This is actually really funny hearing the two older men saying that the film will have no impact on culture or the world when you know that it is now one of the most influential and infamous comedies ever!
@@nintendo9231889 "Truth about the bible", ha! good one. Have you read it, cover to cover? Its boring as ass, but I guess thats cause i didnt have on my holy-spirit-filled, born again spectacles. lol
If you read Palin's diaries you will discover that the two fools went to a free screening of the "Life of Brian" that night, stayed in the bar too long and missed the first 10-15 minutes of the film. In other words they missed the part of the film in which it is made quite clear that Brian is not meant to be Jesus
Yeah, the actual program was too short to really cover everything, but it would have been interesting to bring up the point that Jesus actually preached a number of topics related to the Python point. In one of the Gospels he says to pray in a small room away from everyone else, not church in public, your religious belief and connection is not mention to be a piece of your public, social identity.
@A Gumb Honestly I'm really quite sick of everything about Paul. The guy basically came in to the whole religion and started gentile-splaining things to the apostles, despite the fact that he never had even met Jesus while he was alive. I kind of just picture this shady hollywood agent who no one really remembers inviting just going "Hey guys, you've got this real cool thing going here but it needs brand appeal. Tell you what we'll do. We build some nice big churches so everyone knows how to get involved, and start marketing it like crazy to the Greeks. Speaking of which, going to have to get rid of that whole Kosher thing. Food restrictions are old news after all and you can't go getting the key gentile demographics if you tell them they can't have bacon." (Also he's the only homophobe in the New Testament. Christ only talks about loving your neighbor as yourself and how we should not judge others lest we be judged. Paul goes on about how the gays will get what's coming to them. He's a real piece of work.)
The irony is that Malcolm Muggeridge was an agnostic for most of his life, only finding 'God' when he got older (and presumably started to shit himself about his own mortality). The other irony is that despite his assertions about TLOB being forgettable and "Tenth-rate", it's still, 35 years after it was released, considered a seminal work of satire and comedy, while Muggeridge and Bishop Stockwood are almost utterly forgotten, aside from this exchange. Furthermore, their snide and rather nasty comments do very little to promote their point of view.
Nothing but a bitter scene of the old guard venting their anger at a society that's carrying on in a new direction they weren't intending to go down. 9 years ago, when I started my architecture degree, they insisted that first year's draft by hand on paper because "the process of drawing" is how you learn and become a good architect. But technology developed, and it wasn't the process of sharpening the pencil but rather the process of learning the most useful techniques. After a decade, that idea has passed, and students are now jumping right into the latest tech. Or more broadly, there is an uproar that they no longer teach cursive writing in school. But in the age of touch typing on computer, wasting time perfecting a skill that is not needed to be successful in life is a waste of time and mental attention. Needless to say, it's no good to put down new ideas because your tried and tested dogma conflicts with innovative!
I love how Cleese and Palin start by treating religion and religious people with respect, and how the clergy get personal first. Cleese said later that this was the most annoyed he'd ever seen Palin get, which is just brilliant.
I love how the debate simply becomes a reenactment of the film itself. "Brian represents the Messiah! We should know, we're the experts!" "Brian does not represent the Messiah, he's just a loser and a very naughty boy." All of this only further validates Cleese and Palin's stance and enhances the film as a whole. Stockwood and Muggeridge never stood a chance.
TheGudZeBadAnDaFozzy Believe me, it doesnot have any effect in the Eastern or Central Europe, at all - and never did. It was the movie for the Anglosaxon civilization. It is totally unknown in Asia or Africa or post-Soviet Europe. Some people tend to overestimate the influence of some things.
DeadnWoon Well pal, i´m from Brazil and i´ve watched this movie in Poland for the first time and here in South America the movie still pretty popular. I think some people tend to underestimate things based on their taste.
"You wouldn't make fun of Socrates"... Aristophanes' "The Clouds" is widely accepted as one of the first ever comedies, and has its purpose in doing exactly that.
+Luke McEvoy Not only does "The Clouds" make fun of Socrates, but it did so at an event in which Socrates was in the audience. Maybe Plato got his revenge with the Symposium though.
"The Clouds" satirised Socrates while he was still alive, whereas the bishop's argument was that it's distasteful to satirise someone who was unjustly executed. (Which the two Pythons didn't disagree with, they just disputed the claim that they were satirising Jesus rather than his followers.)
Also, wasn't a big point in Socrates' final dialogue (when he was about to die) about how not to be so worried about death. His final words literally were asking one of his friends to settle a debt he owed over a chicken.
I'm a Christian and I agree with Cleese 100%. It's foolish to blindly enter a religion. You need to accept Christ on your own terms through humility, questioning, reasoning, scripture, context and research. If you up and say "I'm a Christian!" , your faith will not last long.
Sadly Xianity flourishes because many people dont question, reason or research but are indoctrinated thru fear into believing. Xianity would not be what it is or where it is today without indoctrination. Fact. Jesus was crucified because a talking snake told a women made from a rib bone to eat a magical fruit. Nup, too absurd for me. IT SEEMS THAT @Joseph Porter DELETED ALL HIS COMMENTS.
@Joseph Porter Hi joseph, how is it 'tired' as you say to 'think for ones self'? rather than to blindly accept the words of others. Christians gleefully deride the 'secular' age, which has given them so much, would you rather we were still burning witches and heretics? "It shows me that basic presuppositions of the secular worldview, along with the regurgitating of pop, secular banter have produced an inability for the new Western orthodoxy to examine itself while taking the most detailed examination of Christianity. " You clearly love word salad joseph, but what is it your trying to say? Clearly you don't agree with Mr Cleese, but many do. To use your own words, "The unfortunate part living in our christianized world is how many christians refuse to examine their beliefs but prefer to deride anything that is not part of their religion" Goes both ways.
@Joseph Porter I'll stick with questioning things over blindly accepting what the priest or bishop says thanks. How many of those 'secular' societies that started and engaged in wars an conflict considered themselves christian lol. You obviously dislike secularism, as for me, I'm off to burns some heretics. Good day sir.
@Joseph Porter i'll do as mr cleese says, think for youself, question everything, be it secular or religious. it just so happens that in this case, TLOB is questioning xianity and rightfully so, since its pure bunkum.
@Joseph Porter i dont subscribe to the 'from nothing ' theory, but neither do i subscribe to the jewish creation myth of a man made from dirt etc. I, like all humans, have no idea why life exists, but i admit it, i simply have no idea. The old, morals exist, therefore MY god made them and he exists explination. Maybe A god did make humanity, but maybe it was one of the hundreds of other man made gods, theres no proof for any of them, including the judeo-xian one. Life is definitly a divinely absurd mystery, but if we were meant to figure it out, dont you think it would be easier, maybe its a mystery for a reason? I've looked at judaism and xianity and I can see their many many flaws and I'm just going to live my life and then pass on to something or nothing, whatever the case may be, when my time comes :) Where does knowledge and morals come from? its a good question, just as is, where does anything come from? but before we say my god made it, we first have to prove my god exists, and i have seen no good proof for any of the hundreds of man made gods, as i have said. cheers.
Have you noticed that when you poke fun at the behaviour of religious people, they always start complaining that you're poking fun at God. It's a very slippery and effective little shift.
MrRobertSama Oh, I don't know. But I think politics is a very very bitter struggle for control of the reins of power, and I think there are many well-intentioned politicians who, within the tornado-like power struggle, are fighting to improve society.
USERNAMEfieldempty but isn't that exactly what the Church is? Just another player in politics. Well, maybe not so much now, but a 1000 years ago it was. Mind you, I said the Church, not religion itself. Religion, or rather belief, is, or should be, something deeply personal, yet someone felt the need to exploit this human insecurity that we have and create a power base out of it. The Church as an Organisation is pure evil in so far as it closes peoples minds rather than open them.
That's because Christianity and many religions are fundamentally about avoidance of personal responsibility in this world (i.e. The only one) at least. I'm not making an accusation; it's explicit in their doctrine. The only catch is they claim responsibility because they will be judged by different respective and often mutually exclusive absurd fantasy dieties after they die. Sorry - that doesn't help me or other non delusional people. It's all about evasion of responsibility and reality (eg death). Were you a horrible harmful person much of your life? Just become "born again" because that solves everything. Except it doesn't. How would it go I was horrible to everyone and irresponsible and then said I found salvation from the great spaghetti monster? It wouldn't fly. And neither should their bullshit.
The better religious people have pointed out that the omnipotent and omnipresent force that is God does not really need random people in stupid outfits to defend Himself.
46:27 -“I started off by saying that this is such a tenth-rate film that I don´t believe it would -“ -“yes, I know, you started with an open mind. I realise that” Thank you Mr. Palin, thank you so much ( ̶I̶'̶d̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶u̶l̶l̶e̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶)
What I like about the Pythons is they never milk their projects. They know when things have run their course. They don't try beat a dead horse and get ten seasons out of a show when there's nothing left to give.
This is brilliant! I am a history nerd that saw life of Brian at 14. I love the insulting of the intelligence of 14 year olds and the humor of the Python crew despite being completely serious.
I have had my run ins with men like that in the church. A young priest said it best. "A lot of people in my profession forget they are in sales and not in management." (paraphrased)
I like how Malcolm kept implying that this film would be forgotten or would have no long lasting impact yet it’s still regarded as one of the most iconic comedy movies of all time, and Monty python is regarded as one of the most if not the most iconic comedy troupe of all time 😂
MegaAshWilliams Go you one better! The very logic used by these men would have had Python burned at the stake for Heresy for even making the movie and somewhat sadly, I doubt either would have felt bad about it. That’s why they couldn’t argue back properly! They come from a time when Christianity brokered no argument. Our way or the highway were the two choices. Evident in every comment they made. Almost incredulous that these two comedians would have the temerity to argue back. Welcome to the Church
As a Christian, I found it sad that they took so much animosity and ridicule away from life of Brian. I've seen it multiple times and it's only message is the one where it tries and succeeds in making you laugh your ass off. It's just classic python humor. It's extremely doubtful to me that anyone started questioning their beliefs after seeing it.
It pokes fun at both politics and religion. The sandel for example is how religious characters just randomly picks an object associated with some symbolic figure and then worship that. As if worshipping the person wasn't enough, now they had to be creepy stalkers like Beatles fan girls. Same thing happened during a crusade when they claimed they'd found a spear of high holy symbolic importance and centered around that. Turned out it was false later on. Another is the People's Front Of Judeah and Judeah's People's Front being both a shot at political parties splitting up into sub factions like communists into stalinist communist and maoist communists and lenin stalinist communists. Same with religion as you have the catholics, protestants, jehovas witness, mormons and many more. Same with Islam with Sunni, Shia and more and then sub factions of those. It's a rabbit hole of nonsense under the same umbrella but nobody agrees on anything else. It's a parody on the insanity and silly way religions are formed and how they work.
I think that their issue is that they'd lost a power struggle already as the UK became more secular, Christian teachings had been relegated to morning assembly and Religious Education lessons rather than being the backbone of lessons like history, English, geography and so on. So they were objecting to the climate of removal of the power of the church, while the film was lampooning idiots flocking to something to believe in, putting absolute faith in this absurd Brian character. I think they all had very reasonable points and were extremely civilized about expressing them by today's standards.
can you get god to stop killing people cos folks like yourself like to think you're "nice" but you really shouldn't be backing a dictator who kills folks just cos they disagree with him, it's not a good look, and it's certainly not moral.
25:59 Malcolm Muggeridge: "I don't think, in the eyes of posterity, [this film] will have a distinguished place." To which I say: Who the hell is Malcolm Muggeridge?
I know it's an old question in an old video, but I can answer it. He's the guy who made Mother Theresa famous. So in the words of Hitchens: I'm sorry there's no hell for him to go to.
Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge, known professionally as Malcolm Muggeridge, was a British journalist and satirist. As a young man, Muggeridge was a left-wing sympathiser but he later became a forceful anti-communist. So it seems clear to me that his thinking is easily misguided and he is to be utterly dismissed at every turn. Just another sheep in the flock of the day. He couldn't critically think his way down a hallway.
lickstickly HA HA HA! It makes so much sense! Maybe the reason that bishop wouldn't stop talking on and on was because he was trying to get more screen exposure for Jesus. I feel sorry for John Cleese having to sit through that man's rambling diatribe at school. He needed cue cards or something to organize his thoughts. The other guy was just being mean. Tenth rate indeed.
And here we are, over thirty years later, and The Life of Brian is an iconic film and watched by millions. Muggeridge and this Archbishop got it totally wrong.
Interesting to see the difference between John Cleese and Michael Palin in their interpretations of the film. For Palin it seems that the film is purely a comedy, that its only purpose is to make people laugh and that it's merely an accident that the film takes place in that particular setting. For Cleese, however, it has a broader message in that it should inspire people to take a critical view of everything and not be persuaded by ideology or closemindedness in any form.
Well, I think that's because it was he that argued most about the message of the film. And of course, first and foremost, it's just comedy. And once he'd laid it on the table, Michal didn't feel like reiterating.
Palin probably has the same views about the film as Cleese. I saw the documentary The secret life of Brian, in it Cleese mentioned that he was having a lot of fun during this interview but he could notice Palin getting very very angry during it. It may just be that Palin was so angry that he wasn't in the mood of explaining his views, as we can see in the interview he barely talks, most of the talking from the python side was done by Cleese. So I don't think that Palin thinks that the film is only just a comedy that happened to be set during the time of christ, rather he was just too angry to talk
I think Palin definitely knew that they were drawing a parallel between Brian and Jesus but at the same time knew that the movie was actually if anything pointing out how Brian was almost NOTHING like Jesus and that’s why it was so funny and absurd. It was funny because Brian was so obviously not the messiah but the followers couldn’t understand that they were just worshipping a regular dude
It was entertaining to see Cleese and Palin trying to use reason and sound argument to make their case, against two old bitter close minded men who couldn't grasp the point of the film. As Palin mentioned at one, though it was difficult to hear because he was over spoken, "It is not a very strong religion that cannot take any criticism". I was also amused by the exasperation of Cleese and Palin towards the end, clearly their patience was being tested.
Apparently John quite enjoyed it because he thought they were winning (to be fair there, when the old fools make a point there is some clapping. When John or Palin make a point there is substantially more applause). Palin apparently got really mad though, because the old fools just dismissed it and many of their points. They constantly refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is in fact in the film and not ridiculed at all.
I always loved the "Not the nine o'clock news" parody of this debate. I'm sure most people have seen it but for anyone who hasn't they turn the debate on it's head with Rowan Atkinson as a priest who's made a film spoofing the life of John Cleese and Mel Smith as the irate Monty Python fan who's offended at the film. It's hilarious and worth checking out.
I feel so frustrated for Cleese and Palin, it's so fucking obvious what the film's point is. It's not so much about ridiculing Jesus and followers of Christianity as it is about cautioning against blind faith, whether that faith be religious, political, etc. There's literally a part where Brian tells a huge crowd that they're all individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves. It's essentially a film about freedom of thought. It's trying to say that the ability to think for oneself and question things before committing to them blindly is of huge importance, and you shouldn't be a sheep. That isn't the same as "You're stupid if you're religious", it's more like "You shouldn't blindly commit to something you haven't questioned for yourself." If you study religion, ak all the questions, weigh up all the answers and then still decide it's for you, then by all means knock yourself out, it's your right. But the people who are weighing up the answers and deciding NOT to follow along aren't any better or worse, because it's their right as well. Also, I hadn't realised it until John pointed it out in this debate, but it's completely true that this doesn't just apply to religion. Look at say, the whole part in the movie with the People's Front of Judea and their blind devotion to this group despite their values and principles making no sense. You could argue the film mocks political fanaticism as much as it does religious devotion. Like John says himself, it's about "closed systems of thought". In short, I'm amazed by this interview. I always liked Life of Brian but I respect it a lot more now I've seen this.
In defence of Christians on the whole, the people behind this so called 'outrage' were part of a lobbying group who were quite popular and powerful at the time. They were essentially a political movement, the Nationwide Festival of Light. There were moderate Christians who supported them but by and large they were just people who had jumped on the media bandwagon. I think a lot of Christians who felt that way at the time probably look back and see how ridiculous they were, many of them probably even love the film now. You can find a lot of similarities in the Festival of Light with a lot of modern populist and militant groups around these days, be they left wing or right wing. They weren't necessarily doing what was 'right' for their faith, they had an agenda and cognitive dissonance had led them to believe in that agenda with a cult-like fervency. If they were around today, they would be populating online echo chambers, using buzzwords and every now and then antagonising or trolling complete strangers by forcing their weird, easily debunked bullshit down everyone elses throats.
I feel like there is not enough praise for the moderator in the comments. He did an extremely good job in keeping the discussion productive instead of letting it escalate. Also I just love his voice, could listen to it all day.
For a little film that was so insignificant as they suggest we are still watching it 40 years later and Malcolm and the bishop are virtually unknown says a lot
Tim nailed it on the head at 40:06 when he suggested that Python was lampooning the followers rather than Jesus himself. I re-watched "Brian" in preparation for this discussion and have to say that I'm incredibly disappointed, and not surprised, in the close-mindedness of Malcolm Muggeridge and Bishop Mervyn Stockwood. I was looking forward to a critical debate about this film and their thoughts in regards to religion. Props to Cleese and Palin, (my absolute favorite Python) for at least trying.
Yeah I was hoping for the humility and thought of the current CoE bishops but he had this awful air of pompousity and ignorance that's pretty unlikeable, it reminded me of the smugness of people who have a popular viewpoint today and a lot of followers, regardless of which "side" they're on.
Especially ironic since (as Palin said himself, I believe) Cleese and Palin were actually the ones making coherent arguments while the other two ended up trying to play to the crowd and put on a show. Just goes to show they weren't on a very good side of the argument to begin with and they seemed to know it.
As of 2017: - Life of Brian: ranked in IMDB top 50 comedies of all time (should be top 10) - The two insufferable airbags attacking it: still dead and forgotten other than for this infamy - Cleese and Palin: still alive, funny, and respected
All the facial expressions throughout this are absolutely gold... You can see the pain on the Python's faces as they have to sit by and listen to all the religious drivel as well as the upset reactions of the old fools at the audiences support of the Pythons.
Terminal Passage, Today the roles are reversed with secularists and liberals being so offended by Conservatism and the teachings of Jesus that they seek to ban such thought and speakers from universities. Your Python idols would no doubt be displeased by the lack of freedom of thought or support for free speech amongst your movements today. Oh well.
Jesus was a Conservative? I'm not sure a long-haired hippy preaching peace and love advising against the evils of money is in a parallel line with Conservatism.
I don't think you understand the meaning of free speech. But, as has already been pointed out - this is just a fantasy of the right. Well, that and Donnie, who actually wants to get rid of free speech.
The old coot is on and on about 14-year olds being influenced by the movie, but Life of Brian was released when I actually WAS 14 years old. I went to see it half a dozen times and even bought the script book. I was never stupid enough to think they were making a mockery of Jesus Christ or that I should somehow doubt His divinity. It was always clear to me that they were making fun of ordinary people and their foibles. Jesus is awesome and this Christian has a sense of humor.
There's some level of irony in the old guy saying that Life of Brian would not have any long-run impact, when nowadays it's considered one of, if not the greatest comedies of all time.
"Secular nature of the education children receive today" Please! I grew up in the 90's in the UK, I went to a 'non religious' school and yet was forced to sing hymns and pray every morning. As well as undertake 2 hours of bible studies every week! What was this old prat on?!
I find it quite satisfying that Malcolm Muggeridge, who continuously during this debate, devalued the importance of The Life of Brian, and insists that it was a poor piece of comedy that will soon be forgotten, is now, outside of a few academic people, not remembered. Yet the Life of Brian is remembered and referenced by many people to this day. Despite Muggeridges’ influence on a few Christian “intellectuals”, the Life of Brian has had a greater impact on more people than Muggeride could have dreamed of having himself. As usual, the religious person’s hubris blinded him from seeing how appealing religious criticism is to the masses.
It's very interesting watching this with power of hindsight, what a influential piece of comedy this was and how incorrect he was. Both this and Jesus Christ Superstar, also mentioned in this interview had very interesting alternative views on the bible and I think do raise very interesting philosophical views on what we believe. Also some of Douglas Adams talks on religion, are both humorous and raise intriguing points.
I agree. I would go further and actually say that the vicious behavior of the two "Christians" helped the success of the film in this country (England). All they succeeded in doing was make themselves look like ignorant, closed minded bullies. It was a huge own goal. Looking back on it and their self-satisfied, smug faces, one almost has to pity them for how incredibly off the mark they were!
I loved Monty Python as a child because that was there audience ??? The debate about the life of BRIAN/ JESUS is way past realty and edging on the realm of fiction. Your views remind me of some pathetic little arse wipe that was in the audience of hate toward the Christian Faith !!! Sham on you for not believing in the book of life???
The bishop was much more pleasant to hear from. But hearing that bitter old bastard prattle on and repeat the same pathetic insults was infuriating. Cleese, and Palin did a fantastic job of explaining what the Life of Brian is about. Sadly, you can't draw blood from a stone, and trying to get through to people that have believed in unsubstantiated nonsense is like trying to play chess with a pigeon.
+DeadnWoon That which is unsubstantiated is, by definition, without substance. It is of lesser standing as an idea, not to be regarded as an equal and valid contender for well-established theories based on standardized logic and peer-reviewed evidence.
I do not understand that bishop. Annoys the hell out of me, simply because I normaly understand english just fine. But since he appears to mumble ludacris crap anyways I feel like im not missing as much
MrRobertSama They believed they were "the authority" and that the Pythons were "challenging their right to authority over how (or if) others may think". Which the Pythons were doing, and doing so beautifully.
Exactly right. How we choose to think is our own business. And I would have told them off too...If I had been more than a month old when this was broadcast (transmitted)
41:28 Stockwood: No, but Jesus was crucified, wasn't he, for his obedience to the will of God. Cleese: Well, he was crucified, surely, for blasphemy. Stockwood: He, yes, they accused him of blasphemy because he was obedient to the word of God and of his Kingdom. Huge whooshing sound as Cleese's point goes over the bishop's head.
could you perhaps explain to me how that line is to be interpreted properly? Jesus, allegedly, was crucified for saying things that if not true, were considered blasphemous. You could only think its not blasphemy if you know it to be true, which is/was quite impossible. To me the whole thing seems impossible to objectively assess. How would these two religious people have reacted if someone popped up claiming he was the son of Jesus, preaching wildly different things than the then current teachings? Wouldn't they think that to be blasphemy unless they believed it for whatever reason?
@@rayaqin Well, Stockwood obviously believes that Jesus was not actually blaspheming against the Lord. Just against the faith of the Jewish elders of the Roman Empire. It is man who enforces religious laws, after all; not gods.
@@rayaqin I find this point weird about Christianity and the whole cross thing. Nobody, ever, in the history of Rome, was Crucified for having a different religion than them. 100% True. Rome didn't think of religion as being a Crime. They had Specific, Strict laws on what you were punished for, and how you were punished. And these two seem to think that the only point that justifies Jesus's Case is the event in which he is Crucified. Which, as John points out, is the one event which doesn't.
I love the disparity in applauses, shows the people were smart. Also it brings me great joy that Life of Brian is now considered one of the greatest comedies while every reference I can find to these two zealots is directly tied to this debate.
Now now, this is no time for facts, some rich white Christians have decided to have their feelings hurt! What's hilarious is that it's these same toffy nosed conservatives who, as soon as they're done playing the persecuted victim, will turn around today and tell you words don't hurt, if you're offended it's your problem and something else about special snowflakes! HYPOCRITES! Never mind the bare faced fact, Jesus in the first two scenes of the film. They show 1. the actual nativity at the same time as the birth of Brian just down the road and 2. the sermon on the mount, or a very close approximation of it, attended by Brian AND his mother. So there's two scenes, the first two scenes mind you, that contain both Jesus and Brian, and these two upper crust morons still think Brian is meant to be Jesus? Get off your high horses. All you want to do is bitch and moan about how nobody takes your church seriously any more and you don't have the power to murder heretics and unbelievers like you did in the past. I wonder where the two whiney old men stood on Charlie Hedbo's "right" to mock and ridicule another middle eastern religion which is really no different than theirs... probably supported it 100% - unless like their belief system, they're now dead and irrelevant.
32:00 "You wouldn't gay of Socrates or make him appear to be a clown" This bishop clearly never heard to The Clouds, and ancient Greek comedy (423BC) mocking Socrates and his teachings.
In the documentary "The Secret Life of Brian", Palin said that this was the angriest he had ever been in public. I admire both them for not giving those pompous wankers a good kick in the arse.
***** I'm sure you mean what should drive us insane throughout this conversation is the rampant religious hypocricy, incredibly weak arguments from emotion, pandering to the audience and simply resorting to verbal abuse as the main tactics against Palin and Cleese? If so, I agree with you. Ironically, with such a weak case being brought by Muggeridge and Stockwood, the case for antitheism becomes that much more rational.
In the same documentary, John Cleese said he had quotes in his pocket from both of them defending blasphemy and religious parodies and out of pure kindness didn’t read them out. He said he almost felt sorry for them by the end because he knew he and Michael had won.
Both him and Cleese are visibly angry clearly. Cleese does all his anger in his character performances but you rarely see him genuinely angry as himself.
@@kerryn6714 MP was angry because he couldn’t string a valid argument together and got frustrated. He rambled a bit but these older wiser men took advantage and schooled him.
I've just watched this... I was only 40 years late! TV gold. The thing that probably resonated with me the most was the Bishop's comments towards the end when he said how awful (1979) life had become. He should pop down from heaven as check out what it's like, now...
"There shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock."
"Now, you wouldn't guy Socrastes [sic] and make him appear as a clown." ... (opens up new RU-vid tab, watches "Monty Python Hollywood Bowl - International Philosophers")
"It's inspired the greatest works of art" : well no wonder, it was the only kind of art that was allowed by the theocratic authorities. "It won't have a very distinguished place in the eyes of posterity" : 35 years later, it is considered one of the greatest comedy films of all time, and I think it will be remembered for many more years to come. "Mother Theresa" : isn't that the woman who faked her faith in Christianity throughout her career? Bishop : "These generalisations are not based on evidence" : well that's pretty rich...
As a Christian the life of Brian is one of my favourite films. It depicts mans need to split off into different directions on theology and ideas, it's a mick take of man not God. The film has Jesus in it so how can Brian be Jesus, these guys missed the mark as much as the followers of Brian missed Jesus. How wrong they were in saying it wouldn't last.
I couldn't agree more. It's fascinating to hear a reasoned discussion (I'm thinking particularly, but not exclusively, about the Muggeridge and Cleese) between intelligent, articulate and well-informed people who in some ways are very different, but in others remarkably similar - and for it not to end up as a bun fight.
26:31 -- Well, there you have it, Mother Theresa wouldn't do any 'good' work, should the magic entity be disproven. That is why humanism is superior, and it is eloquently described by the hagiographer of the old bird, himself. It also makes her a direct liar, as later she penned in her own hand, letters speculating on her very real doubts her whole life. She did the work without knowing about the magic. Sorry Malcolm, but your credulity is likely to prevail as your strongest legacy.
In his heyday Muggeridge was well-renowned as a journalist and wit and in his youth had built up a reputation for controversial opinions and tough interviews. He was sacked from the BBC for a while after publishing an article criticising the monarchy. That all went to shit, and his legacy is in tatters, largely because of religion. Twenty six years after his death he's known for two things: this pompous nonsense in which he only manages to come across as a fool; and his absurd hagiography of Mother Theresa which was so ably puntured by Christopher Hitchens. I'm sure it's possible to be religious while maintaining a rational outlook. But if there's a lesson to be learnt from Muggeridge's life, it's that religion has the capability to be incredibly toxic and destructive, even for the brightest intellect.
Don't forget that Muggeridge is also known for accurately reporting on Stalin's genocidal man-made famine inflicted on Ukraine, circa 1930-34, which killed several million souls; at a time when most other Western journalists based in the USSR then, because sympathetic to Stalin and the cause of international socialism, covered it up. Contrast with the New York Times and their man in Moscow at the time, Walter Duranty.
Yeah, if anything that argument makes me like Mother Teresa less, she only does good work because of a sort of religious, non-monetary reward. Compared to the social workers who do it for the betterment of humankind, that seems pretty shitty.
It was pretty hard for me to sit and listen to these two octogenarians ramble on nonsensically about how shocking a PG-13 movie was to their delicate sensibilities. It must have been really difficult for Cleese and Palin to restrain themselves. I give them a huge amount of credit for being so gentle with these old fellas. As stated below, Life of Brian remains a comedy classic decades later. (I loved Cleese's quip: "It's not a funny building."
They were definitely drawing a comparison between Brians story and the story of Jesus but at the same time, the movie was actually, if anything, pointing out how Brian was almost NOTHING like Jesus and that’s why it was so funny and absurd. It was funny because Brian was so obviously not the messiah but the followers couldn’t realize that they were just worshipping a regular dude.
Thx for uplaoding! I just saw "Holy Flying Circus", so I really wanted to see the real version of this unbelievable moment. I mean, if I wouldn't know better, I would've guessed that this was a weird, twisted joke...
Very very interesting as social history. To my mind Cleese and Palin were manifestly intellectually on the high ground, yet the C of E guys seemed to think that they could disparage "Brian" out of hand with no logical justification
John Leney Because That is how their world worked! We say whatever we please and you just accept it. Christianity 101 right there my friend. Question nothing!
If there's one kind of person to never pick a verbal fight with, it would be comedians. The good ones, the actual ones, are usually the smartest people out there. They tend to be very well educated, very well spoken, they do their research, know as much as they can about a subject, and are prepared for what ever is coming at them with weeks upon weeks of comebacks and points in their arsenal, which they never get to use, since the debate or argument is over quickly.
hehe i love that they repeat that there have been sooo many artists that has made many great art pieces, inspired by this event. And the truth is that several of these artists worked in a time where there were not any other choice. And that many of these artists of history were commissioned by kings and church. Because they had to survive. i support monty python a 100%.
I think that Tim shared one thought that shuts this discussion. The film ridicules Christians, not Christ. You can see it made this Malcolm guy really butthurt to the point of him offending Pythons rather than presenting some sound arguments.
I've watched this "debate" before, but the movie Holy Flying Circus (2011) brought me back to watch it again. I don't know why, but I am somewhat surprised at the politeness both Cleese and Palin showed these two pompous asses. I don't mean courteous politeness (I would expect nothing less of them), but politeness in not asserting themselves more aggressively and taking the false premises of their "arguments" apart and mopping the floor with these guys. Cleese and Palin certainly "won," in my mind, but I wonder how this was perceived when it originally aired.
Is it not wonderful how they thought this movie would be dredged up for social reasons, when it is now a FUCKING CLASSIC. More people should listen to what mr Cleese has to say.
40 years later, those two old dudes are dead. This movie is still funny and does not make me like or dislike Jesus in any way. My opinions toward Jesus are unchanged after watching it. Its just funny and it always will be.
The other 2 old men in the interview were so closed minded, John says the film is saying "Work things out for yourself, make your own mind up". Brian even says that in the film "You've got to think for yourselves".
The fact is that everyone wants to be an individual person and doesn't want others opinion shiver down their throat and this is a relief film for people that have lived respectable lives towards others and still feel crucified for being their own individual selves always take pride in who you are even if you're a little deffrent but do not harm the fellow innocent man not hurting anyone.
