14 ms·

Life of Brian: The most blasphemous film ever?

111 points by vanilla-almond 7y ago

kace91 7y ago
In my country (Spain), there are religion classes from primary school all the way until university. For public (state managed) schools - which are the majority - students choose between religion or an optative class, which usually consists of either ethics, morals, or world religion from a non-believers perspective (sort of anthropological studies). Every year, the religion teacher at my school would organise a day together with the other class' teacher, where students of both classes would spend the hours together, and the activity chosen was a showing of Life of Brian. I've always remember that as a beautiful idea. It's a movie that roasts everyone from believers to left wing associations, and yet with pretty clean humor - so it was an amazing tool to teach students of both "sides" the lesson that it's ok to laugh at yourself and to get along with others.
wpietri 7y ago
All this talk of banning films seems so anachronistic now. And George Carlin's 7 dirty words routine [1] and its related Supreme Court legal fight is now nearly 40 years old as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
- rolltiide 7y ago
  American expectations of censorship are so interesting, as the whole society was formed by film and radio's attempts to market to the whole country at once, specifically restrictive middle America. Its clearer now that broadcasting hot spots of New York City and Los Angeles were not prudish about content in the early 20th century, while the Oklahoma's of the nation only wanted fully clothed people, speaking very cordial language, as long as all the actors were white or portrayed segregated culture. Strange to think how that influenced a dynasty of casting decisions still seen today.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Yeah, I think it's interesting how we didn't have nearly as much formal government censorship, but that commercial interests converged on the same sorts of outcomes. And yes, I think the history is especially interesting around visible versus invisible minorities. Plenty of people in the Hollywood of old were GLBTQ and got away with it because they could hide it. But that didn't work for racial bias.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      There was rampant government censorship, it was at the state level all because the Supreme Court said motion pictures weren't protected by the 1st amendment in 1910, reversing itself in 1950s after the damage was done and culture wide censorship was expected by American families. Circumstances like this are why industries don't lay off on lobbying. To add to your second point, a lot of European and Middle Eastern people changed their names to blend into the white majority power as their subgroup was not seen favorably for most of the 20th century and were many times not considered to be part of an amorphous “white” group which meant worse treatment in jobs housing credit and court rulings, this issue and distinction has mostly evaporated with "white" being expanded and reduced to skin tones in the later 20th century in the US with there very little interest or cognizance of pre-US heritage. This just being another example how invisible minorities and ability to "pass" to attain privileges, where people with different skin tones and visible phenotypes simply could not change those things and discovered that people with other similar phenotypes experienced surprisingly similar outcomes.
winchling 7y ago
Were it released today, it would be just as subversive, but for a different reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA
- naz 7y ago
  Transphobia isn’t subversion, it’s just a cheap way to get a laugh from a 1970s audience
ChrisSD 7y ago
What I find hilarious about that debate with the bishop is that they apparently missed the first five minutes or so of the film and didn't understand that Brian wasn't in fact Jesus. What made it more funny is that this should have become painful obvious even without that bit of context. Of course the absurdity of it is that the film's biggest target for ridicule was the left wing of British politics at the time. It barely touched actual Christianity. But as the article mentions, it was the next film that leaned in to the criticism of Christianity (albeit mostly mocking the modern day Church and not Christ).
- joering2 7y ago
  The other guy wasn’t better. His assumption was that because 14 years old don’t know much about Christ or Christianity, after watching this obvious satire comedy made by people who produce many more comedy inthe past, all of sudden that’s all they would believe regarding a Christian religion as a whole. There is so many problems with this even when you go back in times it was debated. I would say there was more harm actually to give someone like that a voice on nationl TV to fearmonger parents that their kids are in danger. It also gives an author too much credit. I mean think about making a silly movie that has altered thinking process of a whole nation. There is never been a single movie like that and there never will be. And baning that movie just proved again why US had to part from Brits frankly, and how different America really is.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I don't follow your last point. It was Ireland and Norway that banned the movie, not Britain. Some British and American towns banned it, I believe mainly as a result of lobbying by evangelical Christian groups, and all did so sight unseen. America was the place with the most widespread demonstrations against the movie though. So how does USA and Britain doing the exact same thing, to roughly similar extent prove any difference or historic need to separate?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Like most people at the time, it was the Not the Nine O'Clock News skit that everyone knew of and were talking about afterwards. I only saw the cringe worthy debate when it was repeated, some time after Mel Smith's far more mature debate. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U Muggeridge and the bishop sounded incredibly pompous and anachronistic, even in 1979. The Catholic church particularly organised a fabulous publicity campaign for the Pythons. Every few days yet another fossilised Arch something-or-other relic turned up in the news to complain of a film they hadn't even watched. I thought Meaning of Life carefully directed at ridiculous Papal edicts and Catholic dogma, vs equally ridiculous CofE flavoured Protestantism, rather than anything against Christianity itself. It was wildly heretical - against the church, but not blasphemous. And had the Galaxy Song, so should have been far more successful than it was. :)
flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago
I just began watching the first episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus (the TV show) for the first time last night (it was released almost 50 years ago today), and I could not believe how insanely funny it was. I assumed that because of it's age, it would be at least a bit outdated. Perhaps it was just way ahead of it's time?
- vnorilo 7y ago
  It always blows me away how well it has aged. As for being ahead of its time, we might miss some of the context: at the time, cross-dressing apparently caused some controversy, which doesn't readily occur to me while watching them now.
  - ggm 7y ago
    I watched them on original release and I feel the semi constant (ironic) homophobia and women-as-drudge and cross dressing really palls. some days I think python is the original "women aren't funny so we don't have any" meets "dressing up as women us funny because we're men" thing. Some stuff is excellent but not all. It made more sense when the BBC interstitial was contemporary. (Goodies did the same thing with itv ad break intro pattern). The 'fake end of transmission' was also done by Spike Milligan. It got so we'd stay watching ten minutes after broadcast in case something was coming back. One time in 1974 the BBC cancelled the broadcast for pompidou's death and we rang to complain. Outrage! How dare surreal humour be stopped for some french presidents carcass? Given Chapman's homosexuality it has to be ironic. The cross dressing and ooo you are awful mincing stuff: It just doesn't seem funny to me any more. Saw them live in the seventies, they were an excellent ensemble and Niel Innes (rutles) deserves more recognition for his pythyon role (he brought the kings theatre, edinburgh to a standstill reprising Elton John's 'tommy' gig with one chord) Terry Gilliam nude at a piano and John Cleese nude as BBC presenter felt like some of the first male nudity on screen.
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      Wow, that is a depressing reimagining. Perhaps focus on some nice things instead of being 'palled' at things. The word is 'apalled', and stop being so snooty. You dont appear better by waving your store bought virtue flag, you just come off as an arrogant hipster.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ourcat 7y ago
All interesting stuff. But scratching my head as to why things like this end up on Hacker News? Seems to happen a lot these days.
- Alex3917 7y ago
  Maybe because 8chan was just shut down in a similar moral panic.
  - knolax 7y ago
    Look, I don't know about you, but if I die in a shooting I would prefer that the guy who did it didn't plan it on the same knock-off imageboard that people go to for obscure fetish porn. It's the principle of the thing, I would prefer they have the decency to maintain their own comms infrastructure.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      I would prefer they have the decency to maintain their own comms infrastructure They will, but now instead of a well known place where the police/FBI know they are going to go, they'll be deeper underground. Sort of like the whole shutting down craigslist and other personals sites because they were a haven for sex trafficking - so instead of having a well-known place where law enforcement could find illicit activity, the activity was driven farther underground and harder to find.
      - knolax 7y ago
        I understand the point but personally I think law-enforcement is equally useless in both situations. With the latter the bar for entry is higher. Argal I'll have the peace of mind of knowing that the shooter isn't an amateur and that they didn't come across the idea while looking for Vore.
- ourcat 7y ago
  Though if interested in learning more, I recommend watching this 4-part debate on the subject from 1979. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ni559bHXDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ni559bHXDg
mikeash 7y ago
I can never understand why religious people can be so insecure about their religion. If you believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe is on your side, why would you care in the slightest about some movie?
- atennapel 7y ago
  Because the all-powered creator will not stop the movie, which I guess shows the weakness of the god. So they have to act for him instead.
  - btmorex 7y ago
    What makes you think that God didn't find the movie funny?
    - atennapel 7y ago
      Well some of his followers certainly thought that.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  Because if some modern author can make up a fantasy universe, so can a prehistoric one- and when its all a fairytale, nothing you anchored your life around is not flimsy.
- knolax 7y ago
  Presumably, that all-powerful creator judges not just the individual but entire societies by their actions, so by allowing such films to be made the religious might become guilty by association.
- kleton 7y ago
  Is it hard to understand defending your society's values?
  - ajmurmann 7y ago
DanBC 7y ago
The article mentions in passing that some councils in the UK banned the film: > In Britain, opposition wasn’t as fierce, but there was plenty of it. Some local councils banned the film, a measure which did it no harm at all: people would simply flock to the nearest city where it was showing. This is a bit confusing but we have the BBFC who gave the film an AA (14 or over) age rating when it was released in cinemas, and then mostly 15s for the home releases, and most recently a 12A. On top of the BBFC we have local councils who licence venues for entertainment, and some of those councils banned cinemas from showing the film. Some of those bans were pretty long. I think Glasgow had a 30 year ban. It's not a good situation.
bediger4000 7y ago
If you watch the 1979 "debate" with those two old fops, ou find that most or all of the current BBC article is sourced from that show. Coincidentally, youtube suggested it to me last night, and I watched it. That Archbishop of whatever was generally lying when responding to Cleese's (very commonly held) points about how nobody tells you we don't know who wrote the Gospels, or even in what city, and that there's quite a bit of argument about when they were written. And even more about the common content, and why it's in different orders in each gospel (except John, which is really different, and Jesus is 40 years old at the time of the crucifixion). It was as if the two old fops hadn't even watched the movie in question. I'm surprised Palin and Cleese didn't just tear into them. Maybe I'm just used to folks live-tweeting events like that nowadays.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  There has always been a lot of argument about the gospels, as they put forth a radical idea that is unacceptable to many. However, just because people argue about it does not take away from the claims made there, or the internal consistency of the accounts. Are there claims of inconsistency? Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection. Monty Python was a genius comedy troupe, but all you have to do is look at the sad life that Cleese ultimately led to see they may not be a source of inspiration for how you should lead your life. The disciples of Jesus on the other hand were, with one exception, killed for their beliefs. The one exception being John, who died in exile on an island.
  - moogleii 7y ago
    "Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection." Please elaborate.
    - tomohawk 7y ago
      This statement is in response to the broad claim of inconsistencies in the accounts. If anyone needs to elaborate, it is the original claimant. Is there a claimed inconsistency you would seek to have explained?
fareesh 7y ago
This kind of puritanical worldview has now taken over so many aspects of culture. If you said a joke 10 years ago, i.e. blasphemed against some sacred topic, you can't host the Oscars anymore. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. It sure looks like humans need to fill the void of religion with something.
- option 7y ago
  there is no void. Plenty of humans (myself included) live not only without believing in god but without a need to believe. “It’s easy if you try” I think what is needed is some basic education and security in life.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fareesh 7y ago
    My comment was less about religion as belief in God and more about religion as its societal impact. Humans who believed in something with devotional fervor instituted blasphemy laws and censorship. Today's humans believe in other things with equal zealotry and are utilizing the same tyrannical solutions.
buboard 7y ago
If you made a similar film about Muhammad today it would be banned everywhere. Things haven't changed that much
- projektfu 7y ago
  I'm not so sure, because the Life of Brian didn't make fun of Christianity, although it did poke fun at the throngs that were searching for a messiah. Similarly, I think you could pull off a comedy about a bunch of Bedouins in 7th century Arabia who are generally ignorant of the actual current of change in their time and seeking a different, abortive attempt at overthrowing the established order.
  - buboard 7y ago
    I mean a similar film. I can't imagine it to go down easily.
    - projektfu 7y ago
      In this case I really think it mattered more that a bunch of people who didn't see the film had preconceived notions about it and took it upon themselves to make a stink. Certainly that could happen in the Muslim world as well, as happened with the Satanic Verses. But that didn't have to happen (although it might have been good for publicity).
- 1over137 7y ago
  Banned? You'd get assassinated, like Theo van Gogh.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
sxyuan 7y ago
For all the commenters laughing at those silly religious folks who protested the film, consider this: is there anything you hold sacred? What if a film came out that satirized, I don't know, science, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or racial equality? Admittedly, such a film may not have much comedic value, but I suspect it would nonetheless induce a decent amount of outrage, at least with the average reader here. You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred. You may say, "I'm secure in my beliefs - go ahead and mock." Well, to be honest, we'd be in the same boat, you and I. As a Christian, I suppose I wouldn't mind watching "Life of Brian". But to put ourselves in the shoes of the protesters - would you want the next generation to grow up in an environment where, say, the science of evolution is the target of mockery? (I imagine in some parts of the US that's not so far from the truth.) My point is, laughter is a powerful weapon. And children laughing along at the jokes may not catch all of the nuance outlined in the BBC article. Even if nothing is sacred, some things may still be important enough to try to influence the culture over. Were the protests silly? Did they end up achieving the opposite of what they intended? Sure. But that's a matter of results, not purpose. Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh.
- moogleii 7y ago
  "You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred." Is it? You've tried to distill things down to belief or sanctity, but if we go one step further, we're talking about opinion. E.g. "It is my opinion x is sacred." The actual false equivalency to me would be that we can freely strip down facts and science to mere opinion and sanctity. "The Earth is sphere-like is an opinion and I hold it sacred." Sure, people are welcome to question facts, but the bar is higher if you actually want others to believe your version. And that's the difference. If I have a differing view challenging a fact or theory, well, prove it. Do the work beyond just opening my mouth. Science is always trying to self-correct. One man in the system may hold firm to a belief without merit, but his colleagues may not, and what is provable lives on. But if one decides to have a different religion or decides gruyere is better, they don't have to prove anything to anyone, except maybe themselves. If there is a time where the science of evolution is mocked and laughed at, because of the inherent bar of provability, I think we'll be fine either way. "Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh." I personally think it would be healthier for people to learn to accept constructive criticism and be the butt of a joke once in awhile. Which, if we get back to the heart of the matter (rather than "science"), The Life of Brian isn't just mockery for mockery's sake. It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise questions. It is the opinion's humorous version of an opposing scientific view. The bar of quality is not so high as a scientific proof, but satire generally only works when the questions it raises are valid.
DonHopkins 7y ago
Oops, I got confused and thought this was "Life of Brine", the discussion about the video "A Year Ago I Put Saltwater in a Jar"! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20770682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20770682

In my country (Spain), there are religion classes from primary school all the way until university. For public (state managed) schools - which are the majority - students choose between religion or an optative class, which usually consists of either ethics, morals, or world religion from a non-believers perspective (sort of anthropological studies). Every year, the religion teacher at my school would organise a day together with the other class' teacher, where students of both classes would spend the hours together, and the activity chosen was a showing of Life of Brian. I've always remember that as a beautiful idea. It's a movie that roasts everyone from believers to left wing associations, and yet with pretty clean humor - so it was an amazing tool to teach students of both "sides" the lesson that it's ok to laugh at yourself and to get along with others.

wpietri 7y ago

All this talk of banning films seems so anachronistic now. And George Carlin's 7 dirty words routine [1] and its related Supreme Court legal fight is now nearly 40 years old as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

rolltiide 7y ago
American expectations of censorship are so interesting, as the whole society was formed by film and radio's attempts to market to the whole country at once, specifically restrictive middle America. Its clearer now that broadcasting hot spots of New York City and Los Angeles were not prudish about content in the early 20th century, while the Oklahoma's of the nation only wanted fully clothed people, speaking very cordial language, as long as all the actors were white or portrayed segregated culture. Strange to think how that influenced a dynasty of casting decisions still seen today.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Yeah, I think it's interesting how we didn't have nearly as much formal government censorship, but that commercial interests converged on the same sorts of outcomes. And yes, I think the history is especially interesting around visible versus invisible minorities. Plenty of people in the Hollywood of old were GLBTQ and got away with it because they could hide it. But that didn't work for racial bias.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    There was rampant government censorship, it was at the state level all because the Supreme Court said motion pictures weren't protected by the 1st amendment in 1910, reversing itself in 1950s after the damage was done and culture wide censorship was expected by American families. Circumstances like this are why industries don't lay off on lobbying. To add to your second point, a lot of European and Middle Eastern people changed their names to blend into the white majority power as their subgroup was not seen favorably for most of the 20th century and were many times not considered to be part of an amorphous “white” group which meant worse treatment in jobs housing credit and court rulings, this issue and distinction has mostly evaporated with "white" being expanded and reduced to skin tones in the later 20th century in the US with there very little interest or cognizance of pre-US heritage. This just being another example how invisible minorities and ability to "pass" to attain privileges, where people with different skin tones and visible phenotypes simply could not change those things and discovered that people with other similar phenotypes experienced surprisingly similar outcomes.

winchling 7y ago

Were it released today, it would be just as subversive, but for a different reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

naz 7y ago
Transphobia isn’t subversion, it’s just a cheap way to get a laugh from a 1970s audience

ChrisSD 7y ago

What I find hilarious about that debate with the bishop is that they apparently missed the first five minutes or so of the film and didn't understand that Brian wasn't in fact Jesus. What made it more funny is that this should have become painful obvious even without that bit of context. Of course the absurdity of it is that the film's biggest target for ridicule was the left wing of British politics at the time. It barely touched actual Christianity. But as the article mentions, it was the next film that leaned in to the criticism of Christianity (albeit mostly mocking the modern day Church and not Christ).

joering2 7y ago
The other guy wasn’t better. His assumption was that because 14 years old don’t know much about Christ or Christianity, after watching this obvious satire comedy made by people who produce many more comedy inthe past, all of sudden that’s all they would believe regarding a Christian religion as a whole. There is so many problems with this even when you go back in times it was debated. I would say there was more harm actually to give someone like that a voice on nationl TV to fearmonger parents that their kids are in danger. It also gives an author too much credit. I mean think about making a silly movie that has altered thinking process of a whole nation. There is never been a single movie like that and there never will be. And baning that movie just proved again why US had to part from Brits frankly, and how different America really is.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I don't follow your last point. It was Ireland and Norway that banned the movie, not Britain. Some British and American towns banned it, I believe mainly as a result of lobbying by evangelical Christian groups, and all did so sight unseen. America was the place with the most widespread demonstrations against the movie though. So how does USA and Britain doing the exact same thing, to roughly similar extent prove any difference or historic need to separate?
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Like most people at the time, it was the Not the Nine O'Clock News skit that everyone knew of and were talking about afterwards. I only saw the cringe worthy debate when it was repeated, some time after Mel Smith's far more mature debate. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U Muggeridge and the bishop sounded incredibly pompous and anachronistic, even in 1979. The Catholic church particularly organised a fabulous publicity campaign for the Pythons. Every few days yet another fossilised Arch something-or-other relic turned up in the news to complain of a film they hadn't even watched. I thought Meaning of Life carefully directed at ridiculous Papal edicts and Catholic dogma, vs equally ridiculous CofE flavoured Protestantism, rather than anything against Christianity itself. It was wildly heretical - against the church, but not blasphemous. And had the Galaxy Song, so should have been far more successful than it was. :)

flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago

I just began watching the first episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus (the TV show) for the first time last night (it was released almost 50 years ago today), and I could not believe how insanely funny it was. I assumed that because of it's age, it would be at least a bit outdated. Perhaps it was just way ahead of it's time?

vnorilo 7y ago
It always blows me away how well it has aged. As for being ahead of its time, we might miss some of the context: at the time, cross-dressing apparently caused some controversy, which doesn't readily occur to me while watching them now.
- ggm 7y ago
  I watched them on original release and I feel the semi constant (ironic) homophobia and women-as-drudge and cross dressing really palls. some days I think python is the original "women aren't funny so we don't have any" meets "dressing up as women us funny because we're men" thing. Some stuff is excellent but not all. It made more sense when the BBC interstitial was contemporary. (Goodies did the same thing with itv ad break intro pattern). The 'fake end of transmission' was also done by Spike Milligan. It got so we'd stay watching ten minutes after broadcast in case something was coming back. One time in 1974 the BBC cancelled the broadcast for pompidou's death and we rang to complain. Outrage! How dare surreal humour be stopped for some french presidents carcass? Given Chapman's homosexuality it has to be ironic. The cross dressing and ooo you are awful mincing stuff: It just doesn't seem funny to me any more. Saw them live in the seventies, they were an excellent ensemble and Niel Innes (rutles) deserves more recognition for his pythyon role (he brought the kings theatre, edinburgh to a standstill reprising Elton John's 'tommy' gig with one chord) Terry Gilliam nude at a piano and John Cleese nude as BBC presenter felt like some of the first male nudity on screen.
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Wow, that is a depressing reimagining. Perhaps focus on some nice things instead of being 'palled' at things. The word is 'apalled', and stop being so snooty. You dont appear better by waving your store bought virtue flag, you just come off as an arrogant hipster.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ourcat 7y ago

All interesting stuff. But scratching my head as to why things like this end up on Hacker News? Seems to happen a lot these days.

Alex3917 7y ago
Maybe because 8chan was just shut down in a similar moral panic.
- knolax 7y ago
  Look, I don't know about you, but if I die in a shooting I would prefer that the guy who did it didn't plan it on the same knock-off imageboard that people go to for obscure fetish porn. It's the principle of the thing, I would prefer they have the decency to maintain their own comms infrastructure.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    I would prefer they have the decency to maintain their own comms infrastructure They will, but now instead of a well known place where the police/FBI know they are going to go, they'll be deeper underground. Sort of like the whole shutting down craigslist and other personals sites because they were a haven for sex trafficking - so instead of having a well-known place where law enforcement could find illicit activity, the activity was driven farther underground and harder to find.
    - knolax 7y ago
      I understand the point but personally I think law-enforcement is equally useless in both situations. With the latter the bar for entry is higher. Argal I'll have the peace of mind of knowing that the shooter isn't an amateur and that they didn't come across the idea while looking for Vore.
ourcat 7y ago
Though if interested in learning more, I recommend watching this 4-part debate on the subject from 1979. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ni559bHXDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ni559bHXDg

mikeash 7y ago

I can never understand why religious people can be so insecure about their religion. If you believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe is on your side, why would you care in the slightest about some movie?

atennapel 7y ago
Because the all-powered creator will not stop the movie, which I guess shows the weakness of the god. So they have to act for him instead.
- btmorex 7y ago
  What makes you think that God didn't find the movie funny?
  - atennapel 7y ago
    Well some of his followers certainly thought that.
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
Because if some modern author can make up a fantasy universe, so can a prehistoric one- and when its all a fairytale, nothing you anchored your life around is not flimsy.
knolax 7y ago
Presumably, that all-powerful creator judges not just the individual but entire societies by their actions, so by allowing such films to be made the religious might become guilty by association.
kleton 7y ago
Is it hard to understand defending your society's values?
- ajmurmann 7y ago

DanBC 7y ago

The article mentions in passing that some councils in the UK banned the film: > In Britain, opposition wasn’t as fierce, but there was plenty of it. Some local councils banned the film, a measure which did it no harm at all: people would simply flock to the nearest city where it was showing. This is a bit confusing but we have the BBFC who gave the film an AA (14 or over) age rating when it was released in cinemas, and then mostly 15s for the home releases, and most recently a 12A. On top of the BBFC we have local councils who licence venues for entertainment, and some of those councils banned cinemas from showing the film. Some of those bans were pretty long. I think Glasgow had a 30 year ban. It's not a good situation.

bediger4000 7y ago

If you watch the 1979 "debate" with those two old fops, ou find that most or all of the current BBC article is sourced from that show. Coincidentally, youtube suggested it to me last night, and I watched it. That Archbishop of whatever was generally lying when responding to Cleese's (very commonly held) points about how nobody tells you we don't know who wrote the Gospels, or even in what city, and that there's quite a bit of argument about when they were written. And even more about the common content, and why it's in different orders in each gospel (except John, which is really different, and Jesus is 40 years old at the time of the crucifixion). It was as if the two old fops hadn't even watched the movie in question. I'm surprised Palin and Cleese didn't just tear into them. Maybe I'm just used to folks live-tweeting events like that nowadays.

tomohawk 7y ago
There has always been a lot of argument about the gospels, as they put forth a radical idea that is unacceptable to many. However, just because people argue about it does not take away from the claims made there, or the internal consistency of the accounts. Are there claims of inconsistency? Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection. Monty Python was a genius comedy troupe, but all you have to do is look at the sad life that Cleese ultimately led to see they may not be a source of inspiration for how you should lead your life. The disciples of Jesus on the other hand were, with one exception, killed for their beliefs. The one exception being John, who died in exile on an island.
- moogleii 7y ago
  "Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection." Please elaborate.
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    This statement is in response to the broad claim of inconsistencies in the accounts. If anyone needs to elaborate, it is the original claimant. Is there a claimed inconsistency you would seek to have explained?

fareesh 7y ago

This kind of puritanical worldview has now taken over so many aspects of culture. If you said a joke 10 years ago, i.e. blasphemed against some sacred topic, you can't host the Oscars anymore. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. It sure looks like humans need to fill the void of religion with something.

option 7y ago
there is no void. Plenty of humans (myself included) live not only without believing in god but without a need to believe. “It’s easy if you try” I think what is needed is some basic education and security in life.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fareesh 7y ago
  My comment was less about religion as belief in God and more about religion as its societal impact. Humans who believed in something with devotional fervor instituted blasphemy laws and censorship. Today's humans believe in other things with equal zealotry and are utilizing the same tyrannical solutions.

buboard 7y ago

If you made a similar film about Muhammad today it would be banned everywhere. Things haven't changed that much

projektfu 7y ago
I'm not so sure, because the Life of Brian didn't make fun of Christianity, although it did poke fun at the throngs that were searching for a messiah. Similarly, I think you could pull off a comedy about a bunch of Bedouins in 7th century Arabia who are generally ignorant of the actual current of change in their time and seeking a different, abortive attempt at overthrowing the established order.
- buboard 7y ago
  I mean a similar film. I can't imagine it to go down easily.
  - projektfu 7y ago
    In this case I really think it mattered more that a bunch of people who didn't see the film had preconceived notions about it and took it upon themselves to make a stink. Certainly that could happen in the Muslim world as well, as happened with the Satanic Verses. But that didn't have to happen (although it might have been good for publicity).
1over137 7y ago
Banned? You'd get assassinated, like Theo van Gogh.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

sxyuan 7y ago

For all the commenters laughing at those silly religious folks who protested the film, consider this: is there anything you hold sacred? What if a film came out that satirized, I don't know, science, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or racial equality? Admittedly, such a film may not have much comedic value, but I suspect it would nonetheless induce a decent amount of outrage, at least with the average reader here. You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred. You may say, "I'm secure in my beliefs - go ahead and mock." Well, to be honest, we'd be in the same boat, you and I. As a Christian, I suppose I wouldn't mind watching "Life of Brian". But to put ourselves in the shoes of the protesters - would you want the next generation to grow up in an environment where, say, the science of evolution is the target of mockery? (I imagine in some parts of the US that's not so far from the truth.) My point is, laughter is a powerful weapon. And children laughing along at the jokes may not catch all of the nuance outlined in the BBC article. Even if nothing is sacred, some things may still be important enough to try to influence the culture over. Were the protests silly? Did they end up achieving the opposite of what they intended? Sure. But that's a matter of results, not purpose. Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh.

moogleii 7y ago
"You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred." Is it? You've tried to distill things down to belief or sanctity, but if we go one step further, we're talking about opinion. E.g. "It is my opinion x is sacred." The actual false equivalency to me would be that we can freely strip down facts and science to mere opinion and sanctity. "The Earth is sphere-like is an opinion and I hold it sacred." Sure, people are welcome to question facts, but the bar is higher if you actually want others to believe your version. And that's the difference. If I have a differing view challenging a fact or theory, well, prove it. Do the work beyond just opening my mouth. Science is always trying to self-correct. One man in the system may hold firm to a belief without merit, but his colleagues may not, and what is provable lives on. But if one decides to have a different religion or decides gruyere is better, they don't have to prove anything to anyone, except maybe themselves. If there is a time where the science of evolution is mocked and laughed at, because of the inherent bar of provability, I think we'll be fine either way. "Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh." I personally think it would be healthier for people to learn to accept constructive criticism and be the butt of a joke once in awhile. Which, if we get back to the heart of the matter (rather than "science"), The Life of Brian isn't just mockery for mockery's sake. It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise questions. It is the opinion's humorous version of an opposing scientific view. The bar of quality is not so high as a scientific proof, but satire generally only works when the questions it raises are valid.

DonHopkins 7y ago

Oops, I got confused and thought this was "Life of Brine", the discussion about the video "A Year Ago I Put Saltwater in a Jar"! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20770682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20770682