The Producers
Friday night we rented and watched “The Producers” with Matthew Broderick (Bloom) and Nathan Lane (Bialystok) (among many other stars). It’s really funny, though half the time I wasn’t sure I should be laughing. I felt the same when I first saw “Bruce Almighty” but after getting past what seems like blatant disrespect and bad-taste, you can actually find something good. In “Bruce Almighty”, he realizes his mistake and doesn’t take life, gifts, and talents for granted. Here, they serve their time and by then end, what they intended as a scam gets put to good use, poking fun and making real Broadway musicals into spoofs. I’ve seen part of it now twice and while it’s still funny I’m not happy with parts of it, like the deception and innuendo of Bialystok to get money from old ladies, and the “if you’ve got it flaunt it” attitude of Ulla. I did however enjoy her “Swedishness”.
I looked up a review at ChristianityToday.org. The writer seemed to really enjoy the movie. The “Family Corner” informs readers of the sexuality, gay humor, and language, etc. There are thoughtful questions following the review.
Talk About It Discussion starters
1. This film includes “sexual humor.” Is such innuendo as “bad” as explicit sex and bad language? Is one worse than the other?
I get so sick of sexual jokes and innuendo. Sex is a natural part of life (though often difficult to discuss) and is supposed to be a sacred part of marriage to be cherished and protected.
2. Where do Bialystock and Bloom go wrong (or “right”) in their scheme? What could they have done differently to ensure their success (or “failure”)?
If going “right” is making the show a success, then it was probably [indirectly] casting the flambouyant director as Hitler. Instead of extolling his virtues as intended by Will Ferrell’s character, Hitler could be ridiculed. Hitler is certainly no joke but I guess it did allow the audience to hold their negative feelings for him. Kind of like this movie, funny, though not sure you should laugh. “That’s terrible! hehehe…” If Ferrell’s character had given his serious portrayal of Hitler, the audience would have walked out.
3. Based on this film’s ending, do you feel it promotes bad behavior? Or is there still a lesson to be learned? Or is it simply all intended as fun?
Bialystock and Bloom both went to prison (Bloom basically turned himself in) but did they really repent, admit the mistake and choose to live a honest life? They honestly made spoofs…. I don’t think it really promotes anything, “a good romp” some might call it.
4. Do you agree Bloom’s comments at the trial? Is everyone happy and content with what happened, or was someone wronged in the process?
Bialystok basically took advantage of people for his gain but Bloom got his chance to produce.
I haven’t seen the remake (this version) but I saw the original, and ha, once was enough (I thought it was something you should see once, but it wasn’t something I would want to, or need to, watch again), I thought Gene Wilder’s character (Bloom) was hilarious, and I sympathized with him. I think the original had a double purpose to it (not to say the remake doesn’t, but I think the time in which the first came out gave it a bit more of a punch). Laughter cures, and if you can find a way to laugh at Hitler, you can find a way to start to heal yourself in reflection to how the Holocaust affected you. Although part of the reason you laugh is because he is –DUMB/GAY- and there are loads of -DUMB sex object women-, which is just as wrong, but it is also something people are nervous about, so again, a little laughter makes you be able to swallow it. (That could also be to make them seem less powerful, still wrong, but I guess people have a lot of hang-ups)
(There is a lot of information coming out now… no pun intended… about why it is that homosexuality and cross dressing makes for comedy, a lot of OLD, OLD, OLD comedies feature dashing young actors (bob hope, gene Kelly, and the like) in women’s clothing, and somehow everyone laughs. You can say it is because it makes you uncomfortable, or because it is an obvious role reversal and thusly catches you off guard a makes you laugh, but for whatever reason, people view it as entertaining, as long as it is an ACT.
Anyway I got carried away. LOL)
I am usually pretty much alone on the “enough sex junk already” train of thought, but then again, that is probably why I stick to movies that either don’t have it at all, or treat it with respect.
I guess I just didn’t see the swindling issue as the main meaning of the movie, I guess because it was dealt with (court stuff and whatnot), so my mind wanders to the underlying issue of making Hitler a person whom can’t hurt you, and making it all a farce, something you can laugh at as the more important message.