"The Life of Brian by Monty Python," 1979, dir. Terry Jones. Despite the fact that the film has been made for quite a long time, it remains always relevant, since such satire will be relevant for a long time. Satire on everything - on the senselessness and stupidity of the crowd, on the self-proclaimed numerous Popular Fronts, on all kinds of messiahs and the attitude of the same crowd towards them. Top is the final song of the crucified. Monty Python is Monty Python.
It's actually very funny. It may even hurt the feelings of some believers. Although, to be honest, I do not understand why, from the point of view of an adequate view of reality, views on the non-scientific doctrines of people in states in which the Church is not a form of government by law are taken so seriously.
To joke about religion and some scriptures is not the same as about real historical events or facts. Oh, come on.
In general, the film is not so much about religion as about the stupidity of people. Montipayton's coarse and tacky variation of biblical scripture, which shows the story of the popularity and ascent to the cross of a guy named Brian. And despite all the absurd dirt and blackness, the movie turned out to be kind and cheerful. This is a paradox in a paradoxical movie by Terry Jones.
Key actors play several roles at once and one of several roles is played by Terry Gilliam himself.
I read and re-read the gallant Nietzsche, who struggled with his illness with his philosophy, splashed anger and pain into the sarcasm of aphorisms; studied the boring Myth of Sisyphus, this result of chronic depression, which has the status of a deep philosophical work; flipped through Nausea, in which Sartre tried - and, most strangely, convinced many - to give the clinical picture of depression the appearance of a philosophical revelation; read Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where Freud poured anthropological reflections caused by the depressive reaction to the horrors of war and the deepestial Pathematist, who saw Montai's deepestialism / Loss / .
The Life of Brian is an absurdist manifesto correcting the Myth of Sisyphus. Camus offers a constant awareness of the absurd and a constant rebellion against the absurd. The Myth of Sisyphus has two drawbacks: it is based on the idea that the question of the value of life is the main question of philosophy, although Nietzsche in The Problem of Socrates showed that this question not only cannot be the main one, but also cannot be a question. The “myth” is boring and serious and can cause deadly boredom and longing, which will turn anyone into a Kafka insect.
The comedian philosophers of Monty Python do not begin with the question of the value of life; they ask it, but, unlike Camus, deprive it of philosophical solidity and the status of an intellectual problem. They, so to speak, deconstruct it, joking (which they successfully, albeit scandalously, do in “The Meaning of Life according to Monty Python”). They begin with the central figure of European culture, Christ; paint life as an absurdly ridiculous cross-bearing (each has his own); and conduct a paradoxical therapy of carrying the cross, demonstrating how it is carried by some people. And some people carry it like this: they always look at the bright side of life, and both sides, light and light, laugh. And this, in contrast to the sullen-serious “rebellion” and existential “vomit” is therapeutic, because in the end it is not only and not so much important whether life has value and what this value is – it is important how we live this life: with whining in the heart and ashes on the head or with a laugh and smile on the face and, most importantly, in the soul. Thus, by adding to Camus a large dose of humor and a pinch of stoicism, revived in the 20th century in the form of cognitive-behavioral therapy, Monty Python gave birth to an existentialism that is at least as good and at least more pragmatic than the philosophy that threw up Sartre.
***
Below are some notes on the cuff.
This movie life is bullying. Comedians denounce everything, both holy and sacred (Christ, His crucifixion, the Virgin, the worship of the Magi, love, motherhood, miracles, holiness, hermitage), and the unholy and ordinary (political parties, factional struggle, religious fanaticism and ignorance). They joke skillfully and adequately, as far as adequacy for such topics is achievable. Scandalous and shocking humor will begin in “The Meaning of Life according to Monty Python”, and in “Life” comedians are still kind.
Terry Gilliam, one of the writers of “Life”, will partially transfer the story of Brian to today’s classic “Brazil”, in which Sam Lowry, like Brian, falls in love at first sight and falls because of this on his cross.
The final song, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, unlike songs like Don’t Worry, Be Happy, doesn’t try to obscure the world’s evil, but instead looks at it with eyes wide open. A crucified person sings, for example, “When you think about life, you realize it’s shit” or “Life is absurd and death is the final word.” At the same time, the crucified states that life may be shit, but you can react to this shit in different ways: you can aggravate sadness, or you can improve with laughter and humor.
And in this context, the most paradoxical-deep character is the unrelenting Jew, who tirelessly cheats even when he goes to the crucifixion with a cross on his shoulder, and who, having been crucified, is then removed from the cross because he joked on the cross.
What I wish for everyone.
Not a cross, but a good mood and sense of humor.
10 out of 10
This is one of my favorite religious films. The film is quite critical and topical ridicule many problems of Judaism and Christianity. It has a huge amount of political satire and black humor. I still don’t understand how this film was released in a religious country and even in the seventies. I think even now his display can cause considerable public resonance.
The plot of the film tells the story of a simple Jewish guy named Brian. He probably wouldn’t stand out from the crowd if it weren’t for the fact that he was born on the same day as Jesus. Through his life, we seem to be shown the problems of ancient Jewish society, but if we look a little deeper, it becomes clear that they are practically no different from ours. Religious fanaticism, terrorism, crowd unrest, the idiocy of officials, all these problems have already become constant and so familiar to us, it is about them that the picture tells.
The humor of a film is generally very difficult to convey, but if we are talking about the creations of Monty Pythons, then the task becomes much more complicated. It is layered, and behind a lot of banal jokes and unusual situations, there is a deep and piercing satire. Absurdity is also a hallmark of their creativity, while absurdity in everything: in dialogues, situations, characters.
So Bryan's Life is one of the few examples of truly ageless comedy.
In the spring of 2004, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the release of the film “The Life of Brian”, created in 1979, by the British comedian troupe Monty Python, the film company Rainbow Releasing decided to release this picture for re-release. But suddenly, the owner had problems: some considered it extremely inappropriate to rent an extremely blasphemous film along with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. However, this was not the first scandal caused by Life of Brian.
Already at the time of its appearance, The Life of Brian was banned for display in several countries. And here was not without curiosity, and in the style of “Monty Python”. For example, the fact that the film was not allowed to be shown in Norway only contributed to its massive advertising in Sweden, since the Swedes traditionally treat Norwegians as people without a sense of humor and consider them to be slow. Moreover, after hearing about the ban of the film in Norway, the Swedish rights owner immediately came up with an advertising slogan: “This film is so funny that it is even banned in Norway!”
In this pseudo-religious comedy tells the story of the Jewish loser Brian of Nazareth, whom others begin to take for the Messiah. As in all the other travesties of the Monty Python group, everything is parodied here: religious fanaticism, terry Jewry, Roman centurions (which are again exhibited by the Pythonans with hardheads) and plus the blockbusters of the 1970s - from the first film-rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) by Juyson to Star Wars (1977) by Lucas.
Pythonians again immaculately use the method of not getting into context and relevance developed in the past two films ("Monty Python and the Holy Grail + Jabbervocks). They verbalize Judea at the beginning of the first millennium as they might have spoken in their native England in the late 1970s. As a result, a scruffy (but still not mocking) comedy about a forced savior of mankind, who happened to appear in a cattle feeder at the wrong time.
As Brian grew older, he joined the National Front of Judea (the stone in the garden of the IRA). The Front was an organization that gave people the joy of eternal, never-ending discussion and debate. They began on occasion and without, and have already become the hallmark of the "Jewish revolutionaries." At one point, a phrase accidentally thrown by Brian aroused the interest of the idlely vacillating public, and he was proclaimed a messiah. Although he did not claim this role at all. On the contrary, I tried to do everything possible to avoid an unenviable fate:
I'm not the Messiah! Listen to me. I'm not the Messiah, you know? Honestly!
- Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.
- You're giving me no chance. Good! I am the Messiah!
- Yay! He is the Messiah!
- Now, go to . . .
- Which way will you command us to go there, Lord?
From this kind of dialogue, the whole film consists, leaving no stone unturned from sacred names, concepts, fetishes. In the finale, teasing over the feelings of orthodox believers reaches a climax - Jews crucified on crosses sing in chorus: "Do not be sad!" Look at life more fun! Such opuses automatically close any topic. To shoot something serious on a religious topic after the Life of Brian no longer makes any sense. Except for the neophytes. Hence, it becomes clear why some categorically did not want to release a half-forgotten parody in parallel with the tape of Mel Gibson.
According to a survey of 1000 most famous filmmakers, conducted at the beginning of the new millennium by the British Film Institute, “Life of Brian” ranked 28th among the 100 best English films. And according to the results of a survey of Total Film magazine, arranged in October 2004, Life of Brian took the 5th place among the 50 best films of Britain of all time. You can see that the quotes of the film grow from year to year. And the big question is, who will survive whom: The Passion of Christ, or these yernic and heretical jokes of cheerful Englishmen?
He is so funny that even the Pope laughed, or all the guilty are already crucified.
Long ago, in a hot country where bacon is never served for breakfast, there lived a proud and freedom-loving people. For the sake of a better life, he was always ready to cross the desert, walk along the bottom of the sea and flee from the descendants of the Pharaohs. They would have grief not to know in the promised lands and manna from heaven to eat, but treacherous legions of merciless supostats have planted totalitarianism in the blessed land. In response, the best minds and noses of Ashdod, Beth Shemesh and Hebron organized an opposition coalition with a single candidate, which, only because of a tragic coincidence, could not become an alternative to the lisperous protege of the Empire Pontius Pilate.
This story has been told in different variations for almost two thousand years, but there were invariably inconsistencies and white spots in it, and its true essence, it seems, has always been well hidden by someone. Much changed when a group of researchers from England took up the ancient tradition, many of whom were attributed to excessive addiction to alcohol, as well as an American avant-garde artist who joined them. Former media executives, who have been on the BBC for years, all this time seem to have accumulated creative forces to suddenly go into big cinema with ambitious plans to create a cycle of historical deconstruction films. First, King Arthur and the Crusades came under scrutiny. Swallows flew low, coconut shells replaced Arab horses, and sacred grenades swept away from the narrow paths of enemies. Money for the ending, as usual, was not enough, but the sophisticated viewer appreciated the idea and subtle metaphors. Four years later, the search was continued in a biopic about the revolutionary and spiritual leader of all Jews Brian Cohen, forgotten by chroniclers and evangelists.
“The Life of Brian” is rightly considered one of the most poignant and scandalous parody comedies, but hardly has much in common with modern ideas about the genre, which, as a rule, ridicules individual popular hits, and at best – some short-term trends. The most integral from the point of view of the script, the full-length film of the comedian-trupp “Monty Python” works at the level of ideas and ideologies, and therefore, thirty years after its release, it can cause the audience the necessary reaction. Christianity (including the phenomenon of messianism), Zionism, Nazism (most of the sharpness in the final editing is cut out, but hints still remain), political currents (especially the left and liberals) and even Star Wars, which in a certain sense is also a variation of insanity.
Another secret to Brian's success among filmgoers and critics is the intellectuality of Python's humor. Every joke, even if it looks obvious, is carefully thought out, which is more noticeable to the viewer the more he has an understanding of the historical and political context. At some point, it even begins to seem that this is not a pseudo-historical parody shot in the scenery of another film about Jesus, but a philosophical and religious fantasy in the genre of alternative history, the authors of which argue about the prerequisites for the birth of world religion.
In Europe and the surrounding area, the heyday of Roman imperialism, in the Zionist environment, the deepest ideological crisis and political fragmentation, against which a powerful spiritual movement arises. Symbolism is invented on the go (a thrown sandal - what is not a symbol of equality and love for one's neighbor?), found at the right time, in the right place and with a couple of theses overheard from the Sermon on the Mount, a half-blooded Jew living with his mother breaks out as leaders of public opinion, and the rest, as usual, does the retinue. And now the crowd is rejoicing, women want a son from him, mute talk quickly, cripples dance tap dancing, and a martyr's death becomes the last bright touch in the creation of a well-known brand in the future.
But even with all the causticity and accuracy of satirical images, “The Life of Brian” can hardly be accused of only anticlerical one-sidedness. Pythons are well acquainted with self-irony, and in the relationship of the Roman Empire and colonized Judea, it is easy to recognize the characteristics of the British, the creators of the largest state in world history. And although from a huge empire in the second half of the twentieth century remained only a pitiful shard, there are still those who can safely look at the bright side of life, even if its presence is under question.
The first movie I liked from all of Monty Python. It’s still not a super comedy, but it’s much better and more interesting than the previous three movies. Here is the topic of parody of Christianity and other religions. I agree with what is happening on the screen. Sometimes I thought it could be wrong. There was, for example, a stranger who said that he was the son of God (there are many of them now), and all other miracles grew up later in the centuries. Most of all, I liked the joke when the crowd shouted in one voice that they were all individuals and unique personalities.
It's the best movie I've ever seen from Monty Python, but as an example of a super comedy or a sample of sophisticated humor, it's not worth it. I would say that they are not for the mass audience.
Perhaps my positive assessment of the film is a little bit unobjective due to my anti-clerical beliefs, but without the ideological sympathy of one of the main lines of the film, it has a number of advantages. And get in the film is not only religion, not even taking into account not so obvious for the British audience parallels with the Irish rebels and the House of Lords. Personally, I noted that the view of the city in the scene where Brian screeches to the ground in an alien tarantas is ridiculously consistent with Mos-Isley from the Lucasian & #39;Star Wars'. And after watching the film finally realized what was the hint that took place in Fallout-New Vegas, where the centurion also forces to correct grammatical errors in the inscription on the wall.
The acting game does not cause complaints, the whole film looks on one breath, the desire to squander never arose, familiar to other films.
It is also pleasant to note that subtly mocking the foundations of Abrahamic religions, they do not reach anti-Semitism.
The only thing I didn’t like was the ending. Reviewers before me praised it, but I found it slightly dissonant with the rest of the film. But the cherry instead of the cream rose on the cake will not spoil it. Excellent, subtle and timeless humor, there is nothing more to add.