A few months back, I did a deep dive into the Western genre, watching everything from classics to revisions to parodies and contemporaries. Although many of my colleagues would like to argue that the genre is dead, there is no denying that— especially after the critical success of The Power of the Dog, Killers of the Flower Moon, and the Yellowstone Universe — the genre is more than alive. It is still thriving.
Most Westerns look a bit different in today’s setting, tackling some of the less romantic elements of masculinity and American expansionism. Rather than asking if the genre is dead, the real question should be: is it still worth celebrating the classics?
50 years ago, Mel Brooks released the quintessential Western parody, Blazing Saddles, an absurd and ridiculous hoot of a time starring Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder. The film was a hit for Warner Brothers and Brooks, who made a career by making fun of established movie genres. A bit different from Brooks’ other works, such as Young Frankenstein (1974) and Spaceballs (1987), Blazing Saddles is easily one of his most profane and provocative works, including slurs, red face and depictions of demographic stereotypes–just like most classic Westerns. However, in the wake of the 2020s “woke” era and the constant revision and dismantling of the genre, Blazing Saddles could have easily been written off as an offensive, obscene comedy that is better left in the past. Now, on its Golden Anniversary, it’s clear that it still ranks above most parodies, Westerns and Brooks’ other works.
For those unfamiliar, Blazing Saddles follows the story of a corrupt politician (Harvey Korman) who appoints a black sheriff (Little) to a western town in hopes that his presence will run the people from their land. It’s clear by the film’s premise that the biggest joke is on race, a topic that, in modern times, is prevalent and difficult to tackle for non-Black screenwriters.
Even in the 70s, at least 40 years before the United States became “woke,” the studio was unsure about the premise of the film, afraid that the race subject would have been too much. In fact, according to TCM, Richard Pryor was supposed to play Sherriff Bart, but his controversial comedy, unafraid to tackle race, and his history with drugs made him less of an ideal candidate. Instead, Bart strategically went to Cleavon Little, a popular, charismatic Broadway and TV star. Pryor stayed on the film as a screenwriter along with Brooks, Norman Steinberg, Andrew Bergman, and Alan Uger.
What truly makes Blazing Saddles one of the greatest comedies of all time is its willingness to go after every demographic, which probably couldn’t have been done without Brooks and Pryor’s comedic styles. Nothing was off-limits in this film. Brooks has no issue using colorful, provocative language in this film, and he has no issue with depicting white people as “morons.”
As the film progresses, we encounter a balance of generic Western stereotypes, including a cowboy with fast hands and a thing for the whiskey bottle, played by the ever-so-charming Gene Wilder. The town is simple yet constantly threatened by American expansion and modernity as materialized by the railroad. The film, rather comically, shows that Western expansion only profited rich white politicians and businessmen.
The corrupt politician, Hedley Lamarr, does everything in his power to ruin Sheriff Bart after he surprisingly wins the hearts of the townspeople (even though they will never admit it). All of this comes to a wonderful, absurd conclusion when the fight between the townsmen and Lamarr’s henchman leaks into the real world. The fight spreads from the studio set itself to the entire Warner Brothers property and eventually to The TCL Chinese Theatre. If nothing else, the fourth wall breaks in this film are quite a treat.
Here, Brooks has mastered the art of balancing profanity and controversy with good fun. As a comedy, this is near perfect; as a Western, this is golden. During the Golden Age of Westerns, when John Wayne and Clint Eastwood’s characters embodied American masculinity, each Western managed to reframe and conceptualize real American anxieties from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. While this film may come off as just a spoof of the classics to come before it, I find that Brooks still managed to conceptualize anxieties from the 70s; this film is smarter than it appears. Coming out of Vietnam, The Civil Rights Movement, political assassinations, and scandals, the 1970s had a lot of baggage. For Brooks, it had a lot of material.
The basic premise of the film highlights corrupt politicians and the continuation of racism despite freedom being written into law. In the “American West,” the land of opportunity still only went to the white men in power. Yes, this film is funny as hell, but there is truth to it. And just like the classic and revisionist Westerns we most associate with the genre, Blazing Saddles combines the American West and current anxieties into a palatable experience.
When one categorizes Westerns into classics, revisions, parodies, and contemporaries, there is no way to put them in a hierarchy. What Wayne did in the 30s, Eastwood in the 50s and Brooks in the 70s are all the same. They look different, but their basic tactics mirror each other: they utilize provocative storytelling to break down our society.
So, 50 years later, does Blazing Saddles still deserve the reverence and critical acceptance it got in 1974? Now, modern Westerns such as Nope (2022), Power of the Dog, and Killers of the Flower Moon completely dismantle the idea of white American masculinity. They tackle race, expansionism, power, and sexuality all through a 2020s lens. Blazing Saddles doesn’t do that. It throws racial slurs, stereotypes, and controversy at the forefront of every joke. In fact, it embraces these elements and makes them funny to all audiences. Can you still do that in 2024? As a Western? Or any film, for that matter?
Blazing Saddles isn’t without criticism. Despite its wild success, including three Oscar nominations, critics were quick to say that the film is racist. Additionally, HBO Max, the streaming service currently showing the film, added a disclaimer introduction from TCM–a “trigger warning,” if you will. In a 2017 BBC Interview, Brooks himself said the film couldn’t be released today. The “King of Vulgarity” said that “tastes have changed.”
Conversely, there are defenders of the film–including myself. Whoopi Goldberg, for instance, in 2022, made headlines completely rejecting the idea of Blazing Saddles being racist. “It deals with racism by coming at it right, straight, out front, making you think and laugh about it, because, listen, it’s not just racism, it’s all the isms, he hits all the isms.”
On its anniversary, people still claim that the film couldn’t have been made today. Tastes and expectations are too different. It’s not like the film was considered “squeaky clean” in 1974. From conception to now, Blazing Saddles never tried to act like it wasn’t a vulgar parody that utilizes some of the best and worst generic elements of the classic Western. And while I can’t guarantee that Mel Brooks’ use of every “ism” in the film wouldn’t get him “canceled,” I don’t believe this film should be written off as something that couldn’t be made today. Comedy and Western revision is still possible–if anything, we need more brave writers and directors to rise to the occasion.
Unfortunately, I don’t know of many comedians who can do what Mel Brooks did with Blazing Saddles. What was supposed to be a flop turned out to be one of his best works, and Brooks’ style of “nothing off limits” is what makes it work so well. I don’t know what would have happened if Blazing Saddles had been released in 2024. But what I do know is, on its birthday, it is well worth another watch. It has certainly earned its place amongst some of the greatest comedies and Westerns ever to be made.
Article Courtesy of Sara Ciplickas
Feature Image Credit to Warner Bros via IndieWire
Recent Comments