12 ms·

"the BBC famously televised a debate ... Each side totally failed to understand the other" Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculo

"the BBC famously televised a debate ... Each side totally failed to understand the other" Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculous childishness of the comically pompous bishop and Muggeridge who both repeatedly avoided engaging and simply derided the film as "tenth rate" etc. A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades. For a more interesting take on Life of Brian at 40, see yesterday's "How we made": https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/16/how-we-made-monty-python-life-of-brian-michael-palin-terry-gilliam https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/16/how-we-made-mon...

inflatableDodo 8y ago
I can't remember which exactly, though I think it was the bishop, but one of them afterward admitted to have missed the start of the film and therefore didn't know that it was made clear that Brian was not Jesus in the opening scene.
- simonh 8y ago
  The thing is the film is nothing but respectful to Jesus, who does make a few brief appearances, and in fact what is presented of Jesus' teachings and example in life is wholly reverent. What they do mercilessly lampoon are all the hangers-on, unthinking followers, ungrateful beneficiaries and various religious functionaries that follow rules before they follow principles. Those people get a proper drubbing.
  - inflatableDodo 8y ago
    That's true and it may more properly explain why it annoyed Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood quite so much. I looked it up and apparently it was Muggeridge who had skipped the beginning of the film. Perhaps he had also skipped the bit in the bible about bearing false witness, it is quite a large book after all.
    - Gupie 8y ago
      Even if he missed the beginning it is clear from other scenes in the film that Brian is not Jesus, e.g. "blessed are the cheese makers". So the story is either apocryphal or Muggeridge only watch clips of the film.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    > What they do mercilessly lampoon are all the hangers-on, unthinking followers, ungrateful beneficiaries and various religious functionaries that follow rules before they follow principles. Those people get a proper drubbing. So basically the whole Church Inc. with its highly pyramidal management structure, messy internal politics, hunger for power/money and a history that noone could possibly be proud of.
    - MadcapJake 8y ago
      I see it more as poking fun at the human desire for some magical silver bullet answer to life's sufferings and the big "why". We cling to random meaningless things so hard that we could easily mess it all up and mistake someone for messiah. On a macro level, sure it says organized religion is no better than a cult that became mainstream. On a subjective level, it says don't spend your days dwelling on snake oil meant to save you from the sufferings of life, just look at the bright side and carry on!
      - HillaryBriss 8y ago
        > On a subjective level, it says ... just look at the bright side and carry on! interesting. i never looked at the film that way. i took the message in that scene to be that optimism can be overdone, that maybe the belief in Jesus's death/resurrection was simply optimism taken to a really absurd extreme
Joeboy 8y ago
I only ever knew Malcolm Muggeridge as the heel in the infamous televised LoB debate, until I read this interesting review of his autobiography: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles-of-wasted-time/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles...
- pjc50 8y ago
  That's quite a read, now I want to read his autobiography too. It does however reveal some places where SSC's thinking and history is a lot thinner than he realises.
dalbasal 8y ago
For me, that interview symbolizes a certain turning point in the political/cultural role of bishops and the church. There is such an obvious dichotomy between the authority the clerics expected to be regarded with and the realilty. They looked and sounded so anachronistic. The moral authority just seemed gone. They just looked like python caricatures, robes, misplaced pomp and all. Meanwhile, these comedians were winning at the philosophical sparring. I'm from the next island over. We trailed the UK by 10-20 years, in terms of secularism and church authority. But, starting from a much more religious/clerical point and reaching and arguably more secular one very fast. There have been several key referendums recently, and the church simply failed to mount an opposition. Appearing in regalia and demanding the moral authority because "I am a bishop of the church" would have been a ridiculous spectacle. That element of power was long gone. In my symbolic narration of the story, Cleese and Palin did that in that interview.
- dash_underscore 8y ago
  Also from that island and I'd like to mention that "Life of Brian" was banned by the film censor there. I only got to see it at a private screening by a college society. That ban was rescinded at some point, I think in the 1990s. It's hard to fathom now, because the film seems so innocuous -- I think it was just a taboo subject at the time.
- zeristor 8y ago
  Didn’t “the next island over” have Father Ted Crilly at just the right time? Sunday opening is still constrained, although seemingly by labour MPs for unions, and Easter Sunday seems to be still betrothed to the church, even though it’s the Celtic festival of spring.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    Sure. You can annotate the history however you want. I don't think there's a "truth." Various clerical abuses/scandals probably played the real lead role, if you ask most people. You can always convincingly argue for "one damned thing after another" as the real engine of history. There's also the plain fact that the BBC interview involved an entirely different church in a different country, which is points againt my version. ..That's why I say symbolic. That interview just feels like the magic is gone, curtain is pulled or pick your metaphor. Suddenly (it seemed to take them by surprise) the bishop was just an old man in silly clothes who couldn't make a relevant argument, didn't seem like an authority and wouldn't be taken more seriously than the comedians who's film had interesting commentary, besides being funny and entertaining. It captured a moment, imo. I also like python... so bias.
HenryBemis 8y ago
Religion falls under Dogma (the greek word - δόγμα). I believe in it because it is right, and it is right because I believe in it. Religion doesn't follow logic. It follows belief. It is like saying "the team that I support is better than the team that YOU support". Even if "my" team hasn't won anything for the last 100 years. Even if "your" team beats us 100-0 on every game. Just bad luck, the referee didn't see things clearly, the coach made a few untested last minute changes, the list is endless. But the dogma remains. MY belief/idea is better then YOUR belief/idea, and that is that. And this is why many people (including me) are rejecting religion/"The Church". I want people to have the freedom to believe whatever they want, but I cannot get into a dialogue on religion. I remember from the music video of Van Halen - Right Now [1]: Right Now, god is killing moms and doges because he has to (the clip displays this in all caps, I will respect everyone's eyes) [1]: https://youtu.be/rMV-fenGP1g?t=48 https://youtu.be/rMV-fenGP1g?t=48
- garmaine 8y ago
  That didn't use to be the case historically, for what it's worth. The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old, dating to the time when naturalists put the final nail in the coffin of expectation of science validating religious beliefs.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    > The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old Nah. > Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20 Christianity at least was always about (blind) faith. And I'd argue all abrahamic religions were like that. Let's not forget the start of the all these religions - Abraham blindly believing god so much that he tried to kill his son. Or maybe try Hiob's story (I believe in English it's Job?). God killed his family to win a bet with the devil, and Job was supposed to keep his faith because he will get a new better family in the end. Or the wife of Lot who was changed into a salt pillar because she dared to look back at the cursed city (damn LGBT, it ruined Sodom ;) ) instead of blindly believing the god and going away. There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear.
irb 8y ago
There was quite a good sketch by Not The Nine O'Clock News which reversed that debate, in which the film The Life of Christ is accused of parodying the revered Monty Python. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U
- sjwright 8y ago
  I had seen the debate but not that sketch. Utterly brilliant. For reference and completeness, here is the debate it parodies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3GcPrW9xg&t=190 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3GcPrW9xg&t=190 (Brace yourself for a classy joke at 4:50)
  - juhanima 8y ago
    Thanks for the link! I'm just watching the debate, and it seems both sides kind of got a point for a while. There they are, the sceptics, clowns or rational thinkers on the other side, who I root for instinctively, and the pompous stiffs on the other. But I think the stiffs also had something going on for them with their idea of some awe and humility - and excellent pronounciation. Gotta love the civilized ways of a British debate! Seems like it was only after John Cleese made a more seriours thrust that the stiffs got scared and went into a hedgehodge defense and it all turned boring and ridiculous. Vintage!
- Quekid5 8y ago
  Wow. NTNOCN could be quite hit and miss, but that sketch was absolutely spot on.
JohnBooty 8y ago
A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades. Personally, I feel Life of Brian has aged infinitely better than Holy Grail, primarily because (my fellow) nerds haven't strip-mined it for "quotes." When I first saw Holy Grail, I thought it was the funniest thing ever. Now the mere mention of "it's only a flesh wound" and other such lines makes me want to hurl myself out of a window. I've probably heard that line recited 1,000 times! Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculous childishness of the comically pompous bishop and Muggeridge who both repeatedly avoided engaging and simply derided the film as "tenth rate" etc. Palin and Cleese were being disingenuous. In a literal sense, Brian is of course not Jesus. However, the film clearly lampoons the arbitrary nature of religion and who gets to be called a messiah and things like that. In that sense it very clearly is a parody of Jesus' life and of religion in general. (As an atheist and huge fan of the movie, I certainly don't mind. But Life of Brian most certainly does make light of Christianity, among many other things)
- MrBuddyCasino 8y ago
  "I said 42!" He cocked his gun, pointing the barrel at a random nerd in the crowd. "Now LAUGH! Its what you're supposed to do."
gerbilly 8y ago
Link to the televised debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYMpObbt2rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYMpObbt2rs
dqpb 8y ago
Here is one of the opening quotes from Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark: Here is a question I would ask, What are you really trying to say in this film? I believe you wear on this a wee bit earlier but unfortunately we only got the picture outside, not the voice, which was something that husbands might want of their wives... Classy.

inflatableDodo 8y ago

I can't remember which exactly, though I think it was the bishop, but one of them afterward admitted to have missed the start of the film and therefore didn't know that it was made clear that Brian was not Jesus in the opening scene.

simonh 8y ago
The thing is the film is nothing but respectful to Jesus, who does make a few brief appearances, and in fact what is presented of Jesus' teachings and example in life is wholly reverent. What they do mercilessly lampoon are all the hangers-on, unthinking followers, ungrateful beneficiaries and various religious functionaries that follow rules before they follow principles. Those people get a proper drubbing.
- inflatableDodo 8y ago
  That's true and it may more properly explain why it annoyed Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood quite so much. I looked it up and apparently it was Muggeridge who had skipped the beginning of the film. Perhaps he had also skipped the bit in the bible about bearing false witness, it is quite a large book after all.
  - Gupie 8y ago
    Even if he missed the beginning it is clear from other scenes in the film that Brian is not Jesus, e.g. "blessed are the cheese makers". So the story is either apocryphal or Muggeridge only watch clips of the film.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  > What they do mercilessly lampoon are all the hangers-on, unthinking followers, ungrateful beneficiaries and various religious functionaries that follow rules before they follow principles. Those people get a proper drubbing. So basically the whole Church Inc. with its highly pyramidal management structure, messy internal politics, hunger for power/money and a history that noone could possibly be proud of.
  - MadcapJake 8y ago
    I see it more as poking fun at the human desire for some magical silver bullet answer to life's sufferings and the big "why". We cling to random meaningless things so hard that we could easily mess it all up and mistake someone for messiah. On a macro level, sure it says organized religion is no better than a cult that became mainstream. On a subjective level, it says don't spend your days dwelling on snake oil meant to save you from the sufferings of life, just look at the bright side and carry on!
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      > On a subjective level, it says ... just look at the bright side and carry on! interesting. i never looked at the film that way. i took the message in that scene to be that optimism can be overdone, that maybe the belief in Jesus's death/resurrection was simply optimism taken to a really absurd extreme

Joeboy 8y ago

I only ever knew Malcolm Muggeridge as the heel in the infamous televised LoB debate, until I read this interesting review of his autobiography: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles-of-wasted-time/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles...

pjc50 8y ago
That's quite a read, now I want to read his autobiography too. It does however reveal some places where SSC's thinking and history is a lot thinner than he realises.

dalbasal 8y ago

For me, that interview symbolizes a certain turning point in the political/cultural role of bishops and the church. There is such an obvious dichotomy between the authority the clerics expected to be regarded with and the realilty. They looked and sounded so anachronistic. The moral authority just seemed gone. They just looked like python caricatures, robes, misplaced pomp and all. Meanwhile, these comedians were winning at the philosophical sparring. I'm from the next island over. We trailed the UK by 10-20 years, in terms of secularism and church authority. But, starting from a much more religious/clerical point and reaching and arguably more secular one very fast. There have been several key referendums recently, and the church simply failed to mount an opposition. Appearing in regalia and demanding the moral authority because "I am a bishop of the church" would have been a ridiculous spectacle. That element of power was long gone. In my symbolic narration of the story, Cleese and Palin did that in that interview.

dash_underscore 8y ago
Also from that island and I'd like to mention that "Life of Brian" was banned by the film censor there. I only got to see it at a private screening by a college society. That ban was rescinded at some point, I think in the 1990s. It's hard to fathom now, because the film seems so innocuous -- I think it was just a taboo subject at the time.
zeristor 8y ago
Didn’t “the next island over” have Father Ted Crilly at just the right time? Sunday opening is still constrained, although seemingly by labour MPs for unions, and Easter Sunday seems to be still betrothed to the church, even though it’s the Celtic festival of spring.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  Sure. You can annotate the history however you want. I don't think there's a "truth." Various clerical abuses/scandals probably played the real lead role, if you ask most people. You can always convincingly argue for "one damned thing after another" as the real engine of history. There's also the plain fact that the BBC interview involved an entirely different church in a different country, which is points againt my version. ..That's why I say symbolic. That interview just feels like the magic is gone, curtain is pulled or pick your metaphor. Suddenly (it seemed to take them by surprise) the bishop was just an old man in silly clothes who couldn't make a relevant argument, didn't seem like an authority and wouldn't be taken more seriously than the comedians who's film had interesting commentary, besides being funny and entertaining. It captured a moment, imo. I also like python... so bias.

HenryBemis 8y ago

Religion falls under Dogma (the greek word - δόγμα). I believe in it because it is right, and it is right because I believe in it. Religion doesn't follow logic. It follows belief. It is like saying "the team that I support is better than the team that YOU support". Even if "my" team hasn't won anything for the last 100 years. Even if "your" team beats us 100-0 on every game. Just bad luck, the referee didn't see things clearly, the coach made a few untested last minute changes, the list is endless. But the dogma remains. MY belief/idea is better then YOUR belief/idea, and that is that. And this is why many people (including me) are rejecting religion/"The Church". I want people to have the freedom to believe whatever they want, but I cannot get into a dialogue on religion. I remember from the music video of Van Halen - Right Now [1]: Right Now, god is killing moms and doges because he has to (the clip displays this in all caps, I will respect everyone's eyes) [1]: https://youtu.be/rMV-fenGP1g?t=48 https://youtu.be/rMV-fenGP1g?t=48

garmaine 8y ago
That didn't use to be the case historically, for what it's worth. The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old, dating to the time when naturalists put the final nail in the coffin of expectation of science validating religious beliefs.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old Nah. > Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20 Christianity at least was always about (blind) faith. And I'd argue all abrahamic religions were like that. Let's not forget the start of the all these religions - Abraham blindly believing god so much that he tried to kill his son. Or maybe try Hiob's story (I believe in English it's Job?). God killed his family to win a bet with the devil, and Job was supposed to keep his faith because he will get a new better family in the end. Or the wife of Lot who was changed into a salt pillar because she dared to look back at the cursed city (damn LGBT, it ruined Sodom ;) ) instead of blindly believing the god and going away. There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear.

irb 8y ago

There was quite a good sketch by Not The Nine O'Clock News which reversed that debate, in which the film The Life of Christ is accused of parodying the revered Monty Python. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U

sjwright 8y ago
I had seen the debate but not that sketch. Utterly brilliant. For reference and completeness, here is the debate it parodies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3GcPrW9xg&t=190 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3GcPrW9xg&t=190 (Brace yourself for a classy joke at 4:50)
- juhanima 8y ago
  Thanks for the link! I'm just watching the debate, and it seems both sides kind of got a point for a while. There they are, the sceptics, clowns or rational thinkers on the other side, who I root for instinctively, and the pompous stiffs on the other. But I think the stiffs also had something going on for them with their idea of some awe and humility - and excellent pronounciation. Gotta love the civilized ways of a British debate! Seems like it was only after John Cleese made a more seriours thrust that the stiffs got scared and went into a hedgehodge defense and it all turned boring and ridiculous. Vintage!
Quekid5 8y ago
Wow. NTNOCN could be quite hit and miss, but that sketch was absolutely spot on.

JohnBooty 8y ago

A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades. Personally, I feel Life of Brian has aged infinitely better than Holy Grail, primarily because (my fellow) nerds haven't strip-mined it for "quotes." When I first saw Holy Grail, I thought it was the funniest thing ever. Now the mere mention of "it's only a flesh wound" and other such lines makes me want to hurl myself out of a window. I've probably heard that line recited 1,000 times! Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculous childishness of the comically pompous bishop and Muggeridge who both repeatedly avoided engaging and simply derided the film as "tenth rate" etc. Palin and Cleese were being disingenuous. In a literal sense, Brian is of course not Jesus. However, the film clearly lampoons the arbitrary nature of religion and who gets to be called a messiah and things like that. In that sense it very clearly is a parody of Jesus' life and of religion in general. (As an atheist and huge fan of the movie, I certainly don't mind. But Life of Brian most certainly does make light of Christianity, among many other things)

MrBuddyCasino 8y ago
"I said 42!" He cocked his gun, pointing the barrel at a random nerd in the crowd. "Now LAUGH! Its what you're supposed to do."

gerbilly 8y ago

Link to the televised debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYMpObbt2rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYMpObbt2rs

dqpb 8y ago

Here is one of the opening quotes from Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark: Here is a question I would ask, What are you really trying to say in this film? I believe you wear on this a wee bit earlier but unfortunately we only got the picture outside, not the voice, which was something that husbands might want of their wives... Classy.