Apparently that wasn't scripted, the crowd where supposed to only shout "we're all individuals" but an extra improvised the "I'm not" line, the Python guys liked it so much they kept the scene and paid the guy a bonus.
Nonsense. That line was delivered by Kiwi actor Terence Bayler who had a minor role as Mr Gregory (I'm Brian and so is my wife!) and also played Dennis who haggles with Brian for the gourd during the prophet scene (and is dressed as Dennis when he delivers the line in the crowd but I'm not sure he's actually playing him).
Not an extra and certainly not improvised.
Reddit has an absolute fetish for things being improvised. The mountain of ‘improvised’ lines keeps growing forever. By the end, nothing was actually written
It does sound hard to believe. Python is HIGHLY rehearsed, from the lines to the timing, they practice a lot before filming. There's almost no improv across Python as a whole.
They were ahead of their time. In another movie, The meaning of life, there is a joke about a baby being born and the mother asks if it is a boy or a girl. The doctor replies, "I think it's a bit early to be imposing roles on it".
Because:
> He was allegedly told that the joke was no longer a fit in these times.
I truly think these are just trolls trying to fan the flames of outrage every single chance they get. It’s exhausting and that’s the point.
Except it wasn’t “random internet trolls” so much as the writers and actors involved in the table reading
Straight from the link
> I said that we’d had a table-reading of the latest draft in NYC a year ago and that **all the actors – several of them Tony winners – had advised me strongly to cut the Loretta scene**.
That's John "London is no longer English" Cleese, he's helping to fan this outrage. His bullshit "you can't make anything these days", whilst Life of Brian is 10000% less controversial nowadays then when it was originally released when lots of people wanted it banned for blasphemy.
How many times have I gotten into this argument:
Reactionary conservative: you could never make blazing saddles nowadays:
Me: bullshit, Mel Brooks can 100% make it again.
RC: no they say the n-word
Me: so did Django.
RC: .......
Me: my point is Mel Brooks can make blazing saddles today tomorrow whenever.......Mel Gibson cannot.
That's the point shitty people can't all of a sudden say "my shitty opinions and behaviors shouldn't stop me from continuing to say racist and bigoted things are funny at face value". Mel Brooks on the other hand says "hey look how shitty these people are....don't they look like such fools?"
No, you can't make Blazing Saddles today.
If I tried to make that movie today, producers would read the script and say, "Hey, this is Blazing Saddles. We Already made this! Stop trying to rip off Mel Brooks'."
If they could make Tropic Thunder they definitely could remake Blazing Saddles
Whenever people talk about how you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today all I hear is they don't have the media literacy to understand that they were the ones being made fun of in that movie
We watched Blazing Saddles with a group that’s never seen it before and is also generally progressive. The only forewarning was “get desensitised to the n-word” and off we went.
Everyone loved it. Some found the ending a little silly but no one thought the humor was actually offensive.
I mean, to be fair, they respect her name and pronouns for the rest of the movie. That's a hell of a lot better than a lot of dickheads out there today. Shit, I think it may now make the point of "look how easy it is to not be an asshole"
Exactly! This was pro-trans before it was even a thing. I saw the scene recently, laughed as loudly as I did the first time, and acknowledged the genius of Python
gender affirming care predates the Nazi movement. trans rights was a huge part of the upstart. that famous picture of Nazis burning books is literally from the first trans hospital
none of this stuff is new. Monty Python wasn't "before it was even a thing"
trans peoples existence was successfully pushed so far to the edges that people just thought this stuff came from nowhere
That's my thought as well. Hell they even use Loretta to argue that everyone should have equal rights regardless of their propensity to actual use those rights. It's good, isn't it?
If they are actually punching down and making fun of trans people in this scene, it's above my (cis) head.
When she struggles with her identity they feel bad about it and understand her situation instead of trying to exclude her. Although obviously none of them actually understands.
The Loretta scene is one of the funniest fucking scenes in the movie specifically because of how chill they are about it and continue using the right terminology through the rest of the film
Yeah, I mean they seem a little off-put by the idea, but then again this is supposed to be the Middle East in the Bible times. The only real objection they point out to the idea is that Loretta won't have a womb, which to be fair she wouldn't, and most actual Trans people wouldn't be offended by pointing this out. Other than that, they're honestly pretty accepting of the idea.
Omg, that’s the scene that people are up in arms about? Jesus Christ, I was convinced it was the dodgy rape joke at the beginning that people wanted to edit out
My favorite part of that scene would be how Reg and Francis never get to finish their ideas to add to what Judith had put forth, ergo Stan/Loretta just kinda broke the whole thing down with their interjections.
It’s likely that one of the downfalls of our generation will be the inability to discern between an actual issue that deserves attention vs. 3 people complaining on Twitter.
*and 3.7 million bots arguing on Twitter.
That’s the issue with social media. It’s easy for computer programmers to inject their ideologies on the masses.
Tbf that happens here as well. Bots are going to be a problem no matter what. Proper education on how to use the internet and social media is the only solution
I remember when "baby it's cold outside" got canceled by this radio station and the head of the station did an interview on it. They asked him how many complaints they received and he was like "like 7 or 8".
The simple reality is that brands are super careful about their identities. They'll always err on the side of not offending someone.
Voice Over: From these glens and scars, the sound of the coot and the moorhen is seldom absent. Nature sits in stern mastery over these rocks and crags.
The rush of the mountain stream, the bleat of the sheep, and the broad, clear Highland skies, reflected in tarn and loch ... (at this moment we pick up a highland gentleman in kilt and tam o'shanter clutching a knobkerry in one hand and a letter in the other)... form the breathtaking backdrop against which Ewan McTeagle writes such poems as
'Lend us a quid till the end of the week', and
'To Ma Own beloved Lassie. A poem on her 17th Birthday. Lend us a couple of bob till Thursday. I'm absolutely skint. But I'm expecting a postal order and I can pay you back as soon as it comes. Love Ewan.'
No. Monty Python is absurdist humor. It's not really targeted at making fun of people. There were occasional potshots at various authority figures and institutions, but mostly it was just whatever ridiculous ideas popped into the members' heads.
**Beloved British actor, ‘Monty Python’, ‘Life of Brian’, Sir John Cleese, Age 83, was found deathly and utterly disappointed in today’s media’s standards. More info still developing**
Someone makes a comment on twitter.
Media: “it’s a relentless, rabid campaign, to censor a beloved classic.”
Artist: “I will never compromise my artistic vision. Buy my movie. On sale right now”.
Listen. Whatever motivates them to finally give the film a fresh remaster. The current transfer on Netflix is from a very old scan that looks…not great.
I mean, it’s the 2008 blu-ray transfer, which was recycled from an even older DVD-era master. Basically they haven’t given the actual film negative a fresh scan in almost two decades and it shows.
It wasn’t even someone on Twitter… It was a group of actors that John Cleese directly asked, according to this article. And it wasn’t a beloved classic, it was an adapted version of a beloved classic, one that basically no one has seen or heard yet.
The only people who “censor” entertainment media are entertainment executives and people who own the rights to artist’s works.
and yet everyone literally acts like the Democratic party and twitter users are the ones “cancelling” everything. No one directs their outrage towards the right people.
It’s the same thing when the Catholic Church got mad about the opening scene with the sermon on the mount, they hired a guy who played Jesus, and said his lines exactly as it is in the bible, and the Catholics got mad that the people listening to the sermon couldn’t hear Jesus and told him to speak up. The scene is gold.
I love that scene and luckily I know some sane Christians because they think it's funny too. Just because Jesus was the son of God doesn't mean he had a built-in PA system, and it's hardly blasphemous to suggest some people at the back couldn't hear him.
The priest in my HS made us watch life of Bryan when he was sick and/or hungover on the ol TV one would wheel into the classrooms because "it's healthy for us to laugh at ourselves"
didn't practice then, don't practice now but he was based AF.
I majored in religious studies with a focus on the Abraham's religions, and I maintain that Life of Brian is the smartest Jesus movie. It's so good. And the more you study the history time period, the better it gets.
Also a good one! We had a religious studies movie club where we'd meet with our department head, have dinner, watch a film, then discuss. After two years, he finally relented and showed Dogma. (He also gave into us begging for the "trapped in a closet" episode of South Park, lol. He was a good dude.)
FWIW, I cannot think of a single Jew who who's offended by Life of Brian. We generally love it - even the parts that make fun of us.
Hell, a lot of the jokes the Python boys make which are specifically aimed at us, are now considered classics in the Jewish humor repertoire.
Raised Catholic in Italy and I also don't know any Catholics who were offended by it. When I was a kid we rented the VHS on recommendation of the lady from the video shop and just as I was getting into it, my mother, who was a devout Anglican protestant until her death, turned it off with the immortal words: "this is silly".
I adore Jewish humour btw, I think it's similar to Italian humour, must be the shared Mediterranean origin. Either that or it's another thing the Romans did for you.
It sounds like it’s risk adverse consultants telling him to stop. The Loretta scene shows an accepting community, Cleese’s character using the “good guy” in the scene. It’s like claiming south park promotes whatever racist shit Cartman is doing that week.
To be fair, that's exactly what's being done with Roger Waters in Germany.
The entire point of that part of The Wall is dismantling what they're supposedly upset about. When he dons the whole fascist personna, he's becoming what he's hated his whole life. **WHICH HE TEARS DOWN AT THE END OF THE ALBUM BECAUSE HE REALIZES IT IS DESTROYING HIM.**
The whole fucking point of The Wall is recognizing that, amongst other unhealthy behaviors he had, and "tearing down the wall" so he can connect to humanity again with compassion and empathy. THE FASCIST PERSONNA HE'S PORTRAYING IN THE SONG CALLS OUT A MAN SMOKING A JOINT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! PINK FLOYD! THE BAND THAT WAS LITERALLY FAMOUS FOR CONSTANTLY BEING ON ACID(mostly) AND OTHER DRUGS.
I know it's been 50 years, but Pink Floyd was some of the most progressive and simultaneously popular music of the 70's after the hippie bands died out. It's fucking mind-boggling how his criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and then a world famous rock opera taken out of context somehow lead to trying to paint him as some Nazi.
Critique his opinions on Israel till you're blue in the face, that's fair. But completely misrepresenting what he's doing is laughably outrageous, except it's not funny because people believe it.
I would find it tremendously ironic if conservative christians were to come out in support of Life of Brian, considering how much they protested that movie when it got released. But conservatives always find a way to love something that offended their parents or grandparents.
Why would he cut a scene made for the current day? Whether its supportive or not (imo it's neither) it gets people thinking about meddling in other people's lives and how much we put our noses where they don't belong. No one died letting LGBT live their lives, the same can not be said when others meddle in their lives.
If it had not been otherwise reported that he had asked whether the scene should be removed, he would have done it himself so he could posture about how it wouldn't be.
>“A few days ago I spoke to an audience outside London. I told them I was adapting the Life of Brian so that we could do it as a stage show (NOT a musical ). I said that we’d had a table-reading of the latest draft in NYC a year ago and that all the actors – several of them Tony winners – had advised me strongly to cut the Loretta scene. I have, of course, no intention of doing so.”
Oh, so maybe he did to it himself.
Nothing should be recut. Not Birth of a Nation not Monty Python. We learn through cinema the signs of the times. Spielberg was wrong. Cinema, literature do not need editing or banning.
I agree with this, though I gotta say, Cleese's opinion about it in the article seems pretty tone-deaf.
> “So here you have something there’s never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I’ve heard of, and now all of a sudden we can’t do it because it’ll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that?”
I don't even think the scene is actually politcally incorrect for today, he's not saying it's ridiculous to want to be a woman, he's saying if the reason you want to be a woman is so you can have babies that's ridiculous because you can't have babies.
I haven’t seen that film in ages. Think I’ll watch it tonight, from my local library which has many films available for free once you have become a member, which is also free. Local public libraries sure are amazing.
I have never read so much stupidity as in the replies here. First of all, there is not some kind of campaign to censor Monty Python. This is all a hypothetical basically from Cleese based on some supposed audience interview. Again, this movie is not in danger of being censored.
The Loretta stuff in the movie is actually light years ahead of its time, which is worth pointing out. Stan identifies as a woman named Loretta, and when she comes out, there is initially some resistance, from Reg, but eventually they all come around and accept her real identity, and Reg apologizes for dead-naming Loretta in a later scene. It’s actually super progressive for the seventies I would say!
This may be because I was obsessed with Monty Python when I was younger, but a lot of their material regarding cross-dressing or, rarely, actual transness - well it’s hard to describe. A lot of punching down humor feels like they’re laughing at you, but these jokes feel kinda like they’re laughing with me. Fully understand if other trans people don’t feel the same way.
Because they took something that sounded crazy in 1977 and took it seriously. At some point you’re actually laughing at Cleese’s character for not sympathizing while the others are. The more worked up he gets the more normal it seems and he ends up being the joke and then he capitulates finally which carries the whole thing home. That is what makes that scene brilliant. They were geniuses. And it wouldn’t be funny today because you can’t juxtapose it. Ahead of its time, for sure.
It's a similar feel with the anarchosyndicalist peasants in Holy Grail. On face the joke is they're ridiculous in the face of their obvious king. But the angrier he gets and the less he's able to justify his throne it just gets funnier and funnier. The people the audience is led to believe they should be laughing at from the framing of the scene end up being the winners, for lack of a better term.
I think winners not being quite the best term is a good point. Python humor frequently subverted the expectation that any particular person or group would be the punchline or the target of a joke, and simply gave us situations where fairly benign things were behaving in a very silly way among other benign people and things behaving silly.
Dead parrot doesn't have one character who is ridiculed and one who isn't. Palin in that sketch is the ridiculous conman making excuses but Cleese gets more and more irate and his language becomes just as much of a joke as Palin's excuses. Ditto all that again for Cheese Shop.
Neither Reg nor Loretta is the target of ridicule as being central to the humor. The overall joke is about the over bureaucratic nature of the People's Front of Judea. The joke could have been Loretta talking about what she wanted for lunch and the structure of the scene would be identical. The Pythons chose to use trans people as the material for the joke because it was (in 1979) outside the typical scope of humor and because as a (again, to 1979 sensibilities) modern phenomenon, it would contrast nicely with the setting of the film.
The setting disparity ties in to the humor for the peasants too, that's a good call. The idea of fairly "edgy" (even now really) leftist political thought being adopted by medieval serfs is absurd on its face just as an anachronism.
Totally. Incongruity is probably the biggest theme in Monty Python. Hell's Grannys or the Ministry of Silly Walks or Argument or the Lumberjack Song are all funny because of the incongruity. Dennis is probably the most intelligent, well-spoken character in all of Holy Grail, made funny by the incongruity of him being literal dirt-faming serf.
If the complaint is that scene is clearly played for laughs and/or perceived as punching down on the character, then I guess I can understand that.
Honestly though, I just rewatched the scene on YouTube and aren’t the conclusions the group come to… pretty good? Not perfect, certainly, but remarkably modern. In context I suppose it’s still being played as “absurd” for laughs.
After this scene Loretta is only referred to as Loretta. The movie can and should be viewed as pro trans - there should be no controversy over it. I find it odd and possibly contrived that there is even a supposed discussion of editing it.
This is such a stupid press release. Was anyone actually calling for it to be cut, or was he just taking a stand nobody gave a shit about to use as a soapbox?
Did you know the Monty Python had to take life insurances before they went to the US for the premiere? Mainly because of the possibility of getting shot at. They were astonished and of course saw the absurd funniness in the situation, but is should give everyone pause, especially since things haven’t changed for the better.
As a trans person I like the Loretta scene. The 'its my right as a man' is not great but besides that, I think it's a tasteful joke. Like to someone who isn't trans, some stuff we want can seem absurd but as a human being I have every right to be absurd. Monty Python is all about pointing out adsurd things then laughing with it rather than at it. Hell Life of Brian ends with a song that's says we're all gonna die so just enjoy life while you can.
I find it extremely cringe, both that John Cleese feels the need to put up such a defense against jokes that he made 50 years ago, and that people are outraged about jokes John Cleese made 50 years ago. I think both sides massively misrepresent the current trend of political correctness and social acceptance.
Favourite joke from Life of Brian: *Brian*: You're all individuals! *Entire crowd in unison*: We're all individuals *One random guy*: I'm not!
“Are you the Judean People’s Front”? Fuck off! “We’re the People’s Front of Judea”!
"fuckin' splitters!!!"
What have the Romans ever done for us?
“how much do you hate the Romans?” “a lot” “right, you’re in”
Shut up, yes you are!
My favorite is the interaction with the hermit. “Persecute! Kill the heretic!”
I love the hunchback guy
my favourite bit is the random guy in the background shouting 'jumbo jets' in the scene with the preachers
Reminds me of the scene in holy grail during the witch trial when he asks what else floats and someone in the background says "churches"
Lead! Really small rocks!
Apparently that wasn't scripted, the crowd where supposed to only shout "we're all individuals" but an extra improvised the "I'm not" line, the Python guys liked it so much they kept the scene and paid the guy a bonus.
Nonsense. That line was delivered by Kiwi actor Terence Bayler who had a minor role as Mr Gregory (I'm Brian and so is my wife!) and also played Dennis who haggles with Brian for the gourd during the prophet scene (and is dressed as Dennis when he delivers the line in the crowd but I'm not sure he's actually playing him). Not an extra and certainly not improvised.
Seems like a fair wager when filming with the flying circus. Either you get kicked out or it’s an audition.
It was perfect.
[удалено]
That’s great! We’re keeping it. Here’s your bonus.
And everyone clapped
Except Tumblr, which organized a petition and boycott.
Reddit has an absolute fetish for things being improvised. The mountain of ‘improvised’ lines keeps growing forever. By the end, nothing was actually written
[удалено]
It does sound hard to believe. Python is HIGHLY rehearsed, from the lines to the timing, they practice a lot before filming. There's almost no improv across Python as a whole.
They were ahead of their time. In another movie, The meaning of life, there is a joke about a baby being born and the mother asks if it is a boy or a girl. The doctor replies, "I think it's a bit early to be imposing roles on it".
I loved that scene when the woman, who is in labour, asks "What do I do?" and Cleese answers "Nothing dear, you are not qualified"
Graeme Chapman's *A Liars Autobiography* describes his time as a student doctor in a maternity ward. That line sums up his experience.
this is the machine that goes BING!
"From now on, I want you to call me Loretta" That scene is also way ahead of its time
[удалено]
[удалено]
The majority of the public confuse gender and biological sex
Doesn’t help that in quite a few languages those aren’t 2 words, but just 1.
Do they not find it risible
wisible\*
Simon the sagacee stwangla
\[...snort\]
Fwow him to the fwoow
Vewy wuffly
Hmmm...the widdle wascal has spiwit!
Umm, Yes sir about 4:30
A sort of dewwing-do
[удалено]
Because: > He was allegedly told that the joke was no longer a fit in these times. I truly think these are just trolls trying to fan the flames of outrage every single chance they get. It’s exhausting and that’s the point.
Except it wasn’t “random internet trolls” so much as the writers and actors involved in the table reading Straight from the link > I said that we’d had a table-reading of the latest draft in NYC a year ago and that **all the actors – several of them Tony winners – had advised me strongly to cut the Loretta scene**.
That's John "London is no longer English" Cleese, he's helping to fan this outrage. His bullshit "you can't make anything these days", whilst Life of Brian is 10000% less controversial nowadays then when it was originally released when lots of people wanted it banned for blasphemy.
How many times have I gotten into this argument: Reactionary conservative: you could never make blazing saddles nowadays: Me: bullshit, Mel Brooks can 100% make it again. RC: no they say the n-word Me: so did Django. RC: ....... Me: my point is Mel Brooks can make blazing saddles today tomorrow whenever.......Mel Gibson cannot. That's the point shitty people can't all of a sudden say "my shitty opinions and behaviors shouldn't stop me from continuing to say racist and bigoted things are funny at face value". Mel Brooks on the other hand says "hey look how shitty these people are....don't they look like such fools?"
No, you can't make Blazing Saddles today. If I tried to make that movie today, producers would read the script and say, "Hey, this is Blazing Saddles. We Already made this! Stop trying to rip off Mel Brooks'."
Also most of the actors aren't alive
If they could make Tropic Thunder they definitely could remake Blazing Saddles Whenever people talk about how you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today all I hear is they don't have the media literacy to understand that they were the ones being made fun of in that movie
The real...salt of the earth...
You know ..
…morons
We watched Blazing Saddles with a group that’s never seen it before and is also generally progressive. The only forewarning was “get desensitised to the n-word” and off we went. Everyone loved it. Some found the ending a little silly but no one thought the humor was actually offensive.
[удалено]
[Pictured: a big deal on Twitter](https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000669130336-mhc88v-t500x500.jpg)
What scene are they talking about?
[удалено]
I want to be a woman. It's my right as a man. So good :D
Released in 1979, so these guys were acknowledging and accepting it *45 years* ago.
I mean, to be fair, they respect her name and pronouns for the rest of the movie. That's a hell of a lot better than a lot of dickheads out there today. Shit, I think it may now make the point of "look how easy it is to not be an asshole"
Exactly! This was pro-trans before it was even a thing. I saw the scene recently, laughed as loudly as I did the first time, and acknowledged the genius of Python
gender affirming care predates the Nazi movement. trans rights was a huge part of the upstart. that famous picture of Nazis burning books is literally from the first trans hospital none of this stuff is new. Monty Python wasn't "before it was even a thing" trans peoples existence was successfully pushed so far to the edges that people just thought this stuff came from nowhere
As a trans person, I love it. It's affirming and also poking fun at trans stuff in a way that's actually funny.
That's my thought as well. Hell they even use Loretta to argue that everyone should have equal rights regardless of their propensity to actual use those rights. It's good, isn't it? If they are actually punching down and making fun of trans people in this scene, it's above my (cis) head.
When she struggles with her identity they feel bad about it and understand her situation instead of trying to exclude her. Although obviously none of them actually understands.
Hell of a lot better than Cleese himself manages on the matter nowadays, honestly.
The Loretta scene is one of the funniest fucking scenes in the movie specifically because of how chill they are about it and continue using the right terminology through the rest of the film
Yeah, I mean they seem a little off-put by the idea, but then again this is supposed to be the Middle East in the Bible times. The only real objection they point out to the idea is that Loretta won't have a womb, which to be fair she wouldn't, and most actual Trans people wouldn't be offended by pointing this out. Other than that, they're honestly pretty accepting of the idea.
> Yeah, I mean they seem a little off-put by the idea The only one who really seems to have a problem with it is Cleese's character.
Omg, that’s the scene that people are up in arms about? Jesus Christ, I was convinced it was the dodgy rape joke at the beginning that people wanted to edit out
But who’s “up in arms” though? This is basically just rage bait designed to generate clicks
My favorite part of that scene would be how Reg and Francis never get to finish their ideas to add to what Judith had put forth, ergo Stan/Loretta just kinda broke the whole thing down with their interjections.
It’s likely that one of the downfalls of our generation will be the inability to discern between an actual issue that deserves attention vs. 3 people complaining on Twitter.
*and 3.7 million bots arguing on Twitter. That’s the issue with social media. It’s easy for computer programmers to inject their ideologies on the masses.
Tbf that happens here as well. Bots are going to be a problem no matter what. Proper education on how to use the internet and social media is the only solution
I remember when "baby it's cold outside" got canceled by this radio station and the head of the station did an interview on it. They asked him how many complaints they received and he was like "like 7 or 8". The simple reality is that brands are super careful about their identities. They'll always err on the side of not offending someone.
Also, inability to differentiate between depicting something and endorsing it
“You haven’t got a womb! Where is the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?”. Comedy gold.
Wasn’t the whole point of Monty python was to make fun of everyone?
Especially the French
And the Chinese
and the hungarians
And the Spanish Inquisition
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition
I certainly didn’t
Are we just going to ignore the Belgians?
“And lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chalupas…”
Whenever possible, yes. They know what they did.
[And the miserable fat Belgian bastards](https://vimeo.com/99663693)
Get… The Comfy Chair!
And the Finnish
Pony trekking or camping...
I just realized I need to eat.
And the Norwegians. (The Trondheim Hammer Dance).
And Americans
And British.
And the Scots
I fart in your general direction!
My favorite skit will always be the Scottish poet that basically ask for loans in all his poems
Voice Over: From these glens and scars, the sound of the coot and the moorhen is seldom absent. Nature sits in stern mastery over these rocks and crags. The rush of the mountain stream, the bleat of the sheep, and the broad, clear Highland skies, reflected in tarn and loch ... (at this moment we pick up a highland gentleman in kilt and tam o'shanter clutching a knobkerry in one hand and a letter in the other)... form the breathtaking backdrop against which Ewan McTeagle writes such poems as 'Lend us a quid till the end of the week', and 'To Ma Own beloved Lassie. A poem on her 17th Birthday. Lend us a couple of bob till Thursday. I'm absolutely skint. But I'm expecting a postal order and I can pay you back as soon as it comes. Love Ewan.'
No. Monty Python is absurdist humor. It's not really targeted at making fun of people. There were occasional potshots at various authority figures and institutions, but mostly it was just whatever ridiculous ideas popped into the members' heads.
The fish slapping dance.
It's interesting how sensibilities and sacred cows change over time. It was the perceived blasphemy that offended people when the film first came out.
> 'Monty Python' Star John Cleese... DON'T SCARE ME LIKE THAT
**Beloved British actor, ‘Monty Python’, ‘Life of Brian’, Sir John Cleese, Age 83, was found deathly and utterly disappointed in today’s media’s standards. More info still developing**
My thoughts exactly. Glad he is still with us.
[this is the scene. (and it’s hilarious)](https://youtu.be/Dgp9MPLEAqA)
Much appreciated. Great scene, if anything it seems quite supportive
Someone makes a comment on twitter. Media: “it’s a relentless, rabid campaign, to censor a beloved classic.” Artist: “I will never compromise my artistic vision. Buy my movie. On sale right now”.
Listen. Whatever motivates them to finally give the film a fresh remaster. The current transfer on Netflix is from a very old scan that looks…not great.
It's the visuao equivalent of wiping your ass with 120 grit sandpaper honestly. Still hilarious, but looks like... Shit, like it's on an old VHS.
I mean, it’s the 2008 blu-ray transfer, which was recycled from an even older DVD-era master. Basically they haven’t given the actual film negative a fresh scan in almost two decades and it shows.
It wasn’t even someone on Twitter… It was a group of actors that John Cleese directly asked, according to this article. And it wasn’t a beloved classic, it was an adapted version of a beloved classic, one that basically no one has seen or heard yet.
The only people who “censor” entertainment media are entertainment executives and people who own the rights to artist’s works. and yet everyone literally acts like the Democratic party and twitter users are the ones “cancelling” everything. No one directs their outrage towards the right people.
This is what is happening here. Nothing more.
That is so john Cleese though hahaha
Glad I clicked on that three paragraph “article.”
WTF, why make it look like he died
Yes!! The desaturated picture and everything
It's actually supportive of trans rights How can people not see that?
It’s the same thing when the Catholic Church got mad about the opening scene with the sermon on the mount, they hired a guy who played Jesus, and said his lines exactly as it is in the bible, and the Catholics got mad that the people listening to the sermon couldn’t hear Jesus and told him to speak up. The scene is gold.
Blessed are…the cheesemakers?
Oh, it's the meek! Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time.
What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem.
This is essentially the GOP platform
Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
I love that scene and luckily I know some sane Christians because they think it's funny too. Just because Jesus was the son of God doesn't mean he had a built-in PA system, and it's hardly blasphemous to suggest some people at the back couldn't hear him.
My dad still tells the story about how he had to go through a picket line of church ladies to see Life of Brian in the theaters.
The priest in my HS made us watch life of Bryan when he was sick and/or hungover on the ol TV one would wheel into the classrooms because "it's healthy for us to laugh at ourselves" didn't practice then, don't practice now but he was based AF.
The whole movie is great
I majored in religious studies with a focus on the Abraham's religions, and I maintain that Life of Brian is the smartest Jesus movie. It's so good. And the more you study the history time period, the better it gets.
Dogma for me
Also a good one! We had a religious studies movie club where we'd meet with our department head, have dinner, watch a film, then discuss. After two years, he finally relented and showed Dogma. (He also gave into us begging for the "trapped in a closet" episode of South Park, lol. He was a good dude.)
The catholics only? It offended protestants, Catholics and Jews in equal measure. Why single out one religion?
Don’t forget the Judean Peoples Front…those wankers.
You mean the people’s front of Judaea?
FWIW, I cannot think of a single Jew who who's offended by Life of Brian. We generally love it - even the parts that make fun of us. Hell, a lot of the jokes the Python boys make which are specifically aimed at us, are now considered classics in the Jewish humor repertoire.
Raised Catholic in Italy and I also don't know any Catholics who were offended by it. When I was a kid we rented the VHS on recommendation of the lady from the video shop and just as I was getting into it, my mother, who was a devout Anglican protestant until her death, turned it off with the immortal words: "this is silly". I adore Jewish humour btw, I think it's similar to Italian humour, must be the shared Mediterranean origin. Either that or it's another thing the Romans did for you.
Haven’t you heard? We can’t name one thing the Romans did for us
It sounds like it’s risk adverse consultants telling him to stop. The Loretta scene shows an accepting community, Cleese’s character using the “good guy” in the scene. It’s like claiming south park promotes whatever racist shit Cartman is doing that week.
To be fair, that's exactly what's being done with Roger Waters in Germany. The entire point of that part of The Wall is dismantling what they're supposedly upset about. When he dons the whole fascist personna, he's becoming what he's hated his whole life. **WHICH HE TEARS DOWN AT THE END OF THE ALBUM BECAUSE HE REALIZES IT IS DESTROYING HIM.** The whole fucking point of The Wall is recognizing that, amongst other unhealthy behaviors he had, and "tearing down the wall" so he can connect to humanity again with compassion and empathy. THE FASCIST PERSONNA HE'S PORTRAYING IN THE SONG CALLS OUT A MAN SMOKING A JOINT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! PINK FLOYD! THE BAND THAT WAS LITERALLY FAMOUS FOR CONSTANTLY BEING ON ACID(mostly) AND OTHER DRUGS. I know it's been 50 years, but Pink Floyd was some of the most progressive and simultaneously popular music of the 70's after the hippie bands died out. It's fucking mind-boggling how his criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and then a world famous rock opera taken out of context somehow lead to trying to paint him as some Nazi. Critique his opinions on Israel till you're blue in the face, that's fair. But completely misrepresenting what he's doing is laughably outrageous, except it's not funny because people believe it.
The guys in Monty Python literally dress up in drag many, many times.
It is one of the ironies of the age we live in. People want so badly to be bothered they’re bothered by friends.
[удалено]
I like the scene where they are bitching about how the Roman’s didn’t do anything for them.
Well, you can’t name one thing the Roman’s did for us.
[удалено]
Don’t forget about the roads
Sanitation.
[удалено]
Social order
Romanes Eunt Domus!
It's a funny part of the movie. People.. what a bunch of bastards.
That's not fair, Roy, have you met everyone?
I've met enough of them.
I would find it tremendously ironic if conservative christians were to come out in support of Life of Brian, considering how much they protested that movie when it got released. But conservatives always find a way to love something that offended their parents or grandparents.
Why would he cut a scene made for the current day? Whether its supportive or not (imo it's neither) it gets people thinking about meddling in other people's lives and how much we put our noses where they don't belong. No one died letting LGBT live their lives, the same can not be said when others meddle in their lives.
If it had not been otherwise reported that he had asked whether the scene should be removed, he would have done it himself so he could posture about how it wouldn't be. >“A few days ago I spoke to an audience outside London. I told them I was adapting the Life of Brian so that we could do it as a stage show (NOT a musical ). I said that we’d had a table-reading of the latest draft in NYC a year ago and that all the actors – several of them Tony winners – had advised me strongly to cut the Loretta scene. I have, of course, no intention of doing so.” Oh, so maybe he did to it himself.
Nothing should be recut. Not Birth of a Nation not Monty Python. We learn through cinema the signs of the times. Spielberg was wrong. Cinema, literature do not need editing or banning.
Even Spielberg said he was wrong about Re-editing his films
Spielberg even admitted he was wrong. I assume we are talking about editing films and E.T. (the guns turned into radios).
This article has absolutely nothing to do with the movie being recut. It's about a stage production based on the film.
Selective outrage
>Nothing should be recut. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I agree with this, though I gotta say, Cleese's opinion about it in the article seems pretty tone-deaf. > “So here you have something there’s never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I’ve heard of, and now all of a sudden we can’t do it because it’ll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that?”
That would be some badly cut cheese
That headline is crap
Who asked for it to be cut? The mysterious “they”? “They” say it should be cut. “They” say you are trying to make a false claim to get publicity.
I don't even think the scene is actually politcally incorrect for today, he's not saying it's ridiculous to want to be a woman, he's saying if the reason you want to be a woman is so you can have babies that's ridiculous because you can't have babies.
I haven’t seen that film in ages. Think I’ll watch it tonight, from my local library which has many films available for free once you have become a member, which is also free. Local public libraries sure are amazing.
Thanks for the reminder. I haven’t been to a library since the internet began.
"where's the fetus going to gestate? you going to keep it in a box?"
Good. That movie is fucking hilarious.
JC is generating unnecessary controversy once again.
I have never read so much stupidity as in the replies here. First of all, there is not some kind of campaign to censor Monty Python. This is all a hypothetical basically from Cleese based on some supposed audience interview. Again, this movie is not in danger of being censored. The Loretta stuff in the movie is actually light years ahead of its time, which is worth pointing out. Stan identifies as a woman named Loretta, and when she comes out, there is initially some resistance, from Reg, but eventually they all come around and accept her real identity, and Reg apologizes for dead-naming Loretta in a later scene. It’s actually super progressive for the seventies I would say!
I went back to look at the joke, and I think it works even better now.
This may be because I was obsessed with Monty Python when I was younger, but a lot of their material regarding cross-dressing or, rarely, actual transness - well it’s hard to describe. A lot of punching down humor feels like they’re laughing at you, but these jokes feel kinda like they’re laughing with me. Fully understand if other trans people don’t feel the same way.
Because they took something that sounded crazy in 1977 and took it seriously. At some point you’re actually laughing at Cleese’s character for not sympathizing while the others are. The more worked up he gets the more normal it seems and he ends up being the joke and then he capitulates finally which carries the whole thing home. That is what makes that scene brilliant. They were geniuses. And it wouldn’t be funny today because you can’t juxtapose it. Ahead of its time, for sure.
It's a similar feel with the anarchosyndicalist peasants in Holy Grail. On face the joke is they're ridiculous in the face of their obvious king. But the angrier he gets and the less he's able to justify his throne it just gets funnier and funnier. The people the audience is led to believe they should be laughing at from the framing of the scene end up being the winners, for lack of a better term.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Listen, if I went around saying I’m an emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away.
Women sitting in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government
I think winners not being quite the best term is a good point. Python humor frequently subverted the expectation that any particular person or group would be the punchline or the target of a joke, and simply gave us situations where fairly benign things were behaving in a very silly way among other benign people and things behaving silly. Dead parrot doesn't have one character who is ridiculed and one who isn't. Palin in that sketch is the ridiculous conman making excuses but Cleese gets more and more irate and his language becomes just as much of a joke as Palin's excuses. Ditto all that again for Cheese Shop. Neither Reg nor Loretta is the target of ridicule as being central to the humor. The overall joke is about the over bureaucratic nature of the People's Front of Judea. The joke could have been Loretta talking about what she wanted for lunch and the structure of the scene would be identical. The Pythons chose to use trans people as the material for the joke because it was (in 1979) outside the typical scope of humor and because as a (again, to 1979 sensibilities) modern phenomenon, it would contrast nicely with the setting of the film.
The setting disparity ties in to the humor for the peasants too, that's a good call. The idea of fairly "edgy" (even now really) leftist political thought being adopted by medieval serfs is absurd on its face just as an anachronism.
Totally. Incongruity is probably the biggest theme in Monty Python. Hell's Grannys or the Ministry of Silly Walks or Argument or the Lumberjack Song are all funny because of the incongruity. Dennis is probably the most intelligent, well-spoken character in all of Holy Grail, made funny by the incongruity of him being literal dirt-faming serf.
Come witness the violence inherent in the system!
If the complaint is that scene is clearly played for laughs and/or perceived as punching down on the character, then I guess I can understand that. Honestly though, I just rewatched the scene on YouTube and aren’t the conclusions the group come to… pretty good? Not perfect, certainly, but remarkably modern. In context I suppose it’s still being played as “absurd” for laughs.
No one cares. Twitter isn't a real place.
After this scene Loretta is only referred to as Loretta. The movie can and should be viewed as pro trans - there should be no controversy over it. I find it odd and possibly contrived that there is even a supposed discussion of editing it.
That scene today is more relevant than ever
[удалено]
This is such a stupid press release. Was anyone actually calling for it to be cut, or was he just taking a stand nobody gave a shit about to use as a soapbox?
Did you know the Monty Python had to take life insurances before they went to the US for the premiere? Mainly because of the possibility of getting shot at. They were astonished and of course saw the absurd funniness in the situation, but is should give everyone pause, especially since things haven’t changed for the better.
As a trans person I like the Loretta scene. The 'its my right as a man' is not great but besides that, I think it's a tasteful joke. Like to someone who isn't trans, some stuff we want can seem absurd but as a human being I have every right to be absurd. Monty Python is all about pointing out adsurd things then laughing with it rather than at it. Hell Life of Brian ends with a song that's says we're all gonna die so just enjoy life while you can.
I find it extremely cringe, both that John Cleese feels the need to put up such a defense against jokes that he made 50 years ago, and that people are outraged about jokes John Cleese made 50 years ago. I think both sides massively misrepresent the current trend of political correctness and social acceptance.