Life of Brian
Python’s John Cleese still loves silly humor
Veteran English actor, comedian and screenwriter John Cleese comes to Rockford this weekend for his one-man show, “An Evening with the Late John Cleese.” WNIJ’s Jason Cregier spoke with him by phone in advance of his appearance.
Jason Cregier:
When you first started Monty Python, did you think it would take on such cultural relevance?
John Cleese:
Oh, no, absolutely not. We wondered at the beginning whether there was going to be an audience for it at all. It was so different from any other comedy that had come before it. It was so much sillier. And we did completely unexpected things. And then a fair number of the audience just stared at the screen thinking “what is this about?” But it slowly grew, at the end of the first season there was very little excitement. But at the very beginning of the second season The Times of London wrote a piece saying that it was a very good show. And suddenly it seemed to take off. We were very surprised that suddenly it became a bit of a craze with younger people. But we sort of understood it. When I was younger, we had the same reaction to a wonderful radio comedy show that Peter Sellers hosted called The Goon Show.
Who were some of the influences that you drew inspiration from?
Well, I think early on when I was younger, a lot of it was Laurel and Hardy. And then Chaplin. I think he was enormously important. And then as I got a little bit older, you see in those days without video, anything I used to buy were gramophone records. And I got to know about Nichols and May, Bob Newhart and Shelley Berman in the late 50s. A lot of the best stuff on English television was American. Jack Benny and George Burns, and [Sgt.] Bilko. Phil Silvers was absolutely wonderful. And at the same time, we had this wonderful radio show with Peter Sellers called The Goon Show. And we had some very good sitcoms — a fella called Tony Hancock is totally forgotten. There was lots and lots of very, very good comedy.
What makes your comedy so generational?
I’m not so sure that it is. I think that most of the audience who come to see me are older people, many of them watched and grew up with Monty Python. One of the great delights is that they’re not the super sensitive, extremely woke people who think you shouldn’t laugh at other people. They understand that there’s a kind of affection with laughter, which overcomes any of the critical nature, everything about humor is basically critical. If you have someone who’s perfect like Jesus Christ, or Saint Francis, there’s no mystery about them. What’s funny is all the failures of human beings. I always point out on stage; we like people who can laugh at themselves.
What is so appealing to you about live stage performances?
The connection with the audience is something very real. You do a joke, and they laugh, and you stand there and enjoy the laughter. Whereas on television, you never have that experience. And you certainly don’t on film.
Do you have a favorite character or performance you’ve done over the years?
No, not really. They’re different styles. Python is very, very silly, and sometimes I think gorgeously silly. But Fawlty Towers, which is the sitcom in the hotel, I think that that was very, very good farce. That was a slightly intensified level of reality, but otherwise quite believable, and nothing particularly silly about it. And then you’ve got Life of Brian, which I think is the Python masterpiece. It says very important things about the way that people follow religious leaders. It depends really on your tastes, and the sort of humor that you like, and I like them all. It’s hard for me to pick one.
Does this continue to motivate you to still perform?
Mainly the need for money. I had a very expensive divorce from a woman who I’d been with for a number of years. We had no children, and the California court decided that she was entitled to a standard of living to which she had become accustomed. But the person who provided that standard of living to which she had become accustomed, wasn’t entitled to it himself.
I grew up with Monty Python through my father. I started watching it with him when I was around 14, it really influenced a lot of what I liked going forward. Eventually, I became a big David Letterman guy. And I saw a lot of parallels between the silly humor in both.
Yes, I liked his show (Letterman) a lot. I did the show many times. It took me a long time to realize that it was not really a conversation show, you had to go on with material. But if you had good funny material, Letterman was extraordinarily good at sort of feeding you and letting the funny material come out.
When you start your shows, do you have an idea what you’re doing when you come out? Or is it a blank slate, and you just kind of run with it.
Oh no, it’s very much scripted. Because you see with comedy, the way I put it is, the audience helps you write the script. Because if you go out there and they get a big laugh, you think, Well, that’s good. I think I’ll keep that. And if you go out and don’t get a big laugh on a joke, you think, well, there’s something wrong with that joke. I better fix it. The audience is always telling me what works and what doesn’t work. And as you do a tour, more and more of it works because you keep fixing the bits that don’t work. And I’ve gotten to the point now, where there’s about two moments in the show that aren’t quite right. Otherwise, it’s material I’ve been doing for some time. And although I’m repeating it, the fact that the audience is enjoying it so much always gives me the feeling of fun, that we’re having fun. So, in a funny kind of way, it still feels quite fresh, but it’s because it’s a live performance. I can see people’s faces.
John Cleese, thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you, Jason, lovely to talk to you.
Listen to this interview at Northern Public Radio: John Cleese loves silly humor
Monty Python’s 10 Funniest Movie Parodies, Ranked
Monty Python’s comedy has maintained its impact over the years. But its their movie parodies in particular that stick out.
Widely regarded to stand among the most groundbreaking comics in the history of comedy, Monty Python trafficked in all kinds of humor. The troupe did regular sketches, sketches with a refreshingly absurdist sensibility, sketches with pitch-black comedy, musical numbers, live shows, animated segments, political satire, religious satire, social satire – and movie parodies
The Pythons’ own cinematic offerings were often parodies themselves, with further parodies layered into each scene, while a number of Monty Python’s Flying Circus sketches spoofed classic movies. Across their renowned oeuvre of comedy, the Pythons (each of them being cinephiles) delivered some of the most hysterical movie parodies ever created.
10 Ivan The Terrible, Part I
Prince Herbert, the effeminate prince played by Terry Jones who is pushed into a marriage he doesn’t want by his father in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, is a parody of Prince Vladimir from the movie Ivan the Terrible, Part I.
Both princes are shown to have limited intelligence and share the same terrible haircut. The movie was written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, a pioneer of montage theory and one of the most revolutionary filmmakers who ever lived.
9 Goldfinger
Although Life of Brian is generally a spoof of religious epics, its opening title sequence takes satirical aim at the James Bond franchise.
The song that plays over the opening credits is a spoof of Shirley Bassey’s theme song from Goldfinger, while the title design itself complements that parody.
Life of Brian: The most blasphemous film ever?
Forty years after Life of Brian was first released, Nicholas Barber looks at why the Monty Python film was banned – and went on to become a box office hit.
It may not be true that all publicity is good publicity, but in the case of Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which was released 40 years ago, some of the bad publicity was heaven-sent. The comedy team’s irreverent Biblical romp had been due to open on 200 screens across the US, but after various religious groups protested against it, the number of screens was tripled. “They actually made me rich,” said John Cleese of the protesters on one American talk show. “I feel we should send them a crate of champagne or something.”
The idea for Life of Brian came about when the team was promoting its previous film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Eric Idle joked that their next project would be called “Jesus Christ: Lust For Glory”, and his team-mates realised that no one had ever made a comedy about the Messiah. Initially, they planned to lampoon Jesus himself, but the more they read up on him, the less keen they were. “It was quite obvious that there was very little to ridicule in Jesus’s life, and therefore we were onto a loser,” said Michael Palin in 1979. “Jesus was a very straight, direct man making good sense, so we decided it would be a very shallow film if it was just about [him].”
They moved onto the character of Brian, a 13th disciple who never made it into the Bible because he always arrived five minutes late and missed the miracles. But they eventually settled on the premise that the hapless Brian (Graham Chapman) wouldn’t have any connection with Jesus at all; he would be someone who happened to live in Roman-occupied Judea at the same time, and who was mistaken for a Messiah by the fanatical masses.
The Pythons’ satire wouldn’t target Jesus or his teachings, instead caricaturing political militants, credulous crowds, the appeal of throwing stones at people, the complexities of Latin grammar, and the difficulties of being a tyrant when you’ve got a speech impediment. “I thought we’d been quite good,” said Idle in Robert Sellers’ behind-the-scenes book, Very Naughty Boys. “We’d avoided being specifically rude to specific groups.”
Taking offence
It seemed, though, that they hadn’t been quite good enough. Terry Jones was about to start directing the film in Tunisia when the Chief Executive of EMI, Bernard Delfont, finally got around to reading the script, and declared that there was no way his company could fund such an atrocity. The project’s unlikely saviour was George Harrison, the ex-Beatle. A friend of Idle’s and a fan of the Pythons, he volunteered to remortgage his house and chip in the £2million ($4.1million) the team needed – a bail-out which has become known as ‘the most expensive cinema ticket’ ever issued.
In a discussion years after Life of Brian’s release, Terry Jones said: “I think the film is heretical, but it’s not blasphemous” (Credit: Alamy)
What is even more striking about Harrison’s investment is that he knew how dangerous it could be to offend Christian sensibilities. In 1966, as Beatlemania raged, John Lennon was interviewed by Maureen Cleave in London’s Evening Standard newspaper, and made the remark that would haunt him ever afterwards: “We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity.” The blowback included threats, the picketing of concerts, and the burning of Beatles records on bonfires. Lennon’s killer even cited the comment as one excuse for the murder. But back in 1966, Harrison was unruffled. “Why is there all this stuff about blasphemy?” he asked in the Evening Standard. “If Christianity’s as good as they say it is, it should stand up to a bit of discussion.” Evidently, he still held that opinion when Idle asked for a little help from his friend.
I thought at least getting the Catholics, Protestants and Jews all protesting against our movie was fairly ecumenical on our part – Terry Gilliam
Once Life of Brian was completed, not everyone was so calm. Some countries, such as Ireland and Norway, banned it outright. (In Sweden it was advertised as being ‘so funny it was banned in Norway’.) In the US, Rabbi Abraham Hecht, President of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, told Variety magazine: “Never have we come across such a foul, disgusting, blasphemous film before.”
John Cleese disagreed with Jones’s take, arguing: “I don’t think it’s a heresy. It’s making fun of the way that people misunderstand the teaching” (Credit: Alamy)
In New York, there were picketers outside cinemas, with placards proclaiming that the troupe’s name gave away its diabolical nature: ‘Python = Serpent = Satan’. But in Very Naughty Boys, Terry Gilliam noted one positive aspect of these protests: “I thought at least getting the Catholics, Protestants and Jews all protesting against our movie was fairly ecumenical on our part… We had achieved something useful.”
Rules of debate
In Britain, opposition wasn’t as fierce, but there was plenty of it. Some local councils banned the film, a measure which did it no harm at all: people would simply flock to the nearest city where it was showing. In November 1979, Cleese and Palin appeared on Friday Night, Saturday Morning, a talk show hosted by Tim Rice, where they debated their work with Malcolm Muggeridge, an evangelical journalist and satirist, and Mervyn Stockwood, the Bishop of Southwark. Or rather, Cleese and Palin did the debating, while Muggeridge and Stockwood sneered at them and their “10th-rate film”. Again, the long-winded condescension of a pair of ageing grandees didn’t deter audiences. Life of Brian was the UK’s fourth highest grossing film in 1979.
Showing the demonic possession of a young girl, The Exorcist became the first horror film to be nominated for a best picture Oscar (Credit: Alamy)
The lesson, it seems, is that however vehement and sincere they may be, protests against religious-themed films rarely have the effect that the protesters are praying for. When The Exorcist was released, churchgoers handed out leaflets urging cinema-goers to stay away – despite the insistence by its screenwriter and producer, William Peter Blatty, that it was a pro-church film – but it raked in $110 million (£45million) during its initial run, making it the US’s second highest grossing film of 1974. In 2006, Ron Howard’s The Da Vinci Code, adapted from Dan Brown’s bestseller, was denounced as anti-Catholic. That, too, ranked as the US’s second most lucrative film of the year.
The Meaning of Life won the Grand Prix at the 1983 Cannes Film Festival (Credit: Alamy)
The protests didn’t faze Monty Python, either. The team followed Life of Brian with a comedy that was far more heretical, 1983’s The Meaning of Life. Again directed by Jones, it features a glitzy song-and-dance number parodying Catholic attitudes towards contraception, Every Sperm is Sacred, and a service in a school chapel, where Cleese’s schoolmaster sends up the obscurity and dullness of certain Old Testament passages: “And so the Midianites went forth to Ram Gilead in Kadesh Bilgemath by Shor Ethra Regalion, to the house of Gash-Bil-Betheul-Bazda, he who brought the butter dish to Balshazar and the tent peg to the house of Rashomon…” Palin’s chaplain then leads the congregation in a grovelling psalm: “Oh Lord, ooh, you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re really impressed down here, I can tell you.” And then comes a fearful hymn: “O Lord, please don’t burn us. / Don’t grill or toast your flock. / Don’t put us on the barbecue / Or simmer us in stock.”
Nothing in Life of Brian was as audacious as that, and yet The Meaning of Life didn’t result in bans or boycotts – and it didn’t do anywhere near as well at the box office. Maybe Cleese should have sent some crates of champagne to religious groups and asked them to protest.
Love film? Join BBC Culture Film Club on Facebook, a community for film fanatics all over the world.
If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Culture, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.
Source: BBC – Culture – Life of Brian: The most blasphemous film ever?