This week marks 35 years since Monty Python’s Life of Brian hit theaters in the U.K., several months after its U.S. release enraged American evangelicals. Of course, the backlash was very much a thing in England as well.
The most famous artifact of this controversy is the the heated debate, on the show Friday Night, Saturday Morning, that found John Cleese and Michael Palin taking on Bishop of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood and Christian journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, who, incidentally, was later outed as a “serial groper” of women.
Frequent Monty Python collaborator Julian Doyle, who edited Life of Brian, has a new book out about the film. But The After-Life of Brian isn’t about the film’s production, it’s seemingly more about the film’s representation of the historical time period compared to The Bible. According to Doyle, the movie is by far the more trustworthy source. “The politicians, the censors and, of course, the placard-waving mobs of protesters completely misunderstood Life of Brian,” Doyle recently told The Telegraph. “Many were clearly as dim-witted as a Gumby because they simply didn’t grasp the fact that we weren’t mocking Jesus or Christians at all but simply making a film that satirized society’s comedic tendency to follow religious, political and business leaders like sheep.”
Don’t Miss
And the controversy was especially dumb because the Pythons really did their homework. “If you look at the film from an historical point-of-view, you’ll realize that it is a far more authentic and accurate portrayal of Jesus Christ than the teachings of the Church and the Bible combined,” Doyle stressed.
The biblical version of events is “full of contradictions” Doyle argued, but Monty Python, despite only ever intending to make a comedy, “intuitively hit on a more realistic portrayal of Jesus and his times because they followed reason rather than faith.”
The Pythons have previously discussed how they did a ton of research while writing the script, and that diligence is what allowed them to find a creative entry point into the story. As Palin once revealed, the “key” to their process was to “create the biblical period so convincingly that if you put modern characters and modern attitudes in it, it would still convince as being part of that period.”
When they came to a major creative hurdle, how to portray the crucifixion, they used the “same rule: Let’s just look at the historical background.” As the Pythons discovered, crucifixion wasn’t a unique death, it was a routine method of capital punishment, and a form of entertainment for the Romans. Although the history books are a little fuzzier on whether or not there were ever any elaborate musical numbers on the crosses.
The discrepancy between the biblical record and the historical record directly tied into the theme of the film. The point, according to Palin, was to suggest that “we rely on interpretation, and interpretation is a political thing.” This is made very clear in just the second scene of the movie when Jesus’ followers completely misinterpret his words at the Sermon on the Mount.
As Doyle claimed, it was the Python’s devotion to accuracy that “made a lot of Christians unhappy,” adding that “if you are seeking to learn about the life of the real Jesus then Python’s Life of Brian is, in my view, just as valid as any other portrayal of Jesus including the Church’s teachings.”
That Bishop and his handsy friend are probably rolling in their graves right now.