What's going on? What are we doing?
We are going to talk about tweaking of the standard narrative for passion plays/films about Jesus Christ into Monty Python's The Life of Brian. First off, I want to emphasize that passion plays were born out of religious ritual and, while theatrical in nature, are performative acts given the intent toward inspiring worship and belief in facilitating a greater connection to the Christian God. While I think this fits neatly under Schechner's umbrella, for Butler we need to go into the socioreligious context of the Thatcher-era United Kingdom.
Britain has a long history of passion plays dating back to the middle ages. Now, by the time The Life of Brian premiered in 1979, the religious hegemony of Christianity was well established in the UK: all of the members of Monty Python had gone through some extent of religious education in their youth, the Anglican Church had been the state religion for centuries, and the majority of Britons identified as some denomination of Christian (I don't have a source for a statistic for the late seventies but according to the BBC 64% of the population identified themselves as Christians in 2010-- so one might imagine the percentage was greater 30 odd years prior given that it was about 80% in 1950). According to IMDb, there were at least ten films that were directly biographical tales of Jesus of Nazareth (many of which were a la passion play) by the time The Life of Brian came on the scene. I cover all this in attempt to say, that both the performance of Christianity and the performative act of a passion play are both being queered by the Pythons.
Britain has a long history of passion plays dating back to the middle ages. Now, by the time The Life of Brian premiered in 1979, the religious hegemony of Christianity was well established in the UK: all of the members of Monty Python had gone through some extent of religious education in their youth, the Anglican Church had been the state religion for centuries, and the majority of Britons identified as some denomination of Christian (I don't have a source for a statistic for the late seventies but according to the BBC 64% of the population identified themselves as Christians in 2010-- so one might imagine the percentage was greater 30 odd years prior given that it was about 80% in 1950). According to IMDb, there were at least ten films that were directly biographical tales of Jesus of Nazareth (many of which were a la passion play) by the time The Life of Brian came on the scene. I cover all this in attempt to say, that both the performance of Christianity and the performative act of a passion play are both being queered by the Pythons.
Statistics are boring! Get to the tweaking!
Right, right. Okay, so the film follows the unfortunate adventures of a neighbor of Jesus who gets mistaken for being the Messiah. We see a handful of parallels between the lives of the two men throughout the film that give way to the Pythonesque satire we know and love (some of us). Some examples (among many):
- The three wise men mistaking the newborn Brian for the infant Jesus, only to realize their mistake shortly thereafter (and shoving poor Mandy, mother of Brian, to the floor)
- Brian attending the Sermon on the Mount but being so far back that nobody can hear and the message gets garbled into being about dairy
- The iconic, controversial, and musical crucifixion:
Furthermore, the production team re-used many of the technical leftovers from the Zeffirelli Jesus of Nazareth while they were shooting in Tunisia. It literally had the look of filmed biographical depictions of the life of Christ. For other behind-the-scenes tidbits, here is a mentalfloss article that covers all of that.
John Cleese described the intent behind the satire of The Life of Brian was to criticize "closed systems of thought, whether they are political or theological or religious or whatever: systems by which, whatever evidence is given to a person, he merely adapts it, fits it into his ideology." The film was intentionally made not only to be funny but to encourage freedom of thought and, to once again quote Cleese, to "[...] take a critical view. Find out about it, don't just believe because somebody tells you to. Someone in a pulpit says something, question it, work it out."
John Cleese described the intent behind the satire of The Life of Brian was to criticize "closed systems of thought, whether they are political or theological or religious or whatever: systems by which, whatever evidence is given to a person, he merely adapts it, fits it into his ideology." The film was intentionally made not only to be funny but to encourage freedom of thought and, to once again quote Cleese, to "[...] take a critical view. Find out about it, don't just believe because somebody tells you to. Someone in a pulpit says something, question it, work it out."
Did people interpret this tweaking in different ways?
Oh yes. People were tweaked.
Where to begin on this one? The Life of Brian premiered in the United States and was protested not only by Christians but also by some Jewish groups (New York Times article from 1979). That said, the film would also potentially face blasphemy laws in the UK. It was outright banned in some areas of the country. These bans and condemnations in the public discourse were spearheaded by conservative religious citizens (and organizations)-- most notably: Mary Whitehouse (to whom the script was leaked before its release) and Malcolm Muggeridge.
Muggeridge, in addition to the Bishop of Southwark, debated against Michael Palin and John Cleese of Monty Python on the program Friday Night, Saturday Morning. This episode was famously aggressive as the men argued interpretation (funny/satirical/having a good message vs. obscene/blasphemous/offensive/ridiculing a force of good in the world). The full debate is below for your viewing... pleasure... if you're into arguing... which I am sometimes.
I'm sure it will surprise nobody that the film still inspires controversy to this day (for example, two years ago when a vicar ruffled feathers by playing The Life of Brian as a part of fundraising for the church). Heck, the ban of the film in Aberystwyth was only just lifted in 2009.
Norway vs. Sweden
Here's a fun but telling little factoid that emphasizes the divisive nature of the film/its interpretation: Norway had outright banned The Life of Brian, so advertisers in Sweden had espoused the slogan, "So funny it was banned in Norway."
Excuse me! I was promised a turducken!
This is more bonus material for you all than anything, but... The sketch comedy show Not the Nine O'Clock News did a fun parody of the Friday Night, Saturday Morning debate (foliage on the set and all) in which a film about Jesus was upsetting the followers of Monty Python.
OMG- I love Life of Brian. But oddly, I never really thought about it as being controversial. Maybe that means my “recovering Catholic” is showing. When I first saw it, I think I was in high school. My friends and I watched it and laughed heartily. Although, I do remember, looking back, that one of my friends who had been raised without any religion didn’t think it was as hilarious as my friend Ben and I did (Ben, who was an altar boy; me, the hardest worker in my communion and confirmation classes). Ben and I thought our fiend simply didn’t “get” the heightened humor or the wit- which may have been true. However, more than likely, we didn’t really get it yet either. When we watched it (on VHS- I think!), Ben and I had both started moving away from the church (probably a few years prior), and weren’t quite mature enough to get the depth and breadth of the Python boys’ humor. In other words, we thought it was silly fun- not deeply satirical. It wasn’t until I saw the film again in my twenties that I realized how much Monty Python was intelligently bringing to light some of the stranger aspects of the bible/worship/ritual that Christians so wholeheartedly subscribe to. The final, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” song was just silly on the first viewing. It didn’t occur to me how very dark (and rightly so) it could be perceived by others of the Christian faith. Yes, it was done in good fun, but being that satire often reveals the grotesque, we find ourselves laughing at the brutality of crucifixion, and even whistling along.
ReplyDeleteI feel like now, besides watching the whole of the debate that you posted, I’d like to give the film a fresh viewing. Particularly since I had no idea how much of Britain identified as Christian. Which I suppose was naïve, when you remember that the Queen is also the head of the church and such. But I’m wondering also what else has been protested in TV and film there, since I always thought of the UK as being far more open-minded. Perhaps it is essentially the wit and even truth of much of the film that upset people over there. Who knows? But it’s made me want to look into it. And speaking of looking into things, your post made me inquisitive to see the stats in America, and admittedly I was shocked to learn that we’re 80% Christian as well- or at least we were in 2008. For us being a country that’s so largely Christian, I wonder why we treat people of different races, genders, and sexualities so poorly. But that’s another conversation for another time.
Do I get my TurDuckEn now?