Reviews on movie High Anxiety (3)

The year 1977. Fear of heights

Again, I just watched an unfamiliar movie. And the most interesting thing is that it seems to be in vain. There are few such works, but they sometimes come to me. I'm talking about the category of films that have an expiration date and it's over. No, I'm not saying the movie is bad. You just had to watch it in your time. Many have this childhood time. It is then that such things are deposited in memory, and it is much easier to impress the viewer. Now, after forty years, the picture looks a little ridiculous.
I wish I had seen this movie as a child. Before this topic began to travel in Hollywood, everyone is not lazy. But for 1977, it was probably just a hit and an incredible plot find. Now the topic was used almost everywhere and managed to catch up. But this original still deserves attention. Maybe there are no unreal directorial multi-movements, but the story catches and does not let go to the end. Some things draw unnecessary attention to distract from the upcoming plot twists, and sometimes it works.
Is that funny? Maybe. Everyone has their own sense of humor and I don’t want to speak for everyone. But some things amused me. Of course, everything is done in the style of the director of this project, Mel Brooks, who from film to film tries to push his unique sense of humor to the masses. And it is unique in that, in his opinion, the audience should fall in hysterics from the most elementary flat stupid jokes, a la tug by the finger. And the most interesting thing is that in those years the viewer swallowed such films, and he was successful on this.
As everyone says, it has its time, and by 2016 it is hopelessly outdated. But that doesn't make him bad. Quite the opposite. It's not bad. If you haven’t seen it before, I don’t think you should watch it. I don't think I'd like it. Referring to the fact that the film is almost forty years old, I gave quite a high rating. Still, for 1977 it was made interesting, qualitative and original. And the main thing is new (for those times).
5 out of 10

Already in the opening credits, Brooks notifies that his next travesty is dedicated to Hitchcock, and moviegoers will not have much difficulty guessing which film of the classic suspense will be parodied in the first place. And although advanced “hich-cocainists” in addition to “Vertigo” will find here the playoffs of “Bewitched”, “Psychosis”, “Birds” and even (to a heap) “Blow-up” Antonioni, the film as a whole is unlikely to seem witty. Even condemn the casual viewer to passive consumption of a story that does not differ in intriguing plot.
The film indicates the main cost of parody cinema, often unable to be self-sufficiently funny, without necessarily comparing with the original and regardless of the object of the travesty. This drawback was successfully overcome by the trinity Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker, who took over from Brooks, whose parodies played out stereotypes of individual genres, themes and trends. “Fear of heights”, which has not been transformed, by and large, into an anthology of the main Hitchcock motifs and techniques, will leave synephiles in the win.

They may not be particularly intrigued by the somewhat contrived story of the famous psychiatrist Richard Thorndike (traditionally played by Brooks himself), who arrives at the hospital for the “very crazy” and, due to the intrigues of the local medical staff, acquires several neuroses – from persecution mania to fear of heights. But it is film fans who will appreciate Brukov’s signature gags, and especially his witty acting outs of key scenes from Psychosis and Birds.

Absolutely without malice, but just so – out of pranks decided to “walk” an outstanding parody on the famous adventure-adventure “Hitchcock’s bestsellers”. And just as Hitchcock’s “big things” are unlike Mel Brooks’ “little pranks,” the early period of Mel Brooks’ work is not like the late period of his work.
The fear of heights is somewhere in between. There is no longer that pretentiousness, musicality, “danceness”, running around useless extras, Hollywood smiles, ridiculing “cheeky” (at that time) topics.
Without sacrificing enthusiasm, Mel Brooks reduced theatrical bombast, but increased the density of absurdity, jokes (pronounced, as Groucho Marx bequeathed, with a serious unflappable face) and small gags, which in my opinion he turned out easily, effortlessly and successfully. Why make revolutions all the time, because you can just scoff. And the subject of parody is not of particular importance - in skilful hands any material will shine - give only free will.
Mel Brooks, no doubt, is the owner of skillful hands, and the owner of any, but still taste. Even though there is more “toilet” humor in this film than in the previous ones, and with each subsequent film its number may only grow, I do not mind such humor as any other, if it manifests itself in the right place, at the right time, does not ooze from all the cracks, and does not get out of the picture.
The early period of Mel Brooks’s work, in my opinion, evokes a mixture of Hollywood comedies of the twenties and thirties with a gypsy show. The late period, which I prefer, is a little more modest in scope, but it is a parody. The classic madness (sometimes even a little thoughtless), boundless parody loved by those whose childhoods were in the so-called VHS era, a parody that will be put on the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker stream, a parody that evokes laughter and uplifts a mood in which there is little “culture” but a lot of positivity.