So forty years ago today, “Young Frankenstein” opened. And I find myself wondering how the Internet would react to it if it opened today.
And I came to the realization that the film would be crucified.
Why?
Because in the age of Bill Cosby rape allegations, and heated debates about “The Newsroom,” there would simply be no allowance for rape being treated as a joke.
Which “Young Frankenstein” does.
Madeline Kahn’s “Elizabeth” is carried off into the woods where the Monster is about to rape her. There is no question she doesn’t want to have sex, but the Monster doesn’t care. And she protests and protests…and then sees the size of his member. Suddenly it’s okay. Because even though she continues to protest as he penetrates, she doesn’t really mean it. Because when a woman is saying no, what she is really saying is that it’s fine if the guy is big enough.
What the hëll kind of message is that? The Internet would erupt with relentless fury, Brooks would be stunned by the reaction, and they’d probably have to edit it out for the home release.
Instead it’s a comedy classic.
Hah hah.
PAD
• 
Not sure I see the connection between a real life serial rapist and a Mel Brooks comedy. It doesn’t really follow that those who are against one would be against the other.
If you plan to apply current social attitudes to any work of art from the past, you may as well go burn down every library and movie theater in the country. You will always be able to find something to be offended by or something objectionable.
“You will always be able to find something to be offended by or something objectionable.”
That applies to any past, present, or future work.
Since we aren’t working the fields from dawn till dusk just to survive anymore, people have too much time on their hands and go out of their way to find something to be offended by and bìŧçh about.
NOTHING is immune. Take even the simplest, most clean thing you can think of, and some stupid busybody will find something to be offended about in it.
Fûçk the offended, it’s their own fault, only the person choosing to take offense is responsible for something or someone being offensive.
(Is it still OK to use two spaces agter a period before starting the next sentence, or has that old convention gone by the wayside, sort of like the “Oxford Comma”?)
You want to go to a reservation and tell all the Native Americans who are offended by the name Washington Redskins to Fûçk off? Be my guest.
Frankly what you said is bûllšhìŧ, by that criteria anything can be said with no regard for anyone. you know what that is? Basically 4chan
There is a time and a place for pushing boundaries and often a consequence of that are people being offended.
And yes sometimes people are unreasonably offended, but what your suggesting is there is nothing that can reasonably be considered offensive.
http://www.themarysue.com/its-ok-to-not-be-offended/
Explains it much better than I can.
But it’s not people who have to much time on their hands. It’s people who have a vastly different life experience to yours,getting a chance to be heard. And what is seen as a joke to you is a hard ruthless fact of life.
Are there people who claim offense to cause trouble? Sure, which is why it’s important to listen to what is being said and look at their POV instead of just outright dismissing.
If you’re going to object to something, there’s a complicated sort of mathematics you have to do. You’re adding something to the world: a sense of compassion, an understanding of someone else’s point of view, a desire for tolerance and equality. But you’re also taking something away: people’s ability to speak their minds freely and make jokes shamelessly. Every time you want to object, you have to decide whether you’re adding more than you’re taking away.
In the case we’ve been talking about, I think that sympathy for rape survivors is important enough for filmmakers to risk the loss of a hilarious rape joke. We don’t need to add to people’s pain by suggesting that rape is actually enjoyable if the guy is well-hung.
On the other hand, I’d be a little upset if Evelyn Evelyn refused to record another album because people were offended by the first one.
Lots of people will disagree with me. They’ll say that the Mel Brooks joke wasn’t really offensive, or they’ll say that Evelyn Evelyn isn’t funny. We each have our own personal mathematics. There’s room for everyone’s point of view, as long as we make an effort to understand what other people are feeling.
Hardly anyone sets out to hurt people by making a joke or creating a work of art. They’re just trying to make life more pleasant, and maybe a little bit funnier. If we remember that, we can get along and still express our own opinions. And we can also feel sympathy for people who’ve genuinely been mistreated. It’s called tolerance.
Sorry JasonK, but you are the one full of bûllšhìŧ
“Not rape, I believe,” said Mr. Betteridge, finding a rock on which he could stand. “Not in the case of Cohen the Barbarian. Ravishing, possibly.”
“There is a difference?”
“It’s more a matter of approach, I understand.” said the historian. “I don’t believe there were ever any actual complaints.”
—–
I’m trying to come up with a reason why Revenge of the Nerds catches hëll for this and Young Frankenstein generally doesn’t (based on my own experience as a hetero white male trawling the Internet).
Possibly it’s the standard of informed, enthusiastic consent, which Nerds doesn’t meet at all (welcome to prison Lewis) and Young Frankenstein conceivably might have prior to intercourse. (Or conceivably not. There’s some room offscreen for interpretation, though not necessarily enough.)
Possibly it’s because in the source material Elizabeth would be a corpse. Or possibly it’s because Elizabeth immediately starts planning the marriage in enough detail to drive the Monster off.
Or possibly everyone’s still hung up on Blazing Saddles. The world may never know.
And if it were made today, they could conceivably have cleared that up by something as minor as having “Oh sweet mystery of life at last I’ve found you” be cued by the reveal of the size of said member rather than going from no-meaning-no to no-meaning-yes first. (Does anybody remember if the timing of consent is still as ambiguous in the musical? I saw it twice but can’t remember that much detail.)
As a side note, I saw a filmed production of a version of Frankenstein where the Monster undoubtedly does rape Elizabeth before killing her, and my immediate reaction was to think “This would be a really bad time for me to burst into ‘Oh sweet mystery of life at last I found you.'”
I still don’t get the outrage over the Newsroom, the characters actions and dialogue was complexly consistent with their characterization as previously establish on the show to that point. Just because a character says something doesn’t me he is speaking exactly what the writer believes. Not every character speaks with the writers voice. Also I though the scene was balanced between two points of view, not favoring either one. I came away feeling “you know they’re both kinda right here, but for different reasons”. Television used to do this stuff all the time, look at All in the Family, MASH, LA Law, Star Trek, Homicide. The whole thing seemed to latch on to one aspect of it ignoring all the other subtle nuances of the episode.
Agreed. This is the same Aaron Sorkin who wrote A Few Good Men and put good points into Col. Jessup’s mouth even though there was no question about the fact that, overall, he was the villain. He doesn’t always put all of the truth on one side.
I wasn’t even aware there *was* outrage about The Newsroom until I read this post and looked it up. I thought it was a pretty even-handed scene, with decent points on both sides.
I was more amazed by the fact that, after hating Don in the first season, I came to like the guy in seasons 2 and 3.
–Daryl
If it were made today, it wouldn’t have that scene in that exact way. And I bet the younger Mel Brooks would have found a way to make it work and make it still be funny.
I think the joke would probably be less funny, yes. The joke on NewsRadio where Phil Hartman’s character jokes about how endearingly crazy his girlfriend is, while describing behaviors that denote dangerous and clinical insanity, is also a lot less funny now. But I think it’s a pretty big jump from there to “the film would be crucified.” It’s not like ‘Young Frankenstein’ is nothing but rape jokes.
In general, I find that most cases of “humorless feminists” are brought up by men, not by women. It’s far more often that I see “I bet a woman wouldn’t find _this_ funny” than it is a woman actually saying, “That isn’t funny.” And usually the ‘jokes’ they’re not laughing at are things like Daniel Tosh’s “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if that woman got raped right now?” comment, which wasn’t so much a joke as it was a threat (idle, but still a threat) made towards an audience member he didn’t like.
In light of what happened to Phil, that puts those jokes into a very different context.
Rape IS still treated as a joke today in raunchier films, with zero internet fury! For example, Horrible Bosses 2, released just a few weeks ago, includes a character who was raped and the whole thing was treated as a joke. In this case, it’s a male character who was raped by a female character, but that shouldn’t matter. I have yet to hear anyone on the internet or elsewhere crucifying the film.
George Carlin said that the humor comes not from a horrible act/thing, but from the exaggeration of that act/thing. Having re-watched the “infamous” scene in YF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeOKWMpsPvU I think it could be shown just the same today: The joke isn’t that she’s forced to have sex, but she does a 180-degree turnaround so quickly. And as for PAD’s statement that “Because when a woman is saying no, what she is really saying is that it’s fine if the guy is big enough,” I’d counter with the point a friend (a female friend, if that makes any difference) made: that Madeline Kahn’s performance really makes the scene pretty dámņ funny. (“Woof!”) In lesser hands this might have been a crappy, offensive scene (I’m lookin’ at you, HORRIBLE BOSSES 2); but I was fine with it when I first saw it, and I’m fine with it now.
Since I can no longer reply directly.
Bladestar Do you think the Native Americans who are offended by the name Washington Redskins should fûçk off?
Yes or No?
Because I would really like to know if you honestly feel there are no legitimate cases for being offended
Yes.
Considering what often happens to the losers in a war or conquest, they are lucky to have what they have, like their lives.
Besides, look at a football team, how many are named “The Sissies”, “The Wimps”, “THe Losers”?
None, they should be honored if nothing else.
If they don’t like it, too bad.
wow you sir are a Grade A certified áššhølë and I see it’s pretty much pointless in hoping you ever get any form of empathy.
I don’t know what it says about me that the first time I heard this exchange in Mel Brooks’ other movie that year BLAZING SADDLES….
Taggart: We’ll work up a Number 6 on ’em.
Hedley Lamarr: [frowns] “Number 6”? I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that one.
Taggart: Well, that’s where we go a-ridin’ into town, a-whompin’ and a-whumpin’ every livin’ thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.
Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
Taggart: Naw, we rape the šhìŧ out of them at the Number Six Dance later on!
…that I laughed out loud.