What do you think?
Rate this book
Funny Man: Mel Brooks
A deeply textured and compelling biography of comedy giant Mel Brooks, covering his rags-to-riches life and triumphant career in television, films, and theater, from Patrick McGilligan, the acclaimed author of Young The Years of Luck and Genius on the Path to Citizen Kane and Alfred A Life in Darkness and Light.Oscar, Emmy, Tony, and Grammy award–winner Mel Brooks was behind (and sometimes in front the camera too) of some of the most influential comedy hits of our time, including The 2,000 Year Old Man, Get Smart, The Producers, Blazing Saddles, and Young Frankenstein. But before this actor, writer, director, comedian, and composer entertained the world, his first audience was his family.
The fourth and last child of Max and Kitty Kaminsky, Mel Brooks was born on his family’s kitchen table in Brooklyn, New York, in 1926, and was not quite three-years-old when his father died of tuberculosis. Growing up in a household too poor to own a radio, Mel was short and homely, a mischievous child whose birth role was to make the family laugh.
Beyond boyhood, after transforming himself into Mel Brooks, the laughs that came easily inside the Kaminsky family proved more elusive. His lifelong crusade to transform himself into a brand name of popular humor is at the center of master biographer Patrick McGilligan’s Funny Man. In this exhaustively researched and wonderfully novelistic look at Brooks’ personal and professional life, McGilligan lays bare the strengths and drawbacks that shaped Brooks’ psychology, his willpower, his persona, and his comedy.
McGilligan insightfully navigates the epic ride that has been the famous funnyman’s life story, from Brooks’s childhood in Williamsburg tenements and breakthrough in early television—working alongside Sid Caesar and Carl Reiner—to Hollywood and Broadway peaks (and valleys). His book offers a meditation on the Jewish immigrant culture that influenced Brooks, snapshots of the golden age of comedy, behind the scenes revelations about the celebrated shows and films, and a telling look at the four-decade romantic partnership with actress Anne Bancroft that superseded Brooks’ troubled first marriage. Engrossing, nuanced and ultimately poignant, Funny Man delivers a great man’s unforgettable life story and an anatomy of the American dream of success.
Funny Man includes a 16-page black-and-white photo insert.
The fourth and last child of Max and Kitty Kaminsky, Mel Brooks was born on his family’s kitchen table in Brooklyn, New York, in 1926, and was not quite three-years-old when his father died of tuberculosis. Growing up in a household too poor to own a radio, Mel was short and homely, a mischievous child whose birth role was to make the family laugh.
Beyond boyhood, after transforming himself into Mel Brooks, the laughs that came easily inside the Kaminsky family proved more elusive. His lifelong crusade to transform himself into a brand name of popular humor is at the center of master biographer Patrick McGilligan’s Funny Man. In this exhaustively researched and wonderfully novelistic look at Brooks’ personal and professional life, McGilligan lays bare the strengths and drawbacks that shaped Brooks’ psychology, his willpower, his persona, and his comedy.
McGilligan insightfully navigates the epic ride that has been the famous funnyman’s life story, from Brooks’s childhood in Williamsburg tenements and breakthrough in early television—working alongside Sid Caesar and Carl Reiner—to Hollywood and Broadway peaks (and valleys). His book offers a meditation on the Jewish immigrant culture that influenced Brooks, snapshots of the golden age of comedy, behind the scenes revelations about the celebrated shows and films, and a telling look at the four-decade romantic partnership with actress Anne Bancroft that superseded Brooks’ troubled first marriage. Engrossing, nuanced and ultimately poignant, Funny Man delivers a great man’s unforgettable life story and an anatomy of the American dream of success.
Funny Man includes a 16-page black-and-white photo insert.
656 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 19, 2019
142 people are currently reading
625 people want to read
About the author
Patrick McGilligan
45 books69 followersPatrick McGilligan is the author of Clint one of America’s pre-eminent film biographers. He has written the life stories of directors George Cukor and Fritz Lang — both New York Times “Notable Books” — and the Edgar-nominated Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. His books have been translated into ten languages. He lives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
February 4, 2022
I believe that making people smile is a gift. But there is a runaway smile, tied to the sensitivity of the moment, and a timeless smile, tied to the nature of humans. The slapstick scenes of Mel Brooks' films, some dialogues, the paradoxes (I'm thinking of the camera that zooms in on the window of the house until it breaks the glass, and the diners who turn toward it with blame) will forever arouse hilarity, as long as curiosity and empathy remain in our nature (perhaps we're losing them a bit).
April 14, 2019
Recently I read ROBIN by David Itzkoff, a biography that described the comic genius and troubled life of Robin Williams. The book was thorough and replete with explanations of why Williams turned out as he did, and the role comedy played in his life. There are few people who can approach Williams’ ability to transform themselves into different characters and employ improvisation. One who might approach Williams’ talent is Mel Brooks, the subject of a wonderful new biography by Patrick McGilligan entitled, FUNNY MAN.
Brooks’ background and early life stems from the wave of Russian Jewish immigration to the United States at the turn of the 20th century. Thousands would pass through or remain on the lower east side of Manhattan or move across the Williamsburg Bridge into Brooklyn as Brooks’ family did in 1917. McGilligan describes his subject as a pampered child as the youngest of four brothers and his role in the family seemed to be to make everyone laugh. All was not laughter as at the age of two and a half, Brooks’ father passed away, leaving a void in his life that would affect him throughout adulthood.
McGilligan goes on to describe Brooks’ life in minute detail as he ponders his future leading up to World War II, a turning point as he will wind up as an “entertainment specialist.” Though he passed through areas of combat with the US Army as it made its way toward Germany, Brooks was considered a “barracks character” throughout the war. McGilligan does a workman like job describing Brooks’ transition from a grunt who entertained his comrades to scheduling touring entertainment for the USO, hosting programs, and even taking the stage with his comedy act. By 1946, Brooks found his enlistment extended an extra year where he continued his “entertainment” responsibilities.
McGilligan’s narrative is replete with numerous watershed moments that altered the course of Brooks’ career, personal life, attempts at psychological analysis to explain Brooks’ actions, and a careful rendering of each of his films. McGilligan’s approach is fascinating though at times the constant entrance into the world of “psychobabble” can be annoying. Important turning points are many and the key to Brooks’ career is his association with Sid Ceasar dating back to the late 1940s. Brooks would become an integral part of “Club Ceasar,” a group of writers and later directors and producers who wrote for the Show of Shows and the Ceasar Hour in the 1950s. The group includes Larry Gelbart, Carl Reiner, Mel Tonkin, Lucille Kallen, and Howard Morris. McGilligan takes the reader inside the writer’s room (called “the jockstrap”) for the Ceasar’s programs and the mayhem which was a daily occurrence.
He explores the relationships among the writers and how Brooks fit in on a personal and professional level. We witness Brooks’ obnoxiousness, crudeness, temper, rudeness, but also his overwhelming comedic talent. Kallen would describe “writing scripts was like throwing a magnetized piece of a puzzle into a room with the other pieces racing toward it.” Reiner would always play his straight man and try and keep him out of trouble and their friendship would last for decades as he always indulged Brooks’ outbursts. Of course, McGilligan launches into an explanation of how Ceasar was a father figure for Brooks, who was trying to fill the void in his fatherless life.
The author follows Brooks’ career carefully from the Catskills, early television, and finally film pointing out how he was able to navigate the “comedic writing world” and the roadblocks that he had to overcome. But the key to McGilligan’s narrative in dealing with the Show of Shows and Ceasar Hour apart from the insights into the writer’s relationships was how the history of comedy was shaped by them for decades.
Brooks’ personal life receives extensive coverage particularly his two marriages. The first to dancer, Flora Baum provides insights into what kind of character Brooks really was. During their marriage and relationship Baum readily gave up her own career and the couple would have three children. Once the philandering Brooks found himself in a failed marriage, he did his best not to own up to his financial obligations toward his soon to be ex-wife and children. Brooks would miss alimony and child support payments on a regular basis and when he finally made it big with films like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein his duplicitous nature came to the fore as he was able to avoid sharing his new found wealth with his first family through the approach taken by his lawyers. His second marriage to actress Ann Bancroft followed a different pattern. They had one child, but Bancroft was a stronger person who did not let Brooks run roughshod over her as Baum had. She had an exceptional career of her own and was equal to her husband in talent and wealth. They did have a happy marriage and they were able to pursue separate careers which is probably why their marriage was so successful.
McGilligan digs down into Brooks’ personality issues. For years he was afraid of dying before the same age as his father. He was a hypochondriac who really was never sick. But he would use his hypochondria to learn all he could about illness and diseases from books and medical journals and freely offered medical advice to friends. His own psychiatrist, Dr. Clement Staff diagnosed him as having “anxiety hysteria,” a phobia where the mental aspects of anxiety are emphasized over any accompanying physical symptoms. His overly aggressive personality and sometimes crude comedic impulses sprang from defense mechanisms as he desperately tried to please his absent father, getting even with those who had rejected him in his past, and resentment for having been born short, poor, and Jewish. Brooks himself would explain the choice of some of his characters from a Freudian perspective, i.e., in the film The Producers Leopold Bloom would be considered his ego, and Max Bialystock his id!
The strongest part of McGilligan’s narrative is his review of the history of comedy in the 1960s and 1970s. The program, Get Smart is a good example of how comedy was evolving, and the role Brooks played. Perhaps an even more important component of the narrative is McGilligan’s dissection of Brooks’ film career. The constant reference to “Springtime for Hitler” an idea that Brooks worked on for a decade and its evolution into the film The Producers is fascinating. The description of the actual shooting of the film with the novice director Mel Brooks was eye opening as his insecurities concerning a project that was so much a part of his life are completely exposed. One of Brooks’ best decisions was to cast Gene Wilder as Leon Blum in the film and for the next few years Wilder would become Brooks’ alter ego and the two would emerge as the key to the success of several future films.
McGilligan digs deep into the origins of Blazing Saddles which emerged from the novella Tex X written by Andrew Bergman. Brooks loved westerns, wanted to skewer the genre, and told his writers to “write the craziest shit.” McGilligan’s details are marvelous especially how Brooks cast the film. His first choice for the black sheriff was Richard Pryor, but the comedian was too controversial for Warner brothers, so the part was taken by Cleavon Little, then an unknown singer-actor. The substitution of Gene Wilder as the “Waco kid” at the last minute was genius and proved to be the key to the film’s success. These were lucky breaks and Brooks knew it.
McGilligan will unravel the production process taking the reader behind the scenes of Brooks’ approach to directing and finally starring in his own movies, including how the films were edited and distributed. He will continue the process with all of Brooks’ major films including Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, Space Balls, Silent Movie etc. Though some where more successful than others and reflected Brook’s obsession to be accepted by the critics they will reflect an evolution away from more crude dialogue and offensive scenes.
If there was anyone who competed with Brooks during the proliferation of his films it was Woody Allen, who McGilliigan brings up several times as he compares the critiques and popularity of the work of both men, especially when Allen’s Sleeper and Annie Hall were so successful. A major difference between the two according to Milligan was that Allen invited audiences into his semiautobiographical fictions, in which his lead characters often behaved as variants of himself. Brooks’ films had little or nothing to do with his private self. Perhaps Brooks success as a director and comedic actor was due to his marriage to Ann Bancroft as it appears it was no accident that his career took off after their marriage.
Brooks will branch out with the creation Brooksfilms in the early 1980s. Brooks will develop into a shrewd producer-director; however, his main successes were the films, Elephant Man and My Favorite Year. Brooks will shift back to the bad taste excesses that had made earlier films a success with History of the World Part I. McGilligan analyzes the film in detail and the result is a series of skits that spoof historical events with song and dance routines which are hysterical, i.e., “The Inquisition” and others. The critics were split on its quality which did not approach the popularity of his earlier successes in the United States but did well in foreign markets. Brooks’ last major accomplishment was bringing The Producers to Broadway for a six-year run.
Overall, McGilligan describes the differences of the “nice” Mel, and the “bad” Mel throughout the book. This dichotomy is a useful tool in understanding Brooks, and McGilligan handles it well. McGilligan is a veteran show business biographer and has written a monograph that reflects enormous research and extensive knowledge of the industry. The main drawback to the book is that there is so much detail at times plowing through the narrative can become cumbersome, however it is an interesting book that explores American comedy, focusing in large part the role that Jews played.
Brooks’ background and early life stems from the wave of Russian Jewish immigration to the United States at the turn of the 20th century. Thousands would pass through or remain on the lower east side of Manhattan or move across the Williamsburg Bridge into Brooklyn as Brooks’ family did in 1917. McGilligan describes his subject as a pampered child as the youngest of four brothers and his role in the family seemed to be to make everyone laugh. All was not laughter as at the age of two and a half, Brooks’ father passed away, leaving a void in his life that would affect him throughout adulthood.
McGilligan goes on to describe Brooks’ life in minute detail as he ponders his future leading up to World War II, a turning point as he will wind up as an “entertainment specialist.” Though he passed through areas of combat with the US Army as it made its way toward Germany, Brooks was considered a “barracks character” throughout the war. McGilligan does a workman like job describing Brooks’ transition from a grunt who entertained his comrades to scheduling touring entertainment for the USO, hosting programs, and even taking the stage with his comedy act. By 1946, Brooks found his enlistment extended an extra year where he continued his “entertainment” responsibilities.
McGilligan’s narrative is replete with numerous watershed moments that altered the course of Brooks’ career, personal life, attempts at psychological analysis to explain Brooks’ actions, and a careful rendering of each of his films. McGilligan’s approach is fascinating though at times the constant entrance into the world of “psychobabble” can be annoying. Important turning points are many and the key to Brooks’ career is his association with Sid Ceasar dating back to the late 1940s. Brooks would become an integral part of “Club Ceasar,” a group of writers and later directors and producers who wrote for the Show of Shows and the Ceasar Hour in the 1950s. The group includes Larry Gelbart, Carl Reiner, Mel Tonkin, Lucille Kallen, and Howard Morris. McGilligan takes the reader inside the writer’s room (called “the jockstrap”) for the Ceasar’s programs and the mayhem which was a daily occurrence.
He explores the relationships among the writers and how Brooks fit in on a personal and professional level. We witness Brooks’ obnoxiousness, crudeness, temper, rudeness, but also his overwhelming comedic talent. Kallen would describe “writing scripts was like throwing a magnetized piece of a puzzle into a room with the other pieces racing toward it.” Reiner would always play his straight man and try and keep him out of trouble and their friendship would last for decades as he always indulged Brooks’ outbursts. Of course, McGilligan launches into an explanation of how Ceasar was a father figure for Brooks, who was trying to fill the void in his fatherless life.
The author follows Brooks’ career carefully from the Catskills, early television, and finally film pointing out how he was able to navigate the “comedic writing world” and the roadblocks that he had to overcome. But the key to McGilligan’s narrative in dealing with the Show of Shows and Ceasar Hour apart from the insights into the writer’s relationships was how the history of comedy was shaped by them for decades.
Brooks’ personal life receives extensive coverage particularly his two marriages. The first to dancer, Flora Baum provides insights into what kind of character Brooks really was. During their marriage and relationship Baum readily gave up her own career and the couple would have three children. Once the philandering Brooks found himself in a failed marriage, he did his best not to own up to his financial obligations toward his soon to be ex-wife and children. Brooks would miss alimony and child support payments on a regular basis and when he finally made it big with films like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein his duplicitous nature came to the fore as he was able to avoid sharing his new found wealth with his first family through the approach taken by his lawyers. His second marriage to actress Ann Bancroft followed a different pattern. They had one child, but Bancroft was a stronger person who did not let Brooks run roughshod over her as Baum had. She had an exceptional career of her own and was equal to her husband in talent and wealth. They did have a happy marriage and they were able to pursue separate careers which is probably why their marriage was so successful.
McGilligan digs down into Brooks’ personality issues. For years he was afraid of dying before the same age as his father. He was a hypochondriac who really was never sick. But he would use his hypochondria to learn all he could about illness and diseases from books and medical journals and freely offered medical advice to friends. His own psychiatrist, Dr. Clement Staff diagnosed him as having “anxiety hysteria,” a phobia where the mental aspects of anxiety are emphasized over any accompanying physical symptoms. His overly aggressive personality and sometimes crude comedic impulses sprang from defense mechanisms as he desperately tried to please his absent father, getting even with those who had rejected him in his past, and resentment for having been born short, poor, and Jewish. Brooks himself would explain the choice of some of his characters from a Freudian perspective, i.e., in the film The Producers Leopold Bloom would be considered his ego, and Max Bialystock his id!
The strongest part of McGilligan’s narrative is his review of the history of comedy in the 1960s and 1970s. The program, Get Smart is a good example of how comedy was evolving, and the role Brooks played. Perhaps an even more important component of the narrative is McGilligan’s dissection of Brooks’ film career. The constant reference to “Springtime for Hitler” an idea that Brooks worked on for a decade and its evolution into the film The Producers is fascinating. The description of the actual shooting of the film with the novice director Mel Brooks was eye opening as his insecurities concerning a project that was so much a part of his life are completely exposed. One of Brooks’ best decisions was to cast Gene Wilder as Leon Blum in the film and for the next few years Wilder would become Brooks’ alter ego and the two would emerge as the key to the success of several future films.
McGilligan digs deep into the origins of Blazing Saddles which emerged from the novella Tex X written by Andrew Bergman. Brooks loved westerns, wanted to skewer the genre, and told his writers to “write the craziest shit.” McGilligan’s details are marvelous especially how Brooks cast the film. His first choice for the black sheriff was Richard Pryor, but the comedian was too controversial for Warner brothers, so the part was taken by Cleavon Little, then an unknown singer-actor. The substitution of Gene Wilder as the “Waco kid” at the last minute was genius and proved to be the key to the film’s success. These were lucky breaks and Brooks knew it.
McGilligan will unravel the production process taking the reader behind the scenes of Brooks’ approach to directing and finally starring in his own movies, including how the films were edited and distributed. He will continue the process with all of Brooks’ major films including Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, Space Balls, Silent Movie etc. Though some where more successful than others and reflected Brook’s obsession to be accepted by the critics they will reflect an evolution away from more crude dialogue and offensive scenes.
If there was anyone who competed with Brooks during the proliferation of his films it was Woody Allen, who McGilliigan brings up several times as he compares the critiques and popularity of the work of both men, especially when Allen’s Sleeper and Annie Hall were so successful. A major difference between the two according to Milligan was that Allen invited audiences into his semiautobiographical fictions, in which his lead characters often behaved as variants of himself. Brooks’ films had little or nothing to do with his private self. Perhaps Brooks success as a director and comedic actor was due to his marriage to Ann Bancroft as it appears it was no accident that his career took off after their marriage.
Brooks will branch out with the creation Brooksfilms in the early 1980s. Brooks will develop into a shrewd producer-director; however, his main successes were the films, Elephant Man and My Favorite Year. Brooks will shift back to the bad taste excesses that had made earlier films a success with History of the World Part I. McGilligan analyzes the film in detail and the result is a series of skits that spoof historical events with song and dance routines which are hysterical, i.e., “The Inquisition” and others. The critics were split on its quality which did not approach the popularity of his earlier successes in the United States but did well in foreign markets. Brooks’ last major accomplishment was bringing The Producers to Broadway for a six-year run.
Overall, McGilligan describes the differences of the “nice” Mel, and the “bad” Mel throughout the book. This dichotomy is a useful tool in understanding Brooks, and McGilligan handles it well. McGilligan is a veteran show business biographer and has written a monograph that reflects enormous research and extensive knowledge of the industry. The main drawback to the book is that there is so much detail at times plowing through the narrative can become cumbersome, however it is an interesting book that explores American comedy, focusing in large part the role that Jews played.
January 18, 2020
When you look forward to reading a book/bio about a writer/director that has made you happy on many occasions wit his output AND then you read all about what a caustic, miserly, untrustworthy, egomaniac that person is (according to the author and his research), well, it's a bit of a weird unpleasant experience. Maybe that old saying about separating the ART from the ARTIST pertains here. Mel Brooks is a talented funny man child that has produced some memorable screen comedies, but according to author McGilligan it seems that Mel needs to beg borrow and steal most of his material. You learn about his first marriage, his not paying child support to his first wife (while hiding is money), his character traits of stealing credit in shows like GET SMART and movies like YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, always making sure (with his attorneys) of getting the best deal and future rights to anything that springs from his work (to the detriment of those that collaborated with him), his slavish ass kissing to Sid Caesar, his loud annoying tantrums and seemingly bi-polar characteristics, and editing the truth in tales he tells over and over again. It was incredible to read the many people (except for his constant defender and forgiver Carl Reiner) who hated dealing with him in Life and in work.
But, you do read about his cleverness in shaping his work, his devotion to his second wife Anne Bancroft (who seems to be his match in personality traits behind the scenes) his friendships that endure through trying times, his business acumen and discovering new talents (which he will often shaft in business deals with a smile), and his late in life unexpressed regrets in some of his past doings. He seems to make up with 'old man' softening in his old age with his family both past and present.
Still, his THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES, and especially YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (mostly because of the origin idea and softer touch of Gene Wilder) have made me laugh so much even in repeat viewings. The cynicism and brashness of THE PRODUCERS, that incredible manic hilarious 'breaking of the 4th wall' ending of BLAZING SADDLES, and the nostalgic spoofing with a loving heart of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN all show a love of making people laugh and a love of movies.
I liked this book and, also, couldn't wait to finish it. It was interesting and revealing, but hard to read a lot of the negativity. I think I'll just think of the great times that Brooks gave me on the screen in the dark and not his inner darkness.
But, you do read about his cleverness in shaping his work, his devotion to his second wife Anne Bancroft (who seems to be his match in personality traits behind the scenes) his friendships that endure through trying times, his business acumen and discovering new talents (which he will often shaft in business deals with a smile), and his late in life unexpressed regrets in some of his past doings. He seems to make up with 'old man' softening in his old age with his family both past and present.
Still, his THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES, and especially YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (mostly because of the origin idea and softer touch of Gene Wilder) have made me laugh so much even in repeat viewings. The cynicism and brashness of THE PRODUCERS, that incredible manic hilarious 'breaking of the 4th wall' ending of BLAZING SADDLES, and the nostalgic spoofing with a loving heart of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN all show a love of making people laugh and a love of movies.
I liked this book and, also, couldn't wait to finish it. It was interesting and revealing, but hard to read a lot of the negativity. I think I'll just think of the great times that Brooks gave me on the screen in the dark and not his inner darkness.
April 18, 2021
Pretty solid bio by Milwaukee writer McGilligan on an entertainer I honestly didn't know too much about besides viewing a few of his films.
But Melvin Kaminsky ( aka Mel Brooks ) was the youngest of 4 sons growing up in a Jewish home in NYC and pretty much always the funny man. He liked to make people laugh and literally still does to this day into his 90's.
The book traces Brooks and his two marriages, children, television writing for Sid Caesar's show and into his movie and broadway musical work.
McGilligan does a great job putting it all out there from the heights to the warts of Brooks' career and I found myself enjoying the read.
But Melvin Kaminsky ( aka Mel Brooks ) was the youngest of 4 sons growing up in a Jewish home in NYC and pretty much always the funny man. He liked to make people laugh and literally still does to this day into his 90's.
The book traces Brooks and his two marriages, children, television writing for Sid Caesar's show and into his movie and broadway musical work.
McGilligan does a great job putting it all out there from the heights to the warts of Brooks' career and I found myself enjoying the read.
April 16, 2019
“When he comes home at night, when that key goes in the door, I mean, my heart’s fluttering,” said Anne Bancroft, the wife of Mel Brooks for forty-one years. “I am so happy he’s home, you know. I mean, it’s like the party’s going to start. … He’s so alive to the fun of life.”
Although that’s fun to know, other people do not feel that way. This overlong book takes us on the odyssey of Mel Brooks including the highs and lows, as well as the smothering ego and credit hog who began as Sid Caesar’s bootlicker. Through the story of Brooks, this book also serves as a history of early television comedy.
What made Mel Brooks funny? Brooklyn, the Depression, being Jewish, a short guy whose father died early? As the youngest of four brothers, he bore the least responsibility. So, he made people laugh. From his youth, Brooks felt impelled toward comedy.
At thirteen, in The Catskills, Brooks met Sid Caesar, who played sax in the house band. After his release from the army, Brooks was on his own in The Catskills as an acquired taste and not clearly destined for greatness.
In the late forties, backstage at the Copacabana, he met Sid Caesar again, now billed as “a comedy star.” Caesar could mimic sounds, sing, dance, act and play the sax. They took to each other immediately. NBC offered a television series for a live one-hour program. Caesar saw Brooks as a sidekick, a smart-aleck. And as a gagman, Brooks topped off what others wrote with a better joke or stronger finish. Brooks found himself in demand as a script doctor who could deliver knockout punches to strengthen a show. Producers expected Brooks to inject laughs into feeble scenes.
But not everyone found Mel Brooks funny when they met him. People needed time to get used to his manner and sense of humor.
Brooks irritated people early on with his cockiness and arrogance. He made an art of rude, crude and impolite behavior. Brooks arrived late to meetings and became brusque to the point of offensive. People took offense at his erratic hours and insulting manner.
Brooks embroidered stories and confabulated so much that he told variations of anecdotes, making himself the hero. His first wife felt that Brooks lived in public as a one-man happening but lived in private as glum and sullen.
Brooks’ analyst found two personalities: Nice Mel, who loved people, attuned to arts and literature. The Rude Crude Mel used uncivil behavior and offensive humor to defend himself against slights. As a drama queen, Brooks struggled to find the balance.
Your Show of Shows debuted in nineteen fifty. The ninety-minute program broadcast live before a studio audience without cue cards and before teleprompters. Sid Caesar starred, supported by writers such as Mel Brooks and Neil Simon. Classic early television comedy. Catch it on video. Woody Allen joined Caesar later.
In early seventy-two, Brooks’ agent told him about a property named “Tex-X,” a wild west comedy about a hip, militant black sheriff in a prejudiced frontier town. Warner Brothers took an option on the novella, set in the eighteen seventies, written by Andrew Bergman, who earned a doctorate in film studies at UW-Madison.
“Write from the gut,” Brooks told the writers. “Write from the heart.” Gene Wilder replaced an unreliable actor. His bemused and quizzical but ingratiating character proved a godsend to the film.
Gene Wilder imagined and wrote the first draft of “Young Frankenstein,” in black and white as homage to the monster’s films of the thirties. The special-effects guy from the original “Frankenstein” kept parts of the lab set in his garage. The new film used those pieces to reproduce the luh-bore-uh-tory.
“Blazing Saddles” survives as Brooks’ anarchy on film, while “Young Frankenstein” became his most controlled film. Those two films became the pinnacle of Brooks’ career. While “Blazing Saddles” became the comedy of the year, critics began comparing Mel Brooks to Woody Allen, who just released “Sleeper” about the same time. Mel and Woody worked as writers for Sid Caesar.
But a weekend rescreening of “Blazing Saddles” and“Young Frankenstein” revealed them as films that do not survive the test of time. Except for a few classic bits, “Frankenstein” now comes across as unfunny and a long slog. “Saddles,” meanwhile, includes many funny sketches while inducing squirms as an out-of-date movie. The two films released forty-five years ago.
During his career, Brooks wanted the approval of critics while resenting their power and opinions. He eschewed the critics and intellectuals while embracing John Wayne and Lawrence Welk country. And this set him apart from Woody Allen. Brooks feels he fell short in his career. He wanted to make comedy based on pathos and real life, writing scripts around characters and the human condition. Instead, ego got in the way.
Anne Bancroft, meanwhile, earned critical accolades during her career, including her film roles in “The Miracle Worker,” “The Graduate” and "84, Charing Cross Road," where she played Helene Hanff, who wrote the memoir.
As life marched on, Brooks became a stalwart at funerals, weeping then cheering people, although he is phobic about illness and hospitals.
“It’s empty spaces,” said Mel Brooks when asked about the hardest thing to accept while aging. He’s ninety-two. “That (space) used to be filled with the people you grew up with, the people you love, your family. They’re all gone. That’s the toughest.”
“People love people who make them laugh,” writes Patrick McGilligan, the author. Mel Brooks “turned his invented identity into a brand name of laughter.”
Many people did not reply to inquiries, declined interviews or spoke anonymously or off the record because they feared the temper or litigiousness of Brooks, writes McGilligan in the appendix. Also, especially in the early chapters, Brooks makes claims that cannot be verified today, leading to such phrases as “no evidence exists.” McGilligan gets credit for questioning the veracity of probable hokum.
A four-star book about a three-star subject.
Although long at six hundred pages, I enjoyed it. The well-written story gives us the back story of Mel Brooks as well as his early days of television comedy, which I find interesting. Through Brooks’ story, we intersect with many others who made us laugh.
Although that’s fun to know, other people do not feel that way. This overlong book takes us on the odyssey of Mel Brooks including the highs and lows, as well as the smothering ego and credit hog who began as Sid Caesar’s bootlicker. Through the story of Brooks, this book also serves as a history of early television comedy.
What made Mel Brooks funny? Brooklyn, the Depression, being Jewish, a short guy whose father died early? As the youngest of four brothers, he bore the least responsibility. So, he made people laugh. From his youth, Brooks felt impelled toward comedy.
At thirteen, in The Catskills, Brooks met Sid Caesar, who played sax in the house band. After his release from the army, Brooks was on his own in The Catskills as an acquired taste and not clearly destined for greatness.
In the late forties, backstage at the Copacabana, he met Sid Caesar again, now billed as “a comedy star.” Caesar could mimic sounds, sing, dance, act and play the sax. They took to each other immediately. NBC offered a television series for a live one-hour program. Caesar saw Brooks as a sidekick, a smart-aleck. And as a gagman, Brooks topped off what others wrote with a better joke or stronger finish. Brooks found himself in demand as a script doctor who could deliver knockout punches to strengthen a show. Producers expected Brooks to inject laughs into feeble scenes.
But not everyone found Mel Brooks funny when they met him. People needed time to get used to his manner and sense of humor.
Brooks irritated people early on with his cockiness and arrogance. He made an art of rude, crude and impolite behavior. Brooks arrived late to meetings and became brusque to the point of offensive. People took offense at his erratic hours and insulting manner.
Brooks embroidered stories and confabulated so much that he told variations of anecdotes, making himself the hero. His first wife felt that Brooks lived in public as a one-man happening but lived in private as glum and sullen.
Brooks’ analyst found two personalities: Nice Mel, who loved people, attuned to arts and literature. The Rude Crude Mel used uncivil behavior and offensive humor to defend himself against slights. As a drama queen, Brooks struggled to find the balance.
Your Show of Shows debuted in nineteen fifty. The ninety-minute program broadcast live before a studio audience without cue cards and before teleprompters. Sid Caesar starred, supported by writers such as Mel Brooks and Neil Simon. Classic early television comedy. Catch it on video. Woody Allen joined Caesar later.
In early seventy-two, Brooks’ agent told him about a property named “Tex-X,” a wild west comedy about a hip, militant black sheriff in a prejudiced frontier town. Warner Brothers took an option on the novella, set in the eighteen seventies, written by Andrew Bergman, who earned a doctorate in film studies at UW-Madison.
“Write from the gut,” Brooks told the writers. “Write from the heart.” Gene Wilder replaced an unreliable actor. His bemused and quizzical but ingratiating character proved a godsend to the film.
Gene Wilder imagined and wrote the first draft of “Young Frankenstein,” in black and white as homage to the monster’s films of the thirties. The special-effects guy from the original “Frankenstein” kept parts of the lab set in his garage. The new film used those pieces to reproduce the luh-bore-uh-tory.
“Blazing Saddles” survives as Brooks’ anarchy on film, while “Young Frankenstein” became his most controlled film. Those two films became the pinnacle of Brooks’ career. While “Blazing Saddles” became the comedy of the year, critics began comparing Mel Brooks to Woody Allen, who just released “Sleeper” about the same time. Mel and Woody worked as writers for Sid Caesar.
But a weekend rescreening of “Blazing Saddles” and“Young Frankenstein” revealed them as films that do not survive the test of time. Except for a few classic bits, “Frankenstein” now comes across as unfunny and a long slog. “Saddles,” meanwhile, includes many funny sketches while inducing squirms as an out-of-date movie. The two films released forty-five years ago.
During his career, Brooks wanted the approval of critics while resenting their power and opinions. He eschewed the critics and intellectuals while embracing John Wayne and Lawrence Welk country. And this set him apart from Woody Allen. Brooks feels he fell short in his career. He wanted to make comedy based on pathos and real life, writing scripts around characters and the human condition. Instead, ego got in the way.
Anne Bancroft, meanwhile, earned critical accolades during her career, including her film roles in “The Miracle Worker,” “The Graduate” and "84, Charing Cross Road," where she played Helene Hanff, who wrote the memoir.
As life marched on, Brooks became a stalwart at funerals, weeping then cheering people, although he is phobic about illness and hospitals.
“It’s empty spaces,” said Mel Brooks when asked about the hardest thing to accept while aging. He’s ninety-two. “That (space) used to be filled with the people you grew up with, the people you love, your family. They’re all gone. That’s the toughest.”
“People love people who make them laugh,” writes Patrick McGilligan, the author. Mel Brooks “turned his invented identity into a brand name of laughter.”
Many people did not reply to inquiries, declined interviews or spoke anonymously or off the record because they feared the temper or litigiousness of Brooks, writes McGilligan in the appendix. Also, especially in the early chapters, Brooks makes claims that cannot be verified today, leading to such phrases as “no evidence exists.” McGilligan gets credit for questioning the veracity of probable hokum.
A four-star book about a three-star subject.
Although long at six hundred pages, I enjoyed it. The well-written story gives us the back story of Mel Brooks as well as his early days of television comedy, which I find interesting. Through Brooks’ story, we intersect with many others who made us laugh.
January 21, 2022
If you made a mistake of liking Mel Brooks through his screen and television persona then Patrick McGilligan is here to set you straight. His success came at the expense of others. This was especially true in his first marriage and how he negotiated his film deals.
But Brooks doesn’t fit the cliché of the miserable funny man like Johnny Carson who had no personal friends and four failed marriages. Brooks divorced once and was married to number 2 until her death. He was a loyal and lifelong friend to Sid Caesar giving him roles when no one else would. He still eats dinner with fellow widower, Carl Reiner, almost every night.
But despite what I felt was a balance weighed against the negative there is a treasure of details of his entire life. I had always wondered what Mel did after Caesar and before The Producers. The guy was busy. There is a heck of a life here even before he became a famous film director.
Things I learned about Brooks:
-Born Melvin Kaminsky. His stage name is a shorter version of his mother’s maiden name, Brookman.
-He was originally hired by Sid Caesar through the force of his personality.
-His 2,000 year-old man bit was originally a gag that he and Carl Reiner would do for parties.
-Mel created the TV show Get Smart with Buck Henry, but they have never agreed on who created what and have been at odds with each other ever since.
-Mel Brooks always wanted to work with Zero Mostel, but fought with him during much of the shoot for the Producers.
-Gene Wilder was a serious actor that Brooks met when the former starred with Anne Bancroft on Broadway.
-Blazing Saddles was someone else’s idea. Brooks intended the stars to be Richard Pryor and Dan Dailey. Gene Wilder was a replacement for the second choice, Gig Young.
-Young Frankenstein was Gene Wilder’s idea. Those two hits cemented Mel’s style as that of a parody artist.
-From Blazing Saddles on his movies generally made less money than the prior ones.
-Robin Hood: Men in Tights recycled gags from Mel’s 1970s parody TV series, When Things Were Rotten.
But Brooks doesn’t fit the cliché of the miserable funny man like Johnny Carson who had no personal friends and four failed marriages. Brooks divorced once and was married to number 2 until her death. He was a loyal and lifelong friend to Sid Caesar giving him roles when no one else would. He still eats dinner with fellow widower, Carl Reiner, almost every night.
But despite what I felt was a balance weighed against the negative there is a treasure of details of his entire life. I had always wondered what Mel did after Caesar and before The Producers. The guy was busy. There is a heck of a life here even before he became a famous film director.
Things I learned about Brooks:
-Born Melvin Kaminsky. His stage name is a shorter version of his mother’s maiden name, Brookman.
-He was originally hired by Sid Caesar through the force of his personality.
-His 2,000 year-old man bit was originally a gag that he and Carl Reiner would do for parties.
-Mel created the TV show Get Smart with Buck Henry, but they have never agreed on who created what and have been at odds with each other ever since.
-Mel Brooks always wanted to work with Zero Mostel, but fought with him during much of the shoot for the Producers.
-Gene Wilder was a serious actor that Brooks met when the former starred with Anne Bancroft on Broadway.
-Blazing Saddles was someone else’s idea. Brooks intended the stars to be Richard Pryor and Dan Dailey. Gene Wilder was a replacement for the second choice, Gig Young.
-Young Frankenstein was Gene Wilder’s idea. Those two hits cemented Mel’s style as that of a parody artist.
-From Blazing Saddles on his movies generally made less money than the prior ones.
-Robin Hood: Men in Tights recycled gags from Mel’s 1970s parody TV series, When Things Were Rotten.
May 13, 2020
I can think of one person who won’t be giving this book 4 stars, and that is Melvin Kaminsky. Patrick McGilligan’s astute, detailed and captivating Mel Brooks biography talks a lot about things guaranteed to make the book’s subject matter blow his lid (including a raging temper); his congenital need to grab as much credit for his projects as possible, his thin skin when it comes to negative criticism and, more than anything, his finances. If there’s a talent that exceeds that of Mel Brooks as a filmmaker, it’s Mel Brooks as a Hollywood financier. He was smart enough to get a healthy cut of the syndication for his work on the ‘60s TV series Get Smart, long before syndication became the money-making waterfall that it is today. But that would be something he wouldn’t want you or I to know.
Unfortunately for Mel, but very fortunate for readers of Funny Man, McGilligan leaves few stones unturned in putting down on paper just what makes Mel tick. And what a great choice for a biography! Mel Brooks has been a comedy superstar for pretty much my whole life. Someone whose shadow looms that large has to have a fascinating story, waiting for an author like McGilligan to deliver an addictive account of an artist who’s been at the forefront of American comedy for an astounding six decades. This book takes the reader on the journey of a hard-driven artist constantly striving for fame, fortune and, more than anything, adoration. Funny Man is a fine example of the Hollywood biography at its best; it’s a book as compelling as the person it’s covering.
I listened to the audiobook version, which is read relatively well, with a few glaring mispronunciations. The oddest part is when the reader is trying on his “Mel Brooks voice.” I don’t doubt that it’s a thankless job capturing a voice that’s so well-known, but the version here is kinda goofy. It is a double-helping of Noo Yawk, but it sounds more like Mel is less a Jewish comedian and more part of Jimmy the Gent’s crew in Goodfellas. It’s not bad, it’s just… weird.
Unfortunately for Mel, but very fortunate for readers of Funny Man, McGilligan leaves few stones unturned in putting down on paper just what makes Mel tick. And what a great choice for a biography! Mel Brooks has been a comedy superstar for pretty much my whole life. Someone whose shadow looms that large has to have a fascinating story, waiting for an author like McGilligan to deliver an addictive account of an artist who’s been at the forefront of American comedy for an astounding six decades. This book takes the reader on the journey of a hard-driven artist constantly striving for fame, fortune and, more than anything, adoration. Funny Man is a fine example of the Hollywood biography at its best; it’s a book as compelling as the person it’s covering.
I listened to the audiobook version, which is read relatively well, with a few glaring mispronunciations. The oddest part is when the reader is trying on his “Mel Brooks voice.” I don’t doubt that it’s a thankless job capturing a voice that’s so well-known, but the version here is kinda goofy. It is a double-helping of Noo Yawk, but it sounds more like Mel is less a Jewish comedian and more part of Jimmy the Gent’s crew in Goodfellas. It’s not bad, it’s just… weird.
February 10, 2022
Patrick McGilligan, our premiere biographer of Hollywood, does his usual exemplary work here. Brooks comes across as someone very funny -- despite his declining record on film -- and a not very nice person. It's a complex portrait, and provides much detail about his early career. Worth reading, but those who see Brooks as a beloved figure will find much that's disturbing.
April 4, 2021
A very short summary of this book: Mel Brooks is kind of an asshole, albeit a funny asshole, and he plagiarizes quite a bit.
April 14, 2019
This is an incredibly boring 600-page book that doesn't even start to cover Mel Brooks' interesting career until around page 177, then goes into lengthy unnecessary detail about minute day-to-day things that you'll never care about, includes a whole lot of side stories about other people that don't directly relate to Brooks, before wrapping up the last 25 years of his life in the quick final 50 pages. And virtually none of it is funny.
The book confirms that Brooks is a complete jerk and horrible human being, at the same time overstating the success of many Brooks' projects. The writer is biased, including subjective language and making some things up when he doesn't know, and claims that many of Brooks TV shows and movies are successful when in truth his career is filled with mediocre flops and only a few true successes.
There's too much about Anne Bancroft's career, which really has nothing to do with Brooks, and there is very little about their reported marriage issues. I came away not having any better idea of the couple other than they like to play games with celebrity friends.
The biggest disappointment is the very short section on the Broadway production of The Producers, which gets less space than some of Brooks movies that were royal flops.
It's not worth reading, unless you just want reinforced what a terrible guy Mel Brooks is. He certainly stole most of his ideas or became successful off the creativity of other people. It makes him seem like an insensitive, overbearing fraud, not the genius the book jokingly proclaims him to be. He wasn't a funny man and this isn't a funny book.
The book confirms that Brooks is a complete jerk and horrible human being, at the same time overstating the success of many Brooks' projects. The writer is biased, including subjective language and making some things up when he doesn't know, and claims that many of Brooks TV shows and movies are successful when in truth his career is filled with mediocre flops and only a few true successes.
There's too much about Anne Bancroft's career, which really has nothing to do with Brooks, and there is very little about their reported marriage issues. I came away not having any better idea of the couple other than they like to play games with celebrity friends.
The biggest disappointment is the very short section on the Broadway production of The Producers, which gets less space than some of Brooks movies that were royal flops.
It's not worth reading, unless you just want reinforced what a terrible guy Mel Brooks is. He certainly stole most of his ideas or became successful off the creativity of other people. It makes him seem like an insensitive, overbearing fraud, not the genius the book jokingly proclaims him to be. He wasn't a funny man and this isn't a funny book.
December 16, 2019
Boy, I was looking forward to this.
But what a miserable book. At nearly every turn in his career, the Brooks of Funny Man is an insecure, petulant, obnoxious and adulterous bully. Was it true? Likely, but McGilligan goes out of his way to paint Brooks with a hypercritical brush. At more than 600 pages, it's a joyless, lumbering slog.
If you're looking for laughs, go listen to the 2000 Year Old Man.
But what a miserable book. At nearly every turn in his career, the Brooks of Funny Man is an insecure, petulant, obnoxious and adulterous bully. Was it true? Likely, but McGilligan goes out of his way to paint Brooks with a hypercritical brush. At more than 600 pages, it's a joyless, lumbering slog.
If you're looking for laughs, go listen to the 2000 Year Old Man.
February 26, 2020
Right, that was a really long haul. I think the author did a good job capturing Mel Brooks’ life. Sadly, Mel does not come out as a sympathetic character. He stole ideas he didn’t give people credit he ripped people off financially. Apparently he’s mellow now that he’s in his 90s, but still.
September 6, 2019
It can be a challenge to review a biography or memoir, in that you have to consider the writing separately from the subject's life. As one of my college friends said when we first listened to Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant," it's not fair to say whether you like it or not because that would be like saying "I like (or don't like) your life." And who are we to judge?
That said, the author does an admirable job of recounting the life of Mel Brooks, ne Melvin Kaminsky. In this exhaustive (and, sometime, exhausting) biography, we learn everything there is to know about the writer-director-producer-funny man, from his convoluted and demanding contracts and his income to his relationships with family, friends, and ex-friends (who are legion).
If you open this book expecting a barrel of laughs, you'll be highly disappointed. This biography is a serious examination of what the author calls "the two Mels," i.e., the nice Mel, and the not-so-nice Mel, and there's plenty of excruciating detail about the latter. It's not much of a surprise to read that Brooks is a rude and needy attention-hog, but, at the very least, it's disappointing to learn how shabbily he treated his first wife and their three children, not just after the marriage soured but right out of the gate. There's ample evidence that, even when he was well on his way to becoming a wealthy man, he was (and remains), frankly, a greedy skinflint. Yet he's been known for occasionally incredible acts of kindness and generosity. His idea of directing a movie is screaming at and humiliating the actors. The problem with Brooks is that you never know which Mel he's going to be at any given moment.
Despite his flaws, Mel Brooks has made millions of us laugh until our faces hurt. We watch his movies and Broadway shows and listen to his Emmy-winning albums over and over again, and laugh just as hard the 20th time as we did the first. He is, arguably, a comic genius. And maybe that's enough.
That said, the author does an admirable job of recounting the life of Mel Brooks, ne Melvin Kaminsky. In this exhaustive (and, sometime, exhausting) biography, we learn everything there is to know about the writer-director-producer-funny man, from his convoluted and demanding contracts and his income to his relationships with family, friends, and ex-friends (who are legion).
If you open this book expecting a barrel of laughs, you'll be highly disappointed. This biography is a serious examination of what the author calls "the two Mels," i.e., the nice Mel, and the not-so-nice Mel, and there's plenty of excruciating detail about the latter. It's not much of a surprise to read that Brooks is a rude and needy attention-hog, but, at the very least, it's disappointing to learn how shabbily he treated his first wife and their three children, not just after the marriage soured but right out of the gate. There's ample evidence that, even when he was well on his way to becoming a wealthy man, he was (and remains), frankly, a greedy skinflint. Yet he's been known for occasionally incredible acts of kindness and generosity. His idea of directing a movie is screaming at and humiliating the actors. The problem with Brooks is that you never know which Mel he's going to be at any given moment.
Despite his flaws, Mel Brooks has made millions of us laugh until our faces hurt. We watch his movies and Broadway shows and listen to his Emmy-winning albums over and over again, and laugh just as hard the 20th time as we did the first. He is, arguably, a comic genius. And maybe that's enough.
November 11, 2020
Comprehensive biography of Mel Brooks, born Melvin Kaminsky in New York City. This book captures the struggle of Brooks' eventual success, years in coming despite his recognized comic genius. The best part of the book is the focus on each of Brooks' projects, starting with his eventual wedging himself into Sid Caesar's early TV "Your Show of Shows" writers, through the development of his movies, including "The Producers", "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein", and "High Anxiety." McGilligan gives a balanced view of Brooks' ability to inspire both tremendous loyalty and lifelong animus in his collaborators. The happy ending, of sorts, to this biography is Brooks mellowing in his later years, and finding the Broadway success he'd always sought in the musical production of "The Producers."
July 20, 2019
More like "Funny Asshole."
March 27, 2019
Very disjointed with lots of information repeated over and over. It becomes annoying, as I read this in chunks. However, if you just want to read, say, the Blazing Saddles chapter, the added background detail -- repeated from earlier chapters -- is quite welcome.
He seems to be a credit-hogging, mean-spirited, thin-skinned, wildly-funny crank.
The author says -- in a footnote! -- that he had never met in person with so many people who refused to be interviewed about the subject for fear of Brooks's anger and litigiousness.
He seems to be a credit-hogging, mean-spirited, thin-skinned, wildly-funny crank.
The author says -- in a footnote! -- that he had never met in person with so many people who refused to be interviewed about the subject for fear of Brooks's anger and litigiousness.
August 10, 2019
I'm torn on this one. It is a biography, so it naturally lacks the heart and honesty of an autobiography. It has a lot of details, dates, dollars... so it is a very interesting puzzle that was put together. It is well written and the contract details throughout Mel's career are very interesting.
My main struggle is that it paints a very unflattering picture of Mel. The younger Mel always came in late, was loud-mouthed and always wanted the main credit where it wasn't merited. He comes across as a bully who lacks the discipline to create and follow through on an idea. He was a good "topper" who could touch up other's ideas, but then he wanted the full credit.
Through most of his mid-career, he seems to be more concerned with the financial aspects of his contracts than the quality/creativity of his work. No matter how much (or how little) he contributes, he demands the full credit - mainly for the financial repercussions. For example, Young Frankenstein was mostly Gene Wilder's idea and script, but the credit went mainly to Mel - no surprise the two didn't work together after that. Mel (and his lawyer) demonstrated other-worldly business acumen, but Mel should have been more focused on the product. The Producers was one of the first Broadway shows that was priced so high it keeps out the riff-raff (like me) and it was more of a money grab than a creative decision. Those high rates have not gone down since. A true artist would want everyone to have access to their craft, but it seemed that Mel would rather make more money than have "regular Joes" actually be able to afford to see his musical.
Mel was also a crappy father and husband to his first family. There's a passage that suggests he hurried a financial settlement with his first wife so that her lawyer would not hear about the up-coming success that will be Blazing Saddles. He wanted to short his wife and three kids so he can make more money!
His genius was more as a second banana. He could come in and improvise (like on talk shows) and be extremely funny. But he was not good at sitting down and doing the hard work of hammering out a full story. In the few tries he had more control, the projects were not as successful.
I love the first half of The Producers, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein. After that... meh.
I wanted to love the man whose name is on these projects, but its hard to love the man who wanted all the credit and did less of the heavy lifting than was first assumed.
In his later years, he seemed to become more of a mensch, but considering all of the headaches and financial shenanigans he put most of his collaborators through, it comes across as hollow and a day late & dollar short!
My main struggle is that it paints a very unflattering picture of Mel. The younger Mel always came in late, was loud-mouthed and always wanted the main credit where it wasn't merited. He comes across as a bully who lacks the discipline to create and follow through on an idea. He was a good "topper" who could touch up other's ideas, but then he wanted the full credit.
Through most of his mid-career, he seems to be more concerned with the financial aspects of his contracts than the quality/creativity of his work. No matter how much (or how little) he contributes, he demands the full credit - mainly for the financial repercussions. For example, Young Frankenstein was mostly Gene Wilder's idea and script, but the credit went mainly to Mel - no surprise the two didn't work together after that. Mel (and his lawyer) demonstrated other-worldly business acumen, but Mel should have been more focused on the product. The Producers was one of the first Broadway shows that was priced so high it keeps out the riff-raff (like me) and it was more of a money grab than a creative decision. Those high rates have not gone down since. A true artist would want everyone to have access to their craft, but it seemed that Mel would rather make more money than have "regular Joes" actually be able to afford to see his musical.
Mel was also a crappy father and husband to his first family. There's a passage that suggests he hurried a financial settlement with his first wife so that her lawyer would not hear about the up-coming success that will be Blazing Saddles. He wanted to short his wife and three kids so he can make more money!
His genius was more as a second banana. He could come in and improvise (like on talk shows) and be extremely funny. But he was not good at sitting down and doing the hard work of hammering out a full story. In the few tries he had more control, the projects were not as successful.
I love the first half of The Producers, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein. After that... meh.
I wanted to love the man whose name is on these projects, but its hard to love the man who wanted all the credit and did less of the heavy lifting than was first assumed.
In his later years, he seemed to become more of a mensch, but considering all of the headaches and financial shenanigans he put most of his collaborators through, it comes across as hollow and a day late & dollar short!
May 14, 2019
Prolific biographer Patrick McGilligan ("Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light") offers a massive warts-and-all biography of writer/director/producer/actor Mel Brooks. Brooks is a member of the exclusive club of EGOT winners (those who have won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony award), but his success and critical acclaim were hard-won. As a member of the writing team of the classic Sid Caesar TV series "Your Show of Shows", Brooks was often dismissed as a gagman who tossed out funny lines rather than a comedy writer who constructed scenes. All his eventual screenplays were co-authored with others.
McGilligan skillfully profiles Brooks's two sides--the bullying, raging and credit-grabbing "Rude Crude Mel" and the "Nice Mel," who performed discreet and generous acts of kindness and was a lightning rod for laughter in public. "Behind his façade as a perpetual amusant were depths of self-loathing and a fury at the world," writes McGilligan. The behind-the-scenes tales of "The Producers", "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein" and other films show Brooks's need for collaboration at constant odds with his desire to control everything. Much like his relationship with critics: "Brooks desperately yearned for the approval of critics while at the same time resenting their power and opinions," writes McGilligan. Brooks joked, "Critics are like eunuchs at an orgy--they just don't get it." But he also quoted negative reviews verbatim decades later.
This fascinating and exhaustive biography presents a complicated and immensely talented man whose inner demons fed his hilarious output of films, TV series and albums.
This thorough and candid biography of Mel Brooks showcases his outrageously funny creative talents and his prickly and litigious side.
McGilligan skillfully profiles Brooks's two sides--the bullying, raging and credit-grabbing "Rude Crude Mel" and the "Nice Mel," who performed discreet and generous acts of kindness and was a lightning rod for laughter in public. "Behind his façade as a perpetual amusant were depths of self-loathing and a fury at the world," writes McGilligan. The behind-the-scenes tales of "The Producers", "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein" and other films show Brooks's need for collaboration at constant odds with his desire to control everything. Much like his relationship with critics: "Brooks desperately yearned for the approval of critics while at the same time resenting their power and opinions," writes McGilligan. Brooks joked, "Critics are like eunuchs at an orgy--they just don't get it." But he also quoted negative reviews verbatim decades later.
This fascinating and exhaustive biography presents a complicated and immensely talented man whose inner demons fed his hilarious output of films, TV series and albums.
This thorough and candid biography of Mel Brooks showcases his outrageously funny creative talents and his prickly and litigious side.
February 2, 2019
A must-read for Mel Brooks fans
I loved this book. Author Patrick McGilligan tells a great story of Mel Brooks’s life and career. But the book is more than that; it is also a history of American comedic television. I’m a big Brooks fan and I couldn’t put the book down. But there is a darker side to Brooks that McGilligan also describes that is equally as fascinating as Brooks's comedic side. As a biography in general I think this book is well worth reading. But for anyone familiar with Brooks’s work, it is a must read.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Edelweiss for review purposes.
I loved this book. Author Patrick McGilligan tells a great story of Mel Brooks’s life and career. But the book is more than that; it is also a history of American comedic television. I’m a big Brooks fan and I couldn’t put the book down. But there is a darker side to Brooks that McGilligan also describes that is equally as fascinating as Brooks's comedic side. As a biography in general I think this book is well worth reading. But for anyone familiar with Brooks’s work, it is a must read.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Edelweiss for review purposes.
September 12, 2020
Really 2.5. This one is no 'puff piece.' Like they say you should never meet your idols, the same basically applies here. Sure, I imagine it would be tough for someone as unequally brilliant as Mel to stay humble, but yeah, he could just be an @sshole. Maybe he's sweetened in the last few years, but who knows.
From some interviews I've seen, the ego remains.
I mostly read this to learn about the movies. Three-quarters leading up mostly dragged, and then it dragged more.
Had I not known the subject would become more invigorating, 'Funny Man' would've been a quick DNF. I won't be revisiting this author.
From some interviews I've seen, the ego remains.
I mostly read this to learn about the movies. Three-quarters leading up mostly dragged, and then it dragged more.
Had I not known the subject would become more invigorating, 'Funny Man' would've been a quick DNF. I won't be revisiting this author.
November 7, 2019
This really flowed well. Mel doesn't always come out well but his work if fairly presented.
April 15, 2019
The Mel Brooks biography really got off to a slow, boring start, but I decided to give it a little more time. Brooks may seem like a harmless, funny old guy in public and in the media, but he was really driven, actually obsessed with success and his need for acknowledgement, so much so that he became a dreadful person to deal with professionally and in his personal life. The author thinks that some of Brooks’s behavior seemed to come from his own father dying when Mel was about 2, but his mother and brothers doted on him, so maybe it just came from being a spoiled child who never grew up. He was ruthless as a businessman, and cheated many people out of what should have been their rightful royalties and credits on projects that he claimed were entirely his creation. After finishing the book, it is obvious that other than The Producers, Brooks never had another original idea. Everything else was someone else’s creative property, or a retread of his humor.
Additionally, he pretty much abandoned his first wife and was inconsistent about supporting their children. There's a lot to dislike about this man. The interesting parts of the book are the ones concerning his more famous movies (The Producers, Blazing Saddles, and Young Frankenstein) and how they got written and produced. I learned that his company, Brooksfilms, was also behind some well-done, serious movies like The Elephant Man, and Frances (about the actress, Frances Farmer). Reading pages 428 through 434 will tell you everything you need to know about how he did business – even if the law may have been on his side, he should be embarrassed by his lack of ethics. In my opinion, Brooks totally defrauded the man who wrote the nonfiction novel that Frances was based on (Shadowland), denying him any credit or compensation for his intellectual property, and bullying him in meetings and in court, which devastated the author. Those few pages describing his behavior are horrifying to read. The author notes that many of the people who were interviewed for the book declined to be identified. What does that tell the reader? While the author did his job in showing all sides of Brooks's personality, at the end, he gives him the "lovable old guy" pass. On the whole, I came away with a much different opinion of this man, and I don't think I'd read the book ever again, nor recommend it.
Additionally, he pretty much abandoned his first wife and was inconsistent about supporting their children. There's a lot to dislike about this man. The interesting parts of the book are the ones concerning his more famous movies (The Producers, Blazing Saddles, and Young Frankenstein) and how they got written and produced. I learned that his company, Brooksfilms, was also behind some well-done, serious movies like The Elephant Man, and Frances (about the actress, Frances Farmer). Reading pages 428 through 434 will tell you everything you need to know about how he did business – even if the law may have been on his side, he should be embarrassed by his lack of ethics. In my opinion, Brooks totally defrauded the man who wrote the nonfiction novel that Frances was based on (Shadowland), denying him any credit or compensation for his intellectual property, and bullying him in meetings and in court, which devastated the author. Those few pages describing his behavior are horrifying to read. The author notes that many of the people who were interviewed for the book declined to be identified. What does that tell the reader? While the author did his job in showing all sides of Brooks's personality, at the end, he gives him the "lovable old guy" pass. On the whole, I came away with a much different opinion of this man, and I don't think I'd read the book ever again, nor recommend it.
August 25, 2019
If you wanted a book extolling the virtues of Brooks and pointing out the hilarious comic bits straight from page 1, this is not the read for you. With a very keen, and at times arduous hand, the author details Brooks' rise to fame with particular emphasis on his work in the 1950s and 60s. Relatively little is given over to the post History of the World era. With a true biographer's touch, he gives us the "warm" Brooks and the "tyrannical" side. If you enjoy these sorts of detailed biographies, then you will like the picture painted of a comic who does his best to promote, most of all, himself. The lengthy portrait is complete with well-documented figures of budget and contract stipulations, quotes from trade papers, interviews with those who worked with Brooks on various projects, and countless quips and quotes from Brooks himself.
In short, an objective work about a complex subjective person and persona.
My personal opinion of the book is that, like some of Brooks' films, it lags in places with too much of an emphasis on who did what and how much money was earned or not earned and where what took place. This is not the book you would pick up at the library of an easy read about one of the world's most beloved comedians/writers/producers/directors. It is one that you pick up to experience just how hard Brooks drove himself to get to where he is today. To that end, the author succeeds valiantly. It is not a work of flattery of the star, nor is it a work of complete demolition of his accomplishments. It strikes a decent balance between the two, but only decent. Being blind, I did not read the printed page, but the audio version of the biography. The narrator had a habit of raising the pitch of his voice at the beginning of a sentence and then lowering it at the end, but in a way that became irritating after the middle of the book. His attempt at impersonating Brooks' accent was decent, but not great. Much like the book itself, I've heard better narrators, I've heard worse ones.
In short, an objective work about a complex subjective person and persona.
My personal opinion of the book is that, like some of Brooks' films, it lags in places with too much of an emphasis on who did what and how much money was earned or not earned and where what took place. This is not the book you would pick up at the library of an easy read about one of the world's most beloved comedians/writers/producers/directors. It is one that you pick up to experience just how hard Brooks drove himself to get to where he is today. To that end, the author succeeds valiantly. It is not a work of flattery of the star, nor is it a work of complete demolition of his accomplishments. It strikes a decent balance between the two, but only decent. Being blind, I did not read the printed page, but the audio version of the biography. The narrator had a habit of raising the pitch of his voice at the beginning of a sentence and then lowering it at the end, but in a way that became irritating after the middle of the book. His attempt at impersonating Brooks' accent was decent, but not great. Much like the book itself, I've heard better narrators, I've heard worse ones.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 3, 2019
For the most part the book is very well written, not too much detail, however, I suppose because there are other biographies of Mel Brooks that covers the most. My opinion of Mel Brooks? To paraphrase Harriett Johnson from Blazing Saddles he is one of the leading assholes in Hollywood (or anywhere for the matter). Indeed he made his first wife miserable and reneged on providing anything for his first children. He sabotaged Anne Bancroft's directorial career to gratify his own ego; however, most of the time he had more misses than swings. He cheated on both wives, even though the book will be shady for Bancoft's marriage to Brooks. Well in his case once a cheater always a cheater. I think it is fairly obvious from two accounts that he was attempting to and did two time on her, more than once most likely. Unfortunately, McGilligan did not provide any possible motive to the abuse he put on Florence Baum and Anne Bancroft. The conclusion must be simply because he could and no said or did anything about it. Although around the 300 or page mark McGilligan said Brooks could be generous and gave the shirt off his back to someone; however, after all that it seems to fail to stir much in the soft heart for Brooks as a man. He was abusive not only to his wives but to people working with him, or as he saw it for him. He was ruthless, cold, indifferent, cruel and rather petty to the people that made Brooks films (not just under the umbrella name). Most of the credit he gives himself in the credits at the beginning of the film was not even due to his work or efforts. I couldn't find too much fault with the book, the subject itself, yes, but not the material.
September 14, 2020
When I saw this book in my local library, I picked it up and thought, "Does Mel Brooks deserve a 500+ page biography?" Turns out, yes ... almost.
Brooks is often described as the funniest man in the world, and in a long and extraordinarily successful career, he has lived up to that title. But as author Patrick McGilligan reveals in this warts-and-all bio, Brooks was often anything but funny behind the camera.
According to this meticulously researched book, Brooks was a notorious glory hog, assuming more credit than he deserved in many instances. He had a volcanic temper, often berating the actors in his films. He was, as one person in the book put it, motivated by money more than anything else. And his treatment of his first wife – whom he cheated on repeatedly, and tried desperately to screw her out of her alimony and child support – is shameful.
But the funny Brooks – Nice Mel, as McGilligan calls him – was a great friend and a comic genius, a man who made everyone around him laugh till the tears came. He was loyal to his second wife, the great actress Anne Bancroft. And, of course, he brought us The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Get Smart, Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, and the 2000 Year Old Man. About this lesser movies, the less said the better.
Funny Man is entertaining and revealing, but it falls victim to too much research. There are lengthy passages detailing Brooks' percentage of the share of the profits of his films, etc., which could have easily been eliminated or reduced, cutting a good 50 pages or more. But overall, if you're a film fan, and especially a fan of Brooks, this is a must read.
Brooks is often described as the funniest man in the world, and in a long and extraordinarily successful career, he has lived up to that title. But as author Patrick McGilligan reveals in this warts-and-all bio, Brooks was often anything but funny behind the camera.
According to this meticulously researched book, Brooks was a notorious glory hog, assuming more credit than he deserved in many instances. He had a volcanic temper, often berating the actors in his films. He was, as one person in the book put it, motivated by money more than anything else. And his treatment of his first wife – whom he cheated on repeatedly, and tried desperately to screw her out of her alimony and child support – is shameful.
But the funny Brooks – Nice Mel, as McGilligan calls him – was a great friend and a comic genius, a man who made everyone around him laugh till the tears came. He was loyal to his second wife, the great actress Anne Bancroft. And, of course, he brought us The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Get Smart, Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, and the 2000 Year Old Man. About this lesser movies, the less said the better.
Funny Man is entertaining and revealing, but it falls victim to too much research. There are lengthy passages detailing Brooks' percentage of the share of the profits of his films, etc., which could have easily been eliminated or reduced, cutting a good 50 pages or more. But overall, if you're a film fan, and especially a fan of Brooks, this is a must read.
April 28, 2020
Superb attention to detail or tedious minutiae? It may depend on your age group, as McGilligan goes all the way back, e.g. an entire chapter entitled “1952”, two years before I was born! The detail here is so polished however, that it would be strictly academic for me to glean much from this portion of the book. But hang in there, something will ring a bell, whether its “Your Show of Shows”, “The Producers”, “Blazing Saddles”, “Young Frankenstein” or “Spaceballs”.
Enjoyment of the book may also depend on your special interest. A hefty portion is concerned with behind the scenes machinations of who wrote what and got paid and credited before the material was plagiarized, stolen, optioned, rewritten, and finally aired, filmed or scrapped entirely. The web of collaborators on a particular piece is accurately reported but can make for an exhausting read. And if your bag is financing, there is an (over?) abundance of deal making reportage.
Another curious aspect of the book is its heavy reliance on block quotes from trade journals and newspaper reviews. The industry standard “Variety” is referenced over eighty times in the index, and magazine and newspaper reviews are presented, where available, for each production that Brooks had a hand in.
Unfortunately, much of this can feel like filler, and McGilligan essentially admits this. Due to Brooks propensity for litigation, the author had a tough time getting people on record. But this is my chosen guilty pleasure, pop music and movie tomes, and this one undeniably stands out as one of the better written.
Enjoyment of the book may also depend on your special interest. A hefty portion is concerned with behind the scenes machinations of who wrote what and got paid and credited before the material was plagiarized, stolen, optioned, rewritten, and finally aired, filmed or scrapped entirely. The web of collaborators on a particular piece is accurately reported but can make for an exhausting read. And if your bag is financing, there is an (over?) abundance of deal making reportage.
Another curious aspect of the book is its heavy reliance on block quotes from trade journals and newspaper reviews. The industry standard “Variety” is referenced over eighty times in the index, and magazine and newspaper reviews are presented, where available, for each production that Brooks had a hand in.
Unfortunately, much of this can feel like filler, and McGilligan essentially admits this. Due to Brooks propensity for litigation, the author had a tough time getting people on record. But this is my chosen guilty pleasure, pop music and movie tomes, and this one undeniably stands out as one of the better written.
July 12, 2019
3.5 stars that I won't round up to 4.
This is definitely a warts and all biography and I am having trouble with a couple of the warts. (No, I won't tell you what they are, read it yourself and make your own decisions.) Some of the warts have to do with him being egotistical and driven to always be on top, but if one is in that business, I guess one would need a big ego.
A lot of the book deals with his early years, with the comedy-brain trust that was part of Sid Caesar's coterie (including Carl Reiner, Neil Simon, Larry Gelbart, Woody Allen). I really related to the story once it got to his movie career, which has been pertinent in my life.
I have a few hairs to split with the author's writing style (How many times does one have to be reminded what EGOT is? If you are reading this book, I think the reader would know.). Sometimes, on multiple occasions, I needed to re-read a sentence to understand it. And, the mortal sin, he comments that he will "save" the reader from a bibliography, but then gives chapter notes to substitute aw bibliography. I think the bibliography would have been easier to read.
I did learn a lot about Brooks and others (imagine, Madeline Kahn was embarrassed because she is exactly the opposite of her scenes). I always like behind the scenes. That way, this book did not disappoint.
This is definitely a warts and all biography and I am having trouble with a couple of the warts. (No, I won't tell you what they are, read it yourself and make your own decisions.) Some of the warts have to do with him being egotistical and driven to always be on top, but if one is in that business, I guess one would need a big ego.
A lot of the book deals with his early years, with the comedy-brain trust that was part of Sid Caesar's coterie (including Carl Reiner, Neil Simon, Larry Gelbart, Woody Allen). I really related to the story once it got to his movie career, which has been pertinent in my life.
I have a few hairs to split with the author's writing style (How many times does one have to be reminded what EGOT is? If you are reading this book, I think the reader would know.). Sometimes, on multiple occasions, I needed to re-read a sentence to understand it. And, the mortal sin, he comments that he will "save" the reader from a bibliography, but then gives chapter notes to substitute aw bibliography. I think the bibliography would have been easier to read.
I did learn a lot about Brooks and others (imagine, Madeline Kahn was embarrassed because she is exactly the opposite of her scenes). I always like behind the scenes. That way, this book did not disappoint.
February 15, 2022
I didn’t set out to read two Mel Brooks books over the course of a few months, but after reading Mel’s autobiography, All About Me, I definitely felt something was missing. While it’s an enjoyable read, it’s really all about Brooks’s movies and plays, with just a bit of personal info, especially on his early years and stint in the army in WWII, leading up to his role as a writer in the classic 1950s TV series, Your Show of Shows, starring Sid Caesar. From that point on, the book is pretty much all-career, all the time.
And boy, is there a lot missing. Let’s just say that Funny Man: Mel Brooks by Patrick McGilligan covers all the bases, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And there’s a lot of the latter two; Mel Brooks is a very complicated man who isn’t quite the beloved comedy figure we’ve all come to know—or think we know. This is definitely a warts-and-all bio, like Sheila Weller’s Carrie Fisher book, and Brooks comes across as petty, jealous, and, at times, not a very nice guy. McGilligan goes into a lot of detail on Brooks’s career, much more so than Brooks himself in his autobiography. This is a dense, dishy book and it doesn’t pull any punches. If you love Mel Brooks, stick to All About Me, because this may change your mind about him; if you’re fascinated with a real look behind the curtain, then Funny Man is for you.
And boy, is there a lot missing. Let’s just say that Funny Man: Mel Brooks by Patrick McGilligan covers all the bases, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And there’s a lot of the latter two; Mel Brooks is a very complicated man who isn’t quite the beloved comedy figure we’ve all come to know—or think we know. This is definitely a warts-and-all bio, like Sheila Weller’s Carrie Fisher book, and Brooks comes across as petty, jealous, and, at times, not a very nice guy. McGilligan goes into a lot of detail on Brooks’s career, much more so than Brooks himself in his autobiography. This is a dense, dishy book and it doesn’t pull any punches. If you love Mel Brooks, stick to All About Me, because this may change your mind about him; if you’re fascinated with a real look behind the curtain, then Funny Man is for you.
August 10, 2022
A very entertaining book about a very talented (EGOT winner), very funny man. It goes into great detail about his early life in Brooklyn with his mother and brothers (his father died when Brooks was 2). It also details how he was always funny, always the class clown, and made the usual Catskills circuit but later made his bones with Sid Caeser. It goes through a lot of the background of his great ("Blazing Saddles," "Young Frankenstein") and not-so-great ("Dracula: Dead And Loving It.") And just when you think his career is played out, he comes out with a musical of "The Producers" which won 12 Tony Awards.
That's the good news. The bad news is that if you read this you may not like Mel Brooks, the man as much as you like Mel Brooks, the funny guy. While by all accounts he had a great marriage with his second wife Anne Bancroft, he was a pretty lousy husband to his first wife, a showgirl named Florence Baum. After their divorce he did everything he could to hide his increasing wealth from her, constantly crying poor mouth (despite the fact they had three kids together.) Mel is one massive ego and he always had to have the main credit and sometimes screwed others out of theirs. I could go on but you get the idea. After reading the book I came away with more respect for Brooks as an artist, less as a person. Sure, he's a sweetheart now but he's 96.
Anyway, read it. It's good.
That's the good news. The bad news is that if you read this you may not like Mel Brooks, the man as much as you like Mel Brooks, the funny guy. While by all accounts he had a great marriage with his second wife Anne Bancroft, he was a pretty lousy husband to his first wife, a showgirl named Florence Baum. After their divorce he did everything he could to hide his increasing wealth from her, constantly crying poor mouth (despite the fact they had three kids together.) Mel is one massive ego and he always had to have the main credit and sometimes screwed others out of theirs. I could go on but you get the idea. After reading the book I came away with more respect for Brooks as an artist, less as a person. Sure, he's a sweetheart now but he's 96.
Anyway, read it. It's good.
June 1, 2019
Someone I had previously thought as slightly funny turns out to be a moody, joke thieving, arrogant putz.
The book puts everything in the right perspective—both slightly good and monumentally bad.
The bad concerning this Jewish prick (and Brooks would agree completely with that phrase, though 'Gentiles' are not supposed to utter any form of anti-semitic statement nowadays—unless you are a Jew), taking his story to where I can see he stole joke ideas outright, took credit when it wasn't his and was a total cheap little vile weasel to most people unless he wanted to show off for narcissistic attention and egotistical admiration.
The good? Some aspects were interesting in regards to early television. That's pretty much what I got from the book.
Yet going on and on and on of how Brooks outmaneuvered this guy and then that guy and so on and so forth made for more of a boring reading experience than I really wanted. Really fucking boring.
Rant at HapperCollins publishers design department: whoever thought of the typeface to use should be slapped on the side of their head. THE '1's LOOK LIKE 'I's. Sloppy, tacky, and not very artsy if that was the sad purpose of doing so (seeing for example 1991 as I99I). Unless Brooks had a hand in it by his usual nature of being controlling.
Ultimately this was my discovering he's more of an asshole than I previously thought. A rich asshole, but still an asshole. Utterly and completely, grade A, 100% un-kashrut asshole.
Oh, I did find a couple of spelling errors.
Fire that typesetter. Mel Brooks would (even in his 90s for something to do because deep down he's a Semitic dickhead—maybe an old one, but still one). Putz. Big time.
The book puts everything in the right perspective—both slightly good and monumentally bad.
The bad concerning this Jewish prick (and Brooks would agree completely with that phrase, though 'Gentiles' are not supposed to utter any form of anti-semitic statement nowadays—unless you are a Jew), taking his story to where I can see he stole joke ideas outright, took credit when it wasn't his and was a total cheap little vile weasel to most people unless he wanted to show off for narcissistic attention and egotistical admiration.
The good? Some aspects were interesting in regards to early television. That's pretty much what I got from the book.
Yet going on and on and on of how Brooks outmaneuvered this guy and then that guy and so on and so forth made for more of a boring reading experience than I really wanted. Really fucking boring.
Rant at HapperCollins publishers design department: whoever thought of the typeface to use should be slapped on the side of their head. THE '1's LOOK LIKE 'I's. Sloppy, tacky, and not very artsy if that was the sad purpose of doing so (seeing for example 1991 as I99I). Unless Brooks had a hand in it by his usual nature of being controlling.
Ultimately this was my discovering he's more of an asshole than I previously thought. A rich asshole, but still an asshole. Utterly and completely, grade A, 100% un-kashrut asshole.
Oh, I did find a couple of spelling errors.
Fire that typesetter. Mel Brooks would (even in his 90s for something to do because deep down he's a Semitic dickhead—maybe an old one, but still one). Putz. Big time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews