The+Producers

Film Analysis

Mel Brook’s //The Producers// is a 1968 American satirical dark comedy film. It tells the story of a Broadway show producer and an accountant who aim to make a lot of money by taking much more money than they need (by means of investors) and producing a sure-fire Broadway flop so that they can keep the money paid by investors.

I couldn’t help but notice that in terms of lighting, the movie is very bland. Throughout the entire film, the lighting is very high key. However, this is arguably effective in labeling the tone of the movie, in that its plot is very straight-forwards, that the audience doesn’t need to look out for things like low key lighting where the personalities of characters are revealed or whatnot. There is also absolutely no side lighting, under lightning, or (obvious) backlighting in the movie. Every shot is very high-key and brightly lit, signifying the lack of story-wide depth.

Regarding cinematography and the composition of shots, for the most part the movie utilizes “normal” shots, with a few exceptions. I also noticed that there isn’t as much adherence to the rule of thirds as most films do. In many cases, the main characters are filmed with their face smack in the middle of the frame. The cinematography isn’t in any way displeasing, but like lighting, I didn’t notice anything that jumped out at me. The movie seems to have an abundance of medium close-up to medium wide shots and not so much extreme close-ups and wide-shots. Every single shot is handheld. This creates an energetic tone throughout the movie, and almost every shot of the characters walking is emphasized with a pan.

As far as editing goes, again it is very conventional. Every single edit is made with a clear cut. The editing in this film is also “invisible” editing, which means there are absolutely no cuts that are jarring to the audience. Therefore, it can be assumed that the editing in this movie has no intellectual depth to it, other than being for cinematographic purposes. I also noticed that there isn’t so much cross-cutting to show dialogue spoken between the two main characters as there are just master shots (close-up-medium shots). There isn’t much significance to this so I guess there isn’t much point in bringing it up. The editing, like the lighting and cinematography, is all but unique.

In concluding, I think it’s safe to say that this movie is exceptional, but not in its video-related aspects. I mean, the cinematography, lighting, and editing is perfect, in that it is invisible. Nothing in those three categories stands out, which is in the best interests of the director. I think this film stands out in its exceptionally funny plot, and thats where it succeeds, not by any unique aspects in its lighting, cinematography, and editing.

The direction of this film is excellent. Taking into account the time period which this movie was shot, I think Mel Brooks did an excellent job. The plot was exactly what you expected it to be, a backfiring of a devious plot. I find that in many films today, the plots have many twists and turns, many unexpected changes that constitute the “depth” many film critics expect today. However, I liked for a change having the plot exactly what I expected it to be, and I can imagine how successful this film was back in the day.