By the time you have mastered a particular genre, to the point where you are considered one of the most influential figures to have ever worked within it, you can afford to take a few risks on occasion. Mel Brooks is inarguably one of the greatest comedic filmmakers to have ever worked in the medium, but even he seemed to grow tired of constantly just making films centred on outrageous humour. We can see this reflected in his efforts to produce far more serious fare, with films like The Elephant Man and The Fly carrying the Brooksfilm banner, despite being about as far from the hilarious, off-the-wall comedies with which he was more commonly associated. Never daring enough to actually direct a straight drama of his own, since he was smart enough to know his niche and realized that viewers would come into his films with a certain expectation (which is primarily why he remained uncredited on the more dramatic films he produced, since it would be misleading to promote these films under his name), he did occasionally venture into slightly more sobering territory in his own right, even if it wasn’t always successful. Outside of The Twelve Chairs (which is a very funny story, but one that doesn’t lend itself to as much outrageous humour as his later films, and which was most effective when it surrendered to the more melancholy aspects of the original novel), Brooks’ most serious film is Life Stinks, which is still inarguably a comedy, but one that is far more layered with more dramatic material, with the director abandoning the off-the-wall humour in favour of something slightly more grounded. As of now,this film occupies a very odd place in Brooks’ career – it came towards the end of his directorial career, only helming two further films over the next few years before focusing on writing and producing, as well as acting. It is a very touching film, but a very different film than what we may expect from Brooks, who goes in search of something much deeper, and whether he is successful or not in this endeavour is a matter of interpretation.

When making any kind of radical departure from the style you are known for, an artist is always going to encounter a few obstacles, whether in the production itself or in the aftermath. It seemed like Brooks ran into both with the creation of Life Stinks – this feels like a production that was built upon him pursuing an idea that he knew would be a major change of pace for him, and the industry, critics and audiences certainly picked up on this too, since upon its release, the film was not treated with the same respect as all of his previous work, which is particularly concerning considering how track record up until that point had been relatively flawless, with even slightly more divisive efforts like History of the World, Part I and Spaceballs having staunch defenders. It would be surprising to find anyone that considers Life Stinks as their favourite of his films, and even his own approach seems to be about experimenting with the kind of story he told. However, even at its most deviant, this is still very much a Brooks film, it just takes a very different approach to the subject matter, abandoning the concept of parody (which was his primary method of storytelling, and a genre in which he felt most comfortable, as evident by the fact that his two subsequent films would return to that kind of satirical approach), and being more emotionally-aware of the content of his stories, focusing a lot less on absurdist or darkly comical humour, and more on the more intricate aspects. It is by far his most human film on an objective level, but this does not automatically qualify it from being particularly good or all that creative – but as a whole, we can be a lot more sympathetic to his efforts to do something different, considering the final product does have a lot of merit on its own.

There is something slightly disingenuous about a wealthy filmmaker who had been consolidated into the mainstream for nearly half a century making a film about the plight of the poor. Yet, if any director was going to do it and make it seem genuine, it would be Brooks, who has always fashioned himself as a proverbial man of the people, even at his most eccentric. His penchant for hilarity is far more entertaining when we realize that beneath the veneer, he is a hard-working, genuinely sympathetic artist who understands the importance of emphasizing different ways of living, which is what the impetus behind Life Stinks seemed to have been. Considering he lives in an era where capitalism has gotten to the point of fetishizing the working class, where CEOs engage in humanitarian activities such as being homeless for a night, or where television shows like Undercover Boss are wildly popular for the sake of the pleasure that comes in seeing the wealthy cut down to size, Brooks was certainly ahead of the curb. Life Stinks may not be the comedic Leninist fable that some make it out to be, and it is very much steeped in praising the virtue and generosity of those select few wealthy people who have a heart, which is obviously not the most concise approach to this material, but the best that could be done considering what Brooks was working with. It is almost disorienting to see him make something so simple, and while there are many hilarious moments, this film is anchored within reality, enough to show that even when dealing with a sociocultural parable, Brooks could string together enough of a narrative to make something quite special, even if it is a far cry from everything else has done as a director. It is difficult to view Life Stinks as anything more than an experiment, and while it isn’t perfect, it is certainly not the failure it is made out to be, especially since the intentions are strong enough to outweigh the sometimes flaccid humour and forced attempts to lighten the mood on what is really a very sobering story of human suffering, which is rendered as quite hilarious under Brooks’ direction.

Life Stinks may not be Brooks’ finest hour as a director, but it certainly is one of his better acting performances, particularly in one of his own films. His usual process was to either play entertaining supporting roles to more adept leads, or to take on central roles while surrounding himself with some of the funniest people in the industry – both methods worked well, and are responsible for many of his best films, especially since he has never conveyed the sense of being vain enough to believe himself to be the funniest person in any room (especially not for someone who has always emphasized the importance of the professional and personal relationship he had with Carl Reiner, his lifelong friend and regular creative collaborator), nor did he consider ever believing he was the most effective actor. Yet, despite its very humorous tone, there is something about his performance in Life Stinks that feels so incredibly insightful and honest, which is not something we would necessarily expect from such material. Brooks is a fantastic actor when he allows himself the chance to develop his characters as more than just broad comedic archetypes (which are undoubtedly very effective and hilarious, they just don’t always embody the spirit of complex acting), and this film intermingles with The Twelve Chairs in showing a more tender, earnest side of his acting, which is a rare occurrence, especially since he always chose to be funny long before dramatic, which is an understandable choice. The rest of the cast is very good – Lesley Ann Warren is terrific as Brooks’ love interest, and Jeffrey Tambor plays another patrician villain who represents the capitalistic greed of society, something that he has often played regularly enough for it to be his niche. The performances in Life Stinks are good enough for us to overlook a few of the narrative flaws, with Brooks in particular proving that he can deliver a knockout performance that is both complex and hilarious, with this entire film being a showcase for his slightly more serious talents.

It is difficult to ever criticize something Brooks has made, since he is such a comedic institution on his own, and he is responsible for so much of contemporary humour – but he is also not infallible, and he was certainly not immune to fumbling on occasion, and the important part is that he never allowed these failures or missteps to dictate his career, instead choosing to pursue different ideas, based on what entertained him as a writer and director. Life Stinks is not a bad film as a whole, and efforts to misconstrue its departure from his usual style as an outright failure are often mean-spirited and propelled by a sense of nostalgia for the outrageous comedies that normally defined his career. Instead, it is a film defined less by its concept, and more by the human element that underpins it. This is not the best representation of Brooks’ directorial career (while somehow being one of his best performances as an actor, which is something that even its detractors have acknowledged), and is best viewed as more of an experiment than anything else. However, we can still find a lot of value in this film and how it perceives the world that surrounds it, being blisteringly funny and deeply insightful when it needed to be, while also carrying a sense of complexity that may not manifest perfectly, but has enough meaning to bring some of its more challenging ideas to the forefront. Life Stinks is entertaining enough, and for those who have some patience, there are many decent elements that keep us engaged, which is essentially all we required from such a film, which was never meant to be taken all that seriously in the first place.