Monty Python's Life of Brian: A Christian View

[Robin_Looty]

Hello Everyone, My name's Robin,

I am a student undertaking my final year of a 3 year Model Making and Special Effects Degree. For one of my final assignments i am to produce a 10,000 word portfolio on my chosen subject, Monty Python's Life of Brian. Beginning my research i couldn't help but realize the controversy this film created in 1979, and i didn't want to pass off the chance of gaining the input of a Christian Community.

I personally am an atheist and a great fan of Monty Python so my views are a little biased. I would be very greatful for anyone to join this debate, with old view, new views and maybe even some view of parents or friends around at the time who may have different opinions of the film than people may have in this day and age.

my question "Monty Python's Life of Brian: Tribute or Parody?"

I eagerly await hearing any views on this subject

Robin

 

[guibox]

It's been a looooong time since I've seen this movie and I don't think I've seen the whole thing.

I guess the whole thing is that doing a parody of religious issues is the problem. Yes, Brian was not Christ but still their is alot that some would consider blasphemous in it's treatment of the Christ story. There are some things that should not be parodied and making fun of God in any fashion is not a wise thing and doesn't sit well with Christians.

Yes, some could say 'Lighten up' but nonetheless a stance has to be taken with ridicule of something as serious to some as religion.

I do like some of MP's stuff (though British humor is an acquired taste) but Life of Brian is not one of them. Some things can be taken too far.

 

[ChristineES]

I saw an interview with the Monty Python members and they said they made Life of Brian because they could not find anything about Jesus that they could make fun of.

 

[MISFIT]

I like the life of Brian one of my favorites. As a christian I'm not at all offended by it, but I can see why some might be. It's really more of a satirical view of the world at that point in time, they never made fun of Jesus in any way.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I found that movie very funny, even though I am a Christian. Not all Christians are offended, picket-parading wet blankets. I can see behind the outward appearance of the movie, and I did not sense it was meant to be that way. And even if it sarcastically and subtly was meant that way, then I in effect defeated their purpose by not becoming offended (which may be what they want). Of course the world wants to make fun of Christ, but in this case, I saw it as another man being the victim of circumstance by being mistaken as the Christ, and it's his dilemma that I found funny.

That being said, I think that it is noble that you ask the opinions of Christians, and they will be varied just as there are denominational branches. I personally think a lot took that movie way too seriously, but if you do such a project, I will admit you may be in for some flack from some Christians just for a heads up.

 

[Robin_Looty]

i know many of you will not get this message but i'd like to thank you for the input on this post and it's been most revealing to me. but there is still one thing that i'd like to pose and that is proir views of the film upon its release in 1979 was astonishing, it was banned in many areas. although people may have been offended by the film due to their religion is that a reason to hold it from everyone else.

in summary, if someone did make a new film intentionally making a mockery of the christ would it still be correct to claim the film be banned?

 

[tim-from-pa]

in summary, if someone did make a new film intentionally making a mockery of the christ would it still be correct to claim the film be banned?

Not in America I do not think this is right. I cannot speak on behalf of other nations, especially ones where religion may hold more official sway in the government, although even at that, I noticed that many nations are departing from Christianity anyway. Probably you'd have more repercussions with other religions, such as Islam and the comic incident in Denmark.

However, if the United States should protect the freedom to show the movie, it likewise protects the freedoms of those to voice their opinions against it. That's something important to remember as some people cherish freedom of speech if its their speech but would not think twice about how wrong it was to shut someone else up by law if they could.

 

[MISFIT]

No matter how offencive a film is it should not be banned. I was (still am) offended by The Da vinci Code, but I would never say it should be banned. We have free speech in this country and lets never forget that that is also where we get freedom of religion. We as Christians have it way too good here and often take it for granted. Everyone is entitled to there opinion no matter who disagrees with it.

We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

 

[Robin_Looty]

do any of you guys have any friends or relatives who may have a slightly more extreme reaction to the film? if so would there be any chance they could shed some light on the reasoning for censorship due to religious matters.

as a film studying student i don't see a film primarily as a deep look into the subject matter, i first off see it as a piece of entertainment, its as much an art form to make a good movie as to paint a portrait or write a book or opera.

 

[handy]

I agree that there should be no censorship of movies or that movies should be banned by the government. However, if a movie is a direct mockery of Jesus Christ then I would ban it. I would, I'd ban it for me, for my kids, and my hubby (though he can do what he wants) would most likely join in the ban. This was my reaction with the "Golden Compass". Not that the Golden Compass mocked Christ in anyway, but it was a direct challenge to the Christian religion. And why on earth should I pay good money just to have my faith demonized (or shall we say daemonized?) and presented as something dark and dangerous.

While you might look at film as primarily 'entertainment' there can be no doubt that film is quite persuasive. One only need to look at Gore's "An Inconvient Truth" to see that. World wide, many prestigious scientists are decrying the inaccuracies of Gore's film, yet it's been embraced as the gospel truth, has become required watching in many schools around the world, and has received a Nobel for goodness sakes.

Since working with such a powerful medium, I think that film-makers have a responsiblity to be wise in how they present their stories. If I percieve that they are using such a powerful medium to mock my Lord, my faith or anything else that I hold as important, no, I'm not going to reward them by paying for their mockeries, and yes, I'll tell others why I won't.

You might be interested in reading a discussion we had here a few months ago regarding the "Golden Compass". Here's the link:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30274

 

[Robin_Looty]

thank you very much handy, thats a different view i was hoping to find. i wholeheartedly agree that due to personal choice that a film may be chosen not to be watched by a family due to their principles. but i'm hoping that you yourself wouldn't begrudge other people to go see the film; as "Mary Whitehouse and The Festival of Light" campaigned for in england, causing it to be banned in some counties and i believe some states in the USA even banned it.

don't call me moaning but i'm just trying to associate and gather information for my unbiased report. but i'd like to know if you had the same feeling for your family with the "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasies that create a whole new world for their people to have their own beliefs in. as we have on Earth, christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism to name but a few. isn't it fair to, in a film, create a new religion with aspects of others to create something that everyone can relate to in that world, as christianity may not relevent to their world and cultures (i haven't seen golden compass so am unsure of the religious status of the characters). would you disagree to your family going to see a film illustrating the life of, for instance muhammad or the dali lama in an informative fashion (ala passion of the christ)?

 

[handy]

Things like the "Festival of Light" movement, or the great evangelical revivals in this nation during the late 1800's (Prohibition was a direct result of the revivals) are going to happen. And, I would disagree that this would be 'censorship'. To me, censorship is something that is organized and implemented in a way that artists don't have a choice but to either pull production completely or edit their production. And, I'm talking either jail time, or forced loss of job, not just an inablility to 'sell' the art to the free market. But, during movements like the "Festival of Light" (and since I'm not British, I'm not sure how widespread that movement was) it's not only natural, but inevitable that explicit movies would be shunned. "Shunned" is probably a much better word than either censorship or even 'banned' by the way. Both censorship and banned suggest an officical action taken. Shunning simply means that folks aren't buying it, not that the artist doesn't have the right to create and market it.

As far as a writer or artist creating a fantasy world with it's own religious values, sure, go right ahead. Frankly, I'm a big fan of fantasy. My bookshelves are filled with the works of Christian authors like Lewis and Tolkien, as well as authors such as Piers Anthony, David Eddings and J.K. Rowlings. I would neither shun nor urge others to shun movies like the "LOTR" series or even "Ghandi" for that matter. I save my shunning for works that are intended to be anti-Christian. For instance, when Philip Pullman said outright that his books were about undermining the basis of Christian belief and stated outright in a 2003 interview that "my books are about killing God", then yes, absolutely yes, I'm going to shun, to 'ban' all his works. He ain't getting my money to spread his lies about my religion. I also passed on "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ" because of the way that Scorsese (admittedly being true to Kazantzakis' novel) portrayed Christ in not only a historically inaccurate way, but also in a way that, according to the Bible, would actually have Christ sinning. (After all, it was Jesus who originated the idea that even looking at a woman lustfully is sin.)

Filmmakers can do enough damage to history in their creative attempt to deviate from facts and fictionalize something that was real and had an impact on all of us. Oliver Stone, and his "JFK" comes to mind. Although it has been shown over and over that the observable facts of the events in Dallas point to Oswald acting alone, only 10% of Americans believe this. Many, if not most, have been convinced by Stone's howling historical inaccuracies that the government actively participating in some kind of cover up. It's interesting to note that the 10% of folks who believe that Oswald acted alone are either over 65 years of age, or have college degrees. Even then, many are convinced by Kevin Costner's Garrison and his 'magic bullet' theory.

 

[Robin_Looty]

not meaning to sound condescending but i do know the difference between the banning and just shunning of something. Its just in cases such as with the Festival of Light and the kind of power they commanded. In certain areas of the UK the Life of Brian was banned by local councils and national bans were protested for.

i can understand your defensive nature towards your religion or would it really hurt to be open to a stimulus that may have been misworded. a lot more can be learnt from the most unusual sources on the most interesting subjects. Like i have ventured to a site and made myself known on a forum where i wouldn't usually find myself, and i'm learning a lot from other people's contrasting opinions with me.

it is of my opinion that gods as a whole don't exist; and i have learnt a lot about the way other people can think, and live aspects of their lives through just looking throught the threads on these forums. Its not forcing your beliefs on me, i'm firm in my beliefs and am willing to accept other people's opinions and interpretations of faith. i happily watched the passion of the christ and i have no doubt many years ago there was a great man with many great ideas that have changed the world even today. but that doesn't mean god had to have anything to do with.

 

[handy]

I do believe that banning and censoring on the part of governments is quite wrong. And, while I have no doubt that you know the difference, I think that there are some who really don't and are advocating shunning when they use words like 'ban' or 'censor'. Conversly, I've heard more than once people stating that shunning is equal to censorship, and it's not.

I'm interested in this though: Given situations like the infamous 'Mohammed' cartoon, that actually resulted in the deaths of people, would you be for censorship of a given topic by a government, if the result of showing art, movies, or any other media would result in widespread violence and death?

Myself, I have really mixed feelings about it. Every fiber of my being cries out that censorship on the part of government is wrong, wrong, wrong, yet I wonder how a government is to responsibly handle the fact that there are those who would kill because of a cartoon or movie.

And, BTW, I'm glad that you've come here and feel comfortable asking questions and conversing with us. We're quite the mixed bag when it comes to beliefs, but most of us are Christian. If you ever want to discuss the divinity of Jesus or any other more 'religious' topic, feel free to jump in!

 

[Robin_Looty]

i will do when i have a little more time i'd consider being a little more active in the forums but my degree is calling all the time and there are too many distractions in the world these days. the views i have found on this site are very valuable to me and i'm glad so many people with different views were able to give me some input into their beliefs and especially some of the reasoning behind it that you could give me handy

 

[cyberjosh]

Hey Robin_Looty,

Did you get the PM I sent you? Check at the top of your screen if you don't know where your private messages are (click "User Control Panel").

~Josh

 

[guibox]

Although it has been shown over and over that the observable facts of the events in Dallas point to Oswald acting alone, only 10% of Americans believe this. Many, if not most, have been convinced by Stone's howling historical inaccuracies that the government actively participating in some kind of cover up. It's interesting to note that the 10% of folks who believe that Oswald acted alone are either over 65 years of age, or have college degrees. Even then, many are convinced by Kevin Costner's Garrison and his 'magic bullet' theory.

Though off topic, I will have to disagree on this one. I am not a conspiracy nut by any means but any serious analysis of the facts will show that Oswald not only could not have acted alone regardless of who one may think was behind it, and that he was a lone nut or even one of the shooters itself is very debatable. And anybody who believes that Jack Ruby killed Oswald out of 'patriotism' needs to have their head examined.

The Warren Commission was proven to be inept in their investigation ignoring key witnesses and stretching the facts to fit their theory. It was so bad that the House Committee of Assassinations was called in 1979 and couldn't eliminate the strong possibility of mob involvement. Strong evidence links David Ferrie and Oswald to Carlos Marcello and Jack Ruby was a gangster in the Dallas mob which is an arm of the New Orleans mob.

I won't even go into all the evidence.

 

[DoubtingThomas]

This may not come in time to catch your report, but it's my belief that the Life of Brian is as much a parody/tribute to Ben Hur as to Jesus proper. Seeing them both within the span of a week (most of which was occupied by Ben Hur), I was struck by the similarities between the two. Both are stories about contemporaries of J, who is seen only in the background. Both have scenes prominently featuring people at the very back of the Sermon on the Mount, and I don't believe any movie before or since has used the phrase "Blessed be the peacemakers."

 

[Robin_Looty]

my finished portfolio is still not due for another few weeks so any views an pieces of information are still valued. i'll have to take a closer look at ben hur and maybe introduce some material on that. i'm hoping that people on this forum won't mind being quoted as non-accademic references as some of the views i have recieved so far have been of great intrest and particular insight

 

[handy]

Although it has been shown over and over that the observable facts of the events in Dallas point to Oswald acting alone, only 10% of Americans believe this. Many, if not most, have been convinced by Stone's howling historical inaccuracies that the government actively participating in some kind of cover up. It's interesting to note that the 10% of folks who believe that Oswald acted alone are either over 65 years of age, or have college degrees. Even then, many are convinced by Kevin Costner's Garrison and his 'magic bullet' theory.

Though off topic, I will have to disagree on this one. I am not a conspiracy nut by any means but any serious analysis of the facts will show that Oswald not only could not have acted alone regardless of who one may think was behind it, and that he was a lone nut or even one of the shooters itself is very debatable. And anybody who believes that Jack Ruby killed Oswald out of 'patriotism' needs to have their head examined.

The Warren Commission was proven to be inept in their investigation ignoring key witnesses and stretching the facts to fit their theory. It was so bad that the House Committee of Assassinations was called in 1979 and couldn't eliminate the strong possibility of mob involvement. Strong evidence links David Ferrie and Oswald to Carlos Marcello and Jack Ruby was a gangster in the Dallas mob which is an arm of the New Orleans mob.

I won't even go into all the evidence.

Yeah, it's off topic for this thread, and really doesn't fall into the Apologetics catagory, but if you want to post something in General Talk, I'll hash it out with you. :wink: