Comments on: A Country Life

By: mollymooly

mollymooly — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:34:15 +0000

“Life of Brian” was banned in Ireland on its first release, and rated 18 in the UK. So if your local cinema was letting a nine-year-old in, I don’t blame the priest for being upset, though really he should have caned the manager.

By: Righteous Bubba

Righteous Bubba — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:40:35 +0000

But I can recall being told by John Satterthwaite, then the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lismore (New South Wales), that “Life of Brian” was one of his favourite films.

I have heard the same claims from a priest who added that Monty Python was a very funny man.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:35:16 +0000

Australia in the 1970s was not Ireland, of course. But I can recall being told by John Satterthwaite, then the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lismore (New South Wales), that “Life of Brian” was one of his favourite films. He saw it several times when it appeared. But then, he had a degree in civil engineering, so was not your typical Catholic Bishop.

By: ajay

ajay — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:18:10 +0000

Just to clarify – I certainly wasn’t trying to criticise or disagree with russell in that comment; just raising a point that’s always puzzled me about the Python controversy…

Also, have a heart, russell – if I kept on posting Python quotes till I reached one that wasn’t funny, I’d be here all day.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:56:56 +0000

Point taken, ajay. I think Cleese was affirming the “heretical” position because the stance of the film is obviously pretty critical of organized religion in general, implying that the emergence of Christianity was skewed from the start by various paranoids and authoritarians who grabbed on to one or another bits of Christ’s message (or clothing) and used their adherence to such as an opportunity to attack one another. Nothing necessarily opposed to Christian orthodoxy there, but definitely a broad suggestion that the whole idea of “Christian orthodoxy” is silly. Whereas I think Jones’s perspective is that the film suggests that believing that there ever could be a “Messiah” (much less that the historical Jesus was such) is itself silly, which is definitely a blasphemous notion.

(You ask a good question about why making fun of God is easier to get away with than making fun of Christ. But you leave off my favorite bit from that exchange between Arthur and God: after God gives them their instructions about seeking for the Holy Grail, Arthur cries “Good idea, Lord!” To which God replies, somewhat affronted, “Of course it’s a good idea!”)

By: ajay

ajay — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:28:56 +0000

It’s not heretical – there’s nothing in “The Life of Brian” that’s incongruent with Christian orthodoxy. Christ appears twice in the film – once at the Nativity, once delivering the Sermon on the Mount – and in both cases he’s portrayed in entirely orthodox style. It’s made very clear that Brian isn’t the Messiah, he’s just an unfortunate who gets mistaken for the Messiah.
Blasphemy is a bit trickier – it can include irreverence towards religion, which is certainly a part of “Life of Brian” (though not towards the Christian religion; the Jews have a good case for blasphemy though).

And God himself never appears at all in “Life of Brian”, unlike the – I would argue – much more heretical “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” in which he appears face to face with Arthur and the knights – counter to the Old Testament, which states that no one since the Fall, not even Moses, gets to see God face to face – and denies the efficacy of prayer and the value of contrition. But it didn’t attract any criticism. Why not, I wonder? Why is it OK to depict a ridiculous, comic God but not a ridiculous, comic Christ?

(“Oh, don’t grovel! If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people groveling. And don’t apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it’s “sorry this” and “forgive me that” and “I’m not worthy”. What are you doing now!?
ARTHUR: I’m averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD: Well, don’t. It’s like those miserable Psalms—they’re so depressing. Now knock it off!”)

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:04:27 +0000

The Cleavers never went to church, nor did the Ricardos, the Bradys, etc. Too much of a landmine, even back then. There was always Davey and Goliath on Sunday mornings for that. The Simpsons are the only TV familty I can think of that routinely go to church.

Alwsdad makes a good observation, and the examples he brings up could be greatly multiplied (though I don’t think, at least originally, this reluctance was because religion was a “landmine” so much as the fact that it was taken for granted—by both writers and viewers—and therefore wasn’t seen as worthy of comment). And by pointing out The Simpsons he makes a point worth repeating: it’s usually genuine satirists that are most willing to acknowledge the whole human experience as a respectful subject, even if they then procede to tear it to pieces. (I’m reminded of surprisingly serious argument John Cleese and Terry Jones once had over whether The Life of Brian was “blasphemous”—Jones’s position—or merely “heretical.”)

By: alwsdad

alwsdad — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:19:31 +0000

Of course, network programming in the US also ignores religion for the most part. The Cleavers never went to church, nor did the Ricardos, the Bradys, etc. Too much of a landmine, even back then. There was always Davey and Goliath on Sunday mornings for that. The Simpsons are the only TV familty I can think of that routinely go to church. The Omaha diocese in the 70s would periodically forbid some show (Maude, Soap(/i>), and so I naturally sought them out whenever the opportunity arose. There was relatively little in Maude to entertain a 10-year-old, but defying the priests made it all worthwhile.

By: minneapolitan

minneapolitan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:19:26 +0000

I used to watch “Jakers” occasionally, but as far as I can tell, it’s been dropped by all the Anglophone channels here, and picked up by Univision. Since I don’t speak Spanish, I just click past it, but I have to assume that the re-dubbing adds several more soupçons of frisson to the viewing experience.

When I am up early watching Saturday cartoons, I invariably get sucked in to the day’s episode of “Viva Piñata”, a show whose premise (i.e. that there exists a tropical island populated by the Platonic ideal forms of various stock piñata animals, who, with varying degrees of enthusiasm or horror, must occasionally instantiate themselves into the mortal world in order to be smashed by small children) is so fraught that I’m not sure where to even begin to analyze it.

Occasionally I also catch a bit of “The Emperor’s New School” (not affiliated with either the new school of hip hop nor the New School for Social Research, so far as I know) even though it ruins most of the premises that the original film used to such great comedic effect.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:16:18 +0000

I was wondering about procuring childrens’ TV’s. I’d go for a newer one.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:51:59 +0000

children’s TV and organ procurement week

For some reason, I wish you’d written “organ procurement and children’s TV week.”

By: chris armstrong

chris armstrong — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:17:51 +0000

The most surprising thing about Jakers is how long, and how involved, each episode is. I mean, they’re aiming at a SERIOUSLY long attention span there, by most kids’ standards. I regularly lose track of what’s going on when I get distracted by an infant jumping on my head. In terms of kids’ TV generally, our kids only get CBeebies (the BBC’s channel for infants) and I really think it’s very good. With the odd exception it’s calm, non-flashing, non-noisy, informative and well-thought-out. Kids love to watch noisy and flashy trash, but gratifyingly, mine at least also like to watch real animals moseying around in a farmyard just as much.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:32:23 +0000

my diocese also raised a hue and cry over Life of Brian, but my dad (then as now a pillar of the parish) took me anyway

Careful now. Down with this sort of thing!

By: Spoon

Spoon — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:32:55 +0000

Oh, I love Jakers! Mostly because Mel Brooks is the voice of the talking sheep, but that’s more than enough for me. (I was brought up on a straight diet of PBS, so oddities of the genre are a personal favorite subject.)

By: grackle

grackle — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:40:41 +0000

This brings up an interesting question: does PZ Myers, in fact, in the sense in which you speak, indeed have a heart? The evidence is slim.