** 1\2 (out of ****)
Things are rotten for Mel Brooks in "Life Stinks" (1991).
"Life Stinks" begins with a shot of a limousine driving. We don't immediately see who is being driven inside the limo but we do hear a business report being listened to on the radio. The reporter states the country is going through a recession. Unemployment claims have increased while the price of gold is up. At this moment the limo drives over a puddle and splashes nearby homeless people. The opening credits begin with the movie's title, Life Stinks.
It didn't take much, but Brooks and his gang of writers (Rudy De Luca and Steve Haberman) instantly set up central conflicts and the mentality of the characters. It is a world where the rich get richer (the price of gold is up) and the poor get poorer (unemployment rises). The rich have no regard for the poor (the splashed homeless people) and the poor feel their lives stink. Its message never goes out of fashion and feels eerily timely. Today, Wall Street has had steady gains while Labor Statistics reveal unemployment rates near 15% (14.7%). The highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression.
"Life Stinks" isn't one of Brooks' movie parodies although its premise - a wealthy man gives up his resources to live among the homeless - recalls Preston Sturges' classic "Sullivan's Travels" (1941). In Sturges' comedy a movie director (Joel McCrea) wants to become a serious artist and stop directing musical-comedies. His next movie will be about human suffering. However, in order understand the plight of the poor he must live among them. In "Life Stinks" a wealthy real estate developer, Goddard Bolt (Brooks) bets a rival developer, Vance Crasswell (Jeffrey Tambor) he can survive the mean streets of L.A. for thirty days in exchange for a slum district each man owns a percentage of and has plans to rebuild.
This type of material doesn't naturally lend itself to comedy, especially Brooks' wild, vulgar humor. But "Life Stinks" tries to find a balance between comedy and heartfelt sentiment. As difficult as it is to believe, Mel Brooks kind of wants to direct a "message movie" - a commentary on poverty in America. This from a man who once directed a movie where a horse gets punched in the face.
To solidify Goddard Bolt's contempt for the poor, Brooks presents him in the most unsympathetic terms. He literally walks all over the poor when he steps on the hand of a worker waxing a floor. When his lawyers inform him 6,000 acres of a Brazilian rain forest would need to be cut down for one of his developments, Bolt doesn't bat an eye. He jokes that the natives won't want to live there anymore because of a lack of shade. When told a development in Florida would require tearing down a nursing home, Bolt suggests doing it at night, to avoid bad press.
And so it goes. The poor are merely a nuisance to the rich. They are an easily disposable obstacle interfering with their business deals. As Bolt shows off an urban scale model of a new development area, he flicks one of the figures representing the homeless into a trash bin.
Seemingly contrasting Goddard Bolt's heartless businessman veneer, Vance Crasswell is a man who understands the working class because he came from nothing. Bolt says he did too. His father left him with only five million - nothing! (kind of sounds like Donald Trump, perhaps an inspiration for the character.) But beneath the Columbo-ish homespun simplicity, Crasswell is just as deceitful (maybe more so) as Bolt. It is Crasswell's idea to bet Bolt he can't last on his own living homeless.
Once Bolt accepts the bet and is left to his own devices we reach the crux of Brooks' story. What makes the poor, poor? Are they ignorant or just plain lazy? "Life Stinks" argues neither is true. They are victims of circumstance. They have ingenuity but lack resources and a social network. Their fathers' didn't leave them with a five million dollar head start. That is the only advantage the rich have. If it were truly an even playing field where would Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be? Where would their first meal come from? How would they find shelter from the rain?
To solidify Goddard Bolt's contempt for the poor, Brooks presents him in the most unsympathetic terms. He literally walks all over the poor when he steps on the hand of a worker waxing a floor. When his lawyers inform him 6,000 acres of a Brazilian rain forest would need to be cut down for one of his developments, Bolt doesn't bat an eye. He jokes that the natives won't want to live there anymore because of a lack of shade. When told a development in Florida would require tearing down a nursing home, Bolt suggests doing it at night, to avoid bad press.
And so it goes. The poor are merely a nuisance to the rich. They are an easily disposable obstacle interfering with their business deals. As Bolt shows off an urban scale model of a new development area, he flicks one of the figures representing the homeless into a trash bin.
Seemingly contrasting Goddard Bolt's heartless businessman veneer, Vance Crasswell is a man who understands the working class because he came from nothing. Bolt says he did too. His father left him with only five million - nothing! (kind of sounds like Donald Trump, perhaps an inspiration for the character.) But beneath the Columbo-ish homespun simplicity, Crasswell is just as deceitful (maybe more so) as Bolt. It is Crasswell's idea to bet Bolt he can't last on his own living homeless.
Once Bolt accepts the bet and is left to his own devices we reach the crux of Brooks' story. What makes the poor, poor? Are they ignorant or just plain lazy? "Life Stinks" argues neither is true. They are victims of circumstance. They have ingenuity but lack resources and a social network. Their fathers' didn't leave them with a five million dollar head start. That is the only advantage the rich have. If it were truly an even playing field where would Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be? Where would their first meal come from? How would they find shelter from the rain?
Goddard Bolt may have been a billionaire but he struggles to make a dollar in the slums. Knowing about stocks and real estate won't help him survive. He dances for money. Nothing. He attempts to clean car windshields. Nothing. He seeks shelter in a church but it is closed. He sleeps under cardboard and is urinated on.
In a way "Life Stinks" hints at a nature vs nurture argument ("Trading Places" (1983) anyone?). The homeless aren't homeless because they want to be but can adapted to their environment and can survive. A rich man placed in this same environment has a difficult time adjusting. They have went through life with a silver spoon in their mouth and aren't unaware of the harsh realities of living poor. Playing the stock market doesn't make you a survivor.
Brooks however creates a 1930s Hollywood movie version of poverty. The destitute characters in "Life Stinks" are a kind of happy-go-lucky community. Bolt makes friends with the man who urinated on him, Sailor (Howard Morris, Brooks' old friend from his Sid Caesar days), Fumes (Teddy Wilson) and a potential love interest, crazy bag lady Molly (Lesley Ann Warren).
"Life Stinks" may have been set in 1991 America but its heart is in 1930s Depression-era Hollywood. Brooks, born in 1926, was too young to really know of the horrors of the 30s. He lived in poverty but like most people, probably didn't realize he was poor. The movies of the era may have shaped his view on the issue more than his reality. As is typical in a Brooks movie, there is a song and dance routine, this time to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love" between Bolt and Molly. It hits at the problem with "Life Stinks". It is a romanticize version of poverty. Characters find time to dance. They aren't in any real danger.
For a movie that wants to champion the downtrodden, "Life Stinks" doesn't really have very much to say on the issue. Brooks is sympathetic towards the poor but how does society overcome the stigma of poverty? Bolt may now know of their struggles but once he goes back to his old life, what will he do? Besides Bolt, there is never a moment when characters show kindness to the poor and begin to see them as real people. Because of that the movie lacks the poignancy of Charlie Chaplin's (the only other comedian I can think of that has masterfully dealt with this subject matter).
At best, the movie makes half-measured gestures and goes on auto-pilot. The movie lacks depth and doesn't have a strong voice. Brooks & Company are never able to find big laughs. Over his career Brooks has gained a reputation as one of the funniest men in Hollywood. Nothing in "Life Stinks" scores high on the Brooks laugh-a-meter. I smiled, on the inside, watching the movie but nothing here is memorable. It very well may have been Brooks' intention not to make a laugh riot but he has no insight. The movie never becomes a stinging critique of the capitalist system.
One of the funnier moments in the movie comes near the end. Bolt, by now suffering a nervous breakdown, encounters a delusional man (Rudy De Luca) who believes he is J. Paul Getty. Bolt and the man get into a Three Stooges style confrontation arguing who was richer. It comments on the ego of the rich. The mansions, the yachts, the vacations, what is it all for? It is all a game of one-upmanship. The confrontation serves as a kind of mirror to Bolt and Crasswell. Life is just a game between them, signified by the very nature of their bet. They have their own battle of one-upmanship. Crasswell wants to be just as rich as Bolt. That is about as hard hitting as "Life Stinks" gets.
The movie has a negative reputation which proceeds it. Regarded as one of Brooks' worst, people usually joke "Life Stinks...and so does the movie". Yet, it has endured and acquired a kind of cult status. I know more people that have seen this movie than some of Brooks' better comedies. Mention the title to people and they will know what you are talking about.
Not known for social commentary, Brooks would appear to be the wrong choice for a movie such as this but Brooks actually made a better movie about class distinction and the poor. His second directorial effort, "The Twelve Chairs" (1970) was based on a piece of Russian literature, set 10 years after the 1917 Russian Revolution. Brooks hits his targets and is able to find humor in the quest of its two main characters searching for a hidden fortune. There are even those that cheer the movie as Brooks' funniest. It is proof positive that Mel Brooks could have been a very good director. Brooks should have used his own movie as an inspiration instead of Sturges'.
"Life Stinks" isn't necessarily a bad movie. I admire the commentary it attempts to tell. Its heart is in the right place but doesn't do justice to the issue. What is in the future for its characters? I guess all they can do is "Hope For The Best, Expect The Worst"!
Posts
