It has been more than 40 years since History of the World Part I came out in 1981; this movie has somewhat of a deserved cult following, representing one of the many masterpieces in the career of beloved movie director Mel Brooks. It had his trademark comedy, his type of quips and sketches; now, with History of the World Part II that just came out as a mini TV-series, I just feel the need to share some thoughts.
First off, the charm of the first movie could have been exactly the fact that a second part was never in the making, and considering how the TV-series was made, in my opinion it would have been better that way. Part II, while having a decent cast, also credits at least a dozen writers to its name; the sketches seem to be just an incoherent mash-up with a comic style, that although tries to imitate the original one, ends up falling flat. I read some opinions that say that the humor is a bit of a hit-or-miss, but there were not many instances where I found myself even smiling, let alone outright laughing. Yes, some subtleties were appreciated, but most of the in-your-face-here-is-where-you-laugh jokes were just insipid. Let me be clear, I don’t mean that they showed bad taste, I am quite alright with dark humor, offensive language and any kind of gag in general, but how they were written just did not work out for me.
That being said, I want to underline something: I love Mel Brooks and his earlier works are, for their time and cinematographic importance, undisputed masterpieces. I mean, his iconic parodies are still hilarious, and let us not forget that the guy directed a silent movie (which by the way was called Silent Movie) where the only one who actually utters one single word is Marcel Marceau (a frickin mime!).
I think that there may probably be room for a discussion where one could consider the meta-jokes, their value, the satire and the emphasis on producing a low-level TV-series as a response to how the industry is damaging the craft, but I will leave that line of reasoning and inquiry to someone with a better critical eye than mine. For me, Part II simply didn’t cut it. Now, there was however a doubt in my mind: maybe I had changed since I saw Part I and remembered with fondness something that was actually not that good. Maybe my sense of humor had altered so much that not enjoying Part II was actually on me. So…I just went and watched Part I again and I have to say that I stick with my gut feeling. Part I still made me giggle and I found it much more coherent than most comedies from the past decade.
So let me tell you about History of the World Part I: it worked because the comedy was on point and the quips were actually witty. Mel Brooks has this way of using anachronistic elements (objects or concepts) for the purpose of humor. If you use them from time to time, then they are effective, but make them a common leitmotif (as in Part II) and they become repetitive and stale. The in-your-face humor in Part I – thinking for instance of Moses entering with three tablets and saying “these are the fifteen…”, dropping one of the tablets, and then saying “ten commandments” – is simple yet effective and hilarious. Subtleties come in different forms that one would not even notice at first glance. An examples of this is just a brief scene where presenting Ancient Rome, one can read a sign on a wall that states:
Temple of Eros
Annual orgy and buffet,
First served first come.
I may not be the most indicated person to analyzed rhetorical figures, but those two lines right there form a chiasmus. It’s funny, it’s witty, it’s admittedly a bit vulgar, but it appears in the scene without being pressed against your face so that you are forced to acknowledge it. It’s a take-it-or-leave-it type of joke and that is why it works. To be fair, in Part I you even have Mel Brooks singing in a musical number as Torquemada; he makes humor about the Spanish Inquisition work (one of the only other sketches I can think of that is even slightly on par is the one “that no one expects” – wink wink, please catch my drift).
It may be argued that the first part (of the First Part) is more for comic relief and the second one, the one revolving around the French Revolution, has a more satirical intent. But as a whole, History of the World Part I delivers. Or at least these are my opinions on the matter.
PS: where is the Viking funeral that we were promised?
PPS: is the melody from the Jews in Space sketch the same one used in Robin Hood: Men in Tights? (asking for a friend)