5 ms·

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 s

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]
- ghaff 7y ago
  I liked but mostly didn't love a lot of the Python silliness. There were some funny skits but I merely enjoyed like Holy Grail. I didn't really go around quoting it all the time. Life of Brian is the Python that really aged well for me because it does have that satirical element that goes deeper than most of the things they did.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I always thought it as a comedy tradition and related to both Shakespearean puritan prudity that women working as actresses are also prostitues advertising and therefore should be banned. Plus the British public school "traditions" based upon good ole imperial anti-decadence as the peak of messed up presenting itself as the peak of morality (see Roman gladiatoral combat and its professed purpose). The concept of the boarding schools were because they worried the compassion of women raising young men would make them too weak. Their whole foundation was frankly of the "so misogynistic it winds up automatically homosexual because women can't be considered people by them". I state homosexual as opposed to gay because it refers to behavior rather than preferences. Surprisingly the majority won't choose celibacy over their preferred gender - so women are subsitited for men despite a preference for them. The crossdressing speaks to both the "boys club" society and the "easy to laugh at" - comedy actors are usually about average or below in attractiveness. Graham Chapman also was very to the "ubermanly men". It could have been a "stop being stereotypical" thing - a "it should be laughed at because the mincing is ridiculous" attitude.
bhaak 7y ago
I don't think that cross-dressing for laughs was controversial unless the UK in the 70s was way more conservative than Germany or the US in the 60s. I immediately remembered several movies with Peter Alexander from the early 60s like "Charlys Tante" or Billy Wilder's "Some Like It Hot". Although in the latter there are several scenes going beyond "men in women's clothes are funny" and homosexual acts are evoked in the viewer's minds (but of course never actually called on screen).

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]
ghaff 7y ago
I liked but mostly didn't love a lot of the Python silliness. There were some funny skits but I merely enjoyed like Holy Grail. I didn't really go around quoting it all the time. Life of Brian is the Python that really aged well for me because it does have that satirical element that goes deeper than most of the things they did.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I always thought it as a comedy tradition and related to both Shakespearean puritan prudity that women working as actresses are also prostitues advertising and therefore should be banned. Plus the British public school "traditions" based upon good ole imperial anti-decadence as the peak of messed up presenting itself as the peak of morality (see Roman gladiatoral combat and its professed purpose). The concept of the boarding schools were because they worried the compassion of women raising young men would make them too weak. Their whole foundation was frankly of the "so misogynistic it winds up automatically homosexual because women can't be considered people by them". I state homosexual as opposed to gay because it refers to behavior rather than preferences. Surprisingly the majority won't choose celibacy over their preferred gender - so women are subsitited for men despite a preference for them. The crossdressing speaks to both the "boys club" society and the "easy to laugh at" - comedy actors are usually about average or below in attractiveness. Graham Chapman also was very to the "ubermanly men". It could have been a "stop being stereotypical" thing - a "it should be laughed at because the mincing is ridiculous" attitude.

bhaak 7y ago

I don't think that cross-dressing for laughs was controversial unless the UK in the 70s was way more conservative than Germany or the US in the 60s. I immediately remembered several movies with Peter Alexander from the early 60s like "Charlys Tante" or Billy Wilder's "Some Like It Hot". Although in the latter there are several scenes going beyond "men in women's clothes are funny" and homosexual acts are evoked in the viewer's minds (but of course never actually called on screen).