Film #143 - High Anxiety (1977)
High Anxiety is probably Mel Brooks’ most underrated film. While his true classics (Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein) are justly lauded and his missteps (Life Stinks) properly ignored. But I have always felt that High Anxiety is this little gem of a film that doesn’t get a fair shake.
It is a parody of Alfred Hirchcock movies and I think that’s part of the problem. Film reviewers (who help shape public opinion) didn’t think much of the film. Roger Ebert even gave it a basically negative review. But read this quote from his review:
Here’s an example of why Hitchcock is so spoof-proof. At the end of “High Anxiety,” a victim dangles from the top of a tower for what seems like minutes on end, hanging at times by a single leg. Brooks is having fun with the way Hitchcock plays with his scenes of climactic violence. Fine. But remember Hitchcock’s wonderful 1972 movie “Frenzy”? There’s that strangling in it that goes on and on and on, played very straight, until we finally realize that Hitchcock is slyly giving us our money’s worth by playing with the scene beyond all the possibilities of realism.
Remember Hitchcock’s Frenzy? Who remembers Hitchcock’s Frenzy? Film critics, that’s who. They spend so much of their lives diving into every frame of a film, they sometimes forget to just sit back and enjoy things. And why exactly does the fact that Hitchcock made the same observation devalue Brooks’? Because if a critic has seen it once (and no matter what it is, they probably have), they don’t want to see it again. But focusing on how Brooks can’t parody Hitchcock makes them miss out on all the good stuff that’s in High Anxiety.
First, there’s a great performance by Mel himself. In prior films, he had always relegated himself to supporting roles, but he literally had to step into the breach when Gene Wilder proved unavailable (or unwilling) to do the part. He needn’t have worried. There’s something about Brooks’ more bombastic acting style that fits the craziness of High Anxiety better than I think Wilder’s more sedate nature would have. And he’s got one hell of a singing voice.
Next, there’s Madeline Kahn who plays the damsel in distress better, frankly, than she did the cold shrew she played in Young Frankenstein. She’s totally sympathetic and very attractive. Despite not having true leading lady good looks, she nonetheless sells her sexiness, rather than just flaunting it.
Cloris Leachman and Horvey Korman as the villainous Nurse Diesel and her lacky Dr. Montague provide one of the best double acts of any Brooks film. They can play the broad comedy and they can play the harsh villainy with equal aplomb.
In smaller parts, Ron Carey, Howard Morris, Dick Van Patten, Rudy De Luca, and even co-writer Barry Levinson all bring out the most in the material. (Brooks says that Levinson had a great potential career in comedic acting, only to throw it all away and become an Oscar-winning director.)
I’ve often said that the best parodies have storng enough stories to stand up to a serious interpretation and such is the case here. The story of Dr. Thorndyke and the troubles he faces upon taking over the Psychoneurotic Institute for the Very, VERY Nervous aren’t that far removed from those faced by the heroes of Hitchcock’s films. But, as an added note of Brooks’ originality, it doesn’t focus directly on any one film too much. The central conceit certainly owes a lot to Vertigo, but not the specifics of the plot, they come from all over the place.
Word is that Hitchcock himself was flattered by High Anxiety and I can see why. The film is as much an homage as it is a parody. Maybe that’s something else that critics didn’t like: it’s not as biting as some of Brooks’ other works. It pokes fun with affection, rather than skewering the material. But I don’t think you always need to be harsh to be funny. One can have fun with something without making fun of it.
Because it relies on mocking much less than his other films and is, frankly, a more original and well-defined work than the others, High Anxiety deserves to be considered when the subject of Brooks’ best films comes up. That it generally doesn’t is a shame.