There was a time when parody was basically dead in films. While it still managed to thrive on the online space and there’s definitely been highlights in more recent times as movies of various genres have utilized a satirical edge to create a product that is distinct, memorable and (if required) humorous, there was a distinct era (mainly during the 90s and 2000s) when parody films had devolved from clever, witty, brilliantly written slides at famous movies, into gross-out, childish excuses to do whatever random movie reference was popular at the time. It ironically became a mockery of itself as opposed to a mockery of film as a whole, and left fantastic portrayals of satire in the past, whereas Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans existed to everyone’s chagrin. Arguably the two films that saw the transition of this dying age of parody; Scary Movie (which was still decently good in its own right but featured a lot of new tropes which these films would replicate) and the movie of topic today, the 1988 film, The Naked Gun. Police Squad Lieutenant Frank Drebin (played by the late Leslie Nielsen) proves to be mostly ineffective at his job but finds himself with a new case after another agent (played awkwardly by O.J. Simpson) is almost killed while investigating a drug operation led by Vincent Ludwig (played by Ricardo Montalbán). Though it seems obvious that Ludwig is evil, his public imagine prevents an easy arrest and even leads to Drebin forming a romantic bond with Ludwig’s assistant, Jane Spencer (played by Priscilla Presley). Through wacky slapstick, Drebin needs to prevent Ludwig from assassinating the Queen of England at a local baseball match. Claiming this movie was a key reason for the decline of parody is a large assumption as The Naked Gun was a very successful film when it came out, being a critical and commercial success upon release and even managed to get two sequels. So why would this mean a decline in parody?

This movie wasn’t coming from some random newcomers who had no idea of how to handle quality satire, it was actually from one who was responsible for one of the best parody movies of all time, David Zucker. His work on the 1980 film Airplane proved his genius in writing for a parody film and he and Mel Brooks were known for being the kings of the genre, with other examples like Young Frankenstein, The Producers, Blazing Saddles and Spaceballs being clear showings of this. What this movie lacked in comparison to those were things on a more basic level and it really affected a lot of aspect in not only this film, but many going forward. This movie doesn’t feel like its trying to rip off a specific film, rather a figure and genre as a whole (mainly doing a James Bond riff and the spy genre in general). This isn’t an immediate failure as it’s a franchise thats open to tons of mockery and could lead way into some clever jokes, but the mistake comes in the fact that it doesn’t feel like its even trying to do satire. Nothing is dissected or poked fun at on a genre-level, its not a film that feels like its using its satire or parody to make a point or highlight a specific trait, rather a tool for making a light-hearted comedy with a spy edge. It becomes clear that this is going to be a very watered-down version of a parody; with predictable humor, no sense of cleverness or mockery of the franchise or genre its based on, and a story-line that is about as basic as it could be. The script by Zucker, along with his brother Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Pat Proff isn’t very memorable or interesting even for a standard spy flick, this plot is nothing of worth, and this wouldn’t be an issue if it had anything else backing it up (like a sense of awareness of what it was doing). Thankfully, while its portrayed as bland and lacking in creativity, it isn’t painful to get through and instead exists as a babies-first comedy with a bare-bones plot and structure to excuse the humor it has.

Another key element that really excels when it comes to comedy is investment in character. It’s a clear fact that people will be more invested in a movie when they are invested in the characters, and its equally as important in comedies when its a defined role getting caught up in comedic possibilities as it makes the situation more connectable and therefore more likeable and humorous to get through. It makes it extra annoying when the characters in this movie are so boring, simplistic, and unlikeable. They are the most straightforward tropes you would find in a movie like this, but without anything new or interesting added onto it. A bumbling spy would maybe be an okay idea at the time, but not when it’s the character’s only conceivable personality trait, as its going to get old really quick when there’s nothing else to care about outside of basic spy lingo and tropes. Nielsen has proven to be a funny actor in the past, he is perfectly fine here, but it’s a character that definitely isn’t worth remembering (its essentially what Rowan Atkinson copied later on for his film, Johnny English). Priscilla Presley is just the sex object, the rest of the police force are basic archetypes, Ricardo Montalbán can ooze charisma effortlessly, but he’s got nothing to work with, so he’s left out to dry. Clearly a majority of these actors are talented people who could work with this set-up if given better material (outside of a specific person who is omitted for obvious reasons), so its more just wasted potential rather than garbage performances.

A movie like this really needs to rely on its laughs to really stand out as obviously, this movie wasn’t going to offer a gripping story or Oscar-worthy performances. On the surface, it looks like its heavily reliant on the slapstick, grotesque and immature style of humor as opposed to the more quick-witted, brilliantly tight, and ingeniously clever and satirical stance that previous parodies had strives on. The movie wanting to adopt a more streamlined and generic format isn’t a bad thing as its unfair to compare it to such classics, but this easy form of comedy is not only something that could easily be replicated (as it was), but its also not a movie that has much staying power or rewatch-ability because the jokes aren’t more interesting or have a deeper level on a second viewing; they are presented as basic and are remembered as basic. It has lame puns that try to be clever, wordplay that at times can be quick and sneak in something a little funny, but nothing outright clever, and its visual and physical comedy is some of the better aspects of the film but is something that anyone could see in any basic Disney channel film, its nothing special. It makes sense that the film is tailored towards its slapstick because it’s helmed by a creative team best known for their slapstick in the 80s (David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker), but it came about from a cancelled parody tv series, Police Squad! which was also known for its sight gags, wordplay and non-sequiturs.

The reason that this was a middling point for the parody genre was that this strode away from the more clever and subtle nature of the films and introduced a more obvious childish nature to the genre which would then be further simplified and modernized in Scary Movie, until the floor fell out from under it and the horrors were unleashed. To make a clear point, The Naked Gun is nowhere near as awful as those later examples, as much as it isn’t nearly as good as the previous examples. While movies like Airplane and Young Frankenstein are gems, and films like Epic Movie and others made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer aren’t worthy of being called dog vomit, this movie is just harmlessly inoffensive. It won’t be an awful sit, and even if it might not make you laugh, it won’t make you hate everything in it, its too innocently simple to get that reaction. Whether a fan of the movie parody or not, witness this film and see if it deserves the praise it got, or if it should have died with its original series.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,