I’ve been watching and reading up on The Great Life of Brian Debate of 79’ and it’s so interesting to see a « controversy » like that play out.
Cleese and Palin came to the show prepared for a real debate, having prepared logical arguments and hoping for an interesting conversation or at least, being able to defend the harmless nature of the film.
Muggeridge and Stockwood, instead of meeting them at the same level, came there to heckle and criticize, droning on and on about general ideas or latching onto specifics without any wish for an actual two sided conversation. They attacked them, tried to ridicule them and dismissed the movie as quick to be forgotten garbage for teenagers. You can feel the tension rise and, knowing him, it’s surprising that Cleese stays calm, receiving everything with a smile I would even call condescending.
Palin, on the other hand, said himself that he had never gotten this visibly angry in public before. The moment the religious figures come in, they barely let the other two speak and Palin looks fed up and frustrated. I think it’s interesting to see « the nicest man in England » lose his nerve, at least a little bit. People sometimes exaggerate and make him into a saint, a cinnamon roll that wouldn’t hurt a fly. But as he has said himself, he’s not perfect and even though mostly a people pleaser, is a real, multifaceted man. That isn’t to say they didn’t stay perfectly civil for the whole ordeal, just negatively surprised and maybe caught off guard by the dissappointing attitudes of the other two.
People have drawn comparisons between especially the bishop (his appearance and demeanor) and Monty Python sketches, because he and Muggeridge acted like caricatures of themselves. They tried to be smug but all they did was exemplify the kind of intolerant dogmatic interpretation of religion the older generations in Britain were known for. That last comment made by the Bishop, comparing the comedians to Judas as if they had sold their faith, is so completely petty and exaggerated… They wanted to make people laugh, that’s what it boils down to. No manipulation of the youth, no bad influence intended (unless you count acquiring a sharp sense of humor).
They act as if Monty Python were making fun of death and Jesus, when, as they clearly state numerous times and everyone can see, Jesus is shown only at the start of the movie and is not ridiculed in any way, his only line being directly taken from the scriptures. Even though the troupe is known for making fun of all demographics, they respect the figure. The humour of the movie is based not ON religion, but on the misinterpretation of it, a point the Pythons are trying to get across, but the others won’t even let them explain.
I feel like I’ve learned a piece of British history with this one, especially the fact that almost immediately after Not the Nine O’Clock News parodied it, with Rowan Atkinson embodying the bishop without having to resort to exaggerations.
It’s definitely refreshing to see perhaps the two most well known Pythons be serious and show their reasoning, proving that behind the comedy group, even though their MO is absurdity, stands an intellectual background.
It just puts it into perspective, how the guys that made Britain (and beyond) laugh with harmless humor had to deal with intolerant partypoopers, frankly, that are mostly remembered for how stupid they looked in that debate, while the movie they treated as a passing threat is now one of the best known British comedy films.
