Talk:Monty Python's Life of Brian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Monty Python's Life of Brian was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-01-21


B
This article has
been rated as
B-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This George Harrison/Handmade Films-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about 1980s comedy films during the week starting 6 March 2006.

Contents

[edit] Will the correct Spike please stand up?

There are at least three different roles said to be Spike Milligan's cameo -- indeed, Spike Milligan and this article give two of them. Which is it? --Charles A. L. 18:44, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will have to rent it and find out. I'll try to rent this weekend. What does Spike Ol' Boy look like anyway? —Frecklefoot 19:15, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I just checked. This article is wrong. The Spike Milligan article is correct. I will change this article. Pete 20:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Now changed. Incidentally, following the merger of my and my girlfriend's film collections, I just noiticed I have a spare copy of LoB on VHS-PAL. Let me know if you have a good home for it. Pete 20:14, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Legal problems for printing?

I'd like to see a supporting reference to the claim The printing of this book also caused problems, since there are technical laws against what can and cannot be written about religion. At least in the US, I've never heard of any such law. Elde 19:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, the US has that little thing called the first amendment. In Britain, blasphemy is still illegal, and a case was brought as recently as 1979 (R. v. Lemon, commonly known as the 'Gay News' case). In another case, a filmmaker (whose 18 minute film on the sexual pleasures of St Teresa had been banned in Britain) appealed the ban on distribution of his movie to the European Court of Human Rights (CASE OF WINGROVE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM) Read more than you want to know about this here and lost. There's also a 1999 book: Blasphemy in Modern Britain: 1789 to the Present, by David Nash. Hampshire, England and Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1999.- Nunh-huh 05:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It really is. The law isn't much invoked, but it's still there. Bonalaw 09:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was also confused by this part of the article, and felt that there should be a reference cited, or at least an explanation. In light of this information from the talk page, I have clarified the original article. Aumakua 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have a reference for the claim as it currently stands? "(The printing of this book also caused problems, since there are rarely-used technical laws in the UK against "blasphemy" dictating what can and cannot be written about religion—the publisher refused to print both halves of the book, and original prints are printed by two companies). I, for one, don't believe it. A more logical reason for needing two companies to print the book might be that both halves are (from memory) printed in different ways - one colour, one sepia. Either way, confirmation would be good. - Gobeirne 00:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Blasphemy is still illegal in the UK, but to put that into context there many other laws on the statue book that have not been removed, such as: every able bodied man must practice archery once a week; no more than 3 Welshman can congregate within Chester's city walls and so on. Markb 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus?

I don't think that's supposed to be Jesus carrying the cross at the end of the film. I always thought of him as more of a willing protrayal of Simon of Cyrene. The Entire movie script has him listed as a "Saintly Passer-by" or something. Also, if that were Jesus it would contradict what happens in the gospels, which I don't think the Pythons were trying to do; they were telling a parallel story of someone who was confused with Jesus. -R. fiend


I removed the reference to the 3rd appearance of Jesus in the film. See reasons stated above. -R. fiend

I think that Jesus does appear a third time in the film; he is the one running off after someone offers to carry his cross for him and gets crucified by mistake. This must be a reference to the narrative of the Gospel (I don't remember which of the four); I think it was Joseph of Arimathaea who offered to carry Jesus' cross for him; therefore Jesus was not crucified in the film; according to Python he simply escaped. That has always been my interpretation of this scene anyway. Lucius Domitius 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has a Scottish accent. Neither the escapee nor the saintly passer-by has a Scottish accent. EdC 20:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

it could be a reference to a certain Gnostic belief... but I doubt that is really Jesus

Nah, it's really not Jesus. If you look carefully at the start of the film then you can see that Jesus is played by a man who looks awfully like the bloke who played Admiral Piett in two of the Star Wars films. the chap who picks up the cross on behalf of the prisoner (who can't believe his own luck) is played by Terry Jones. Darkmind —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.118.253.194 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
His name is Kenneth Colley ...blessed are the cheesemakers.... Ian Dunster 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not just 'Life of Brian'?

I know I'm going to be accused of Britannocentrism or something, but the original title of the film is Life of Brian. It's only the Americans who call it Monty Python's Life of Brian, just as they refer to William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, etc. Since this is a British film, shouldn't we use the British title? Furthermore, we should at least be consistent, and use the same convention for this film that we do for The Meaning of Life, which doesn't have the "Monty Python" prefix. -- Heron 19:28, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My copy calls itself "Monty's Python Life of Brian" and it is a British copy. IMDb lists it under "LoB" and gives "MPLoB" as the UK complete title. By all means lets get the names right, but I suspect both choices are right!

OK. If there's no clear-cut answer, I won't change anything. Thanks for checking, Pcb21. -- Heron 20:24, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest one also refer to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, though I may be barking up the wrong tree. I've heard both versions of Life of Brian/Monty Python's Life of Brian, and am a little more confused about the use of a funny apostraphe in the article title.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Elusive George Harrison

Where does Harrison appear in the film? I know where Milligan is, but I can't see our George.--Crestville 00:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After Brian gives his speech to the people outside and his house is filled with people, John Cleese introdices him to a guy thats lending them camels or something. His single line is "hello", and then the scene is over. If I remember correctly. -R. fiend 01:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fantastic, cheers.--Crestville 21:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to TOTALLY clarify this, George's character is listed in the script as "Mr Papadopoulis" and he is renting "the Mount" to Brian. (Presumably the same Mount that Jesus gave his famous sermon from). Fork me 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that on many other sites (iMDb and the George Harrison article included) Harrison's character is listed as "Mr. Papadopolous" and not "Papadopoulis" - I'd like to double check and see which spelling is correct, but where was this name found? I don't think he's credited at the end of the film, is he? Ministry of Silly Walks 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't recall him being credited in the film itself. This article uses the rendering in the published script, Monty Python's The Life of Brian/MONTYPYTHONSCRAPBOOKOFBRIANOFNAZERETH, where he's listed as "Mr. Papadopoulis" - that should be the most authoritative spelling. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Judean Popular People's Front

Per the script, the third 'splitter' organization (the one with only one member) is identified as the Judean Popular People's Front, and later referred to shorthandedly as the Popular Front. [1] -- 8^D BD2412gab 07:08, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I changed it from "Popular People's Front" to "Popular Front" because "Popular People's" is redundant and doesn't occur in the film anyway. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. I must have glossed over the relevant portion of the transcript. I still think it makes no sense, though. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course it make no sense! This is coming from the people who gave us the Ministry of Silly Walks. -- BD2412 talk 21:42, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish rebels

Some one may want to check. When I read about the political milieu of Judaea around Jesus time, I was reminded of the splitters scene. There were lots of messiahs and rebel groups. So maybe the scene is not just about the 1970s, but also inspired by Josephus descriptions.

Indeed. I always interpreted that scene to be about the factional infighting of the time or the general tendency of religions to take minor differences very seriously. If someone has evidence that it was inspired by '70s grouplets' they should provide evidence or remove the mention. Ashmoo 07:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Erm, isn't it really, really obvious? They use extreme-leftist rhetoric, their name sounds like that of a communist party, they have an infinite proliferation of 'splitter' groups. Of course, that's not to say that it's not based on Judaean groups as well, if someone noticed the resemblence between them and 70s groups, but it's certainly not based on religions. The religious people are the people who follow Brian (and their tendency to split is lampooned as the split between the followers of the Shoe and those of the Gourd). BovineBeast 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well if it was obvious we wouldn't be arguing about it would we? Although I think your reading is mostly likely to be correct, it is hard to say for sure that that is what the author's meant. The author could have meant it to specifically refer to political organisations, or could have meant to parody all human groups and used the language of Marxist groups merely as a device. Specifically mentioning the 70s is especially hard to justify. Ashmoo

[edit] Blasphemy allegations

I made a few minor edits to the "Blasphemy allegations" section, which I document here in case anyone disagrees or doesn't see why I changed it. I'm afraid someone may take it personally.

  • several even took great pleasure in banning it, even though they had no cinemas within their boundaries: Did they really take great pleasure in it? Is there some video of town council members jumping for joy? Edited for NPOV
  • This proved rather pointless, since people who wanted to see the film merely went to places where it was not banned. This sentence itself seems rather pointless. Isn't this going to be true of any "banned" material? It's also a bit non-NPOV (I imagine there are ideological reasons for banning things other than just to prevent people from seeing it). Removed.
  • (reportedly, the Bishop had not even seen the movie): I have not seen this "reported" anywhere. To the contrary, according to George Perry's Life of Python (London: Pavilion Books Limited, 1983), pp. 171-172
When The Life of Brian opened, John Cleese and Michael Palin appeared on a BBC chat show hosted by Tim Rice, and were savagely attacked by the Bishop of Southwark and Malcolm Muggeridge, who had seen the film earlier in the day.

-- Deklund 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a recollection that they added the sermon scene (and possibly the birth scene as well) to clearly show that Brian is nät Jesus. Can anybody verify that? // Liftarn

Yes, the Criterion DVD commentary says that they wanted to establish that Brian was not Jesus. AnonMoos 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The DVD

Are there any confusing suprises on the DVD for Monty Python's Life of Brian, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail? --68.37.116.234 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by surprises on the DVD is are there any surprises like on The Holy Grail when "Play Movie" is first played and the first one minute, 47 sec. of Dentist on the Job, then the projector operator (Terry Jones) "changes the reels" and Holy Grail starts. Are there any surprises like that on the LIFE OF BRIAN DVD? -Thank you very much! 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. A very interesting "making of" film with some great interviews but none of the madness of holy grail--Crestville 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Interpretation of the Rebel groups

It states in the article that the Jewish Rebel groups are meant to mock 1970's British Leftist Parties, but I find this hard to believe, I have always thought that they were in-fact a reference to Palestinian Rebel/Terrorist groups of the 20th Century. In the way they are all basically the same but all have slightly different names and fight amongst each other, i.e. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestinian Liberation Army, Palestinian National Liberation Movement, Popular Resistance Committees, Palestine Liberation Front etc... I think this is a much more likely explanation (especially the "Popular front" one) for the movie's Splintering groups than 1970's Leftists. --Hibernian 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost scenes

I've just added a section on this, it seemed relevent! I have a 1st edition of the script here (now listed in the references section as I quoted from it) so could add a full or partially full cast list, including the correct names of characters (most of them are not mentioned in the film itself) including Milligan's and Harrison's characters. Would this be appropriate? Fork me 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done it now anyway! Fork me 10:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why classify as a "Christian film"?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is the life of Brain being categorised as a "Christian film"? I mean how exactly can it be considered part of that category? As has been made abundantly clear it is not about Jesus, it is about a guy called Brian who happens to be around at the same time as Jesus. The film is not about Christ or Christianity (although it may be considered to be about religion) so why is it being classes as a Christian film? (I doubt many Christians would agree with that classification, some would probably class it as a "Satanic" film, lol). --Hibernian 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hibernian, this movie is not a 'Christian' movie. It first off has nothing to do with Christ and second it makes fun of organised reilgion. Oh and also, Hinernian my friend, I'm a Christian and I LOVE this movie and I don't see it as 'Satanic' as you think we might see it as, so please keep your comments to your self.A7X 900 04:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hibernian said "some Christians", not all. thx1138 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] origin of the names

Is there any evidence that backs up ANY of the speculation in the part about the origin of the names "Brian" and "Mandy"? Joyous! | Talk 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the Python'sAutobiography here, I'll have a look in the chapter of Life Of Brian this weekend and see if I can find anything. Fork me 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be original research. I've removed the section. If some sort of sourcing is located, then it's retrievable from the article history. Joyous! | Talk 02:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box office

This section says "Life of Brian opened on August 17, 1979 in five North American theatres". Does this mean the world premiere was in North America (and which country/ies if so?)? Or does it refer to just the US release, say? Clarify in article? Ta, JackyR | Talk 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge Romani ite domum into Life of Brian

  • MergeWhy does this particular gag get a separate entry? It would easily be incorporated into the LOB entry. --Navstar 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No merge I looked it up too. --Dweller 10:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per navstar. --evrik 01:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - I think that article is already too long to simply be put in LOB, and besides it's a good article in of itself. --Hibernian 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - per Navstar. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge-that sketch is so significant that it is a worthwhile standalone article. Chris 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - What's so special about that specific sketch? I do not see it any more significance of it than that of "Biggus Diccus". Surely, if Romani ite domum get's its own entry, so does Biggus Diccus. What makes this sketch so worthy of its own article? --laparapa 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect that page. It's not important enough for it's own article, but it might merit its own section in this one.--Supernumerary 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. Nothing against stand-alone articles on single sketches per se, but such an article must say something useful about the sketch, e.g. its origins and interpretations (cited of course). The Romani ite domum article unfortunately tells us little or nothing about the sketch that can't be gathered from simply watching it. As it stands, therefore, I would at most merge a few of its points (and the screenshot) into LOB so as not to overbalance the film's article - or else simply delete entirely. On the other hand, if someone wants to research the sketch more and incorporate some not-so-obvious - and sourced - material into it, I might well vote No Merge. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge Its a good lengthy article, you would have to chop most of it out to move it here Does Not Belong Where it Is in this article. It has been put under Themes and Controversies. Which it certainly does not.66.58.219.109 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Jesus Christ Superstar: !?!

I'm very surprised not to see any mention of the film Jesus Christ Superstar, which was hugely popular at the time. Life of Brian is a direct spoof, copying it not only in overall approach and atmosphere, but also in details of some of the scenes. While Jesus Christ Superstar isn't actually the target of ridicule, it certainly was the model after which Life of Brian was made.

But I'm not quite sure how to change the article to reflect this.

Rp 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

G'day, Rp. You'd want to be able to cite some reliable published source(s) quoting a) the Pythons saying they consciously used Superstar as their model, and/or b) a commentator or commentators of note arguing that Superstar was 'clearly' their model or inspiration, before adding something to that effect (under the 'Making the film' section, for instance). Have to admit that I can't recall seeing anyone draw that close a connection between the two. Superstar may have come first but, had it never existed, I don't think we can say that the Pythons wouldn't have come up with Brian anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The only real similarities between "Brian" and "Superstar" is that both were subject to controversey. Granted, there is the rather ironic fact that Tim Rice, lyricist of "Superstar", was the host of the "Friday Night, Saturday Morning" episode where Cleese and Palin are ripped into by M. Muggeridge and the Anglican Bishop of Southwark, but aside from that, no there is no real relationship. 67.72.98.92 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to reply sooner, but after some extensive Googling I have had to conclude that you are probably correct, as unlikely as it seems to me. Rp 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA?

Come on, surely this film must have been banned in at least some places in the USA, where there are people obsessed with fanatical Christianity. Can anyone list such places? JIP | Talk 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was banned in some places especially within the 'Bible Belt'. 83.70.74.131 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a line or two on bans in the US under Religious satire and blasphemy accusations a few weeks ago, although the source (Wilmot) didn't actually list the states involved. If anyone can reliably source the actual places, feel free to expand that bit. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned In Ireland

I don't know of any online sources to verify so don't know if it can be put into the front page article but the "banned in Ireland for eight years" should really read "banned in Irish cinemas for eight years" since due to a legal loophole (namely they hadn't thought of videotapes when the censorship act was made law in the late 1920's and so there was no legal way to ban them ) it was freely available all that time on videotape Garda40 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrogate Council

Someone was looking for a citation for the comments about Harrogate council

I can confirm that they were made in a UK Channel 4 programme called "The Secret Life of Brian" broadcast on January 1st 2007 at 8pm.The programme was about the furore among religious groups and the various obstacles to the movie being made and then shown Garda40 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

For being a part of Category:Articles with unsourced statements. (Ibaranoff24 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMonty_Python%27s_Life_of_Brian_25e6.html"