4 ms·

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

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. :)
ajmurmann 7y ago
Wasn't there a scene later in the movie where the actual Jesus was shown (without any mockery) in contrast to Brian? I think this week was just a case of interpreting the movie on the worst light to create an opportunity for virtue signaling. I notice it when people I disagree do this and wonder how often I do this myself without noticing.
- lisper 7y ago
  > Wasn't there a scene later in the movie where the actual Jesus was shown (without any mockery) in contrast to Brian? Yes. And at the beginning as well.
andrepd 7y ago
>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. I wouldn't say that. The main plot of the film is a regular guy accidentally becoming the head of a major religion, despite his protests and his exasperation, all the way to being crucified like Jesus. The Judean People's Front stuff is at most a B-plot.

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. :)

ajmurmann 7y ago

Wasn't there a scene later in the movie where the actual Jesus was shown (without any mockery) in contrast to Brian? I think this week was just a case of interpreting the movie on the worst light to create an opportunity for virtue signaling. I notice it when people I disagree do this and wonder how often I do this myself without noticing.

lisper 7y ago
> Wasn't there a scene later in the movie where the actual Jesus was shown (without any mockery) in contrast to Brian? Yes. And at the beginning as well.

andrepd 7y ago

>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. I wouldn't say that. The main plot of the film is a regular guy accidentally becoming the head of a major religion, despite his protests and his exasperation, all the way to being crucified like Jesus. The Judean People's Front stuff is at most a B-plot.