Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Monty Python 40 Years Old Today!

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the nobody-expects-the-spanish-inquisition dept.

cheros was one of several readers to note that today, Oct 5, in 1969 was the very first airing of Monty Python. Although not every sketch has aged particularly well, you'd be hard pressed to find a more influential and funny show. Heck, look at the Icon we use here to indicate humorous stories! Who among us can't claim to have viewed the Holy Grail at least somewhere in the double digits.

9 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. I'm actually a heretic. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Holy Grail is great and all, but I think "Life Of Brian" is the best Monty Python movie. It's the only one where they maintained a coherent plot thread through the whole proceedings, and still had drop-dead-funny stuff.

    "It says 'Romans Go Home'." "No it doesn't!"

    "He has a wife, you know..."

    Oh, heck, just see here.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:I'm actually a heretic. by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Holy Grail is great and all, but I think "Life Of Brian" is the best Monty Python movie.

      Actually, in an interview about a year ago, John Clease mentioned that, in his experience, Americans tended to favor Holy Grail and Britons tended to favour Life of Brian. He thought it had something to do with the way in which both countries tend to enjoy their humo(u)r. Life of Brian has a continuous plot, whereas Holy Grail is more of a connected series of sketches.

      --
      Similar to the upcoming US election results
    2. Re:I'm actually a heretic. by Landshark17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I recently re-watched Holy Grail and followed it up with Life of Brian, and I noticed that while both are funny, they're funny in very different ways.

      Holy Grail is mostly a light-hearted parody of Arthurian legend. They took the framework of the quest for the Holy Grail, and injected it with the kind of surreal humor they're best remembered for. The closest thing to social satire in it is the oft-quoted scene where Arthur and the peasant argue over how he came to power, and that's more funny because it's totally absurd than because it's making any kind of statement.

      Life of Brian, on the other hand, is very heavy on biting social satire. It's critical of beaurocracy and religion, chiefly. Most of the humor comes from mocking the people's way of being more concerned with being followers of the messiah than listening to the messiah's message, the way the Judean People's Front is a committee mired in bylaws, not really acting, most frequently infighting with the JPF, PFJ, Judean Populist Front, et al. The scenes you quote "It says 'Romans Go Home'" "No it doesn't!" are exceptions to the rule for Life of Brian.

      --
      This sig is false.
  2. The essence of Python... by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Monty Python, when it started, was about doing something different, absurd, and rebellious. Humo(u)r was stale and repetitive at the time. The devolution of their innovative comedy into a mine for endlessly repeated quotes is antithetical to its spirit. That's why my favorite Monty Python sketch is their performance of the Dead Parrot Sketch at the Secret Policeman's Ball: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTV3lQc4AmQ

    --


    Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
  3. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition by jacksdl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of today's Nobel Prize winners (Carol W. Greider) was quoted in the New York Times:

    People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that ''It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'''

  4. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Lemon Curry?

  5. Re:I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes.

    No they aren't.

    Yes, they bloody well are. Besides, parents said arguably, and was not stating it as a fact.

    No they're not. And he was not doing any such thing.

    MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture.

    Yes it does.

    Sure. A minimal amount. Which was parents point.

    No it wasn't.

    The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.

    No they haven't.

    They certainly did. Can you show how most sitcoms were not in some way influenced by them, or did not follow the same basic format?

    Can you show me how most were?

    Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.

    No it couldn't.

    How can it not?

    How can it?

  6. so successful, yet never remade - why? by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering what an effect and what a huge fanbase the programmes have, I can't help wondering why no-one has ever tried to make any more. Although you probably couldn't get any of the original caste to take part (and would probably disappoint, if they did - 40 years on), it seems like a wasted opportunity. Especially as so much of todays TV and film output is remakes of stuff from that era.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:so successful, yet never remade - why? by Threni · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Considering what an effect and what a huge fanbase the programmes have, I can't help wondering why no-one has ever tried to make any more.

      And why don't people make some more Beatles songs while they're at it?