With comedy comes controversy. In the 1974 film “Young Frankenstein”, it is clear that this is often the case. The film was directed by Mel Brooks, a highly skilled and sought after director of his time, and starred Gene Wilder, who had come up with the idea for the movie. The story is a comedic parody of the classic story of “Frankenstein’s Monster”, and follows Dr. Frederick Frankenstein(Wilder), the grandson of the classic Dr. Victor Frankenstein. Fredrick is so ashamed of his grandfather’s legacy that he goes by the name of Fronkensteen to disassociate himself from his ancestor’s despicable work. Dr. Fredrick ultimately travels back to his grandfather’s laboratory and makes a monster of his own, but finds himself in many unfortunate scenarios along the process. What little plot the film actually has is made up for in its humor and style.

The film has a gothic style, following the visual formula for most black and white horror movies. This was a conscious choice on the director’s behalf in order to create a dark atmosphere that served to pair with the artistic style of the film, but clash with its comedic content. The poster for “Young Frankenstein” is a perfect example of this. At first glance, it seemed like a stereotypical horror movie, but further inspection of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster showed me how the film has a comedic and light hearted side. The poster shows Dr. Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) screaming like any mad scientist, but the real giveaway is Frankenstein’s monster(Peter Boyle) because of his tuxedo and top hat. After watching the film, the viewer then realizes this strangely formal outfit is from the iconic tap dance scene, where the two perform to entertain the village. 

“Young Frankenstein” is a conventional film because it was made to entertain people and was not politically controversial overall. The filmmakers wanted to create a comedy that was unique and original in its gothic style to be a success in the box office. This is one of the main reasons why it was consciously filmed in black and white in a time when colored movies were new and popular. This was a huge risk that ended up paying off. Just as planned, “Young Frankenstein” was a huge success. However, no one expected the film to make 86.2 million on a 2.8 million dollar budget. This was a phenomenal accomplishment for it’s time, and the movie is still a classic today. 

Many people feel very differently about this film, and it is clear that critics have much to say. While some critics, such as Brian Mednick, suggest that “the film is clearly Mel Brooks’ best” many believe otherwise (Mednick). The film seems to either be loved or strongly disliked by viewers. There are very few people, critics especially, who are in the middle of the spectrum. Kamilla Elliott, a scholar writing for an academic audience uses the film in a broader way, arguing that Gothic films in general have “a literature of self-parody that makes fun of itself as it goes along,” and that they are “battles against formalism, high-art humanism, and right-wing politics”(Elliott).   For the most part, reviews argue that Mel Brooks “executes several good jokes on horror movie style, but his film has no distinctive visual style of its own,” and that the film’s overall “shooting is less interesting than [its] staging,” but is artistically “effective when imitating carefully composed 30’s style static frames”(20th Century Fox). While seemingly harsh and negative, these reviews take the film for what it truly is: a slapstick comedy. 

While the discussion of whether or not the film is good is an interesting one, people seem to be overlooking an even more important topic. Is the style of comedy in “Young Frankenstein” really tasteful? While the film was hysterical in its time, the humor doesn’t seem to land quite as well today. In all truth, I felt almost guilty for laughing at some jokes. Others were simply in poor taste. The “Abby-Normal” scene is just the tip of the iceberg that is Young Frankenstein’s offensiveness. One of the main (and very few) plot points involves Igor taking an ‘abnormal’ brain for Frankenstein’s monster. The punchline is that Igor thinks the brain’s original owner was someone named “Abby-Normal”. While this seems light hearted on the surface, the rest of the film revolves around the creature doing animalistic and monstrous things, and hurting and scaring people. This is to be expected of any monster, but with further inspection, I found that the problem with this scene is the implication that the monster would be civil if he had a ‘normal’ brain. In short, the film implies that people with special needs, or who are ‘different’ act in an uncivilized and animalistic manner. Whether or not this was intentionally mocking toward individuals with special needs is up for discussion, but there’s no denying that the film is essentially making fun of ‘abnormal’ people in a very offensive way.

While there are apparent issues within “Young Frankenstein”, the film itself helps make up for them. At its core, the movie is simply a comedy. It is meant to be entertaining and loved by the audience. Many other films, such as “Blazing saddles”, have a very similar goal: to make people laugh. “Blazing saddles” was also a comedic parody, but to a western style film. The “Sedagive” scene in “Young Frankenstein” is quintessential in recognizing the film’s light hearted nature and wholesome intent. The scene depicts Dr. Frankenstein being strangled by his monster, all the while playing charades to communicate with his assistants. This scene is one of the most violent in the whole film, and the violence is downplayed to show that “Young Frankenstein” is nothing more that a slapstick comedy made for the enjoyment of the audience.  

Poster

Sedagive Video

Abby Normal

Mednick article

Elliot article

20th Century Fox article