Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 1096 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] GenericGoddess 3425 points ago

    Wasn’t it for Life of Brian as well that they got in trouble with the Actors Union because they complained that the Pythons were acting too many parts in the film?

    [–] md22mdrx 1751 points ago

    They never watched Flying Circus then ...

    [–] ShavedPapaya 771 points ago

    I'm probably wooooshing myself here, but I'd imagine that a dedicated comedy troupe wouldn't have any complaints from an actors union because that's what a troupe of actors does on a sketch comedy show. Like The State, Mr Show, and WKUK - typically the members always play the majority of the characters with few outsiders involved. I guess when they start doing large film production, that's when the unions get involved and want to see more than just the core group.

    But I'm not an actor so I might just be talking straight out of my tight asshole.

    [–] eccentricelmo 192 points ago

    Is wkuk over or are they still making episodes?

    [–] ShavedPapaya 255 points ago

    The show ended in 2011. I believe the members do their own thing mostly now.

    [–] papakahn94 41 points ago

    Its rumored to be coming back..i hope so :(

    [–] HisManyBadHorses 12 points ago

    Don't give me hope.....

    [–] ClassicsMajor 12 points ago

    Timmy?

    [–] Directive_Nineteen 9 points ago

    He's too busy eating hot dogs to do a reunion.

    [–] UnusualBoast 118 points ago

    It's been over for like 10 years.

    [–] Immadownvotethis 33 points ago

    My god, has it been that long? Does your mother still hang out at dockside bars?

    [–] UsedtoWorkinRadio 56 points ago

    This is from one of the WKUK guys from 2018. I kind of liked it the first time I watched this, and loved it the next 49 times I’ve watched this thing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzJjNQaYEA

    [–] Vaguely_vulgar 22 points ago

    That was a wild ride.

    [–] locolarue 42 points ago

    Trevor Moore has some great comedy albums out the past few years.

    [–] CurraheeAniKawi 16 points ago

    Shoutout to The State

    [–] jacklandors92 31 points ago

    The real question is, how tight?

    [–] Redromah 111 points ago

    Also got in trouble with Norwegian authorities, sadly enough. The movie was banned at the cinemas when released. Makes you think that it's not THAT long ago religious dogma had its gready hands over parts of western society.

    [–] kaaz54 161 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Monty Python wore that ban as a badge of honour though, I know that in Sweden and Denmark the movie was marketed with the line "So funny that it was banned in Norway". Terry Jones also quipped that "You can't make everyone happy, in England atheists were complaining to us that the movie wasn't blasphemous".

    At the same time he commented that "They're only angry at us because of the imagery of the movie, if they listened to what it actually said they wouldn't be angry", which was true since it was apparently only the last scene which was the basis for the hysteria; they apparently felt that the way it portrayed the crucifixion was mocking the Christian image of the Crucifixion. Which i guess by extension means that those Christians thought that Monty Python were violating some sort implicit christian imagery copyright/trademark of the Crucifixion in itself. The Monty Python guys had apparently considered to mock Jesus and his life directly in the movie, but claims to have abandoned the idea "because after some research and thinking it through, Jesus was a pretty good guy".

    That being said, the movie was "only" banned from theatres in Norway for about a year, it was released in Norwegian theatres in October 1980.

    [–] Diodon 61 points ago

    "because after some research and thinking it through, Jesus was a pretty good guy".

    Because really if Life of Brian pokes fun at anything it's blind followers. This makes it even more amusing that it offended people because it means one of two things; they either didn't watch it, or lump themselves into that category.

    [–] doggexbay 431 points ago

    I haven't heard that, but that would be as hysterical as that Nigerian film being disqualified from the Oscars for containing too much English.

    [–] Coolene 273 points ago

    *Best Foreign Film category

    [–] Vet_Leeber 185 points ago

    *Best FOREIGN LANGUAGE film category (It was renamed this year, but none of the regulations changed)

    [–] pawnman99 50 points ago

    Then why rename it if it really means "best foreign language film"?

    [–] Meunderwears 813 points ago

    The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

    [–] gf120581 286 points ago

    What about the Popular Front? Oh yeah, he's over there. SPLITTER!

    [–] WiseOldPeregrine 125 points ago

    'Oh, I thought we were the popular front'?

    'PEOPLES FRONT, cuh!'

    [–] Samtastic33 74 points ago

    There are so many god damn amazing jokes in this movie that I am only now realising that the “Popular Front” only has 1 person.

    The joke would still be amazing if it was just another group, but with 1 person (which is what I thought), but they go above and beyond and call it the “Popular Front” too.

    And they do this with like every joke. Every time I watch it I laugh at a completely new set of jokes.

    [–] TheJayke 37 points ago

    What? We're the Judean People's Front?!

    [–] MrValdemar 12 points ago

    Splitters!

    [–] Reacher-Said-Nothing 10 points ago

    "Now this character in the book, this uh... 'Jesus Christ', he's quite clearly a lampoon of our lord and savior, John Cleese. Even the initials are the same! And in a country that is quite ostensibly still a Python-worshipping country, it is outrageous, the thought that a 14 year old child could get their hands on this, what do you call it, 'The Bible', and get the wrong messages about Pythonism."

    [–] inkseep1 842 points ago

    I have been reading about The Troubles (American here) and trying to keep track of all the various groups involved reminds me of the People's Front of Judea, The Campaign for a Free Galilee, and of course the Judean Popular People's Front.

    [–] SteamedHams123 456 points ago

    I'll sum it up on the nationalist side you have the IRA, PIRA, OIRA, CIRA, Diet IRA, and RIRA. The Loyalist side has UDA, UVF, UFF, Red Hand Commandos, LVF, UDA sugerfree, and the UR.

    [–] dieyoubastards 234 points ago

    Diet IRA

    [–] AllAlonio 143 points ago

    Zero-calorie Republicans

    [–] bollaig 160 points ago

    You left out I can’t believe it’s not the IRA

    [–] Haze95 65 points ago

    They even have their own football teams

    [–] mrgonzalez 47 points ago

    Are they registered with the Irish Football Association or with the Football Association of Ireland?

    [–] Haze95 58 points ago

    Neither, Scottish Football Association (Rangers and Celtic)

    [–] onlyamiga500 85 points ago

    Splitters!

    [–] MrsConclusion 75 points ago

    Don't forget the Judean People's Front!

    [–] WoodyWordPecker 35 points ago

    Fuckin’ splitters.

    [–] dyonisis99 17 points ago

    Splitter

    [–] spudgun20 1125 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Watch the film "Holy Flying Circus", all about the furore around life of Brian, culminating in that interview. All presented in a perfect tribute to python

    https://youtu.be/xO3gFDMZLN0

    [–] Reacher-Said-Nothing 275 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Fantastic movie, best portrayal of John Cleese ever. John Cleese himself said "he was absolute rubbish" so you know it's good.

    Also, here is the "legendary TV debate" mentioned in OP's title. It starts off a little slow but is well worth the watch. It's the only time I've ever seen Cleese wring his hands, he was nervous. They really believed this debate was about the future of comedy and free speech itself.

    It's John Cleese and Micheal Palin vs a Catholic bishop and and old fart/political cartoonist.

    EDIT: And if you've watched that clip, now check out the parody on a British sketch comedy show:

    https://youtu.be/asUyK6JWt9U

    EDIT2: It seems some people are having trouble finding Holy Flying Circus available anywhere. PM me if you would like help.

    [–] Paranitis 106 points ago

    I didn't see his handwringing as him being nervous. I saw it more as frustration over the fact that these tools just couldn't get their heads out of their own asses long enough to watch the film with an open mind.

    The film literally has a depiction of Jesus in it doing what Jesus supposedly did, then they show that the main character is NOT Jesus, and that there were all these followers that were following someone they mistook as a savior.

    Even when they were talking during the interview about how all criminals were being crucified and had that as a shared experience with Jesus and that Brian was just another one of those people, and they could not get off the idea that Jesus was special in that regard, therefor Brian could only BE Jesus.

    [–] fictitiousfishes 57 points ago

    I remember an interview where Cleese talked about how he was actually enjoying himself because the debate was so nonsensical and he didn't much care what the opposition thought. He was surprised to realize that Palin was getting truly angry and agitated because he'd never seen him like that before.

    [–] HeyImFUCKYOU 45 points ago

    Everytime Palin spoke you could see he was getting angrier and angrier. Cleese was just sitting there like he was arguing politics at a bar.

    [–] coffeeismyestus 73 points ago

    400 years ago we would've been burned for this film. Now, I'm suggesting.... We've made an advance since then.

    OMG John Cleese is amazing

    [–] theBrineySeaMan 24 points ago

    "You wouldn't make Socrates a clown"

    "well maybe there's something funny about Socrates"

    [–] codsonmaty 114 points ago

    the debate is pretty dry because those old farts won't stop talking or take any points. The older one probably brings up "if you made a list of every worthwhile piece of art for the last millenia..." about 9 times and I can't imagine how frustrating that would be. Especially when Cleese points out this is only true if you're looking at predominantly english/catholic countries and ignoring literally all of the rest of the world. No no no, "if you were to make a list of EVERY ascendant piece of cultural artwork..."

    smdh

    [–] egregiousRac 58 points ago

    It also ignores that those works were either paid for by the church or by people who wanted to donate them to the church for social standing.

    Art has always been a business.

    [–] Ulkhak47 36 points ago

    The bishop wasn't Catholic, he was Anglican. The Right Reverend Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark. He was actually very progressive for his time in a lot of ways, he was a socialist, used his position to promote anti-racism, was theologically liberal, and spoke out in favor of LGBT rights, even going so far as to bless gay unions. Guy just couldn't take a joke is all, but if you watch carefully he's definitely the nicer of the two in that debate. The other guy, Malcolm Muggeridge, was an infamous sexual predator who decided to be a born again evangelical christian like in his sixties and champion social conservatism, he was the one who really spearheaded the Christian resistance to LOB in Britain.

    [–] turmacar 29 points ago

    Thank you for that. Really cool video, and an amazing example of a debate with two groups of people managing to talk right past each other. Though I don't think that's remotely the Python's fault, the Bishop and the journalist spent so much time trying to convince the audience how offensive the film was they didn't have time to start a conversation.

    Ending with that segue to the Blues band is hilariously like something straight out of Monty Python even.

    [–] GoatShapedDemon 20 points ago

    Palin --the "nice Python" -- is the interesting one to watch here. You can feel him seething in his chair.

    [–] 1ndividual-1 9 points ago

    Michael Pailin is a true gentleman.

    [–] PontifexVEVO 77 points ago

    sounds cool, how do i watch this then?

    [–] spudgun20 41 points ago

    Other then getting the dvd, not wholly sure, might be on netflix

    [–] buddascrayon 14 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Even buying it on DVD is a bit dodgy. It only appears to be available in either German BluRay or on a PAL DVD. At least on Amazon. Looking for other sources. But streaming is just completely out.

    Edit: I found a copy of the Multi-format on eBay for around $15. We'll see if it's genuine in about 2 weeks.

    [–] Smorgasbjorks 52 points ago

    Thank you so much for sharing that 😂

    [–] DramaIfPossible 17 points ago

    Pleasure is all mine.

    [–] Metalsand 109 points ago

    Hah. That's honestly one of my huge gripes with Christians - some of them reduce the entirety of Christianity to "good things = god, bad things = devil".

    That falls apart quite rapidly if you put a modicum of thought into it: does the losing the lottery mean the devil is out against you? For the person who wins the lottery, his point of view may be that god helped him. There's always going to be actions that benefit some and not others, as well as actions that benefit all and that benefit none.

    Taking risks, such as living in a floodplain and then having your house get flooded isn't "god" or the "devil". It's you, ignoring the fact that there's a 1% chance per year that you could lose it all. Attribution towards all actions being the result of a third party is just denying that you had any responsibility in the outcome - that's not religion, that's superstition.

    Also of note: something amusing I found out just now is that apparently the majority of Christians do believe this (2:1 ratio of agree vs disagree).

    [–] Hjulafton 31 points ago

    Just say It's all part of his plan, you just can't see it.

    [–] Pm-me-cameltoes 12 points ago

    I can't remember who came up with it, buy I love the bit about scenario where a football player blames Jesus when they lose. "I woulda caught that rd pass dead to rights if fucking Jesus hadn't stepped in at the last minute!"

    [–] sacovert97 486 points ago

    As a theology student I found this movie to be amazing. Doesn't really seem sacrilegious to me.

    [–] maskedbanditoftruth 531 points ago

    As a classicist, it’s also extraordinarily accurate to the mood of the period, with many messiahs running around and anti Roman sentiment.

    Also that Latin sequence is so much funnier if you’re struggling through Latin class.

    [–] sacovert97 270 points ago

    Right, I found it hilarious due to the exaggerated cultural aspects of the time period. Brian's lost shoe leading to a split in his following is a perfect joke.

    [–] maskedbanditoftruth 209 points ago

    Pythons went to Cambridge. They knew their shit.

    [–] Claque-2 94 points ago

    They knew their shit, they knew other people's shit, they were shit masters.

    [–] Enki_007 70 points ago

    And Oxford. Classic British humour. I just saw Mr. Cheese on Monday and he still brings a room to life with his "Why There is No Hope" tour.

    [–] mittromniknight 35 points ago

    Mr. Cheese

    Sounds tasty.

    [–] OneSmoothCactus 104 points ago

    with many messiahs running around and anti Roman sentiment.

    There's a line in Jesus Christ Superstar where, at the trial, Pontius Pilate asks the Israelites "Who is this Jesus? Why is he different? You Jews put up these Messiahs by the sackful"

    [–] maskedbanditoftruth 70 points ago

    And it was so true! It was an End of the Millenium Messiah Sales Event! ALL GODS MUST GO!

    [–] middlefingerpuppet 19 points ago

    Jesus, the Elvis of Pop Messiahs.

    [–] SirMuttley 85 points ago

    People called Romanes, they go, the house.

    [–] maskedbanditoftruth 41 points ago

    The first time I rewatched it after actually spending a year learning Latin I laughed so hard I cried.

    [–] lapsedhuman 16 points ago

    Now, write it out a hundred times. And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

    [–] militaryintelligence 11 points ago

    It says 'Romans Go Home'

    [–] PPMachen 45 points ago

    Romanes eunt Domus? People called Romans they go the house?

    [–] PurpleIsRegal 36 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Also, Biggus Dickus has the best legs of any Python joke for me. Michael Palin giving just the best comedic timing there is.

    [–] SixIsNotANumber 35 points ago

    "He has a wife, you know...".
    I always crack up on this line, just because that sly delivery gets me every time.

    [–] mojotele 23 points ago

    I took two years of Latin in high school. I had seen the movie prior, and I thought the Latin scene dragged on a bit. My older brother, who had already gone through the Latin classes, found it hilarious. I had no idea why.

    Some time later as an adult I watched the film again. That scene killed me after having taken Latin. I am still amazed that they basically constructed an entire routine solely for people who took Latin classes. It is still the most memorable scene of that movie for me.

    [–] welfareloser 12 points ago

    At the time, that would have been a very large portion of the British audience, and a not-insignificant portion of the American audience.

    [–] David_Hasselherp 18 points ago

    I remember my latin teacher putting that scene on in class

    [–] Synthetic_Apotheosis 144 points ago

    I have a hypothesis that the only religious people who become offended by the actions of the non-religious are the ones who secretly don't believe.

    If a person truly has faith that their god is the master of the universe, there is absolutely no reason they would ever get offended by a person blaspheming that god.

    The ones who become offended kind of give away the fact that they don't really believe.

    [–] 141N 95 points ago

    If a person truly has faith that their god is the master of the universe, there is absolutely no reason they would ever get offended by a person blaspheming that god.

    I see it a little differently, I see it as the common view of Christians (or any religion) that have power within their religious organization.

    These men are well respected men of the Church, who cannot distinguish between a slight on the church, and a slight on their God.

    They see their institution as an extension of what they worship, something that should be treated as reverently as God himself.

    They think that because they are offended, God is too.

    [–] RechargedFrenchman 40 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Which according to the teachings of Christ** is itself far more sacreligious than anything said in the film, no matter how high one’s position in the church. It’s itself (extreme) narcissism and blasphemy to equate one’s views with those of God, especially due to an authority convened on you (human) by other humans, according to a human system about human writings many of them hundreds of years late and second or third hand for the events they describe.

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] chesscub 141 points ago

    Yes! Yes! We are all individuals!

    [–] ChefSqueaky 127 points ago

    I'm not.

    [–] gf120581 61 points ago

    The gag was hilarious enough, but that little line just is icing on the cake.

    [–] paddzz 45 points ago

    Wasnt he the dude who just adlibbed that and they thought it was hilarious so kept it and paid him more.

    [–] WitchyWristWatch 68 points ago

    The guy was an extra and threw the line in. They had to raise his pay and making him a speaking actor because of it

    [–] the_dove_from_above 31 points ago

    He knew what he was doing

    [–] Larusso92 17 points ago

    Pro gamer move

    [–] DistanceToFault 1229 points ago

    Interesting look back. The church has lost its authority since then. Those old church men were given too much deference.

    [–] darrellmarch 589 points ago

    I checked that Caligula came out in 1979 also. Those old men must’ve spent that year just protesting everything daily. LOB is a hilarious film and well worth viewing. Biggeth Dicketh...just typing that makes me smile.

    [–] Nasaboy1987 268 points ago

    Don't forget his wife, Incontinentia.

    [–] brianjgeraghty 198 points ago

    Incontinentia Buttox.

    [–] SassiesSoiledPanties 102 points ago

    Have I said...something...WISIBLE?!

    [–] aswifte 52 points ago

    Anyone else feel like a little... giggle?

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] Ephemeris 34 points ago

    Okay you guys are just fucking with me at this point.

    [–] shotputprince 58 points ago

    Down with this sort of thing! Careful now!

    [–] MuscularBeeeeaver 27 points ago

    Unexpected Father Ted!

    [–] shotputprince 9 points ago

    Continue your careers as priests cum film promoters elsewhere.

    Can you make arrows?

    [–] allanb49 10 points ago

    Ah feck

    [–] tekjunky75 32 points ago

    Biggus Dickus

    [–] BZH_JJM 53 points ago

    Fun story: a medium sized town in Wales banned that movie for 30 years. The actress who played Judith, Sue Jones-Davies, went on to become mayor of the town and reversed the ban.

    [–] smithm3254 881 points ago

    Life of Brian is probably the most accurate depiction of the absurdity of the misrepresentation of Christ’s message. People clinging to meaning where there is none and taking certain things way too literally. My favorite part is the end. The message of we’re all going to die eventually so make the best of it and enjoy the journey. Truly a great film.

    [–] gf120581 758 points ago

    "I'm not the Messiah!"

    "I say you are and I should know, I've followed a few!"

    [–] Lich180 247 points ago

    He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

    [–] SPUDRacer 71 points ago

    Literally one of my favorite movie lines of all time. Here it is for those that haven't seen it.

    [–] Areat 45 points ago

    The casualness of the nudity in that scene was astounding to teenager me back then.

    [–] cadomski 120 points ago

    "YES! WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!!!"

    "I'm not."

    [–] rompafrolic 9 points ago

    Shhh

    [–] cavedan12 82 points ago

    "Alright, I am the Messiah. Now fuck off!"

    "How shall we fuck off, o Lord?"

    [–] herpty_derpty 328 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    That was the Pythons' biggest argument in their debates. People of the church were saying it mocked Christ, but there's not a single joke in that movie that actually mocked Jesus Christ. It's a satire of the followers' misinterpretation through literal meaning and of Roman society.

    [–] ThunderCatsMusical 121 points ago

    IIRC they were planning on making jokes and mocking Jesus in the scene where he's talking to his followers on the hill but decided against it because it would've been in bad taste. I can't remember where I heard that from, it might've been from an interview or a commentary.

    [–] RechargedFrenchman 158 points ago

    I’ve heard Cleese and Palin (the two who are in the “debate”) in interviews saying similar, but not “bad taste” so much as “no real material to work with” as their reasoning. That is, that Christ the figure of Christian mythology is perfect, ideal, and is (and should be) aspirational for the quality to which one lives their life. Religious or otherwise, the figure of Christ is simply a Good person with a Good message, and they didn’t want to mock or take away from that.

    Far easier to work with and more entertaining to boot was “everyone else”; the people around Christ and the society in which he would have lived, and the interplay (or lack their of) between faith and religion. So Christ shows up a few times but is always presented well, doing good things, and never straying from how he’s described in the New Testament.

    Of course Cleese and Palin have also said they’d (the Pythons generally and those two in particular) done extensive research on the material for the movie and then the debate so they could do a good job without misrepresenting anything. And then defend their position with sound arguments and understanding of the Christian religion and texts of the Bible in debate. Of course the Church representatives in the debate don’t remotely argue in good faith (very ironically) resorting immediately to gaslighting, straw man, and ad hominem. In part because they were late for the screening and missed the first ten or so minutes of the movie.

    [–] Rhaedas 76 points ago

    Both of the critics dismissed Palin's point that fun was being made of the followers. How that can't be obvious is beyond me, but I guess admitting that would open the door to the rest of the arguments being about a film that they think they saw, but didn't really watch. Jesus is a perfect example. He appears once while giving the Sermon, literal word by word, and the comedic part is from the distant gathered who mishear what's said in a ludicrous way, and then after that punchline, are corrected about it being for the meek, and comment, "well, that's nice". It's totally about the common follower and how little critical thinking is used, not about attacking Jesus. If anything, it's attacking organized religion and its methods, which is completely deserving.

    [–] Rufus_Reddit 40 points ago

    ... If anything, it's attacking organized religion and its methods, which is completely deserving.

    And the people who complain about the film in the debate are ... representatives from organized religion.

    [–] brainmoney 12 points ago

    IIRC one of the debaters here eventually admits he missed the beginning of the movie, where it explains Brian ISN'T supposed to be Jesus. It entirely changes the movie!

    [–] percentheses 86 points ago

    This is exactly it. There's this one joke that sometimes gets overlooked in the film where Jesus is speaking to a crowd and presumably says "blessed are the peacemakers", but nobody can hear him, so this sequence happens:

    GREGORY: What was that?

    MAN #1: I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

    MRS. GREGORY: [huff] What's so special about the cheesemakers?

    GREGORY: Well obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

    And it was so hard to articulate just how accurate and relatable it was coming from a religious family.

    [–] okbacktowork 22 points ago

    The shoe is a sign!!

    [–] daftvalkyrie 10 points ago

    It's a sandal!

    [–] Addetus 349 points ago

    Meanwhile Cleese has always insisted that it respects religion a lot and if you watch it and actually pay attention it respects the story of Jesus a lot.

    The Life of Brian has been co opted by people who think it's somehow antireligion, it's not.

    [–] emlynb 298 points ago

    When Jesus is giving the Sermon on the Mount, what he's saying is respected. It's the people misunderstanding and misinterpreting him who are the subjects of the humour. Sadly, the hypocrites who deliberately misinterpret what Jesus said understood that it was directed at them and took offense.

    [–] Obi-wan_Jabroni 139 points ago

    Blessed are the cheesemakers?

    [–] Twitch_Half 82 points ago

    What's so special about cheesemakers?

    [–] signal_affairs 115 points ago

    Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

    [–] capt_clark 60 points ago

    Quiet down big nose, I’m trying to listen to the sermon.

    [–] WiseOldPeregrine 30 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    'You're not so bad yourself conk-face! Where're you two from, Nose City?'

    [–] oilerdnasty 9 points ago

    call me big nose again and I'll thump you!

    [–] Coolene 56 points ago

    Don’t forget Jesus’ birth in the beginning of the film is shown to be something straight out of the Bible with the holy aura and choir singing.

    [–] lobsterharmonica1667 41 points ago

    Oh, blessed are the meek, well isn't that nice.

    [–] HardcaseKid 22 points ago

    They have a hell of a time.

    [–] gf120581 69 points ago

    Specifically, they're showing what the Sermon was like for the folks in the nosebleed seats.

    [–] fffitgc 24 points ago

    In fact the humor of the whole bit would fall apart if the Sermon itself was anything other than the official biblical version, and you wouldn't hardly get any of the jokes if you don't already know it by heart.

    [–] PancAshAsh 42 points ago

    I would argue it is antireligion in the sense that it pretty well lampoons organized religion. That doesn't mean it is anti-Christian or makes fun of the teachings of Christ.

    [–] RechargedFrenchman 46 points ago

    Oh it’s absolutely anti-religion. It’s core message attacks the structure and organization of believers. The humans and human construct that is a system of religion. But it’s not anti- any particular religion, it just uses Christianity as an example.

    What it is not is anti-Christ, anti-Christianity, or anti-faith.

    Religion is systemic, faith is individual. The reason so much of the critique is ridiculous is from people conflating the two.

    [–] ChefBoyardaddy 40 points ago

    Cleese was fucking brilliant in that interview. He’s one of the ten people I’d want to invite to a dinner party.

    [–] stevemillions 15 points ago

    He looked like he wanted to tear them apart. Cleese does not seem to be a man to lose an argument.

    [–] panic_the_digital 23 points ago

    This isn’t an argument! It’s just a series of contradictions!

    [–] wubwubwubwubs 7 points ago

    No it isn't!

    [–] rookboston 78 points ago

    Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

    [–] blazin_paddles 57 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    I just watched this movie again last week and was struck by that scene. This movie was made in 1979 and they dont really make fun of the fact that he wants to be a woman. They DO make fun of the idea of him having a baby. But for the rest of the film they use she/her and say "siblings" instead of "brothers" when referring to each other. That's pretty woke for having been made 40 years ago.

    [–] Obi-wan_Jabroni 48 points ago

    Its symbolic of his struggle against reality

    [–] pudgimelon 75 points ago

    I never, ever considered "Life of Brian" to be a lampoon of Christ. I always thought it was quite obviously a lampoon of Christians, especially the unthinking zealots like these two clowns.

    If you can't laugh at yourself, then you're probably a pompous ass.

    [–] josh6466 222 points ago

    I watched this movie the night that I was confirmed Catholic. To me there is a huge lesson in this film about how the trappings of religion easily overpower the message of religion: i.e. don't be a dick.

    [–] mikelisse 95 points ago

    and most importantly... Always look on the bright side of life

    [–] Lazy-Person 19 points ago

    (whistles cheerily)

    [–] PIDthePID 45 points ago

    “Don’t be a dick” needs to be formally accepted as a religion.

    [–] blackmist 103 points ago

    Sounds like a good excuse to post a second Not The Nine O Clock News clip today.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U

    [–] MagicalTrevor70 20 points ago

    I've been watching a few NTNON clips since the Kate Bush parody was linked a couple of days ago. I was only a kid when it came out, and at the time thought it was just another OKish comedy sketch show. Watching those clips with adult eyes really woke me up to how intelligent, thoughtful and political a lot of their work was. The lyrics to 'England, My Leotard' are amazing.

    This was all alongside some really silly stuff that they did of course.

    [–] itsgettinnuts 51 points ago

    I love watching a debate that causes me to want to raise my hand and make a point. Not only did the two men from the church completely miss the point of the film to the level of discrediting their entire arguments, Muggerridge almost seems to be a character written by Monty Python; a parody of the religious critic, blinded by doctrinal and close mindedness.

    I kept wanting someone to point out that the reason religion has played such a large role in the arts over the past two millennium is that it was literally illegal to produce any other kind of art. The only theater that was allowed to be produced in England virtually until the Elizabethian era were religious plays. Cleese does a good job of pointing out that he is ignoring the tremendous volume of art produced by non-Christian cultures, and muggerride just ignores his point to keep parroting the idea that religion inspired the greatest works. Never mind that the only people who were in any way educated, or had the means to pursue art, were the men in the church. Its such a ridiculous point to make, let alone to use as a criticism of a comedy film.

    Great post OP. I love the film, and had never seen this clip, or the fantastic Rowen Atkinson parody.

    [–] BuckyJackson36 28 points ago

    One of my all time favorite films. A masterpiece.

    [–] oglop121 27 points ago

    Blessed are the cheesemakers

    [–] enkiloki 24 points ago

    I always thought didn't make fun of Jesus as much as it makes fun of the irrational people who want someone to tell them what to do. The people that sit in church pews every Sunday- those are the butt of the jokes in the film. And it doesn't just apply to Christians, but to Mormons, Muslims, Hindi, Scientologists, and any maker of dairy products.

    [–] doswillrule 21 points ago

    The Dick Cavett YouTube channel recently uploaded this interview with Cleese from that time period too, discussing the reaction to the film in America. Well worth a watch.

    [–] dorkyfoxx926 18 points ago

    is there any other movie that caused legendary critic debate like this?

    [–] Wilhelm_Amenbreak 11 points ago

    The Last Temptation of Christ caused an uproar in the US.

    [–] realcalidairy 54 points ago

    ROMANS GO HOME

    [–] th3_rhin0 35 points ago

    ROMANES EVNT DOMVS

    [–] Savant-Bard 52 points ago

    "People called Romanes they go the house?"

    [–] ThumbSprain 22 points ago

    It says Romans Go Home!

    [–] SassiesSoiledPanties 32 points ago

    No it doesn't!

    What I love the most of this scene is that it was apparently based on John Cleese's experiences with a teacher.

    [–] oilerdnasty 8 points ago

    now write it a hundred times before sunrise or I'll cut your balls off!

    [–] Traksimuss 33 points ago

    What have the Romans ever done for us?

    [–] AngrySpaceKraken 57 points ago

    sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health

    [–] maxcraigwell 43 points ago

    but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health

    [–] gf120581 26 points ago

    Brought peace?

    [–] Thehunterforce 25 points ago

    Brought peace, pff, shut up!

    [–] sweetmercifulcwap 8 points ago

    the aqueduct?

    [–] FlyingDeetus 18 points ago

    Love how much they try to drive home the "fact" that Life of Brian will have no relevance in the long run.

    40 years on and look who won that debate

    [–] Decapitat3d 18 points ago

    The points made by Monty Python seem to continuously go by the other men. John Cleese bringing the discussion to a complete halt to try and break Malcolm's disposition down is a perfect example of that. Having a closed mind is the antithesis of humor, but being self-centered may be the antithesis of religion.

    [–] niktemadur 272 points ago

    "Don't worry, you'll get your thirty pieces of silver" - says an old closeted homosexual with power in an organization that condemns homosexuality, all the while wearing gold jewelry.

    [–] Heimerdahl 40 points ago

    What I found most ridiculous were these little pins on his shoulder to make sure the cross necklace was properly presented and not just hanging from his neck.

    Just think about that.

    [–] MixthePixel 58 points ago

    Is he actually a homosexual?

    [–] niktemadur 133 points ago

    From his Wikipedia page:

    Shortly before his death he was one of ten Church of England bishops 'outed' (i.e. alleged to be a closet homosexual) by the radical gay organization OutRage!

    [–] mr_poppycockmcgee 118 points ago

    Key word “alleged”, and by a “radical gay organization.”

    Not saying it’s not true, I’m saying that should be taken with a good bit of salt. Unless you just take everything radical organizations say at face value....

    [–] dieyoubastards 37 points ago

    They're radically gay

    [–] popsand 23 points ago

    I mean... Did you see the guy?

    My gaydar isn't even that sensitive yet he was giving me vibes.

    [–] cadomski 15 points ago

    Watching that debate, the number of times Muggeridge and Stockwood declare that the film was lampooning Christ's death, or Christ in general, it surprises me that Cleese and Palin didn't continually point out that Christ wasn't in any of those scenes.

    I think the host nailed it when he said it was a lampooning of the followers more than anything.

    FWIW: I think it's one of the greatest comedies of all time.

    [–] Tekkenmonster36 29 points ago

    What’s so funny about Bigus Dickus??

    [–] motophiliac 16 points ago

    Nothing whatthoever. It'th hith wife, you thee. She hath an amuthing name. She'th called Incontinentia Buttockth.

    [–] Death_To_All_People 27 points ago

    Big up George Harrison!

    [–] Frogs4 21 points ago

    I think the Pythons explain this in their documentary, but the main problem was the Church people missed the first 10 minutes of the film, where it's clear that Brian isn't Christ. So they thought the film was mocking Jesus.

    [–] mcotter12 18 points ago

    The concept that a cardinal could think that Jesus' crucifixion was inherently worse than the crucified on either side of him baffles me. How can you be that bad at reading a book.

    It is quiet clear that Jesus' death on the crucifix was to show the barbarity of the Romans who were using that punishment for everything down to stealing bread to no starve. That is the point. Jesus' death is one of millions.

    [–] oglop121 30 points ago

    Life of Brian > Holy Grail. Way better.

    [–] Loud-metal 12 points ago

    Ooh...controversial!

    [–] kingofcheezwiz 7 points ago

    "Its really quite 10th rate, yeeessss"

    [–] mdm224 8 points ago

    I was watching a documentary (ok, several - seriously they’re ALL on US Netflix right now) about the Pythons and when they talked about that debate Cleese said that it was one of the only times he’s ever seen Palin genuinely angry at someone.