MONTY PYTHON’S LIFE OF BRIAN (1979)

It was called obscene. It was labelled as blasphemous, causing it to be banned in several countries. Yet Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which easily represents the zenith of the infamous comedy troupe’s output, is perhaps the smartest comedy ever made.

The plot, much like the title suggests, follows the life and times of Brian Cohen (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same day as (and immediately next door to) Jesus Christ. After discovering his Roman ancestry and socialising with a group of Jewish revolutionaries, Brian is mistakenly identified as the Messiah, developing a cult following in a matter of days.

What other story satirizes religious institutions, bureaucratic obsession, political groups, and the failings of human cognition all in one fell swoop? Few films can boast such an intelligent script, written by the very same people whose performances elicit an unending stream of laughs. With a wealth of ideas, great narrative structure, and dialogue that has since become iconic, Life of Brian is one of the greatest comedies of all time.

Though many were offended by the film upon its release, it is undeniable that Life of Brian provides a blueprint of how to do perfect satire. Perhaps only rivalled by Dr Strangelove (1964) and Blazing Saddles (1974) in terms of its scathing intelligence, Life of Brian provides a wickedly pointed analysis of organised religion, along with the fanaticism it can cause. However, it should be noted that the Monty Python crew were more interested in the ridiculous human behaviour that drives such religious institutions, not a particular creed in itself.

Early drafts of the story focused on Jesus himself, but plans for this project were soon scrapped. As the members quickly discovered, it was difficult to make fun of his teachings. After all, he was “definitely a good guy.” Eric Idle would elaborate on the decision years after: “He’s not particularly funny, what he’s saying isn’t mockable—it was very decent stuff.” Suffice to say, it’s not Jesus who’s being lampooned, but the people who follow him.

The troupe do this in various ways. They mock the tendency to accept facts, teachings, and laws without evidence. Baseless aspects of tradition, which are blindly followed, are shown to be one of the more insidious effects of organised religion: “Why can’t women go to the stoning, mum?” Brian asks his mother, Mary (Terry Jones), as she buys a fake beard so she can stone someone to death incognito: “It’s written, that’s why!”

It should be mentioned that, while Life of Brian was widely received as a scandalous affront to Judeo-Christian customs, religion is actually of secondary importance; the emphasis is really on the pitfalls of human organisation and the prevalence of logical fallacies in group dynamics. This is dramatised when we see that a hermit, who has been living an isolated life of silence for almost two decades, is somehow less insane than the zealots who surround him.

While groups certainly exacerbate such irrational behaviour, the problem is also shown to exist at an individual, psychological level. In the desire to explain gaps in understanding, we watch as people jump to wild conclusions. Giant leaps in logic are made as people interpret signs and symbols in the most fantastical of ways, with chance occurrences becoming creeds that are readily adopted: “He has given us his shoe! The shoe is the sign. Let us, like him, hold up one shoe!”

However, if you present one sign in front of 10 people, you’ll get 12 opinions. Factionalism, it would seem, is unavoidable: “No, no. The shoe is a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance!” As teachings are thrown into hermeneutic chaos, much of the film’s humour arises from desperate janissaries trying to comprehend the world around them. With everyone having a different interpretation, the birth of religions (or large groups of any kind) is characterised by division from their inception—will you follow the shoe or the gourd?

Sometimes, in the stupidest (and most human) of examples, central tenets are simply misheard, then repeated in a game of spiritually loaded Chinese whispers: “Blessed are the Greek!” ‘Peacemakers’ is heard as ‘cheesemakers’ and the inscrutable message is considered to be illusory, concealing a more grandiose meaning: “Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.” Ostensibly devout followers immediately distort the ideas of their leader, causing several interpretations of the same event.

This all relates to the complex, and often confusing way in which humans transmit information: the dichotomy between figurative and literal language is thrown into sharp relief. Though linguist Noam Chomsky argues our capacity for language is what makes humans unique, the communication on display in Life of Brian merely demonstrates the multitude of ways language can be misunderstood, misconstrued, or misrepresented.

Such are the dangers inherent in the process of myth-making, in capturing the attention of curious people searching for meaning. Figurative turns of phrase and idiomatic speech are rendered incomprehensible due to an uncompromisingly literal reading: “He’s saying the birds are scrounging!” When the need to use literal language arises, it is hilariously taken to be metaphorical or symbolic. This is perhaps seen best in Brian’s denial of being divinely inspired, which is only deemed as proof of his holy status: “Only the true Messiah would deny his own divinity!”

These absurd mistakes help to drive the plot forward. The troupe appears to be asking: is it that religious dogma exploits vulnerabilities in human cognition? Or is it that we merely want to believe in something truly special, that we are an important, integral part of it, and that an authoritative figure will take our hand and provide us with all the answers? When Brian desperately tries to instil a sense of independence in his followers, it is laughably unsuccessful: “Yes! We are all individuals!”

Here, the comedians astutely mock how religions, cults, or organisations take advantage of the human need for hope. This is highlighted in Judith’s monologue about how Brian has provided everyone with a cause, whether he meant to or not: “Those people out there are following him because they believe in him. They believe he can give them hope—hope of a new life, a new world, a better future!” Unfortunately, such human inclinations are shown to be easily misguided, and frivolous, and fall off at the first sign of difficulty.   

Groupthink, with all of its in-group and out-group concerns, is ruthlessly censured, resulting in pathetically irrational, fundamentalist practices. While Monty Python were accused of sacrilege, it is ironically this exact mentality that they were lampooning; blasphemy is itself parodied as being a ridiculous crime. Supposed apostates sound suspiciously cogent when contrasted against their devout counterparts: “All I did was say Jehovah!”

Indeed, punishment of such wrongdoing seems as though it isn’t about the act itself, but is instead predicated on the sadistic impulse to inflict suffering on the outsider. The stoning throws this idea into sharp relief: do they care that this random stranger blasphemed? Or are they just excited about pummelling a supposed outsider to death? Characters are often shown to be defined by what they believe: are you with the PFJ, or are you a splitter?

These group mentalities, along with the vague, nebulous definition of what constitutes being an outsider, is amusingly dramatized by the almost identically named (albeit sharply opposed) political groups: The Judean People’s Front, The People’s Front of Judea, Judean Popular People’s Front, and the Popular Front of Judea. Defectors are revealed to be even worse than the oppressive Roman imperialists: “The only people we hate more than the Romans… are the fucking Judean People’s Front! Splitters…” Schismatic nonconformists are less tolerable than colonial oppressors—the Romans, at least, cannot be labelled as traitors. 

With all this being said, the argument that the troupe were intentionally parodying religious iconography is difficult to refute. The opening shot of three wise men, nobly voyaging across the desert landscape astride camels, is inextricably linked to the Christian nativity. A frequent defence offered is that this isn’t the life of Jesus—it’s the life of Brian. While that’s true, the group often seem to be sailing gleefully close to the wind.

Mandy Cohen slapping a prospective Messiah in his iconic crib, the Wise Men being ironically labelled as fools, and a reluctant prophet sleepily opening the bedroom shutter, accidentally flashing his legions of followers. Additionally, Eric Idle singing on the cross, sporting an appearance that looks suspiciously like Jesus, croons lyrics that appear to be a direct affront to Judeo-Christian eschatology: “What have you got to lose? You come from nothing. You go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many religious groups refused to take the film’s irreverent humour lying down. It was quickly banned in Norway, Ireland, and many other places. In the US, mass protests broke out, with South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond even insisting the film distributor withdraw the film entirely: “My folks take their religion very seriously.” A spokesperson for Cinema International Corporation replied: “We take our freedoms very seriously, too.”

The furore resulted in a televised debate, with the contemporary Bishop of Southwark Mervyn Stockwood and satirist Malcolm Muggeridge (who was also a born-again Christian) debating John Cleese and Michael Palin on the film’s message. Muggeridge decried the ending in particular, stating that: “The lampooning of His death is the most disgraceful part of the whole thing… All you’ve done is make a lot of people on a cross sing a music hall song. I mean, it is so disgusting.”

However, there were some among the devout who understood who was really the butt of the joke. The theologian Richard Burridge wrote that: “Life of Brian is an extraordinary tribute to the life and work and teaching of Jesus—that they couldn’t actually blaspheme or make a joke out of it. It is a wonderful satire on the way that Jesus’ own teaching has been used to persecute others. They were satirising fundamentalism.”   

Unfortunately, most refused to appreciate the nuances of the humour, with bans remaining in place for years. If anything, and as is often the case with promotion, the controversy only helped the film. Distributors even used it to their advantage, with it being advertised in Sweden as: ‘The film so funny they banned it in Norway!’ As crowds went to witness the notorious film—driving across state lines if it wasn’t being shown nearby—it succeeded at the box office.

This is a terrific moral victory, as Eric Idle’s close friend George Harrison solely funded the project after the film’s original backers dropped it. They only read the script a mere two days before shooting was to begin and, realising the film might incite fury, EMI Films decided to back out at the behest of division head Bernard Delfont. This was mocked by Idle in the film’s final song: “I said to him, Bernie, they’ll never make their money back.”

Not only did they make a massive return on their investment, but Life of Brian became an instant classic. It was the predictably ridiculous brainchild of the brilliant weirdos who gave us the ‘Upper-Class Twit of the Year’ sketch, among many others. Terry Jones prostituting himself, Pontius Pilate’s debilitating speech impediment, and a dishevelled prisoner who bemoans the fact he is never spat at in the face; it’s all quintessential Monty Python.

The visual humour is also unrivalled. Sight gags proliferate in the film and require repeat viewings to catch them all. The first example of this is the sick donkey—very obviously made of rubber, being all the funnier for it—carried on a woman’s back, disgruntled that she will miss the stoning. Others include a legion of Roman soldiers marching into a hut that isn’t big enough to house more than four people, proudly emerging with a wooden spoon in hand.

Many sight gags have Terry Gilliam’s signature written all over it. The revolutionaries surreptitiously emerging from a mural’s vagina in Pilate’s house is brilliant. It can be seen to have inspired the likes of the Coen Brothers in Raising Arizona (1987) when Gale (John Goodman) and Evelle (William Forsythe) decide to return to prison. Finally, the incongruous alien deus ex machina would have been the best depiction of an extra-terrestrial encounter that year, had it not been for Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979).

Perhaps what makes Life of Brian stand out as the troupe’s best film is that it possesses incredible narrative cohesion. Unlike some of their other work, Life of Brian feels like a proper story, not just a string of unconnected, arbitrary gags. Editor Julian Doyle keeps a quick pace in the film, while also creating one of my all-time favourite cuts in cinema: Pilate’s dramatic announcement—“I shall welease… Bwian!”—to Graham Chapman’s labouring towards an uncertain fate is exquisite filmmaking.

However, the Monty Python crew also bend filmmaking conventions to their comedic whim. Timestamps are used to elicit humour, not chronology, with shots of people marching up a hill at “About Tea Time”. As we watch the bloody, dismembered corpses of dead slaves and slain gladiators dragged out of the Colosseum, another timestamp informs us where and when we are: “Children’s Matinée”.

In other instances, the writers are simply spoofing other films. The Monty Python troupe had clearly taken in some foreign cinema. Brian’s unexpected lesson in Latin grammar at knifepoint was a direct parody of a similar sequence in Truffaut’s The 400 Blows (1959)—without the knife, of course. Another hilarious reference is found in the crucifixion sequence when Stanley Kubrick’s iconic Spartacus (1960) is teased—“I’m Brian, and so is my wife!”

All six of the Monty Python crew turn in classic performances. Everyone changes characters—sometimes up to three times in a single minute—and part of the fun becomes identifying who’s who under the lavish costumes and thick beards. Michael Palin shines as Pontius Pilate, who suffers from a peculiar speech impediment, a prisoner who has a strange veneration for his Roman persecutors, and a man who dislikes you mentioning his big nose.

Meanwhile, John Cleese turns in several memorable—and typical—showings as a Roman legionnaire, a Jewish official attempting to maintain order at a raucous execution, and Reg, the presiding leader of the People’s Front of Judea (or PFJ, for short). Each performer convincingly disappears into the role, or at least enough for us to believe the situations depicted hold some significance.

It is the film’s director, Terry Jones, who arguably delivers the film’s most iconic line: “He’s not the Messiah—he’s a very naughty boy!” Indeed, part of what made the film such a long-lasting success was its quotable aspect: “Want to haggle?” “Sex, sex, sex! That’s all you lot ever think about!” “Pipe down, big nose!” “Crucifixion? Good…” And finally: “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

Perhaps, as these quotes reveal, Life of Brian became such a monumental film because it is as absurd as it is shrewd. Modern satire owes a great debt to Monty Python’s rib-tickling work, with the likes of Office Space (1999) and The Death of Stalin (2017) both exhibiting the same format of socio-political critiques with a veneer of dark humour.

Despite being unceasingly silly, mad, and ridiculous, it is also deeply clever, philosophical, and incisive. Few films have ever been this smart with their humour, nor this funny in their commentary. The film reveals how our desperate search for groups, authority, and meaning leads us to some pretty ridiculous places. Despite being a logical species, we all exhibit symptoms of insanity. And, perhaps, we are all insane, with only the six Monty Python members aware of what’s really going on.

UK | 1979 | 94 MINUTES | 1.85:1 | COLOUR | ENGLISH • LATIN

Cast & Crew

director: Terry Jones.
writers: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin.
starring: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin & Sue Jones-Davis.