It's hard to believe, after the last quarter century, but Mel Brooks, and his comedies in the 1970s and earlier (The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety), were once critically acclaimed, and- especially pre-Annie Hall- he was considered a better filmmaker than Woody Allen.
Then, things all went downhill. Political relevance faded to second rate slapstick, like this video, from 1983:
It's always an interesting question to ask- why does an artist 'lose it'? Did they ever really have it? Did dumb critics and dumber audiences merely think they had it? Or, like so many rock bands that nosedive after they hit 30 years of age- The Who, The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, Metallica, etc.- is lesser art (not the higher arts) somehow prone to be a thing for the young? After all, Woody Allen's zaniest comedies were in his youth.
Maybe there's a combination of things?
So, why did Mel Brooks falter and Woody Allen grow into a film director on par with the best of the world? Where is Brooks' Crimes And Misdemeanors, Hannah And Her Sisters, or Stardust Memories?
My take is that Brooks, like many one hit wonder bands, was saving his best material, over many years, and blew his load early. Think of rock groups that have a great first album, filled with songs they spent years perfecting on the road, and then go into a studio for the followup and are dry.
But, whether right or wrong, it's still a bummer that there have been no Brooks films of value for almost three decades.
