My favorite quote from the debate is when Cleese says, “Four hundred years ago, we would have been burnt for this film. Now, I’m suggesting that we've made an advance.”
I love Cleese's aside "Nazi Germany, Spanish inquisition..." when Malcolm waffled on about how wonderful Christianity is. Palin's quip "You've come here with an open mind, we all know that."
@@Kasino80 I find it bizarre and difficult to excuse why on most of the debate videos, comments have been turned off. Regardless of how anyone saw the film, shutting down their chance to express their views on it is inconsiderate to say the least.
The look shared between Palin and Cleese at the “30 pieces of silver” bit at the end is absolute brilliance. The mincing priest may have had the last thing to say, but John and Michael absolutely had the final word. Silent mic drop.
They should have come back with: "You may find that some consider you the Pharisee in this debate" or "Thank you, please have them sent to the office." The parallels between the Pharisees and these Bisshops are stunning. Accusing Python of betrayal but they themselves coming up with elaborated reasoning structures to strengthen their belief at the expense of Python.
@@tomservo75 What the Bishop was saying was that when the controversy and dust has settled the python team were going to be ok, they would collect their financial reward at a handsome profit. As Palin made the critical reference to the work of the church, one wonders how much of the films profits HE gave to charitable causes and hospitals?
@Joie De Vivre Desi If you feel that way why are you even on this debate making a comment? If you can't relate to the life of the church of which you have no understanding why order they be shut down to deprive others more generously spirited, worldly and informed who do? You really do exist in your own nerdy little bicycle world don't you? One day you might discover there's another life other than wearing silly helmets and offensive lycra, pissing off other road users and pushing pedals, but I doubt it.
And the Catholics of today that still behave equally pathetically? I don't question your right to worship, and I applaud the strengths you get from that and the good the community you belong to does , but also recognise the evil inside your church, and the damage still being done, and it's allowed to continue, because the greater Catholic community does not call it out and actively seek to expose the individuals responsible
I heard that backstage, the two preachers said to Michael Palin and John Cleese, "Well I think that went well," and it showed them that these preachers weren't offended. They were putting on a show for public appeal. It makes me roll my eyes for multiple reasons.
@@AndyJK45 My biggest worry in watching this debate as it happened live was that the Bishop and Malcolm Muggeridge were going to drown in their own pomposity.
Worth seeing the entire debate. Illustrates the great divide between old people with unearned privileges and, well, everyone else. Even if you agree with them they will tell you that you do not, because they think being combative makes them look stronger.
I don't know if it was their age, but neither the Bishop nor Muggeridge came off as particularly intelligent or insightful. They constantly missed the points being made and went on irrelevant tangents.
The amazing thing was that all the protests in America over this movie gave it amazing publicity and people were lining up to see this "blasphemous" movie. Fact is it's considered by many to be their best film.
You can see why people like Cleese and Palin turned out to be as relatively politely subversive as they are when you see the society from which they sprang as represented by Mal & Co.! Well done, lads, you escaped repression that would and has crushed others.
The Bishop and Muggeridge attacked used such terms like ‘tenth rate film’, and amongst many derogatory remarks, called the film cheap. They started the interview without any intention of debating but purely to smash the film makers into smithereens using old fashioned words of religious one upmanship. This to me was the blasphemy. A gay Bishop and a womanising, drink-addicted writer should ignore their own failings, and stand up for religion when it wasn’t being attacked at all. This interview was discussed over every dinner table at the time, and in my view John and Michael won hands down for their polite refutations.
Christine. What's being gay got to to do with this, or womanising, or drinking? At least one of the Python team (and star of the film) was openly gay and an alcoholic, the others, well, check them out for yourself and count the marriages.
@@maxwellfan55 It's hypocritical to speak against homosexuality in public and be gay in private. It's hypocritical to act 'holier than thou' when you are not. Which is LITERALLY what they did. They are dishonest men relying on the validity of the church to criticize talented people who made a thought provoking piece of art that they happened to disagree with. That is what these points have to do with this.
@@itsmederek1 So what suddenly gives YOU, the non-entity, any authority to sit at your greasy keyboard in judgement, casting hypocrisy and character assassination over others and their beliefs? My point was the people here were on a show discussing a film, not about individual characters on the show and their personal lives which have NO interest, or relevance to the debate. Is that so difficult for your weak brain? I bet you don't even go to church, know nothing about the achievements of these two men, and in any case they were both INVITED onto this show in order to express their opinions, you complete and total Wally. You come across as highly primitive, so we'll end further exchange now, please go away, get educated and think about your stupidity however impossible to do in your case. End.
What I got from "Life Of Brian" was a film about "False Idols" - and given that the Hierarchy of the Christian Church are also against such things I would have thought a boring conversation would have ensued but it is the ignorance of The Hierarchy who decides to completely ignore the Sermon on the Mountain where Jesus is talking to those gathered and the camera pans away to Brian and his Mother at the back of the gathering listening to Jesus speaking and complaining they can't hear him. This part is obviously ignored because it is proof that the film was not about Jesus but how the people mistook Brian to be him and and began to worship him - aka: the Worshiping of a False Idol...
The Christian Faith is against such things, the Christian Church (i.e. the organisation as we know it today) is run by a bunch of idolaters who twist religion to push their own political agendas. To be fair they are not alone, all the major religions do the same thing.
In my opinion there is no difference. God doesn't brand an idol, so it is up to the people to form a belief based on what they perseive. If that leads them to idolize a 'false idol' then that's god's mistake for not showing these people the right clues. Personally I think that any god that requires worshipping, is not worth being worshipped and therefore produces actual false idols. I will simply idolize those people that in my eyes do most to be good, where the distinction between what's universally good and bad is what the real debate should be all about.
@@lloroshastar6347 The institutions are merely reflections of what people do already. It isn't necessary what a church does, but what human beings inherently do anyway. Anything people touch crumbles to dust. Jesus understood this most of all. His disciples were a bunch of stooges and Jesus forgave them anyway. Its just human nature.
One line that has always stuck with me from Alexander Pope's, "The Rape of the Lock" was: 'On her white breast a sparkling cross she wore, Which Jews might kiss, and infidels adore.' I was immediately reminded of it when I saw him clutching that enormous cross.
Something I genuinely didn't understand in the full debate from the green coated bloke was why he was so insistent that their supposed negative representation of Christ even mattered at all if he genuinely believed that the film would not sway anyone's faith, as he admitted several times. He kept mentioning that if a 14 year old saw it they might get the wrong idea about the story of Christ - but just as John mentioned, so could a child get the wrong idea about Christ by getting his stories shoved down their throat by people who couldn't convincingly explain to the child why they should care to begin with. Just as John Cleese mentioned the negative peoples and events caused by Christianity throughout history that quickly got shoved under the rug by the green coated gentleman, I just don't think he wanted to think about the argument having two different sides. This conclusion is especially supported by how often he directly insulted the two in a cheap and conversation-stopping manner, clearly showing that there was not a balance of respect in the debate.
I'm a thirteen year old boy who knows nothing about the gospel, but I learned the moral of that movie the first time I watched it. And those priests in the debate liginimatly made me want to punch my screen out.
@@nathanhubanks9767 it’s OK Malcolm Muggerage had that effect on many people at the time. A typical pseudo intellectual engaging in Pascal’s Wager theology as he nears the end of a life of debauchery. Have you seen the Not the Nine O’clock News send up of the interview broadcast later the same week? ua-cam.com/video/asUyK6JWt9U/v-deo.html I believe the book Jesus & Brian is worth reading; it’s an examination of LoB as an historical record, by leading scholars such as B. Ermin.
Fascinating to look at the debate and it's contents 43 years later. Life of Brian is acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies of all time and no one remembers Malcolm Muggeridge or the pompous, posturing man in funny clothes, droning on about some magic or another he believes in. The clown's specific cult is dying on it's feet with attendance at it's weekly services practically non existent. Messrs Cleese and Palin continue to entertain us, to this day. No doubt who won the debate, then, and who has won it now!
@@young321bookie You are really splitting hairs here. I was raised in the Church and was told again and again that we had to celebrate a man sacrificing his life. That was balanced by the idea that he was defeating death, a concept that I never accepted. Not really something I could mention out loud without being punished.
Did anyone else get thoroughly irritated by John Cleese choosing not to pull out those counter-argumentative quotes from his pocket because he was "feeling kind of sorry for [Malcolm Muggeridge]"?
They made a mockery of Jesus and so this is one of the reasons why people have moved away from believing it. There is a movement towards Islam has athiests seem to prefer Islam over Christianity, they are always defending islam anyway.
Well some 44 years later it’s safe to say that history really doesn’t remember the two objectors….meanwhile the pythons and their 10th grade film has become a foundation of popular culture. Lovely to watch the complete arrogance being forgotten to history. God bless the pythons
@@maolsheachlannoceallaigh4772as the OP was saying… (people…books…😂) the sanctimonious duo here are only thought of today for their momentary brush with enduring talent and legendary work. It could have been an interesting discussion but for the “Clowns For Christ.” About as Christian as a kick in the teeth.
@@markstevens1729I think it highly likely that Muggeridge will still be read when Python only remembered as a footnote on cultural history books. Personally I think Fawlty Towers will long outlast Monty Python as well.
It was so odd that the religious apologists felt that the creators of a comedy owed any particular religion anything at all. And is their belief so fragile?
It's clear they didn't watch the film. Jesus appears as a background character in one of the scenes and saying what he said in the bible. There are complaints that a few people at the back "couldn't hear him". There is a couple of references to Jesus and never is the character mocked or ridiculed. Brain is born at the same time in the manger next door to Jesus. Brian repeatedly shouts that he is "not the Messiah". I also found the Bishop's parting shot with his reference to "Judas and the 30 pieces of silver" highly ironic. The whole Christian religion is based on the human son of a god who died and rose again and Judas' so-called "betrayal" was a necessary part of god's plan it seems and the whole thing hinged on it. It's time these old fuddy-duddies got off their high-horses and actually read their bibles if they really think it's the "Word of God".
They asked them two because they were complete clowns, if they asked someone like a couple of Irish priests they wouldn't have gotten the result they were after
It just shows how in touch religious people are when Malcolm Muggeridge describes it as a 10th rate films it has gone on to be one of the best and most successful comedy films ever😈
@@leehighland5435 Telling me I'll go to hell is just as scary as my 5-year-old telling me Santa won't bring me any presents. BTW: No hate like Christian love.
@@leehighland5435 Christians (and Muslims) have used the fear of eternal torture for thousands of years to scare us into obedience. The god who loves us but tortures us for eternity exists only in the mind of morons. Anyways, I'd rather be in hell with sceptics and smart people than in heaven with zealots and bible-thumpers.
@@leehighland5435I offer your eternal life after this one to baphomet and Lucifer. It's already done, your name is baptized in the blood of quite opposite the lamb. Have a great day ;)
They could have won easily. 'It will not affect anyone',' So whats your problem with it?', 'Young people may think its about Jesus',' But YOU are the ones saying its about him not us'.
I found the bishop to have some points that were at least good enough to debate about and admired john‘s answers and points. Like:“in school they thought me only the boring parts about religion.“ and it wasnt really discussed but i think there was an interesting debate to be had there between the bishop and him that couldve improved the view of one for the other. That life of brian is an absolute masterpiece that doesnt ridicule the story of jesus but focuses on the more mundane aspects of a story like this and the problems that come along when young brian tries his best to do good. Ive got to say it here: Thank you monthy python for all your great work and also thank you for all the stuff you made along the way. What a journey, what a goal. Trying to make people laugh. May laughter heal the sick and give the hopeless hope.
In 'The Screwtape Letters' (which John Cleese recorded an excellent audiobook version of, btw) C.S. Lewis points out that bawdy or even blasphemous humor can't be evil, because it's just a natural reaction to something that's honestly funny. The only way humor is evil is when it's used as a coverup for something that's truly shameful like bullying. A Christian said that.
I have to say that this film is part of my Xmas viewing every year. It's excellent for understanding that there's more to life than religion, that historically people of the time within the Roman empire were desperate for hope of a better life. Preachers were ten a penny or twenty a sheckle. That nothing really changes, oppression is everywhere and that we should "always look on the bright side of life". Other excellent Xmas viewing includes Muppets Xmas Carol, The Hogfather, Good Omens, and for it's religious content The Blues Brothers.
Regardless of your position on the debate (mine's with Python) it is refreshing to hear both sides actually debate without deteriorating into a shouting match.
Instead it just becomes a reenactment of the film. "Brian represents the Messiah! We should know, we're the experts!" "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
That's only because Cleese and Palin were being mercilessly polite. Every time they tried to make a serious point the bishop or Muggeridge just went off about how bad the film was and how it was clearly poking fun at Christ. The didn't engage Cleese & Palin in serious debate at all. I read that even Muggeridge's own daughter told him his performance was an embarrassment.
I agree and find it slightly less refreshing that almost all copies of this debate on UA-cam have silenced opinions by completely shutting off comments.
@@TonyEnglandUK Very strange - it is ironic that a debate video would have the comments turned off to allow any debate! I wasn't quite sure why it popped into my feed, but it seems to be having a bit of a rise in popularity given that some of the comments here are quite new.
Lisa Melnick Actually, that was one of the few semi-factual/semi-intelligent points he said and I say this as a HUGE Metalhead and a former Christian. Has there been great art that has nothing to do Christianity? Of course, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that most of the art created by the artist most loved by the mainstream masses or at least a significantly large amount of people has either had Jesus or at the very least his teachings, the iconography and/or mythology of the religion based on his teachings at the center of it either in a celebratory, satirical, or damning way.
@@JPG126 I'm sorry by your reply; are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me because I can't since autocorrect decided to run away with your comment thus making your point confusing, ::laughs politely to imply that she gets it, isn't a condescending troll, and genuinely wants to understand your point::
It was clearly the greatest promotional event for the movie ever done. Palin and Cleese made their case not just for the movie but for their comedy itself, and the other two presented their points with such childishness and lack of grace that their words had the opposite effect of what they intended.
Malcolm Muggeridge was insufferable. He always insisted that he was right and there could be no argument about that, so no debate was possible with him.
Do people realise these two chumps missed the start of the film and as such had no idea that the deferentiation between who Brian and Jesus was explained the whole plot
Life of Brian I feel indirectly put religion back into peoples conversation and got people to look at the bible again in the debates and arguments it caused at the time.
Despite all of Muggeridge’s dubious accomplishments, this is how he’ll be remembered; for a making a complete fool out of himself whilst criticizing a comedy. Quite a tenth rate person.
I wasn't making a joke, by the way, I'm serious, Jesus meant the meek are those who only look for earthly wealth, John Bunyan said the same when he referred to Vanity Fair in The Polgrims Progress
Imagine if Jesus miraculously reappeared and he had the option to hang out with these crusty old codgers or the Monty Python lads. I'm pretty sure I know which side he would choose!
Don't think Cleese and Palin are professing followers of Christ so the "thirty pieces of silver" remark is unapplicable despite the priest believing its a touchdown. Strange.
It's so annoying that comments are disabled for the debate vids, there are so many points that that moron Malcolm whatever got wrong, great art being inspired by Christianity for a start, most of that art was commissioned by the Church so artists had to do it their and you will find a lot of that art has subtle nods to artists' "other" interests also you were lightly to be killed in a horrific way if you went against the Church. It's funny that since the Church's grip on Christianity has weakened, artists have almost exclusively changed their subject matter. And, they never even touched on the reincarnation in the movie, as Palin said he started with an open mind!!
but you can really tell by the applause for John and Michael and the lack of applause for the other two that they were absolutely dominating the debate. Attempting to discredit Python for making fun of things that need to be made fun of will never go over well
I‘m actually surprised that Palin was that angry about it. I thought he and Cleese were fully aware what they walked into. That the two old idiots would angrily insult them, and the two of them could make fun of them. Seems like Cleese‘s mindset was a bit in that head space, but Palin‘s clearly wasn‘t.
Guess he made the wrong assumption that you could actually have a respectful discussion with people of opposing views. To me it's truly sad that we can't achieve that, but this shows how old the issue is.
Learnt today in detail about Muggeridge’s manufacturing of Mother Teresa, who was a vile woman. He fabricated her myth. How dare he even criticise anything to do with Life of Brian!
Palin and Cleese were fair with their views. The two old dears showed ZERO respect for the Python team, or anyone else for that matter. Respect Christianity - I was raised one, but I choose to disbelieve a lot of what is written. Cleese also became to realise a lot is bumpf and that they were teasing the blind faith lot who are just waiting for the next messiah to come along, because they've followed a few. I watched all 4 parts this morning as couldn't sleep but couldn't comment there as option was disabled.
Blue rinse, 'frock coat' and twirling his cruifix, how did Cleese and Palin resist aluding to this pairs predilections? 40 years after the debate these two moralistic buffoons would torn apart by the Python duo unfettered by the respect they thought they should give these two. (BTW I'm a Christian who worships - but doesn't deify Python).
"...ridiculing of the founder of the Christian religion." So what?!? And calling them "10th rate" or just bad at comedy; that's obviously an opinion, and is totally irrelevant to "controversy". If it was just a bad movie, people wouldn't see it, end of story.
I'm sorry everyone but there's gonna be some cursing ahead... The f-cking bishop with the f-cking 10 kg crucifix and a f-cking signet ring preaching moderation and overall holyness is everything that's wrong with every religion on this green space rock. I know of a couple decent clergymen, who actually practiced what they had preached and ultimately suffered for it at the hands of their superiors. That's probably the biggest "turn off" for me in terms of any religion.
First time I watched it I was all for Cleese and Palin..20 years later I am all for Muggeridge and even the Bishop. There are half-truths on both sides, but I find it hard to believe the Python's disclaimer that 'we aren't taking the piss out of Christianity'..surely that is what satirists do?
It's sad that you became narrow-minded. Watch the movie again and you might realize that LoB is actually very respectful to Jesus. They are "taking the piss" out of zealots and superstitious fools. If your faith is of that kind, it deserves to be ridiculed.
If Python wanted to ridicule jesus it would have been Very clearly obvious. Ps, the dude in the purple bath robe is hysterically funny. Should hire him for the next film.
I watched the entire original debate. Honestly even though I thought the Pythons were right on this and it was a hilarious film, I thought some good points were made on both sides, though the religious folks were certainly rude and patronizing in places, and there was some good insults coming from both sides. But I actually think that this is the type of spirited, sometimes tense, but respectful (at least by modern standards) debate we need to see more often! The bishops weren't getting "triggered" and trying to censor the movie and the "left" side of Cleese and Palin were also respectfully making their side. No one was calling for anyone to be cancelled, or boycotted, or ridiculed. We need more of this type of discussion today. I'm glad that the bishop isn't still alive today to see that his prophecies about the degradation of religion has only gotten much worse, but probably more from their attitudes than anything the Pythons put out.
My favorite quote from the debate is when Cleese says, “Four hundred years ago, we would have been burnt for this film. Now, I’m suggesting that we've made an advance.”
I love Cleese's aside "Nazi Germany, Spanish inquisition..." when Malcolm waffled on about how wonderful Christianity is.
Palin's quip "You've come here with an open mind, we all know that."
@@simonmoore6823 Palin was not having any of that nonsense. You can see he's fuming. It's really fantastic to see.
@@Kasino80 I find it bizarre and difficult to excuse why on most of the debate videos, comments have been turned off. Regardless of how anyone saw the film, shutting down their chance to express their views on it is inconsiderate to say the least.
Life of Brian is still hilarious.
@@simonmoore6823God knows what Nazi Germany has to do with anything. Hitler persecuted the churches.
The movie had nothing to do with Jesus, it was all about Bwian.
And a fellow called Biggus Dickus, who had a wife you know!
You know what she is called? Incontinentia... Incontinentia Buttocks.
And the cruhzefiktion.
No no, Brian
@@ScandinavianHeretic Slap him, Centurion, vewy wuffly
Rowan Atkinson, "I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition!" Way too funny.
Well to be fair, nobody expected it
Also no one expects the comfy chair!
why was it funny? well cos of its chief weapons: surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency and a fanatical devotion to the Pope! ooooh!
Hahaha
@@nl5828 it's funny because it's a Python sketch: ua-cam.com/video/D5Df191WJ3o/v-deo.html
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered......Religion is answers that may never be questioned
Bollocks.
The look shared between Palin and Cleese at the “30 pieces of silver” bit at the end is absolute brilliance. The mincing priest may have had the last thing to say, but John and Michael absolutely had the final word. Silent mic drop.
They should have come back with: "You may find that some consider you the Pharisee in this debate" or "Thank you, please have them sent to the office." The parallels between the Pharisees and these Bisshops are stunning. Accusing Python of betrayal but they themselves coming up with elaborated reasoning structures to strengthen their belief at the expense of Python.
I didn't get that reference, honestly.... oops never mind next time watch it all the way through before asking. My bad.
@@tomservo75 What the Bishop was saying was that when the controversy and dust has settled the python team were going to be ok, they would collect their financial reward at a handsome profit.
As Palin made the critical reference to the work of the church, one wonders how much of the films profits HE gave to charitable causes and hospitals?
@Joie De Vivre Desi And why?
@Joie De Vivre Desi If you feel that way why are you even on this debate making a comment? If you can't relate to the life of the church of which you have no understanding why order they be shut down to deprive others more generously spirited, worldly and informed who do?
You really do exist in your own nerdy little bicycle world don't you? One day you might discover there's another life other than wearing silly helmets and offensive lycra, pissing off other road users and pushing pedals, but I doubt it.
As I Catholic I apologize for those two and their refusal to be at all polite and open minded. My goodness.
They're both Protestant
And the Catholics of today that still behave equally pathetically? I don't question your right to worship, and I applaud the strengths you get from that and the good the community you belong to does , but also recognise the evil inside your church, and the damage still being done, and it's allowed to continue, because the greater Catholic community does not call it out and actively seek to expose the individuals responsible
i think it's pretty clear who the well mannered gentlemen here were
Michael was adorable in his youth.
he's still adorable as an old man
Exposed as a college graduate prick here, though.
I heard that backstage, the two preachers said to Michael Palin and John Cleese, "Well I think that went well," and it showed them that these preachers weren't offended. They were putting on a show for public appeal. It makes me roll my eyes for multiple reasons.
My eyes are still rolling
@@AndyJK45 My biggest worry in watching this debate as it happened live was that the Bishop and Malcolm Muggeridge were going to drown in their own pomposity.
Worth seeing the entire debate. Illustrates the great divide between old people with unearned privileges and, well, everyone else. Even if you agree with them they will tell you that you do not, because they think being combative makes them look stronger.
seeing how quickly they devolved into childish insults and general pettiness was hilarious.
@@TomGallagherSuperboyBeyond - Keep laughing. Please please do.
@@young321bookie Will do :)
Three year old comment I know. Unearned privileges? Read up on Malcolm Muggeridge. He’s earned his privileges.
I don't know if it was their age, but neither the Bishop nor Muggeridge came off as particularly intelligent or insightful. They constantly missed the points being made and went on irrelevant tangents.
The amazing thing was that all the protests in America over this movie gave it amazing publicity and people were lining up to see this "blasphemous" movie. Fact is it's considered by many to be their best film.
The negative publicity worked to its' advantage. It was banned in Norway, and was marketed in Sweden as 'The film so funny it was banned in Norway!'.
You can see why people like Cleese and Palin turned out to be as relatively politely subversive as they are when you see the society from which they sprang as represented by Mal & Co.! Well done, lads, you escaped repression that would and has crushed others.
They escaped the violence inherited in the system
@@henrikparsgaard9648That's because they come from a narco-syndicate commune.
The Bishop and Muggeridge attacked used such terms like ‘tenth rate film’, and amongst many derogatory remarks, called the film cheap. They started the interview without any intention of debating but purely to smash the film makers into smithereens using old fashioned words of religious one upmanship. This to me was the blasphemy. A gay Bishop and a womanising, drink-addicted writer should ignore their own failings, and stand up for religion when it wasn’t being attacked at all. This interview was discussed over every dinner table at the time, and in my view John and Michael won hands down for their polite refutations.
Christine. What's being gay got to to do with this, or womanising, or drinking? At least one of the Python team (and star of the film) was openly gay and an alcoholic, the others, well, check them out for yourself and count the marriages.
I thought that the Bishop was gay. I thought that the church was really against that in 1979.
@@maxwellfan55 It's hypocritical to speak against homosexuality in public and be gay in private. It's hypocritical to act 'holier than thou' when you are not. Which is LITERALLY what they did. They are dishonest men relying on the validity of the church to criticize talented people who made a thought provoking piece of art that they happened to disagree with. That is what these points have to do with this.
@@itsmederek1 So what suddenly gives YOU, the non-entity, any authority to sit at your greasy keyboard in judgement, casting hypocrisy and character assassination over others and their beliefs?
My point was the people here were on a show discussing a film, not about individual characters on the show and their personal lives which have NO interest, or relevance to the debate. Is that so difficult for your weak brain?
I bet you don't even go to church, know nothing about the achievements of these two men, and in any case they were both INVITED onto this show in order to express their opinions, you complete and total Wally.
You come across as highly primitive, so we'll end further exchange now, please go away, get educated and think about your stupidity however impossible to do in your case.
End.
What I got from "Life Of Brian" was a film about "False Idols" - and given that the Hierarchy of the Christian Church are also against such things I would have thought a boring conversation would have ensued but it is the ignorance of The Hierarchy who decides to completely ignore the Sermon on the Mountain where Jesus is talking to those gathered and the camera pans away to Brian and his Mother at the back of the gathering listening to Jesus speaking and complaining they can't hear him. This part is obviously ignored because it is proof that the film was not about Jesus but how the people mistook Brian to be him and and began to worship him - aka: the Worshiping of a False Idol...
The Christian Faith is against such things, the Christian Church (i.e. the organisation as we know it today) is run by a bunch of idolaters who twist religion to push their own political agendas. To be fair they are not alone, all the major religions do the same thing.
Idiot indeed. May God Himself help you 'idiotella'.
@@lloroshastar6347 has it ever been otherwise?
In my opinion there is no difference. God doesn't brand an idol, so it is up to the people to form a belief based on what they perseive. If that leads them to idolize a 'false idol' then that's god's mistake for not showing these people the right clues. Personally I think that any god that requires worshipping, is not worth being worshipped and therefore produces actual false idols. I will simply idolize those people that in my eyes do most to be good, where the distinction between what's universally good and bad is what the real debate should be all about.
@@lloroshastar6347
The institutions are merely reflections of what people do already. It isn't necessary what a church does, but what human beings inherently do anyway. Anything people touch crumbles to dust. Jesus understood this most of all. His disciples were a bunch of stooges and Jesus forgave them anyway. Its just human nature.
"you get your 30 pieces of Silver"
I won't, it was all used to make that huge Silver Cross you are wearing
The church couldn't afford silver. It was pewter.
One line that has always stuck with me from Alexander Pope's, "The Rape of the Lock" was:
'On her white breast a sparkling cross she wore,
Which Jews might kiss, and infidels adore.'
I was immediately reminded of it when I saw him clutching that enormous cross.
@@dougbrowne9890 A lot of silver in the church, mind you Henty VIII got a lot of it.
😂😂😂😂
Something I genuinely didn't understand in the full debate from the green coated bloke was why he was so insistent that their supposed negative representation of Christ even mattered at all if he genuinely believed that the film would not sway anyone's faith, as he admitted several times. He kept mentioning that if a 14 year old saw it they might get the wrong idea about the story of Christ - but just as John mentioned, so could a child get the wrong idea about Christ by getting his stories shoved down their throat by people who couldn't convincingly explain to the child why they should care to begin with. Just as John Cleese mentioned the negative peoples and events caused by Christianity throughout history that quickly got shoved under the rug by the green coated gentleman, I just don't think he wanted to think about the argument having two different sides. This conclusion is especially supported by how often he directly insulted the two in a cheap and conversation-stopping manner, clearly showing that there was not a balance of respect in the debate.
I'm a thirteen year old boy who knows nothing about the gospel, but I learned the moral of that movie the first time I watched it. And those priests in the debate liginimatly made me want to punch my screen out.
I'm so sorry you watched this film my friend. I wish you well.
@@young321bookie Im so sorry you follow the words of another man and not your own voice.
Hey, Flabby! You must be sixteen now. Good choice for watching, boy!
@@sidnew2739 17 actually lmao I totally forgot about this comment l, definitely not this dumbass video tho. Fuck those guys
@@nathanhubanks9767 it’s OK Malcolm Muggerage had that effect on many people at the time. A typical pseudo intellectual engaging in Pascal’s Wager theology as he nears the end of a life of debauchery.
Have you seen the Not the Nine O’clock News send up of the interview broadcast later the same week?
ua-cam.com/video/asUyK6JWt9U/v-deo.html
I believe the book Jesus & Brian is worth reading; it’s an examination of LoB as an historical record, by leading scholars such as B. Ermin.
To this day I am still in disbelief that the Bishop compared the Pythons to Judas.
Yeah, it's truly weird. I mean The Pythons exist/existed.
@@alexandrabrorsson1265 And Judas had been revealed to be Bob Dylan years before this.
exactly. It debased any argument they may have had and revealed the true nature of the bishop
cleese is such an ego, but he lives it so well haha
palin is such a sweetie🌼
You 'nailed it' there.
Fascinating to look at the debate and it's contents 43 years later. Life of Brian is acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies of all time and no one remembers Malcolm Muggeridge or the pompous, posturing man in funny clothes, droning on about some magic or another he believes in. The clown's specific cult is dying on it's feet with attendance at it's weekly services practically non existent. Messrs Cleese and Palin continue to entertain us, to this day. No doubt who won the debate, then, and who has won it now!
Laughing about crucifixion is better than celebrating it.
We celebrate how Jesus Christ gave His life for us, we don't celebrate the fact that He was murdered at all. Not that you would know.
It’s still kinda sick and a bit perverted to choose a tool used as a way to torture and execute as a symbol of your faith...
@@young321bookie But he didn't die for our sins though.
@@young321bookie “Not that you would know” Nice one, that’s a real Christlike attitude 👏🏻🤦🏻♂️
@@young321bookie You are really splitting hairs here. I was raised in the Church and was told again and again that we had to celebrate a man sacrificing his life. That was balanced by the idea that he was defeating death, a concept that I never accepted. Not really something I could mention out loud without being punished.
Did anyone else get thoroughly irritated by John Cleese choosing not to pull out those counter-argumentative quotes from his pocket because he was "feeling kind of sorry for [Malcolm Muggeridge]"?
No it was just you.
Well I am very curious about the quotes to say the least.
The silly old fool definitely deserved to hear them.
He did say he thought he and Mike were “winning” the point and perhaps going that route may have changed things not necessarily for the better
Yeah, pretty unbelievable to go through all the effort to make a list and then not whip it out, only later to say you had a list. 🤷🏻♂️
The life of Brian has brought joy and laughter to so many and I'm sure religious people can see the good in that
Yes. Yes we can. This priest and the other guy probably haven't even seen the film.
They made a mockery of Jesus and so this is one of the reasons why people have moved away from believing it. There is a movement towards Islam has athiests seem to prefer Islam over Christianity, they are always defending islam anyway.
Well some 44 years later it’s safe to say that history really doesn’t remember the two objectors….meanwhile the pythons and their 10th grade film has become a foundation of popular culture. Lovely to watch the complete arrogance being forgotten to history. God bless the pythons
You mean 44 years..
@@iainmclaughlan1557 indeed it seems so!
You're wrong. Malcolm Muggeridge is still a well-known figure to people who read books.
@@maolsheachlannoceallaigh4772as the OP was saying… (people…books…😂) the sanctimonious duo here are only thought of today for their momentary brush with enduring talent and legendary work. It could have been an interesting discussion but for the “Clowns For Christ.” About as Christian as a kick in the teeth.
@@markstevens1729I think it highly likely that Muggeridge will still be read when Python only remembered as a footnote on cultural history books.
Personally I think Fawlty Towers will long outlast Monty Python as well.
Hahahahaha ‘you started with an open mind’
It was so odd that the religious apologists felt that the creators of a comedy owed any particular religion anything at all. And is their belief so fragile?
It's clear they didn't watch the film. Jesus appears as a background character in one of the scenes and saying what he said in the bible. There are complaints that a few people at the back "couldn't hear him". There is a couple of references to Jesus and never is the character mocked or ridiculed. Brain is born at the same time in the manger next door to Jesus. Brian repeatedly shouts that he is "not the Messiah". I also found the Bishop's parting shot with his reference to "Judas and the 30 pieces of silver" highly ironic. The whole Christian religion is based on the human son of a god who died and rose again and Judas' so-called "betrayal" was a necessary part of god's plan it seems and the whole thing hinged on it. It's time these old fuddy-duddies got off their high-horses and actually read their bibles if they really think it's the "Word of God".
What strikes me is that the comedians are completely serious while the other pair are complete clowns. If edited it could be a real Python sketch.
They asked them two because they were complete clowns, if they asked someone like a couple of Irish priests they wouldn't have gotten the result they were after
It just shows how in touch religious people are when Malcolm Muggeridge describes it as a 10th rate films it has gone on to be one of the best and most successful comedy films ever😈
Mark Twain said it best: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience."
Thx, I didn't know it was Mark. It is a life abiding thing for me.
The funny thing..... 40+ years later:
People know and mostly still enjoy life of B.
No one knows the other 2 people ;)
Says it all...😅
If Cleese and Palin don't know Christ, they will spend all eternity regretting it. Nothing they ever did in this life will compensate for that.
@@leehighland5435
Telling me I'll go to hell is just as scary as my 5-year-old telling me Santa won't bring me any presents.
BTW: No hate like Christian love.
@@bobmusil1458
Warning people of danger isn't hate, only in your deluded mind.
@@leehighland5435 Christians (and Muslims) have used the fear of eternal torture for thousands of years to scare us into obedience.
The god who loves us but tortures us for eternity exists only in the mind of morons.
Anyways, I'd rather be in hell with sceptics and smart people than in heaven with zealots and bible-thumpers.
@@leehighland5435I offer your eternal life after this one to baphomet and Lucifer. It's already done, your name is baptized in the blood of quite opposite the lamb. Have a great day ;)
Muggeridge and the bishop.....what a pair of sanctimonious hypocrites 🙄
It's hard to get your head around how ridiculous Muggeridge and the Bishop were. They seemed absurd even then, now it's almost otherworldly.
Surely at some point they both watched this debate and were left jaws-agape at how pompous they both were.
What makes the two snobs even more ridiculous, is that they actually missed the first 15 minutes of movie.
Out of all the people who haven't seen this film, these two haven't seen it the most.
“Did Mark get it all right when he wrote about it 30 years later?”
Except Mark did not write it. We don't know who wrote it.
The two old farts remind me of Statler and Waldorf from the Muppets. All that was missing was a balcony to heckle from.
Muggeridge and the Bishop have gone down in history, as well they deserved. What arrogance and disrespect for Palin and Cleese.
Malcolm and the “Bishop” were out of their league. Cleese and Palin destroyed them.
They could have won easily. 'It will not affect anyone',' So whats your problem with it?', 'Young people may think its about Jesus',' But YOU are the ones saying its about him not us'.
The two peeps who thumbed down are the bishop guy and the other one! :P
you started with an open mind...
Python took the bizarre and satirical
I found the bishop to have some points that were at least good enough to debate about and admired john‘s answers and points. Like:“in school they thought me only the boring parts about religion.“ and it wasnt really discussed but i think there was an interesting debate to be had there between the bishop and him that couldve improved the view of one for the other. That life of brian is an absolute masterpiece that doesnt ridicule the story of jesus but focuses on the more mundane aspects of a story like this and the problems that come along when young brian tries his best to do good. Ive got to say it here: Thank you monthy python for all your great work and also thank you for all the stuff you made along the way. What a journey, what a goal. Trying to make people laugh. May laughter heal the sick and give the hopeless hope.
Parodied in NOT THE 9 OCLOCK NEWS too
"Pythonists!" ❤😂
The difference here between sarcasm and irony. One is hateful, the other is not.
In 'The Screwtape Letters' (which John Cleese recorded an excellent audiobook version of, btw) C.S. Lewis points out that bawdy or even blasphemous humor can't be evil, because it's just a natural reaction to something that's honestly funny. The only way humor is evil is when it's used as a coverup for something that's truly shameful like bullying. A Christian said that.
the comments have been disabled on every video of the actual debate! what a sham!
The Bishop actually looks and behaves like a Monty Python character.
The obviously annoyed yet highly amused Cleese and Palin against this horrendous bishop and that other twit. Fabulous!
Must have been good free advertising
I have to say that this film is part of my Xmas viewing every year. It's excellent for understanding that there's more to life than religion, that historically people of the time within the Roman empire were desperate for hope of a better life. Preachers were ten a penny or twenty a sheckle. That nothing really changes, oppression is everywhere and that we should "always look on the bright side of life".
Other excellent Xmas viewing includes Muppets Xmas Carol, The Hogfather, Good Omens, and for it's religious content The Blues Brothers.
Somewhere, God is laughing (at that jacket)....
The meek shall inherit the earth? about time they'e had a rough go of it. lmao i love that movie.
I thought he said the Greek
We must not forget cheese makers...
LOL He says Brian is meant to be jesus. If Brian was jesus then how was he listening to the sermon on the mount???
John Cleese is my hero.
Regardless of your position on the debate (mine's with Python) it is refreshing to hear both sides actually debate without deteriorating into a shouting match.
Instead it just becomes a reenactment of the film. "Brian represents the Messiah! We should know, we're the experts!" "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
That's only because Cleese and Palin were being mercilessly polite. Every time they tried to make a serious point the bishop or Muggeridge just went off about how bad the film was and how it was clearly poking fun at Christ. The didn't engage Cleese & Palin in serious debate at all. I read that even Muggeridge's own daughter told him his performance was an embarrassment.
I agree and find it slightly less refreshing that almost all copies of this debate on UA-cam have silenced opinions by completely shutting off comments.
@@TonyEnglandUK Very strange - it is ironic that a debate video would have the comments turned off to allow any debate! I wasn't quite sure why it popped into my feed, but it seems to be having a bit of a rise in popularity given that some of the comments here are quite new.
Palin was seething alright. Happily, John Cleese perhaps enjoyed himself a little too much! The story about Tibet was especially interesting.
The bishop was a well known uphill gardener. Muggerige was a well know boozer and womeniser.
When your enemy is making a fool of themselves it' is best to remain quiet
Speak up, I can't hear what he is saying, because of big nose talking..
Aw, stop pickin yer nose!!!
John Cleese = JC = Jesus Christ.
we know all that.
The guy in the green suit (Malcolm?) was such an anti-Semitic old windbag. ALL great art was inspired by Christianity? Really?
Lisa Melnick Actually, that was one of the few semi-factual/semi-intelligent points he said and I say this as a HUGE Metalhead and a former Christian.
Has there been great art that has nothing to do Christianity? Of course, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that most of the art created by the artist most loved by the mainstream masses or at least a significantly large amount of people has either had Jesus or at the very least his teachings, the iconography and/or mythology of the religion based on his teachings at the center of it either in a celebratory, satirical, or damning way.
@@hellokittyangel211 - Shame the point was no validity in the discussion.
@@JPG126 I'm sorry by your reply; are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me because I can't since autocorrect decided to run away with your comment thus making your point confusing, ::laughs politely to imply that she gets it, isn't a condescending troll, and genuinely wants to understand your point::
@@hellokittyangel211 *has
@@JPG126 Whose point? Mine or the OP's?
The founder of the christian religion was Paul, not Brian or Jesus.
It was clearly the greatest promotional event for the movie ever done. Palin and Cleese made their case not just for the movie but for their comedy itself, and the other two presented their points with such childishness and lack of grace that their words had the opposite effect of what they intended.
Malcolm Muggeridge was insufferable. He always insisted that he was right and there could be no argument about that, so no debate was possible with him.
The audience said it all….
When I look at that figure" as he wave a very valuable crucifix around gives the message. THE CHURCH WORSHIPS WEALTH!
Religion is all about dominance and powerplay. The Vaticaan is extremely rich, still the preach that money never should be the goal.
I watched this debate the other day stoned out of my mind.
It was a religious experience
Do people realise these two chumps missed the start of the film and as such had no idea that the deferentiation between who Brian and Jesus was explained the whole plot
It is a Truly great film!!!!!!
Life of Brian I feel indirectly put religion back into peoples conversation and got people to look at the bible again in the debates and arguments it caused at the time.
Despite all of Muggeridge’s dubious accomplishments, this is how he’ll be remembered; for a making a complete fool out of himself whilst criticizing a comedy. Quite a tenth rate person.
The thing is that they ignored the
Opening where the 3 wise mistake brian and went to the baby Jesus.
Did Muggeridge understand Jesus when he says Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth, if only I could have asked him.....
I wasn't making a joke, by the way, I'm serious, Jesus meant the meek are those who only look for earthly wealth, John Bunyan said the same when he referred to Vanity Fair in The Polgrims Progress
Have these two lost their sense of humour? This was a very funny movie!
I think both of them judged the film long before they even watched it.
Imagine if Jesus miraculously reappeared and he had the option to hang out with these crusty old codgers or the Monty Python lads. I'm pretty sure I know which side he would choose!
Muggeridge edited Punch for quite some time and he still could not see the joke.
Don't think Cleese and Palin are professing followers of Christ so the "thirty pieces of silver" remark is unapplicable despite the priest believing its a touchdown. Strange.
Almost died wirt the atkinson sketch at the end. Never knew it existed.
It's so annoying that comments are disabled for the debate vids, there are so many points that that moron Malcolm whatever got wrong, great art being inspired by Christianity for a start, most of that art was commissioned by the Church so artists had to do it their and you will find a lot of that art has subtle nods to artists' "other" interests also you were lightly to be killed in a horrific way if you went against the Church. It's funny that since the Church's grip on Christianity has weakened, artists have almost exclusively changed their subject matter. And, they never even touched on the reincarnation in the movie, as Palin said he started with an open mind!!
indeed. watching him in that debate winds me up. You can even see the frustration on Cleese's face
but you can really tell by the applause for John and Michael and the lack of applause for the other two that they were absolutely dominating the debate. Attempting to discredit Python for making fun of things that need to be made fun of will never go over well
That purple bishop is insufferable.
I‘m actually surprised that Palin was that angry about it. I thought he and Cleese were fully aware what they walked into. That the two old idiots would angrily insult them, and the two of them could make fun of them.
Seems like Cleese‘s mindset was a bit in that head space, but Palin‘s clearly wasn‘t.
Guess he made the wrong assumption that you could actually have a respectful discussion with people of opposing views. To me it's truly sad that we can't achieve that, but this shows how old the issue is.
I think it's mostly the last of honesty coming in from the other side that riled him up.
That can happen when debating disingenuous people.
Learnt today in detail about Muggeridge’s manufacturing of Mother Teresa, who was a vile woman. He fabricated her myth. How dare he even criticise anything to do with Life of Brian!
Vile woman ? You been hitting the holy crack pipe ?
Gran momento en la Historia de la Libertad de Expresión. VIVAN ETERNAMENTE LA PYTHON! !!!!!!! 🌏⛵💐😙❤✌😆💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎
Palin and Cleese were fair with their views. The two old dears showed ZERO respect for the Python team, or anyone else for that matter. Respect Christianity - I was raised one, but I choose to disbelieve a lot of what is written. Cleese also became to realise a lot is bumpf and that they were teasing the blind faith lot who are just waiting for the next messiah to come along, because they've followed a few.
I watched all 4 parts this morning as couldn't sleep but couldn't comment there as option was disabled.
Blue rinse, 'frock coat' and twirling his cruifix, how did Cleese and Palin resist aluding to this pairs predilections? 40 years after the debate these two moralistic buffoons would torn apart by the Python duo unfettered by the respect they thought they should give these two. (BTW I'm a Christian who worships - but doesn't deify Python).
Kind of ironic that the most played song at British funerals is “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” instead of some Christian hymn.
"...ridiculing of the founder of the Christian religion."
So what?!?
And calling them "10th rate" or just bad at comedy; that's obviously an opinion, and is totally irrelevant to "controversy". If it was just a bad movie, people wouldn't see it, end of story.
People actually stopped making love to watch the show?
I am giving you a gold medal 🥇for the best comment on this video.
I blame the man who said blessed are the cheesemakers
The story isn't about the messiah but about a very naughty boy
I'm sorry everyone but there's gonna be some cursing ahead... The f-cking bishop with the f-cking 10 kg crucifix and a f-cking signet ring preaching moderation and overall holyness is everything that's wrong with every religion on this green space rock. I know of a couple decent clergymen, who actually practiced what they had preached and ultimately suffered for it at the hands of their superiors. That's probably the biggest "turn off" for me in terms of any religion.
First time I watched it I was all for Cleese and Palin..20 years later I am all for Muggeridge and even the Bishop. There are half-truths on both sides, but I find it hard to believe the Python's disclaimer that 'we aren't taking the piss out of Christianity'..surely that is what satirists do?
It's sad that you became narrow-minded.
Watch the movie again and you might realize that LoB is actually very respectful to Jesus.
They are "taking the piss" out of zealots and superstitious fools. If your faith is of that kind, it deserves to be ridiculed.
If Python wanted to ridicule jesus it would have been Very clearly obvious. Ps, the dude in the purple bath robe is hysterically funny. Should hire him for the next film.
It's better that Gibson's bloody mess
The pompous hypocrisy of those old farts...
His Holy Bishopness would insist on referring to the " The Life of Brarn " , uttered in his best Mitfordeque accent.
I watched the entire original debate. Honestly even though I thought the Pythons were right on this and it was a hilarious film, I thought some good points were made on both sides, though the religious folks were certainly rude and patronizing in places, and there was some good insults coming from both sides. But I actually think that this is the type of spirited, sometimes tense, but respectful (at least by modern standards) debate we need to see more often! The bishops weren't getting "triggered" and trying to censor the movie and the "left" side of Cleese and Palin were also respectfully making their side. No one was calling for anyone to be cancelled, or boycotted, or ridiculed. We need more of this type of discussion today. I'm glad that the bishop isn't still alive today to see that his prophecies about the degradation of religion has only gotten much worse, but probably more from their attitudes than anything the Pythons put out.
Wrong:
“ It was banned in Ireland, Norway and Italy; 39 British councils either banned it or gave it an X certificate. ”
I cannot believe Tim Rice's suit.
Mervyn Stockwood was GAY !!!! WTF !?!?!?!