
Life of Brian: The most blasphemous film ever? - vanilla-almond
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20190822-life-of-brian-the-most-blasphemous-film-ever
======
sxyuan
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
"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.

~~~
sxyuan
Thanks for the response. Many fine points, here and in sibling comments. There
was one point I did want to reply to:

"It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise
questions."

That's a good way to separate mockery and satire, but unfortunately on
sensitive subjects I get the feeling that some people may be so used to
getting the former that it's hard to distinguish the latter. Humour can open
up a conversation, but it can just as easily shut it down. And with a movie,
it all comes down to the one watching; even well-meaning satire can end up
being received as mockery, by both those who agree with the views presented
and those who disagree. The result may end up being less thought-provoking and
more calcifying pre-existing opinions.

Anyhow, I didn't intend to stir up debate re. science vs. faith. There's a
much longer conversation that could be had there. My original intent was
simply to try to provoke a bit of empathy, regardless of what one's beliefs
may be.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
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?

~~~
mopsi
You may also like The Goon Show. [1] It's a BBC radio comedy show that ran in
the 1950s, and was way ahead of time. Some episodes make references to then-
current events that are little known nowadays such as guerilla war in
Malaysia, but many are timeless. Episodes "The Canal" [2], "The Jet-Propelled
Guided NAAFI" [3] and "The Whistling Spy Enigma" [4] are among my favourites.
They have a very playful style and a refreshing lack of cynicism and
profanities.

John Cleese has said that the Goon Show "influenced us enormously", and many
well-known Monty Python's sketches like "The Funniest Joke in the World" [5]
can be traced to the Goon's jokes like dropping 1918 calendars on Berlin to
force Germans surrender (in episode "World War One").

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goon_Show](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goon_Show)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-69K1MQ4YJE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-69K1MQ4YJE)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwSQ0CBQuA0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwSQ0CBQuA0)

[4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nMjk--
OVR4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nMjk--OVR4)

[5]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9FzUI8998U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9FzUI8998U)

~~~
ptaipale
Are you also familiar with _The Men from the Ministry_ ? Written by Edward
Taylor and John Graham.

For some reason, it also made a successful radio show in South Africa, Finland
and Sweden. The latter two are translations (but set in UK like the original).
Taylor wrote new episodes for Finland even after the show was discontinued in
UK.

------
bediger4000
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
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
"Sure, but they don't stand up to inspection."

Please elaborate.

~~~
tomohawk
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?

~~~
bediger4000
Nowhere did I say they were inconsistent - merely that different gospels have
different stories, or different versions of the same story, and they appear in
different orders. This is beyond dispute. It's also not something that
christianity as a whole makes clear. The Gospel of John is radically different
than the other 3 gospels. You can see that by reading maybe a page of each
one. Beyond dispute.

------
wpietri
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
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
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
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.

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

~~~
projektfu
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
I mean a similar film. I can't imagine it to go down easily.

~~~
projektfu
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).

------
DanBC
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.

------
kace91
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.

------
ChrisSD
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).

~~~
ajmurmann
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
> 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.

------
DonHopkins
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)

------
mikeash
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?

~~~
kleton
Is it hard to understand defending your society's values?

~~~
ajmurmann
What values are being attacked by the movie? The movie doesn't make any claim
to be factual.

------
fareesh
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
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.

~~~
fareesh
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.

------
ourcat
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.

~~~
joekrill
From Guidelines
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)):

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
> more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
> answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

I'd say this type of thing most-definitely applies here.

~~~
ourcat
It really does depend whose intellect is being satisfied.

This little thread of mine is an intellectual discussion.

However, I'm fully aware that many in this community deem fit to vote me down
for having it.

Curious, indeed.

~~~
ourcat
I also note that the title of this post has changed since I posted my first
comment. To something slightly more egregious to people of faith.

~~~
mb_72
Christian faith, I presume you are referring to? Because there are many other
'people of faith' who are not Christians, and who won't be offended in any way
by Life of Brian.

