
Life of Brian at 40: an assertion of individual freedom that still resonates - sohkamyung
https://theconversation.com/life-of-brian-at-40-an-assertion-of-individual-freedom-that-still-resonates-114743
======
NeedMoreTea
"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-
mon...](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/16/how-we-made-monty-python-
life-of-brian-michael-palin-terry-gilliam)

~~~
dalbasal
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.

~~~
TheOperator
It really amazes me to even say it but I've always seen comedy guiding
morality for as long as I've been alive.

I noticed during the Iraq War how much INSANELY quicker the comedians turned
against the war compared to the mainstream and self-proclaimed moral
authorities like journos. Institutionalized stupidity tends to be really funny
to make fun of and really lame to defend.

It seems like a stupid idea for comedians to be moral arbiters when comedians
themselves hardly seem like particularly moral people and comedy is such an
informal thing. Yet there is this skeptical contarian spirit so fundamentally
baked into the medium. Which consistently leads to Comedians being one step
ahead of their moral betters.

~~~
humanrebar
I'd agree except that the popular comedians tend to have the same points of
view as major multinational corporations and billionaires.

Want to lambaste the rich? You and Buffett both. Make fun of racist white
people? Who doesn't? Healthcare is a mess? A long line of CEOs parrot that
line, too.

Nobody is sitting around making fun of overreach for a good cause. Nobody is
making fun of the absurd political mathematics thrown around by favored
political movements.

To be fair, it's more work to actually push against the grain of the culture
you live in. It's easier to be make the millionth dig at the orange skinned
jackass.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Are you saying that Warren Buffett's opinions are typical of the super-rich?
I'd like to see a source on that.

Lots of people from every walk of life lambast the US health care system,
because the US health care system is _objectively_ terrible, in terms of
positive outcomes vs. money spent.

Making these out to be rich-people opinions is really reaching.

~~~
humanrebar
I was just saying it's not particularly brave to side with Zuckerberg and
Gates on immigration or Buffett on tax reform. I wasn't commenting on the
merits of the positions.

------
lb1lf
This film was initially banned in Norway due to alleged blasphemy (!).

The Swedes loved it; their movie posters dubbed it 'The movie which is so
funny, it is banned in Norway!'

~~~
nintendo95
/cynical/ So sad that nowadays Swedes can't have a say about radical immams.
/cynical/ How cool it is to have fun of Jesus but to have fun of Mahommed? How
"far" we have "progressed" ;-) In 40 years from having fun about religious
leaders to burning heretics like witches.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch movie having fun about Mohammed in Sweden? Or we
became some kind of cultural caliphat in the mean time? Joking about Jesus
respecting Mohammed? There is a reason for which our era is referred to as
"new middle-ages" by some philosophers.

Sad.

By the way there is much more comedy material in Mohammed case too.

As we know since Freud hypocrisy is this what makes the best jokes. I.e. saint
God messiah who is a war lord and peadophile in the meantime. Try making movie
about that.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Nowhere in the world can we have a comedy about Mohammed because the comedians
want to live (a funny life), too. In a few progressive countries people tried
to make fun of Mohammed and they're, for the most part, dead.

(And The Life of Brian doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, that's what
people who haven't seen the film think.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, //

Whilst they're careful in the action of the film to make it clear Brian isn't
Jesus, surely the central premise is that "Jesus is Brian", that his
presentation as Son of God is a [comedic] mishap, or misunderstanding.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
That's interesting, it's almost as if we watched two different movies.
Actually I was expecting a lot of Jesus and I was a bit disappointed by not
seeing him much. On the contrary, I saw a lot of "people and times", portrayed
in a comical way.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Like the way the original Terminator wasn't about cyborgs from the future
because you never (seldom?) see the future? Or Lord of the Flies wasn't about
how civilisation readily devolves, it was just about a group of kids?

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it is saying 'people are mistaken
and Jesus was just a man'? (Or perhaps 'a very naughty boy'!)

To me it seemed carefully written to maintain deniability and skirt blasphemy
regulations.

FWIW it's a film I've enjoyed watching both as an agnostic and as a Christian.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Yes, the film was about the times of Jesus, about groups of people that might
have followed him, of people that might have helped to crucify him (for the
same reasons - blindly following the crowd), about Romans, about Jews, about
Jews hating Romans, about Romans oppressing Jews, about ridiculous laws,
but... not really about Jesus. I watched the film again 2 weeks ago, hardly
anything about Jesus. I can hardly believe anyone could identify Brian with
Jesus, these are two completely different characters.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Then I believe you've missed the central premise.

And, you're right Brian is not the Messiah (which is just what the Messiah
would say!).

You know Animal Farm isn't about a farmyard, right?

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
No, I believe we differ in our perception of the role of Brian, and you seem
to hold the position that bishops and other offended people held: that the
creators of the movie identified brian with Jesus. I agree that if you wanted.
you coudl interpret the film in this way. But it's not necessary. You will
watch a completely different film then. You will see a Jesus who was
ridiculous, cowardly, a bit stupid. But this makes no sense - Jesus is already
in the movie and he is a completely different person.

There are many examples in literature and film where the creators focus on a
personage close to a celebrity and make them the main character. But I guess
the film is well done if we can both claim our positions and believe the other
person is wrong.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I specifically stated, twice, that I didn't believe Brian to be Jesus. I think
that's the massive knee-jerk reaction of those who only saw clips at the
initial release.

I don't think the writers took a post-modernist approach. Indeed, as I tried
to explain, the inclusion of Jesus as a character is IMO a clear attempt to
say "see, no blasphemy here" for the purposes of publishing the film. (FWIW I
don't consider the film blasphemous without the Jesus scenes, not explicitly
at least).

The intention is pretty clearly to say "Jesus is Brian", ie "he's elevated by
the crowd to his position as Messiah, rather than that being an intrinsic part
of the man known as Jesus".

------
chriselles
I coincidentally watched it with my two sons(13 & 12) the other night.

They loved it!(thankfully)

Especially, the part where the crowd yells “We’re all individuals!”.

And one lone voice peeps, “I’m not.”

Often silly, frequently smart, and occasionally dark irreverence.

~~~
gmueckl
This is the one moment that contains the whole message of the film condensed
into a brief gag that seems so silly on the surface, but goes surprisingly
deep. This is easily my most favorite scene of that movie.

~~~
dwd
That was the one scene that stuck with me when I first saw it in the early 80s
when it came out on video. It's still probably my favourite scene.

------
leephillips
This paragraph from the article is odd:

‘Still, as gender transitioning becomes culturally mainstream, the desire of
the revolutionary Stan (Eric Idle) to be a woman, to be called “Loretta” and
to have babies, will strike a chord.’

In fact, actual the scene from the film will be highly offensive to anyone who
has accepted the pro-trans dogma. “Loretta”’s companions point out to him the
absurdity of his decision to “be” a woman, and Loretta’s comments could have
been transcribed from the Twitter feed of any trans woman yesterday. They are
kind to Loretta, and spend the rest of the film trying to treat him as he
wants to be treated, and frequently apologizing when they forget. But there is
never any doubt that this is the kindness of friends towards one who is just
very confused.

~~~
favorited
What is "the pro-trans dogma" that you describe?

~~~
leephillips
That humans can change their sex.

Here is the scene, by the way:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0)

~~~
inflatableDodo
I look at the pace that gene tech and organ printing is going and can't help
but think that these discussions will eventually seem embarrassingly obsolete.
People will instead be getting outraged about the blue furry winged people
with clitoris implants on their earlobes.

------
juliangamble
I showed my kids the falling from the tower scene, including the commentator
on the landing. They cracked up.

------
_bxg1
My favorite bit of commentary was this scene:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk)

I was raised protestant and my girlfriend Jewish; after this scene I leaned
over and whispered, "this is why there are too many denominations to keep
track of".

------
dekhn
Over time, I've come to like the Holy Grail less and less, and this movie more
and more. It's the latin lesson (making fun of schoolteachers in england), the
witty banter about the naming of the revolutionary front (sorry, People's
Liberation Front of Judea), and a number of other ideas in the movie that were
so ahead of their time.

------
rick22
The degree to which the nations majority religion can be criticized is a good
indicator of the individual's freedom. UK and US has the most individual
freedom then as may be india has a lesser degree and then the middle east has
almost zero individual freedom.

------
DeveloperMan
I would highly recommend anyone with an interest in Monty Python to watch
"Holy Flying Circus". It's a hilarious docudrama about the time leading up to
the TV debate.

------
peter303
Landmark arts chain here is having a showing Holy Thursday April 18.

------
wallace_f
Great quotes from the article:

>Kant put it in 1784, “‘Have the courage to use your own understanding!’ —
that is the motto of enlightenment.”

>The virtue of the film today is its capacity to offend a whole new generation
of viewers for different reasons.

I wish that in 2019 we were not so quick to personally attack for unique or
politically incorrect ideas.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _I wish that in 2019 we were not so quick to personally attack for unique or
> politically incorrect ideas..._

That's the beauty of the film, it deftly illustrates that the vast majority of
us don't have any "unique politically incorrect ideas". We're all, kind of,
members of the People's Front of Judea. (Except, of course, for those of us
who are members of the Judean People's Front.)

Basically, the movie showed that most of us are "uniquely rebellious" in
almost exactly the same way. Same taglines. Same clothes. Same beliefs. Same
pass times. Etc etc etc. We've all become the brooding Goth teenager, who
believes him or herself to be unique and counter cultural. Yet somehow we
still look, sound and dress like every other "uniquely rebellious" Goth
teenager on the planet.

The film makes fun of the fact that there were very few people out there with
completely unique and insightful views back when it was made. The reason it
resonates today is because this central fact is still true. Not many people
with unique ideas out there at all. Most of what we hear, we've already heard
before.

~~~
singingfish
Whatever happened to the Popular Front?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
He's over there.

~~~
floathub
No, that's the Popular People's Front.

------
inflatableDodo
Given this article, I really don't think that they deserve their self
appointed strapline; 'Academic rigour, journalistic flair'.

From the crude and inaccurate broad brush descriptions of modern attitudes to
blasphemy, through to presenting the song 'Always look on the bright side of
life' as an example of nihilism, this reads like a poorly researched high
school essay, with a Kant quote thrown in at the end to try and make it sound
clever.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
It's a confusingly desert-dry article about an oceanically-wet piece of
classic cinema. It's almost worth reading the article to see how someone can
turn a hugely fun and enjoyable film into such a bland review.

I expected wolf-nipple-tips but was delivered stale bread.

