She was right. No person should miss either of these movies.
I find it difficult to believe that Mel Brooks would cut the scene because he was afraid of complaints. That doesn’t sound like the man who gave us The Producers, Young Frankenstein, and Blazing Saddles. The scene sounds like it would fit perfectly in the movie.
I remember that too. Now I’ll have to get my (several years old) tape out and watch it again to see if it’s on there.
And I vote for only one Igor. I think he did the eye thing by choosing which eye he focused on Gene at any particular time.
I recently bought the DVD and was going to start a Young Frankenstein thread of my own. On the DVD, you can hear Mel Brooks’s commentary, and Brooks backs this story up, saying he wanted to ditch the scene, but Gene Wilder fought to keep it.
I don’t know about the theory that Feldman is playing two Igor’s however, since Brooks doesn’t mention it during his commentary (not that that proves anything), but:
His humpback moves from one side to the other, perpetually.
I’ve always taken this at face value as a silly joke for the audience.
His “walleye” changes sides in accordance with the humpback. (probably by flipping the negative for the eye, since Feldman’s eye was actually that way IRL)
Brooks mentions something about Feldman’s eyes during the commentary, about how he had extraordinary peripheral vision, but couldn’t see very well straight ahead. I agree with whoever said it was probably just Feldman using a different eye to focus on Wilder.
He seems to be in two places at once, such as when he is tying the kites on the roof, then suddenly appears at Wilders side below in the lab, while Wilder is still talking to him on the roof.
I always took this as a joke also, Igor moving so fast in the face of danger. When he does suddenly show up, he’s asked if he tied down the kites, which he replies, “Of course,” implying that he was indeed just on the roof.
(uncomfirmed) IIRC, Feldman’s character corrects Wilder to address him as “EYEgor” at the train station, then later changes the correction to “EEEgor” later on. (spelling mine for phonetics)
And now I have another excuse to re-watch the movie, but I don’t recall him telling someone to call him EEgor.
One of the things I didn’t realize until I watched the DVD with the commentary, was that the scene with the townspeople having a meeting (I believe it’s the first scene where we meet Kenneth Mars’s character) is that one of the people says, “We still have nightmares from 5 times before!”
That is a reference to the original Frankenstein and its 4 sequels.
The funniest line ever, anywhere, and I have spent nearly 20 years trying to explain it to every significant love of my life. A few have seen YF at my insistance, but mostly, I get a dull and blank look…
Young Frankenstein was the very first DVD I rented when I got my player last Christmas.
“Igor, help me with these bags, won’t you.”
“Alright, you take the blonde, and I’ll take the one in the turbin.”
Freakin’ cracks me up every time.
The deleted scenes on the DVD have an extended out-takes portion of this bit in which Gene Wilder can not keep a straight face for the life of him. In the final version, you can see in one of the shots from behind Gene that he is chuckling, or at least starts to chuckle.
Ok, so my “two Igor’s theory” doesn’t hold up, but it was amusing, nonetheless.
This is my favorite part!
Wilder: “Wow! What knockers!”
Garr: “Thank you.”
One of many of the funniest lines ever set to celluloid in this film.
and “Hi Opel!”
and
Frau Blucher: “Stay close to the candles…”
and
“Put the candle back!”
and
singing: “Sweet mystery of life at last I found you…”
and the classic: “It could be worse. It could be raining.” <crash of thunder, rain starts pouring>
I’ve always thought that line was hilarious, but I can’t put into words why. How do you explain it?
To me, it’s the unexpected innocence in hearing a gnarled old crone say “he vas my boyfriend!” when I was expecting something more frank, I guess, like “we were lovers!” or something like that.
Feldman and Garr playing charades to figure out what Gene Wilder wants them to do about the fact that The Monster is choking the life from him (“SedaGIVE?”).
Gener Wilder and Madeline Kahn meeting at the train station and her not letting him too close (“The hair, watch the hair. The dress, please. Its taffetta darling.”). They end up rubbing elbows.
Madeline Kahn giving The Monster grief about not putting his “poo poo undies” in the hamper.
Just so many really great scenes. I don’t think Blazing Saddles is anywhere nearly as funny as YF.
And if you haven’t seen the original and Bride of Frankenstein do yourself a favor and do so. I like Bride of Frankenstein even better than the first. “We belong dead.”
“Pardon me, boy, is this the Transylvania station?”
[german accent]“Ja, track 29. Should I give you a shine?”[/german accent]
Cracks me up every time I see it.
*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**To me, it’s the unexpected innocence in hearing a gnarled old crone say “he vas my boyfriend!” when I was expecting something more frank, I guess, like “we were lovers!” or something like that. **
Yes!
I tried explaining it to my SO and got the blank look again! “Because she uses ‘boyfriend’, not ‘lover’!” I enthused.
Blank look.
Sigh.
*Originally posted by CalMeacham *
The entire movie – title and all – is a broad parody of the third Universal movie, Son of Frankenstein, starring Basil Rathbone (!)
Also a quasi-sequel, I always thought. Rathbone’s character has a little boy with curly golden hair, who would be the original Frankenstein’s grandson, although I can’t remember his name. I kinda assumed Gene Wilder was supposed to be the grown up version.
**It didn’t have Karloff as the Monster **
Actually, I think it did have Karloff, in his last appearance as the Monster. Dwight Frye was in it too, but his scenes were cut out before release.
*Originally posted by Clucky *
**Seen it maybe 20-25 times.The Puttin’ on the Ritz dance routine. The whole scene killed me. I mean, why would you prove to the scientific community that you’ve created a human from dead parts by having him dance and sing? And why would the scientists react in anger when this new discovery is upset by fire during the routine? Friggin’ hilarious. **
I’ve always enjoyed this as as commentary not on the scientific community, but as Brooks’ arch comment on the nature of showbiz and critics. You can create a performer out of “dead parts”, but their neuroses get the best of you. Perhaps that’s reading too much into what stands vaudevilliciously on it’s own…