steve Martin: "Comedy is not pretty." While there are many ways to potentially interpret that quote, the most essential and relevant to this blog entry is that comedy is subjective and harsh, for want of a better word! By its very nature, comedy stems from observing and singling out the absurd and impracticality in every aspect of our existence. This includes but is not limited to government idiocracy, subpar human behavior, and little unusual interactions in our day-to-day lives. These are but a handful of the strange yet familiar things found in our world that can be difficult to process and challenging to comprehend, so we turn to comedy to not only make us feel a bit better about it all but also for a little reassurance that we're not alone in our frustrations. 

    Consider another Mel Brooks classic from 1974, Blazing Saddles. For those who have not yet seen it (and why haven't you already?), Blazing Saddles is a loving spoof of the cowboy western genre. It follows the exploits of a young man, who happens to be black, named Bart, who is chosen as the new Sheriff of a small, troubled town known as Rock Ridge. Despite confrontations from heavy racism, Bart is determined to win over the people and optimistically takes on the role of Sheriff. One day, while walking through the town, Bart stops to say hello to one of the locals, wishing her a good morning and commenting on how nice of a day it is, to which the local responds, "Up yours, n!**er," leaving Bart somewhat confused and frustrated. 

    As I'm sure you've noticed, that scene contained a racial slur. It works in this scene because Mel Brooks isn't using it to be mean; he uses it to make a point! Mel Brooks points out the ridiculousness of racism in the form of a clever joke, complete with a proper set-up, build, and punchline. It's openly mocking racism without being racist itself! 

    This joke would not work without using that awful word in English, commonly known as the "N" word. Had this movie been released just a few years ago, no one would have been talking about how clever the joke was; they would have been raging over using the "N" word and completely ignoring or misunderstanding the intended use! 

    Please understand this is not me ranting about oversensitive people, cancel culture, and trigger warnings. Living in an age where people try to be more thoughtful about their past and present actions is fantastic. This quality is long overdue in our society and culture, and I greatly appreciate the efforts made to make ourselves more aware and understanding. But there is a line, and attacking comedic efforts to point out our faults and hypocrisies absolutely crosses it! 

    Comedy is not pretty because, by its nature, it delves into the uglier aspects of our humanity and tries to encourage us to do better through laughter and overwhelming emotional resonance. In the modern age of knee-jerk reactions to seemingly politically incorrect, insensitive, or inappropriate things, comedy is losing its ability to have any meaningful impact on our perception and progress as a culture and especially as a species! 

    Mel Brooks isn't a comedic genius because he used the "N" word; he's a comedic genius because he knew how to use it and why! So, unless the folks over at Amazon/MGM studios are prepared to genuinely allow comedy to return to its roots, as it were, I have no faith in anyone's ability to deliver a proper sequel to any of Mel Brooks' works, even with his direct or indirect involvement! Not only is there no justifiable reason outside of naked nostalgic cash grabs, but no one in modern Hollywood (or anywhere else, for that matter) has the courage, wisdom, or appropriate amount of legal insanity to deliver the kind of cleverness people like Mel Brooks specialized in. 

    Since the movie has not been filmed yet, I am happy to reserve my judgment for when it is released. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath. 

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and comb the desert for something I can't find. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.