Hacker Cinema
Life of Brian
1979 · Film · 94 min
Directed by Terry Jones
Brian Cohen is an average young Jewish man, but through a series of ridiculous events, he gains a reputation as the Messiah. When he's not dodging his followers or being scolded by his shrill mother, the hapless Brian has to contend with the pompous Pontius Pilate and acronym-obsessed members of a separatist movement. Rife with Monty Python's signature absurdity, the tale finds Brian's life paralleling Biblical lore, albeit with many more laughs.
8 positive1 mixed33 neutralfrom 42 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
47 comments on Hacker News
> one need only remember that Life of Brian (the Monty Python movie) is banned in the Vatican.
I can find no confirmation of this, or of any ban since 1966 (and that is assuming that the index of forbidden books had legal force in the Vatican).
> But if the criteria of being in the library - that the book be banned somewhere in the world; that's a reason to visit the library in of itself.
Is it worth a visit to a physical location? A lot of those books are ones I could see on a list and order online. Its not really that interesting if a book as been banned somewhere very authoritarian, nor am I that interested if schools in one area somewhere were not allowed to have a book in their libraries. On the other hand reading down this list is very illuminating, and often astonishing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments I am still scrolling down it, but Austria, Australia and China are all fascinating.
They are banned somewhere and the library is open in Portugal.
If they were banned in Portugal it would run afoul of the legal system, and probably be closed down, obviously.
But if the criteria of being in the library - that the book be banned somewhere in the world; that's a reason to visit the library in of itself.
Though I think there's going to be a lot of garbage, one need only remember that Life of Brian (the Monty Python movie) is banned in the Vatican. (along with a bunch more).
Sometimes just seeing what is banned and where is a sort of art in of itself.
That seems unlikely.
But on a fun sidenote: When Life of Brian was initially banned in Norway, its distributor in Sweden started marketing it as "a movie so funny it's banned in Norway" :-)
"TikTok doesn't live up to the best of TV" is true, but that's not the argument I'm making.
OP asked for "newer", and yet you've not named anything created in the last 10 years. ( And named a 30+ year old improv show, which is definitely not the format I'm talking about. )
You're not alone, one second-cousin comment even went with the phrase "more modern", then named a range of shows that are at least over 20 years old. Green Wing was the 90's, that's closer to the time of Python's Life of Brian than today.
Clearly things aren't fine if there isn't fresh blood coming through.
Sketch shows never were the best of TV, they are a format where you throw a lot out there and then the very best bits of each episode might be particularly funny, with a bunch of filler in-between.
That can't compete with a medium where people just swipe the second they're not finding a particular piece funny or to their taste.
Any kind of proof? Because at this stage, you're reminding me of the scene in the Monty Python film "Life of Brian" when poor old Brian keeps denying that he is the messiah only to be told by his followers that "Only the true messiah denies his divinity".
We may as well go ahead and get the People's Front of Judea banned as a terrorist organisation.
Let’s be real, the overwhelming majority of those 500 are straight up terrible. Netflix alone has produced well over 100 movies, and IMO at best some of them are worth finishing not that I can think of any off the top of my head.
Now I’m sure you’ve looked forward to many movies but off the top of your head list stuff you’ve either seen more than once and or actually recommend to someone that came our in the last 10 years vs…
(78) The Deer Hunter, Superman, National Lampoon's Animal House, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (79) Apocalypse Now, Alien, Life of Brian, Mad Max, Escape from Alcatraz (80) The Shining, Star Wars: Episode V, Airplane!, The Blues Brothers, Caddyshack, The Elephant Man (81) Raiders of the Lost Ark, Das Boot, The Evil Dead, Mad Max 2, Escape from New York, Time Bandits (82) Blade Runner, The Thing, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Poltergeist, Conan the Barbarian, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Tron (83) Scarface, WarGames, Star Wars: Episode VI, Trading Places, The Evil Dead
Obviously not all great movies but that’s ~30 classic movies in just 6 years and I’m sure I’ve missed a few as kids movies are largely missing from that list.
There is a part in the Life of Brian, where Brian "helps"/intervenes in a complex assembly/manufacturing operation, which results,instantly, in chaos and destruction. The scripting and effort to film that short piece must have required a true understanding of complexity, and what happens when it isn't recognised and respected. Unfortunately, complexity, and the respect for profesionalism, is weaponised, to produce, mountains(litteral) of junk, that then has to be payed for once, and then again when it proves to be junk, and then a third time to get rid of, and fourth and fifth, pehaps to get strait.
People will endlessly argue over what "incite violence or general harm" actually mean, and they will also endlessly argue over if something should be considered an implied "characteristics of age, sex, orientation, race, etc".
Currently there is an ongoing court case regarding the case where a person criticized and made offensive statements about Muhammad, and if that should count as inciting violence or general harm against Muslims. One side is arguing that any negative statements about Muhammad is veiled statements directed against Muslims as a group, and the other side is arguing it is criticism against the religion and not about people who believe in that religion. People did similar arguments with Monty Python movie Life of Brian.
When it comes to symbols like flags, people often characteristic any action (positive and negative) as a form of hate speech if they dislike it, or as important symbolic gestures when they like it. Burning flags get often called hate speech, and forbidding people from waving flags (including general rules against all flags for specific events) has also been called hate speech.
> The US/Hollywood is far more prudish since my youth.
The prudishness manifested differently. I recall a lot more nudity and at least as many sex scenes in movies I watched as a kid (under 18).
Highlander
Lethal Weapon
Robocop
Life of Brian
Even OG Batman had some nudity and referenced sex in it as a PG-13.
Exposed breasts and sex scenes were pretty common. Full frontal nudity was even relatively common. And sometimes wouldn't even garner an R rating.
Funny that you mention Monty Python, they almost had to cancel the production of The Life of Brian since their original financier was apprehensive about the the film's content making fun of religion.
George Harrison of Beatles fame ended up funding the movie, I believe almost entirely out of his own pocket. This was back in the 70s.
For those not in the know, this is from the movie Life of Brian (1979) which takes place in Roman Judea. A potential rebel tries to rile up his comrades with the rhetorical question “what have the Romans ever done for us?!” Apparently, quite a lot.
Quite fascinating read. I always considered George my favorite beatle. He had a big heart for India and it influenced the Beatles during their later years before they broke up. But it’s because of his overall creative that I was such a fan of him. In addition to his music career, Harrison was also a film producer and a humanitarian. He produced the film "Monty Python's Life of Brian" (1979) and organized the Concert for Bangladesh (1971), a benefit concert that raised money for refugees from the Bangladesh Liberation War. For those who don’t know , George passed away in early 2000s from throat cancer I believe. Such a legend!
I was more interested by the mention of Life of Brian; as far as I can tell the depictions of all the biblical characters in that movie were in line with at least one gospel?
The joke is that italic can also mean Italic, the ethnolonguistic group of those who spoke Italic languages and why Italy is named so.
The phrase "What has semantic HTML ever done for us?" is a riff on the quote "What have the Romans ever done for us?" from the movie Life of Brian, about a Jewish-Roman man mistaken for another Messiah.
The Romans are, of course, Italic peoples.
Yes, but what I'm saying is do they ever refuse to rate a film?
Life of Brian was another example I was thinking of, and as you say, same as I described there - rated, then banned.
The BBFC is a non-government organisation nevertheless required by the government to view and rate all films. Councils licence cinemas (originally for fire safety) and require cinemas to only show rated material to the public, but they also have a discretionary power to rate and therefore ban films themselves.
As an example, Life of Brian (1979) was only an “AA” (14 years+) but a moral panic made 28 councils raise to an “X” (18+) and 11 actually banned it completely.
(For clarity, a film is de facto banned when either the BBFC or a local council refuses to rate it. It can still be shown privately (eg at a film society) provided it doesn’t contain illegal material (ie it’s not obscene))
It's a movie reference, to Life of Brian.
In the UK movie screening used to be and probably still is decided at the smallest municipal level of town councils, see The Life of Brian.
That was then. I personally know one or two Irish Catholic priests and they are not offended by Father Ted and at least one is a massive fan.
I went to a pretty posh school in Oxfordshire back in the day. The school priest (Church of England) made us watch "Life of Brian" by Monty Python's Flying Circus and discuss it in our "Divinity" studies - an O Level (nowadays GCSE - 13-16 year old).
One of the other Masters (teacher) intended and was going through the process to become a CofE priest and was massively offended by Life of Brian. Perhaps he felt he had to be holier than thou or whatever. He was my rugby coach and was once a player for the Harlequins a long, long time ago so a good egg in my eyes but a bit whizzed up over a comedy film. I will grant him that LoB is a pretty robust parody/critique of Christianity (and English/Britishness and more besides).
Oh and there was a band at my school called On a Friday - they played by the Cricket Pav at the end of summer term 1989 to a load of kiddies enjoying end of term relief and glorious weather. You'll know them as Radiohead. Funny old world.
The image in some movies (eg. Life of Brian) is ok. The sound as i said is strange. The image on Star trek DS9 is terrible. Looks like 320x240 scaled with gaussian blur applied over the image.
It's not like those jokes are the core of Life of Brian. They're incidental, part of the comedy culture of the time. It is impossible for comedy to be truly timeless. If someone was making a movie like Life of Brian today, some of the jokes would be different, sure. But that's true of anything.
Seems to be from the 10 October 2011 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/oct/10/life-of-brian-terry-jones
Netflix is a parody. There are only politicaly correct movies on it (except Life of Brian and Holy grail - though life of Brian seems censored). Startrek (DS9) in mpeg1 definition. Startrek TNG not available. The sound quality is horrible I need to tune the volume very high to be able to underestand something. No Mel Brooks movies except Robin Hood. HD (whatever that means today) is available only for some movies. All in all a crappy experience. But i have to pay for it because "daddy, this is so painful, everybody has netflix".
You must see the Latin correction in life of Brian then
Oh, OK, my bad. I was taking the words literally, which I suppose means that you probably won't follow the link labelled [1], and probably not the others, either.
However, my recommendation to watch Life of Brian stands :-)
> Glad to see the Trotskyites and Stalinists start to turn on each other.
Actually, that has been a thing for ages - even during Trotsky's lifetime he wrote scathingly about Stalin and his policies/politics. (Edit to add this parenthetical comment: Oh, and Stalin had him assassinated in exile.) The piece linked [1] offers some insight into this, and it also shows wider splits, fragmentation and arguments; it is written from a socialist perspective. It's an engaging read.
For drier considerations of Stalinism and Trotskyism, I'd just start with the Wikipedia entries for each - see [2], [3] - and for light relief afterwards, maybe watch the Python film Life of Brian, which actually captures rather well the concept of "splitters" and factions.
[1] https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1973/1970s/no-830-october-1973/trotskyism-stalinism-whats-difference/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism
I simply do not understand the furor over the JK Rowling affair. I read what she wrote, and I did not see "hate", or "transphobia", and many other very extreme adjectives. When she seeked to clarify her statements she was accused of "doubling down". Fans of Life of Brian will remember the Roman amphitheatre scene when Stan wants to become Loretta:
https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON
I thought and still think it's funny, "Where's the fetus going to gestate Stan, are you going to keep it in a box?" But now I'm afraid to laugh or reference it in public. The movie is probably going to end up on a list, and its fans made to feel bad for being horrible people. I think I can both laugh at Stan, who's not real, and accept and support misgendered people, who are.
It got banned by most cinema chains on release, due to blasphemous content, and full frontal male nudity.
Edit:
OMG, despite people voting this comment up I am of course talking about Life of Brian and not Holy Grail...
...I'll see myself out.
For anyone who is unaware, the above post is a direct quote from the 1979 comedy film Life Of Brian, which is the context from which "Judean People's Front" is derived. The quote is speaking about someone whose name is Brian and is not a reference to any actual religious figures.
For all the commenters laughing at those silly religious folks who protested the film, consider this: is there anything you hold sacred? What if a film came out that satirized, I don't know, science, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or racial equality? Admittedly, such a film may not have much comedic value, but I suspect it would nonetheless induce a decent amount of outrage, at least with the average reader here.
You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred.
You may say, "I'm secure in my beliefs - go ahead and mock." Well, to be honest, we'd be in the same boat, you and I. As a Christian, I suppose I wouldn't mind watching "Life of Brian".
But to put ourselves in the shoes of the protesters - would you want the next generation to grow up in an environment where, say, the science of evolution is the target of mockery? (I imagine in some parts of the US that's not so far from the truth.) My point is, laughter is a powerful weapon. And children laughing along at the jokes may not catch all of the nuance outlined in the BBC article. Even if nothing is sacred, some things may still be important enough to try to influence the culture over.
Were the protests silly? Did they end up achieving the opposite of what they intended? Sure. But that's a matter of results, not purpose.
Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh.
In my country (Spain), there are religion classes from primary school all the way until university. For public (state managed) schools - which are the majority - students choose between religion or an optative class, which usually consists of either ethics, morals, or world religion from a non-believers perspective (sort of anthropological studies).
Every year, the religion teacher at my school would organise a day together with the other class' teacher, where students of both classes would spend the hours together, and the activity chosen was a showing of Life of Brian.
I've always remember that as a beautiful idea. It's a movie that roasts everyone from believers to left wing associations, and yet with pretty clean humor - so it was an amazing tool to teach students of both "sides" the lesson that it's ok to laugh at yourself and to get along with others.
Very interesting character indeed.
And as you point out, the reception of 'The Life of Brian' is almost more interesting than the film itself.
A curiously empty article about a film, which like Holy Grail has barely dated in the intervening decades.
Personally, I feel Life of Brian has aged infinitely better than Holy Grail, primarily because (my fellow) nerds haven't strip-mined it for "quotes."
When I first saw Holy Grail, I thought it was the funniest thing ever. Now the mere mention of "it's only a flesh wound" and other such lines makes me want to hurl myself out of a window. I've probably heard that line recited 1,000 times!
Hardly. Palin and Cleese seemed to perfectly understand the ridiculous childishness of the comically pompous bishop and Muggeridge who both repeatedly avoided engaging and simply derided the film as "tenth rate" etc.
Palin and Cleese were being disingenuous. In a literal sense, Brian is of course not Jesus. However, the film clearly lampoons the arbitrary nature of religion and who gets to be called a messiah and things like that. In that sense it very clearly is a parody of Jesus' life and of religion in general.
(As an atheist and huge fan of the movie, I certainly don't mind. But Life of Brian most certainly does make light of Christianity, among many other things)
Sure, people should be able to poke fun at Mohammed, freedom of speech etc etc. But why would you? Life of Brian was a movie about Christianity, made by those born into Christianity, meant to be watched by fellow Christians. Hence why it provided an opportunity for introspection and self-reflection.
A movie lampooning Mohammed, made by Christians and for the amusement of other Christians, offers no such opportunity for self-reflection or growth. It would be nothing more than 21st century blackface.
Nowhere in the world can we have a comedy about Mohammed because the comedians want to live (a funny life), too. In a few progressive countries people tried to make fun of Mohammed and they're, for the most part, dead.
(And The Life of Brian doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, that's what people who haven't seen the film think.)
I'm surprised this piece doesn't mention The Life of Brian:
Followers: "Speak to us master, speak to us!"
Brian: "Go away!"
Follower: "How shall we go away master?"
(59 minutes into the movie)
> Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar basic goals and values.
That observation could be what inspired that gag in Monty Python's Life of Brian film: the "People's Front of Judea" versus the "Judean People's Front".
Well, reading about "Monty Python's Life of Brian" gives a rather strong message that censoring played a significant role in the UK for that movie. But you make a good point that rather than it being national censors, it was town councils. Not sure if the general public or artistic creator feel that its much of a difference.
Looking at history of censoring in uk, or looking at examples in other countries, is it a productive, effective and favorable method in keeping citizens well-adjusted?
That wasn't the case in the UK, where Jewish people got protection under race discrimination law, Christians got protections under blasphemy laws[1], but Muslims weren't protected by either.
It was fine to say things about Muslims and Islam that you could not say about Jews or Christians.
This loophole was used by far-right groups - the BNP, EDL, etc to avoid prosecution.
[1] And before you say the blasphemy laws were never used the film "Life of Brian" only got permissions for Glasgow cinemas in 2009, and Stewart Lee went through a very expensive blasphemy court case for "Jerry Springer the Opera".
> Every other faith (and other large group of people) seems to have accepted it however.
This is obviously false. In England the film "Life of Brian" faced multiple bans from local councils on being shown at cinemas. Glasgow had a 30 year ban that ended in 2009. The comedian Stewart Lee faced legal action and a vicious campaign after his opera "Jerry Springer: the musical"; Jewish groups (rightly) decry Holocaust denying cartoons or cartoons comparing treatment of Palestinians to anything that happened in Nazi Germany; Sikhs in Birmingham (UK) violently protested a play, causing it to be stopped.
Life of Brian: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8126490.stm
Stewart Lee: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N9EUe8jNr6o
Sikh protest stops play: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1
The article mentions an important point about 5 star systems - people tend to only use 5 stars or 1 star. This is sort of shown with the histograms.
A 2 axis system seems like a good idea. But I'd like to see it with 3 options per access - [UP] [INDIFFERENT] [DOWN].
I'm also interested to know how the system will cope with "controversial" films ( life of brian, for example) where some people are going to downvote whether they've seen it or not. And they'll campaign and ask all their friends to downvote too.
In 2 AD Jesus wasn't really doing much.
Given the references to "Judean Liberation Front", it's almost certainly a reference to Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" film.
You should watch Life of Brian some time:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes
Because some people might not know the movie and/or get the reference, it is from The Life of Brian, a hilarious comedy from Monty Python. The scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
What seems odd is that he thought Monty Python would be interested in trying to get (the equivalent of) a G rating.
Well, their TV show was entirely G-rated and suitable for children (even with the occasional naked cartoon woman). This was their first movie, so they hadn't really gone into offensive stuff yet (as they would with Life of Brian and Meaning of Life).
Monty Python generally appeals to children, so losing the "oral sex" in exchange for something that you can show your young kids wouldn't be a bad exchange. (I'd keep fart-in-your-general-direction, though.)
When I was a kid my dad used to have a set of Monty Python audio tapes which he'd play in the car on long journeys, but I didn't realise until I was much older that he'd edited out all the swear words.
> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this."
I see great actual and potential harm, not to mention you don't know the effect before expressing/airing this to know it can be nothing but negative, such knowledge is impossible for any man to have, thats the point of the first amendment to the US constitution, and last I checked southpark was made there.
You could have made the same argument about "Life of Brian", whats the point of ridiculing jesus after all? The result of that movie has been harmful? Thats not the case at all for me, "Life of Brian" is a very important movie for me, and so is southpark.
What about all the muslims who could enjoy poking fun at Mohammed? How is it that their view is any less valid? Arguing for self-censorship legitimizes and treats muslims as a unified group, identified by voices of extremism. You delegate to them the task of identifying what is harmful and offensive, and once you've done that, it can be anything. A cartoon in an obscure danish newspaper. A 15 minute movie made in the netherlands. What children call a teddy bear in a classroom in Uganda. What southpark decides to do.
This is a capitulation that erodes freedom of speech.
That's exactly right. Mr Schiller's reply is one of the least intelligent things I have ever heard anyone say.
There's a brilliant episode in The Life of Brian that makes fun of people who are unable to take into account the purpose and context in which words are used:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm2BsjACkuI