As any typical and classic Western film the scene is perfectly set by right at the beginning. Fancy font displayed over a desert scene with the usual wild west song playing in the background. Those first couple of minutes trick you into thinking this is yet another wild west movie. As the film plays out you can clearly notice that there is no set plot making it an unconventional ride through the silly twists and turns. Personally I enjoy corny, out of touch stories but this one may be a little to far out there. Just as any “Monty Python” movie the director goes above and beyond to make a typical film untypical.

My reaction to the film is not the only one who found it to be a lovable but far-stretched film. An article from The New York Times published August 18, 1974 (just 5 months after the film was released) written by Urio Kareda titled  “Is There Any Future for Bad Taste” , he explains how there are several films such as “The Producers”, “Uptown Saturday Night”, “Chinatown”, and “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz”that play into taboos a little too much trying too hard to grab audiences attention. In the part of the article where he mentions “Blazing Saddles” he states, “The popularity of the film suggests that for a large portion of the public bad taste is no longer a controversial issue. And this mass consumption of bad taste hints at a society with far fewer taboos than ever before, hence a society one might thought more liberated and healthy.” This is showing how the audience is drawn into a film that breaks down taboos but that does nit make the film any better of a film than it was. I believe that in 1974 it was brave fro Mel Brooks to make a film filled with taboos and add comedic effect to it. For example in one scene an old lady knocks on the sheriff’s window and apologizes for calling the sheriff the n-word but she makes sure to add that he should not tell anyone that she did apologize. Just the little things are built up throughout the movie but it almost becomes overwhelming.

Another article from The New York Times titled “Movie Mailbag Burning Up About Blazing Saddles” reacts to the movie as any person in this age would react to it. It states, “I would ask people who are offended by such characterization to try to realize that comedy is no laughing matter, in the sense that is it our noblest way to facing up the tragedies and difficulties of existence, and that the physically and mentally uncoordinated character, who spans the whole history of drama, is a comedic metaphor for the imperfections and inabilities of all of us.” There is always a limit to what you are allowed to do and say on any film. I would definitely say that Mel Brooks used “Blazing Saddles” as an experimentation to see what is right and what is wrong. I could see how some of the jokes could be viewed as offensive. But you do have to realize what type of film you are watching and can not have a serious mindset while watching a comedy.

As for the opening of Blazing Saddles it took a lot to draw audiences in. An article titled “What’s Opened At the Movies?” by Vincent Canby describes the movie “‘Blazing Saddles’ is every Western you’ve ever seen turned upside down and inside out, braced with a lot of low burlesque, which is fine. In retrospect, however, one remembers along with the good gags and the film’s desperate, bone-crushing efforts to be funny. The trouble is that ‘Blazing Saddles’ has no real center of gravity.” The paragraph then continues with a synopsis of the film. I feel like there is no other description that perfectly describes this film. After watching the film with low expectations for it I was left confused but entertained. If I were to read this description while casually flipping through the paper I would be interested in seeing why it was described the way it was. However, I disagree with one part that states the film had “bone-crushing efforts to be funny.” I do not believe the corny, out-spoken jokes had effort to them. There was little effort shown and in fact the writers probably inserted lines because they needed a longer script. I am not trying to be harsh but realistically it is most likely what happened. From personal experience onstage I know that whenever a play is too short you throw in a small skit in between acts and just go for it.

If I were to compare Mel Brooks “Blazing Saddles” with any other Western film that I have seen I can confidentially call it “one of a kind.” The film has all Western inspired cliques wrapped into one crazy movie. Films such as “The Man from Snowy River” directed by George T. Miller show the acts of a man struggling for something greater than himself. The only true struggle “Blazing Saddles” displayed was the proof of  a sane mindset. I do admit there are parts of the film I will always remember but most of it will be washed away because it was that pointless. Even John Wayne himself called it “too silly” and I believe he said it rightfully so.