I invited my cousin - who was deeply religious - he even attended the seminary, over to watch life of Brian years ago. He was very nervous about it, thought it would be sacrilegious etc. Well he was almost immediately rolling on the floor with laughter, and quoted the movie regularly for many years afterward. We unfortunately lost him back in 2003. But every time I watch the movie I smile thinking about how much he loved it
Growing up, my best friend was an extreme fundamentalist Christian and it was his second favorite comedy of all time (his first being Monty Python's Holy Grail).
As an American of both Swedish and Norwegian ancestry who loves this movie, thanks for this comment. I don't think my grandparents would have liked the movie, though.
True story. The film was banned in my Mum’s hometown (Aberystwyth). Decades later, the actress who played Judith became the town’s Mayor. A special screening of the film was arranged at the local cinema, which Terry Jones and Michael Palin attended. Everyone had a BLAST. And the funny thing? The film had never actually been banned. It turned out the miserable sod behind the ban in the 70s forgot to file the paperwork.
@@Dayvit78 Robert Downey *Senior* (whom we just lost a couple of weeks ago - may the great man rest in peace) made his own excellent Christ-figure movie, Greaser's Palace, which also memorably featured Herve Villechaize with a spouse (another man dressed as a woman) named Spitunia.
Faith is weak. That's why the faithful isolate themselves from anyone with a differing opinion. This is coming from someone who attended 16 years of religious schools. Spoiler Alert! Turns out Christianity is a lie and if you admit that to yourself and come out of the closet, you'll probably lose all your friends and family. No wonder people are so afraid to lose their faith. They're afraid they'll get the same treatment I did.
Many people objected to Life of Brian as they felt it was mocking Jesus, in other words Brian was really Jesus. But the whole point of the film, if the objectors had actually bothered to watch it, was that Brian WASN’T Jesus or a messiah of any kind. He was just a very naughty boy!
Most importantly, it's a joy to watch Gene and Roger laugh with glee during their review. Clearly, they love this movie, immensely. Their feelings match what so many of us felt when we first saw the film ourselves.
The Welsh home town of the actress who played Judith banned this film. So she went into politics, got elected mayor, and showed it after she took office.
@Ethan Hammons the town really did ban the movie, and she really did become mayor, but the notion that she went into politics to get the movie shown is, sadly, a myth. According to her wikepedia article (admittedly not the most reliable source) she only found out about the ban after assuming office. Here's a more reliable source confirming her service as mayor and screening of the film. www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/monty-python-stars-flout-aberystwyth-2795541
Brian: "You are all individuals." Crowd: "We are all individuals." Life of Brian is full of funny, ironic satire of the whole concept of organized religion. In its own way it is the most religious movie out there.
@@intomnia3313 Yes, Muggeridge became against 'the permissive society' when he became too old to take part in it, the Bishop of Lambeth with him was later found to not only be a drunk but a liking for Altar Boys.
"Life of Brian" really began when Eric Idle told a reporter that, having just ridiculed the legend of King Arthur, the next Python film would be "Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory."
I think originally Life of Brian was gonna be about Jesus, but when they started their research, they realized “ehh, this guy is alright, we don’t want to make fun of him”, so instead they made fun of religious and political fanatics.
@@heyyou7408 I know the feeling. We are incredibly lucky to be able to revisit this anytime and see how great a fledgling series on public television changed our world. So glad you see things that way too.
“Oh God” and “The Life Of Brian” came out while I was at a nice conservative seminary. They were both wildly popular with the students and many of the faculty. No one felt particularly threatened by either film.
Siskel misses the point. The religious leaders were not worried about the faithful watching the film and losing or wounding their faith, they were complaining that trivializing and/or lampooning the story of Christ was a "bad thing". Yes, yes, the film was purportedly made, as they point out, as a sendup of religious films, but not everyone has the emotional intelligence to realize that or to separate fact from fiction. And those people, according the complainers, were being done a disservice by the film. The film didn't need defending and neither did the complaints. They both were controversial but legal speech expressions. That Siskel felt the need to defend it showed that even if he didn't have a dog in the fight, he wish he did. And that's ok, because critics, like everybody else, are allowed to have opinions.
@@cholesterol6703 Uh, they were complaining that it ridiculed Christ which in turn would shake up the faith of the religious. That was their fear. So Siskel was spot on. I don't go for dumbing down to the less emotionally intelligent, otherwise we all end up with chaff.
@@cholesterol6703 "not everyone has the emotional intelligence to realize that or to separate fact from fiction" Then maybe those particular folks should be spending their time obtaining some emotional intelligence, instead of complaining about Monty Python movies
@@cholesterol6703 "Yes, yes, the film was purportedly made, as they point out, as a sendup of religious films, but not everyone has the emotional intelligence to realize that or to separate fact from fiction. And those people, according the complainers, were being done a disservice by the film." - oh my God, religious leaders of the late 70s must've been the root of cancel culture, trying to ban something simply because some people are too stupid to understand it, in an attempt to "protect" them from having their fee fees hurt :/
@@cholesterol6703 Siskel is addressing the criticism from religious leaders at the time which was that this film was insulting to Christ and/or Christianity. It's not. I suspect the REAL reason religious leaders didn't want people to see the film was because of its central message which is don't just blindly follow religious leaders, think for yourself. Thanks to the "Streisand effect" the movie became a huge hit as everyone wanted to go see the film they were told not to go see.
I know they got more famous once they went into syndication, but I still have a soft spot for their original stint on PBS doing Sneak Previews. No matter what version of Siskel & Ebert that they did, they bickered and sometimes made me mad, but they always took their jobs seriously and respected each other and the audience. They've never been replaced.
They did! Back in April, for the 40th Anniversary. Looks like there are still some venues showing it this fall. Check it out: www.wewantbrian.com/?campaign=Global_MontyPython_Website
This is one of the greatest comedies ever made. Almost every scene is iconic and quotable. It is not sacreligious because it doesn't make fun of Jesus. It makes fun of religious people. And we should make much more fun of religious people.
It makes fun of *everything*, from established religions and their absurd rules (Jehovah!), to new cults, to social activists, to trade unions and their love of forming committees, to the left and their perpetual splintering into factions, to schoolmasters and their Latin obsession, to people with speech defects, to transgenders ("I want to have babies")... my favourite movie.
Nobody would help finance the movie back then fearing a backlash from the religious, then Eric Idle sent the script to George Harrison and he loved it and provided the funds to make the movie.
So, does the movie explicitly mock the Jewish faith? Especially Moses, the central figure of their faith? I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know. But I bet Siskel would not have been happy. He probably would have called it antisemitic.
Even the members of Python have stated that this was their best film. As popular as Holy Grail was, Graham Chapman's drinking made it an extremely difficult movie to make, and it just kind of falls apart at the end. Life of Brian was solid throughout, with a great story line and terrific performances by everyone.
"Life of Brian" was technically the Python's 3rd film. So they were getting better at it. Also they were in the rare situation where the financing came from a source (George Harrison) that did not interfere or try to change their creativity at all, much like their early years on the BBC. It is without a doubt, the funniest film of the 70's and 80's.
Thanks a million for the upload!! I used to love these guys growing up. I always knew when they came on, that it was a opportunity to see a (very short and fleeting) scene of a lot of different things that I knew I'd want to be watching in the future. I didn't always agree with them,, but OF COURSE in THIS case I did! It's great to see them again. Reviewing one of my favorite FILMS of ALL TIME!! 👍👍
I was about to write the same thing. Eric Idle said that it is hard to satirize Jesus because he actually has a lot of good to say (paraphrase). They clearly went after religious groups and how people have a propensity to "follow" and create their own (absurd) beliefs (follow the gourd or follow the sandal?)
This is the sensible person's version of real satire. I did see this in the theater - but all those late Saturday nights of sneaking to the basement after bedtime to watch the Flying Circus really softened me up to the impending "controversy" I miss the brilliance of these guys. Thanks for posting, Hans.
I used to stay up and watch Monty Python on Saturday nights on PBS around 11:30, and liked the show because it was so damn weird. Never saw any of their films though. I did finally see The Life of Brian in 2019 at a 40th anniversary showing of it, and it was pretty fun.
The funniest thing is that the people who say the film is blasphemous look like the women who stoned the rabbi for speaking the word Jehovah. Life imitates art.
Okay I just remembered something and I'm going to brag... My other greatest accomplishment as a father? When my daughter was about 10 or 11 years old we're driving along and she says dad dad! There's trouble in the engine! I turned to her and said the engine, what is it? She said it's thing under the hood that makes the car go, but that's not important right now! She was improvising a line from "Airplane" 💙😁
They were much more likely to laugh a lot when they were reviewing a really bad (but not-grotesque) movie, than when they reviewed a comedy they really liked. I suggest you watch S&E's reviews of "Red Sonja", "Invasion USA", and "Americathon" to get a sense of how the GOAT critics reacted when a movie that wasn't a parody played as one.
"Life of Brian" was technically the Python's 3rd film and they were getting better at making them. They were also in the rare situation where the financing came from a source (George Harrison) that did not interfere or try to change their creativity at all, much like their early years on the BBC. It is without a doubt, the funniest film of the 70's and 80's. The only thing on film that comes close in perfectly hitting the spot was the "Every Sperm is Sacred" sequence in their last movie.
The story behind Life of Brian finally getting made is that the Pythons had showed the script to every studio they could think of in Hollywood and Britain, and were turned down by everyone. Apparently, George Harrison got a hold of it, liked it, and decided to finance it, which inspired him to start his own film company, called Handmade Films, just to get the film out there, and it became one of he premier indie film companies until about the late '90s or so.
I’m glad they liked it but they were wrong, it wasn’t mocking religious movies but organized religion itself. It doesn’t mock what Jesus taught, but how people interpreted it. That sort of thing.
Yes, I keep telling folks it's about people who miss the point. And, of course, it seems the people who condemned the movie missed the point of the movie.
There are at least ten scenes that make me laugh a lot, starting with the Shirley Bassey-parody Opening Theme and graphics. One that people have forgotten: the out of left field potshot at Star Wars in the middle of the movie for one minute, there and gone. As absurd as it gets.
I was waiting for the Colonel to interrupt Siskel and Ebert and say, "Stop! Stop right there! I think this is silly! The critiquing of this movie is silly, and the movie itself is even sillier than that!"
I'm with you about Life of Brian being great, but let's not get absurd about the first four of the New Testament. The authors of the Bible were commissioned and inspired by God. Don't throw them under the bus for all of the trash religious movements and leaders that have followed through the ages.
@@herzeliedstein573 That was serious. I agreed with you on appreciating Life of Brian. I disagreed with you about it being more truthful than the Bible.
On a side note, notice how there aren't seizure inducing quick edits, excessive graphics and fancy sound effects in this review like there are in today's media. They actually let the segment breathe. Also, I was surprised that they let the whole movie clip play. That would never happen in today's short attention span world.
@@EdwardAndersen I didn't catch it at all. Thanks to your eagle eyes and fond memory about things you've seen and heard in the past, I've been exposed to the hilarity of that final comment of Mr Ebert. Before reading your extremely insightful post , I thought he was just making a matter-of-fact statement relating to the traditional structure/chronological nature of a television show! Thank Jehovah for people like Edward Andersen, that's all I can say. May I worship you?
I miss both those fellows quite a bit. As for “Life of Brian,” I’m a member of “the tribe” who saw it when it was released with a friend who was Catholic. I thought it was amusing, but he thought it was hilarious.
3:25 I'm just going to use that line when I still can't understand someone after I've asked them to repeat themself, "oh yes, about 11 sir" and then not explain it and let the silence get awkward.
I applaud the approach of singling out a single title and stripping away banter and title videos. Hope you continue this. It's a pity that the resolution of the picture couldn't be sharper. Is that possible? Siskel's comments about the Python's satire is most welcome.
I was a student at Uni flatting in Hamilton NZ when it was released. Movies, cafes was something we didn't do as students back then we saved all our money for rent, food and alcohol. Then we saw the news on our black and white tv all these people protesting about Life of Brian and how people should boycott it. Well we exercised our choice to go watch it and see what the fuss was all about. I remember a big group of us biking back to our various flats at night singing but mainly humming "Always look on the bright side of life". Loved it back then still do
My father was a Congregationalist minister (past tense because he's retired, not dead) and Life of Brian is one of his favorite movies of all time. He told me about all the controversy surrounding it when it came out and genuinely didn't understand what people were getting so upset about! He went into the theatre worried that a comedy troupe that he was a big fan of was going to be disrespectful, but left not only loving the movie, but not even detecting a shred of blasphemy in it at all. As he put it, "Most people who got offended didn't see it and the few that did were people who got offended by everything anyway." Fun Fact: The idea for Life of Brian originated when Monty Python was on a press tour promoting Holy Grail. They kept on being asked what the next film would be, so they started thinking up the absolute worst titles they could think of. Eric Idle came up with, "Jesus Christ: Lust For Glory" and that kickstarted the idea of doing a Biblical-epic parody.
I discovered this movie while in Catholic middle school. Heard about it from parents and faculty while they were condemning it. Still one of my favorites. The movie, not the Catholic nonsense.
I remember being a little kid and staying up to watch Keeping Up Appearances and Are You Being Served? on PBS. Not in the same league as MPFC, but it was definitely a taste of something different.
Even better than that: I'm pretty sure one of them is Carol Cleveland, so she would be a woman pretending to be a man dressed as a woman pretending to be a man.
Watch the film Victor/Victoria. Julie Andrews plays a woman pretending to be a man, pretending to be a woman. Hilarious romp, set in 1930s Paris, with James Garner, Alex Karras, and Robert Preston, directed by Blake Edwards and with wonderful songs by Henry Mancini.
@@sam21462 lazy is kneeling down and praying to God for wealth and then when you wake up and there isn’t a million bucks in your account, saying, “oh well, I guess there’s no such thing as God. He didn’t answer my prayer.”
One part of LIFE OF BRIAN that was filmed but cut before the release that I wonder how S&E would have reacted to was a subplot involving a gang of zealots led by a psycho named Otto (I think played by John Cleese), who would have been nationalists whose symbol was a combination of a Star of David and a Nazi swastika. From what I've read, Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones wanted those scenes kept in the movie, and Eric Idle and Michael Palin didn't. Ultimately I think they decided it was a controversy they didn't want or need and edited the stuff out. I don't know if this material was ever restored for any DVD or anything like that.
