Mel Brooks As Judaic Comedian Essay, Research Paper

Mel Brooks & # 8217 ; s rank in the elect nine of Judaic comics is basically

impossible to challenge. The inquiry is whether or non his comedy is untypical.

Satirizing Judaic history and klutzy old Judaic work forces is normal for Judaic comedy.

However, “ Don & # 8217 ; t be stupid, be a smarty, come and fall in the Nazi party, ”

is something that you would non anticipate to hear in typical Judaic comedy ( The

Manufacturers ) . Defined loosely, there are two signifiers which Mel Brooks & # 8217 ; s Judaic wit

takes. The first signifier is to discourse specifically Judaic subjects in a amusing manner.

This is apparent in The Producers and in the Inquisition scene from History of

the World, Part I. The other signifier is to utilize certain facets of Hebraism for

comedic value. This signifier, is typically used by Brooks & # 8217 ; as a agency for a quick

laugh as opposed to a major beginning of secret plan definition, and is most evident in

such scenes as that with the Yiddish-speaking Indian in Blazing Saddles. While

researching Brooks & # 8217 ; s types of Judaic wit, this paper will restrict its range. Merely

four of Brooks & # 8217 ; s movies will be discussed in this paper-The Producers, Blazing

Saddles, History of the World, Part I, and To Be or Not To Be. These movies were

chosen because the measure of Judaic content in all of them is well

more than in his other movies such as Young Frankenstein or Silent Movie. The

four movies chosen do an first-class occupation of portraying the complete scope of the

types of Jewish-related wit, which Brooks uses. To understand Mel Brooks

individuality as a specifically Judaic comic it is of import to understand how

Jewish he really was. Melvin Kaminsky was born as the youngest of four

brothers in a crowded New York City flat to Kitty and Max Kaminsky. He grew

up in a really Judaic country were on “ Saturdays, the stores were closed, the

handcarts parked, and Yiddish replaced with Hebrew in over 70 orthodox

temples. ” However, Brooks himself spent his Saturdays basking matinees

at the Marcy Theater. He married a non-Jewish adult female and allowed his boy, Max, to

be baptized merely every bit long as he was allowed to hold a bar-mitzvah. When asked by

the media if he wanted his married woman to change over he replied “ She don & # 8217 ; Ts have to

convert. She a star! ” ( Yacowar 10-14 ) . Before discoursing the movies, it is

important to place a repeating subject in Brooks & # 8217 ; s work-Germans and, more

specifically, Nazis. He had a brief military calling in World War II with really

small combat experience, and he really ended up being the amusement

coordinator for the ground forces. Yacowar analyzes Brooks & # 8217 ; later feelings towards

Germans as “ subconscious defeat ” because of his inability to

really fight the Nazis ( Yacowar 17 ) . In an interview he was asked about his

compulsion with Germans, and he replied: Me non like Germans? Why should I non

like Germans? Just because they & # 8217 ; re chesty and have fat cervixs and do anything

they & # 8217 ; re told every bit long as it is barbarous, and killed 1000000s of Jews in

concentration cantonments and made soap out of their organic structures and lamp sunglassess out of

their teguments? Is that any ground to detest their f-king backbones? ( Yacowar 32 ) Brooks

has mocked Germans in assorted plants such as in Your Show of Shows and on the

Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks at the Cannes movie festival sound recording.

Regardless, of the beginning of his involvement with Nazis, if one looks at sufficiency of

his work, one can non assist but detect that this subject is an compulsion for Brooks

( Yacowar 34-35, 48 ) . Mel Brooks made his first characteristic movie, The Manufacturers, in

1967. It is about a Judaic Broadway manufacturer ( Max Bialystock ) who convinces his

Judaic comptroller ( Leo Bloom ) to finance a guaranteed to neglect drama with the thought

that they would take the net incomes and run to South America. The guaranteed to

fail drama, “ Springtime for Hitler ” turned out to be a immense success.

The two chief characters both represent wholly different Judaic stereotypes

and the 3rd country of Judaic involvement in the movie is the function of Germans both in

the drama and the ex-Nazi writer, Frank Liebkind ( Altman 39 ) . Max Bialystock

( played by Zero Mostel ) is evidently non a first coevals American because of

his name and his speech pattern. Although he ne’er does anything specifically Jewish, he

is still Jewish so it is relevant to look at his relationship to Jewish

stereotypes. In his book, Telushkin discusses the tradition of holding large and

munificent saloon mitsvah, he say & # 8217 ; s “ that the Judaic tradition has few kerbs to

arrest such surpluss ” ( 74 ) . It is interesting to see how Bialystock chooses to

live in about poorness. Although he is so hapless that he state & # 8217 ; s “ Look at me

now-I & # 8217 ; m have oning a composition board belt, ” he besides wears a moderately nice jacket,

has a leather manager, and keeps every old lady & # 8217 ; s image in a nice frame. Subsequently

in the movie, when he gets a batch of money, he spends it on a chauffeured auto, a

sexy secretary, munificent offices and new apparels, instead so passing it on new

office equipment or puting it for future fiscal security ( Telushkin 83 ) .

Leo Bloom, the comptroller ( played by Gene Wilder ) , represents the antonym

stereotype from Bialystock. He represents the meek Jew, the Jew-as-doormat. In

the beginning of the film, he walks in on Max seeking to acquire some money from an

investor ( he catches them lying on top of each other ) and is so surprised and in

daze that he has to be told to state “ oops ” ( The Producers ) . This tantrums

right into the stereotype of Jews as “ contrite and ashamed of their

sexual desires ” ( The Poducers ) . Bialystock fulfills the other stereotype of

Judaic work forces who have been portrayed as “ sex-hungry animate beings ” in many

gags. Blooms pick of calling is besides known as a Judaic calling. In the terminal, he,

like Bialystock, ends up carry throughing one of the most basic stereotypes of Jews-he

gives in to his greed ( Telushkin 93 ) . There are besides many little Judaic

mentions in the movie. There is an ignorant, and really cheery, manager named Roger

DeBris, who directs “ Springtime for Hitler ” and has a familiar Yiddish

term in his name ( Telushkin 86-87 ) . Besides, in the beginning of the film

Bialystock has a amusing duologue with his landlord and it is the lone portion of the

film in which faith is involved. Bialystock: Murderer, stealer, how can you

take the last penny out of a hapless adult male & # 8217 ; s pocket? Landlord: I have to, I & # 8217 ; m a

landlord. Bialystock: Oh Godhead, hear my supplication: Destroy him, he maketh a blight on

the land. Landlord: Don & # 8217 ; t listen to him-he & # 8217 ; s loony ( The Producers ) . When 1

hears the conversation, with the Landlord speech production in a Judaic speech pattern and

Bialystock naming out at the celestial spheres, sounding like an abused Judaic female parent, it

is a batch funnier and the Judaic component is a batch clearer as good. Brooks & # 8217 ;

message in this film has been mostly debated. Lester D. Freidman thinks,

“ Bialystock and Bloom fail to happen their floating-point operation because they underestimate

their audience & # 8217 ; s deadened esthesias ” ( 173 ) . Brooks is seeking to indicate

out that the daze and horror that everyone should see the holocaust in, is

chiefly a Judaic mentality. In the film, he made two perfect Jews, and their

flawlessness caused them two have a mentality that was different from the remainder of

the American populace. Therefore, the film is about more than a brace of corrupt

showmen. It is about the segregation of Jews. Bailystock and Bloom are non yet

Americans, they still carry a separate individuality. In 1974, Brooks came out with

Blazing Saddles which is much less Judaic than The Producers. The film is about

a town with a corrupt Attorney General who wants take over the town. The

townsfolk acquire the governor to direct a new sheriff to reconstruct order. He sends

Sheriff Bart who is a black adult male with Gucci saddlebags on his Equus caballus. The

townsfolks end up working with the new Sheriff to get the better of Hedley Lamarr ( the

lawyer general ) and his set of bullies. Judaic subjects are in the movie as

occasional good story parts and non as major parts of the secret plan. The funniest and most

recognizable portion of the film where Hebraism is involved is Sheriff Bart & # 8217 ; s

remembrance of how his household got to the West. Harmonizing to the Sheriff,

unusual Indians attacked their waggon. Brooks, who plays the Indian head, allows

Bart and his household to travel, he tells his folk, “ Zeit nishe meshugge. Loz mutton quad

gaien? Abee gezint. Which fundamentally means, “ take off. ” Some feel this

is Brooks seeking to acquire some inexpensive laughs by utilizing Yiddish, but Friedman points

out that it is “ comically appropriate that the West & # 8217 ; s most conspicuous

foreigner, the Indian, should talk in the lingua of history & # 8217 ; s traditional

foreigner, the Jew ” ( 77 ) . Other than this mention, Blazing Saddles usage of

Hebraism is truly small more than an occasional clout line. When Hedley Lamarr

is looking for a manner to acquire the citizens of Rock Ridge to go forth, his associate

recommends killing the first-born male kid in every household, to which Lamarr

replies- ” excessively Judaic ” ( Blazing Saddles ) . When Mongo ( a gigantic

bully ) comes into the barroom, person in the background says “ Gottenew ”

( Oh God! ) , another Yiddish term ( Yacowar 110 ) . Not surprisingly, Mel Brooks

finds a manner to squash Germans into a film set in the late nineteenth Century & # 8217 ; s Wild

West. In the coda of the film, Lamarr recruits an ground forces of rotter. In the

ground forces there is a little group of German soldiers who spend much of the fisticuffs

sitting with a Ms. Lily von Shtupp ( a non so gifted sofa vocalist ) singing the

same war vocal heard in The Producers ( Blazing Saddles ) . Finally, the Indian on

many film promotional stuffs ( including the picture screen ) has the Hebrew for

“ kosher for Passover ” inscribed in his headband. Queerly adequate,

these comparatively little Judaic mentions got the attending of the Jewish Film

Advisory Committee, whose manager, Allen Rivkin, spoke to a author about the

odiousness of the Judaic stuff. The author & # 8217 ; s response was, “ Dad, acquire

with it. This is another century ” ( Doneson 128 ) Blazing Saddles is a film

of the 2nd type identified. It does non cover with specifically Judaic subjects.

It does, nevertheless, use Judaic subjects as a manner of send oning the secret plan and the

comedy. Whether the critics were right that Brooks was merely utilizing Yiddish

because he found it amusing, or if he was utilizing it because he wanted to do a

point about racism and exclusion, what is most of import is that he really

used Yiddish, alternatively of something more expected ( Yacowar 110 ) . 1981 & # 8217 ; s History

of the World, Part I, falls someplace between The Producers and Blazing Saddles

in its degree of Judaic content ( Freidman 236 ) . The film, is fundamentally, a quick

circuit through history traveling from the find of fire to the Gallic Revolution.

Within the film, there are two skits that are specifically of Judaic involvement

( Moses on Mount Sinai and the Spanish Inquisition. ) In the “ Old

Testament, ” God identifies himself as the Lord, and asks Moses if he can

hear Him. Mel Brooks, in a robe and white face funguss say & # 8217 ; s “ Yes. I hear you. I

hear you. A deaf adult male could hear you. ” When Moses tells the people of the

new Torahs, he says, “ The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given onto these 15

[ clang ] 10, 10 Commandments for all to obey. ” Although Moses evidently had

to be Judaic, one admirations why he had to be so klutzy a amusing. In Rome, Gregory

Hines, playing Josephus, a slave who is non sold in the auction, efforts to acquire

out of being sent to the Coliseum where he would be lion nutrient. His alibi is

that “ the king of beastss merely eat Christians, Christians, and I am a Jew-Jewish

individual. ” To turn out this, he starts singing “ Havah Negilah ” and

gets the full crowd to fall in him. He even tells the slave bargainer to name Sammus

Davis Jr. ( after naming the temple and the rabbi ) . Finally, the bargainer looks

down his bloomerss, to turn out he is non Judaic ( History of the World, Part I ) .

Empress Nympho, Caesar & # 8217 ; s married woman, is a unusual cross between a J.A.P. and a sex

lunatic. She has a authoritative Judaic female parent speech pattern and uses Yiddish

occasionally- ” We & # 8217 ; ll shlep him along, ” for illustration. Towards the terminal of

the film, Brooks calls a courtier of Louis XVI a “ bantam putz ”

( History of the World, Part I ) . This is evidently a unusual topographic point to hear

Yiddish, unless the purpose is amusing consequence. Finally, though, the “ most

hideous scene, and the 1 that some Hebrews have found rather

obnoxious ” is the 1 about the Spanish Inquisition. It should be noted

that Brooks & # 8217 ; s portraiture of the Inquisition as being directed against Jews is

historically inaccurate. It was truly directed against dissident Christians.

Because of this inaccuracy, it is safe to presume that Brooks wanted to set this

scene in as a Judaic note into his movie, as he did with the other movies

discussed. The Inquisition scene is filmed in a medieval keep. It starts by

presenting the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada ( Mel Brooks ) with “ Torquemada-do

non beg him for compassion. Torquemada-do non beg him for

forgiveness? .Let & # 8217 ; s face it, you can & # 8217 ; t Torquemada [ talk him outta ]

anything, ” so the music starts. One of the lines in the vocal is “ A

fact you & # 8217 ; rhenium I

gnoring, it’s better to lose your skullcap with your skull, ”

which is emphasized by two old Judaic work forces in stocks singing “ oy oy gevalt. ”

After a few descriptions of the existent anguish which single Jews suffered,

he points out that “ nil is working, send in the nuns. ” The nuns

execute a synchronised swimming modus operandi in which Jews are sent down a chute into

a pool to be dragged under by nuns. At the terminal of the scene, seven nuns are

standing on a Menorah with ices on their caputs, while the chorus, led by

Torquemada, sings, “ Come on you Moslems and you Jews. We & # 8217 ; ve got large intelligence

for all of youse. You & # 8217 ; d better alter your points of positions today. Cause the

Inquisition & # 8217 ; s here, and it & # 8217 ; s here to remain. ” When Brooks was criticized for

this scene he replied: Nothing can split the balloon of ostentation and

dictatorial luster better than comedy? .In a sense, my comedy is serious, and

I need a serious background to play against? . Jabing merriment at the Grand

Inquisitor, Torquemada, is a fantastic opposite number to the horrors he committed

( Friedman 236 ) . This would do History of the World, Part I comparable to The

Manufacturers in its sarcasm of Hitler, and makes Blazing Saddles besides comparable

through its satirical intervention of racism. If one still thought that Brooks made

History of the World, Part I with merely good purposes, one should besides see

the intervention of Jews and Germans in the stoping of the movie. The promo for

History of the World, Part II includes scenes such as “ Hitler on Ice, ”

and “ Jews in Space, ” in which Jews are in a infinite trade singing “

We & # 8217 ; re Jews out in infinite. We & # 8217 ; re whizzing along protecting the Hebrew race? .When

Goyim attacks us, we & # 8217 ; ll give mutton quad a smack. We & # 8217 ; ll smack mutton quad right back in the

face. ” It decidedly seems that History of the World, Part I is a

combination, ( merely as the others films discussed are ) of development for easy

laughs and of exposing the immoralities of the autocrats who have tormented the Hebrews

throughout history. In To Be or Not To Be, Mel Brooks plays Fredrick Bronski,

the caput histrion in a Polish phase review, around the clip of the Nazi appropriation

of Poland. His married woman, Anna Bronski ( Anna Bancroft ) falls in love with an Air

Force lieutenant working in the Polish platoon of the RAF. The chief focal point of the

film is how they make merriment of, acquire around, outwit, and finally get away the

Nazis. This film is really a remaking of an older movie, but it still has a

distinctively Mel Brooks feel. The chief mark of Brooks & # 8217 ; s sarcasm is the caput of

the Gestapo, Colonel Erhardt ( Charles Durning ) who is a babbling sap. For

illustration, when on the phone, he say & # 8217 ; s “ What? Why? Where When? When in uncertainty,

collar them, collar them, collar them! Then hit them and interrogate them.

[ intermission ] Oh you are right, merely hit them. ” Soon after this, he is led to

believe that the shoot first policy led to the deceases of two utile figures and

after inquiring what imbecile formed the policy, he got huffy at Shultz, his helper,

for reminding him that he made the policy. Later on, he has this exchange with

Shultz: Erhardt: What imbecile gave the order to shut the Bronski & # 8217 ; s theatre?

Schultz: You did, sir. Erhardt: Open it up instantly. And one time and for all

halt faulting everything that goes incorrectly on me ( To Be or Not To Be ) . After being

warned to halt devising gags about Hitler, Erhardt promises, “ No. Never,

ne’er, ne’er once more, [ accent added ] ” unusual words to hear from a Nazi.

Although this film is non about Jews, there are a few Judaic characters and

brushs. Bronski hides a Judaic household in his theatre & # 8217 ; s cellar and during the

class of the film, they & # 8217 ; re figure additions. At one point, the intelligence

agent goes to the theatre to happen his lover, Bronski & # 8217 ; s married woman. The Judaic adult females

concealing there tells him “ You know that large house on Posen Street? Well don & # 8217 ; T

travel at that place, it & # 8217 ; s Gestapo central offices, ” before really stating where she was

remaining ( To Be or Not To Be ) . At the terminal of the film, they dress up all the

Hebrews concealing in the basement ( closer to 20 than the 3 who originally hid out in the

basement ) as buffoon to hold them run through the aisle ( in the center of a

public presentation for Hitler ) to a truck to safety. One old lady terrors in the aisle,

surrounded by Nazis. To salvage the old lady, another buffoon runs up to them and

pins an outsize xanthous star, shouting “ Juden! , ” this causes an

tremendous laughter from the Nazi audience. To procrastinate the Gestapo, Brooks frocks

up as Hitler, and listens to a Judaic histrion execute the “ Hath non a Hebrew

eyes ” address from Merchant of Venice. To Be or Not To Be appears to be

Brooks & # 8217 ; s concluding manner of get bying with his deficiency of combat in WWII. While he has The

Manufacturers make a drama in which they portray the Nazis comically, the ultimate

message is that the two Jews in the film still happen them to be obviously

violative, and hence, worthy of some signifier of regard. In To Be or Not To Be

he makes the Nazis into strictly amusing characters, and this is a measure farther

than Brooks went in The Producers. However, this merely may be because at the

point of To Be or Not To Be, Brooks was good into his calling as an established

moviemaker, so he had more freedom to be violative. Unfortunately, To Be or Not

To Be ended the aureate age of Mel Brooks films, at least from a specifically

Judaic point-of-view. His ulterior movies make merely little references of Judaic subjects.

An illustration of this is Spaceballs, a lampoon of Star Wars where the chief

characters have to salvage a princess from Planet Druidia ( “ Funny, she doesn & # 8217 ; T

expression Druish ” ) from the evil Dark Helmet ( Rick Moranis ) ( Spaceballs ) . The

merely Judaic mention in the film were playing off the subject of the Druish

princess and a short scene with Mel Brooks as Yogurt, a reinterpretation of Yoda

as an old, Judaic adult male. Brooks besides renamed “ the Force ” from Star Wars

to something more ethnic- ” the Schwartz. ” Although these Judaic

mentions may be equal to the Yiddish-speaking Indian in Blazing Saddles, it is

excessively large of a stretch to associate a deeper significance to them as can be done in his

earlier movies. In the Big Book of Jewish Humor, Jewish wit is defined as

holding these five qualities: 1. It is substantial in that it is about some

larger subject. 2. It, in many instances, has a point- ” the appropriate response

is non laughter, but instead a acrimonious nod or a commiserating mark of

acknowledgment. ” 3. It is “ anti-authoritarian, ” in that “ it

ridicules magniloquence and self-indulgence, exposes lip service, and? .is strongly

democratic. ” 4. It “ often has a critical border which creates

uncomfortableness in doing its point. ” 5. It is unsparing-it satirizes anyone and

everyone ( Novak and Waldoks xx-xxii ) . Telushkin & # 8217 ; s definition of a Judaic gag is

much simpler. He say & # 8217 ; s “ it must show a Judaic esthesia ” ( 16 ) . To

Bernard Saper, a “ unambiguously Judaic gag must incorporate incongruousness, a sudden

turn of unexpected elements ” ( 76 ) . Christie Davies, points out “ that

people such as Hebrews, who belong to a minority or peripheral cultural groups tell

gags both about the bulk group and about their ain group, and they may state

more cultural gags about their ain group ( and happen them funnier ) than about the

bulk ” ( 29-30 ) . Are the four movies discussed within these definitions?

Brooks & # 8217 ; films decidedly fit the Telushkin trial of showing Judaic

esthesia, conditions it is through how he attacks the Nazis or the random

Yiddish looks that he uses. A batch of Brooks & # 8217 ; wit is besides incongruous.

For illustration, holding a Nazi say “ ne’er once more, ” fulfills Saper & # 8217 ; s

demand. Brooks & # 8217 ; movies have a batch of cultural gags in them, which trade with

Hebrews or Judaic subjects. Brooks likely put these gags in his films because he

found them funny, hence carry throughing the Davies trial. The definition in The

Large Book of Jewish Humor is harder to suit because it is in greater item.

However, the movies that were discussed suit them good. Many of Brooks & # 8217 ; s movies are

substantive in that he deals with racism and Anti-semitism in about all of his

films. The point of his movies may non be so crisp that when people see them

they automatically feel bitterness toward person, but his films are definently

non pure slapstick which fulfills the 2nd portion of the definition. Brooks

ne’er attacked Judaic leading but his movies are anti-authoritarian because he

clearly attacks authorities functionaries such as the Nazis and the Grand Inquisitor.

Since there is changeless contention about Brooks & # 8217 ; movies there is ever

potency for uncomfortableness to originate. Finally, Brooks leaves out cipher from his

satire-Nazis, cowpuncher, and fifteenth century Spanish Hebrews are all satirized and made

merriment of in these movies. Even though some of his scenes or single gags are

non typical Judaic wit, he is a Judaic comic who, most significantly, makes

Judaic gags. Brooks & # 8217 ; s films represent the classical paradox in Judaic wit

and Judaic experience between: foremost, the legitimate pride that Jews have taken

in their distinctive and learned spiritual and ethical tradition and in the

singular rational distinction and entrepreneurial and professional

accomplishment of single members of their community, and 2nd, the

anti-semitic maltreatment and belittling from hostile foreigners whose maliciousness was

fueled by Judaic liberty and accomplishment ( Davies 42-43 ) . The greatest lesson

that Brooks has to learn American Jews of today is the enlargement of our

boundaries. Through his usage of Judaic wit to subjects which where antecedently

considered off-limits, he allows his viewing audiences to get by with painful parts of

history which they may non hold been able to get by with in the yesteryear. Brooks

depict his function as a comedian by stating, “ for every ten Hebrews crushing

their chests, God designated one to be brainsick and divert the chest beaters. By

the clip I was five I knew I was that one ” ( Friedman 171-172 ) . He explains

that his comedy “ derives from the feeling that, as a Jew and as a individual,

you don & # 8217 ; t suit the mainstream of American society. It comes from the realisation

that even though you & # 8217 ; re better and smarter, you & # 8217 ; ll ne’er belong ” ( Friedman

172 ) . Mel Brooks & # 8217 ; s experience is really similar to that of every American Jew, and

his comedy speaks unambiguously to the American Jew. So, even Brooks & # 8217 ; s most violative

work is rooted profoundly within both typical Judaic Humor and the modern Judaic

experience. The greatest lesson that Brooks has to learn American Jews of today

is the enlargement of our boundaries. Through his usage of Judaic wit to subjects

which where antecedently considered off-limits, he allows his viewing audiences to get by with

painful parts of history which they may non hold been able to get by with in the

yesteryear. Brooks describes his function as a comedian by stating, “ for every 10

Hebrews crushing their chests, God designated one to be brainsick and divert the chest

beaters. By the clip I was five I knew I was that one ” ( Friedman 171-172 ) .

He explains that his comedy “ derives from the feeling that, as a Jew and as

a individual, you don & # 8217 ; t suit the mainstream of American society. It comes from the

realisation that even though you & # 8217 ; re better and smarter, you & # 8217 ; ll ne’er

belong ” ( Friedman 172 ) . Mel Brooks & # 8217 ; s experience is really similar to that of

every American Jew, and his comedy speaks unambiguously to the American Jew. So, even

Brooks & # 8217 ; s most violative work is rooted profoundly within both typical Judaic Wit

and the modern Judaic experience.

Altman, Sig. The Amusing Image of the Jew. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson

Up, 1971. Blazing Saddles. Dir. Mel Brooks. With Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little.

Warner Brothers, 1974. Davies, Christie. “ Researching the Thesis of theSelf-Deprecating

Judaic Sense Of Humor. ” Semites and Stereotypes: Characterisitics of Judaic

Humor. Eds. Avner Ziv and Anat Zajdman. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993.

29-46. Doneson, Judith E. The Holocaust in American Film. Philadelphia: Judaic

Publication Society, 1987. Friedman, Lester D. The Judaic Image in American

Film. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 1987. History of the World, Part I. Dir. Mel

Brooks. With Mel Brooks and Madeline Kahn.Brooksfilms/Twentieth Century Fox,

1981. Internet Movie Database. On the World Wide Web at hypertext transfer protocol: //www.msstate.edu/movies.

( Used for cast listings of movies ) Novak, William and Moshe Waldoks, eds. The Big

Book of Jewish Humor. New York: HarperPerennial, 1990. The Producers. Dir. Mel

Brooks. With Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. Avco Embassy, 1968. Saper, Bernard.

“ Since When Is Jewish Humor Not Anti-Semitic. ” Semites and

Stereotypes: Features of Judaic Humor. Eds. Avner Ziv and Anat Zajdman.

Westport, CT: Greewood Press, 1993. SpaceBalls. Dir. Mel Brooks. With Mel

Brooks, John Candy and Rick Moranis. MGM, 1987. Telushkin, Rabbi Joseph. Jewish

Wit: What the Best Judaic Jokes Say About the Jews. New York: William Morrow

and Co, 1992. To Be or Not To Be. Dir. Alan Johnson. With Mel Brooks and Anne

Bancroft. Brooksfilms/Twentieth Century Fox, 1983. Yacowar, Maurice. Method in

Lunacy: The Comic Art of Mel Brooks. New York: St. Martin & # 8217 ; s Press, 1981.