Python's "Life of Brian" - on the side of the Romans?

[Gaith]

​

I recently watched LoB for only the second time, and the first time in a decade, and, apart from its brilliance and wonderful pace, the latter of which I'd doubted the first time around, I was most struck by the degree to which the film seemed to sympathize with the Romans, at the expense of the Jews (and thus, implicitly, with its subsequent spin-off, British Christianity. Consider:

- The stoning of (extremely mild) blasphemers, including the local Jewish authority figure, while bored Roman troops roll their eyes.

- The hatred between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front, peaking in the melee inside the Roman Palace.

- The entire "What have the Romans ever done for us?" skit.

- The entire Brian-as-messiah plot.

- The fetishization of martyrdom (albeit a more Christian than Jewish idea).

- The fact that Jesus is shown, but only briefly at the beginning and then disappears, is inherently satirical, or at the very least realistic for the time.

Sure, various Romans are lampooned also (Pilate's lisp, the cluelessness of various centurions), but in far gentler and goofy rather than satirical ways (the "what have the Romans ever done for us" skit, is, I think the inarguably most biting bit in the whole). And in the end, Cleese's centurion (who knows that there is a Brian slated to be executed, and attempts to free him on Pilate's order) comes across as the only halfway-competent figure around - even the more or less sensible Brian can't talk or run his way out of being put to death (the horror of which, in another point for the Romans, is massively downplayed - guess the public wasn't ready for real crucifixion humor).

Granted, some or most of this might well have been accidental - the feuding between the PJF and the JPF was doubtless intended as a satire of bickering left-wing 1960s factions far more than as a critique of monotheism. But as immediate contexts fade away, timeless humor and masterful comedy filmmaking remains, and whether by partial design or total accident (one can hardly, after all, make a truly subversive satire without painting the nominal antagonists in a flattering light), my impression of the film was that it definitely holds that the era's Romans were smarter and more civilized than the Jews.

Anyone else had similar thoughts/wonderings?

 

[marillion]

Well geez.. Now I do. Thanks a lot!

Time to pull out the ol' DVD and give it a spin for clarity's sake..

 

[Christopher]

I don't think Monty Python were on anyone's side there, except the side of the audience that wanted to laugh at characters acting ridiculous onscreen. Since the focus characters were predominantly the non-Romans, they bore the brunt of the ridiculousness.

I mean, Monty Python and the Holy Grail pretty much painted the British as a bunch of idiots. For that matter, so does most every other Python sketch ever written. So just because a certain group receives more ridicule in a Python production, I don't think that's evidence that the Pythons had any sort of bias against them. If anything, one is often more sympathetic toward the ridiculous characters, because they're funnier and more textured. Was it really that the Romans were painted more positively, or simply that they were painted in less detail?

 

[Gaith]

Well, it's important in discussions such as these to be specific about terms. When I say that Python sides with the Romans in this movie, I don't mean the literal actors of that time, but the figurative "voice" of the movie itself - and those two entities are fundamentally different, and don't need to agree.

Holy Grail is an interesting comparison for sure - you're quite right that that movie presents Britons as ridiculous, but to my mind the satire is less pungent because there's no antagonists in the sense of Brian's Romans. Sure, there's the "French" castle and its soldiers, but they're so preposterous, out of place and inauthentic (it's hinted that they may just be other Britons pretending to be French for a lark) that the resulting scenarios are very different.

As for detail, the Romans get a lot of screen time, far more than Grail's French, so yes, I do think that they were definitely portrayed more positively/gently. And that probably was in large part a function of the story, but that doesn't change what the film itself says.

 

[Christopher]

What I meant was whether the Romans in LoB were painted in less detail than the Jewish characters in the same movie.

I think the main person that the "voice" of LoB (insofar as I understand what you mean by that) sides with is Brian himself. He's the voice of reason, just a decent guy trying to get by, and everyone else is dragging him into their agendas or imposing expectations on him.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

What I meant was whether the Romans in LoB were painted in less detail than the Jewish characters in the same movie.

The Romans were relatively small players in the film -- and they were intended that way. Since the film was about Brian's role in fringe politics (as the Pythons were satirizing fringe politics in Britain), the Romans naturally were going to be portrayed as inoffensively and as simply as possible simply so that the contrast would be greater.

The Romans did end up with more screentime than originally intended, though. One entire subplot, involving Otto and the Judean People's Front (which cast them, basically, as 1st century CE Nazis, with Eric Idle as the Hitler-esque Otto), was cut from the film, with only the scene of the "crack commandos" at the crucifixion remaining as the shot framing of the final song made it impossible not to reference where the bodies at the foot of the crosses came from.

 

[Gaith]

One entire subplot, involving Otto and the Judean People's Front (which cast them, basically, as 1st century CE Nazis, with Eric Idle as the Hitler-esque Otto), was cut from the film, with only the scene of the "crack commandos" at the crucifixion remaining as the shot framing of the final song made it impossible not to reference where the bodies at the foot of the crosses came from.

Right, forgot all about them! Another point in the Romans' favor.

I think the main person that the "voice" of LoB (insofar as I understand what you mean by that) sides with is Brian himself. He's the voice of reason, just a decent guy trying to get by, and everyone else is dragging him into their agendas or imposing expectations on him.

Aye, but he's not all that bright, is he? When offered "crucifixion or freedom", he hems and haws. And, when it comes down to it, he's put to death because he was foolish enough to get mixed up with the PFJ, and that in large part for a not-at-all certain lay.

Nay, he may be the most sympathetic character, but I don't think the film's "voice of reason" sides with any one person, though it does inveigh against the silliness of opposing Rome.

 

[Christopher]

Nay, he may be the most sympathetic character, but I don't think the film's "voice of reason" sides with any one person, though it does inveigh against the silliness of opposing Rome.

I don't think it was saying it was silly to oppose Rome, it was just pointing out that opposition can be taken to a silly extreme because life is complicated. Just because there are problems with Roman rule, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to keep in mind; but conversely, just because there are benefits, that doesn't mean the problems shouldn't be addressed. I don't think the film was siding with the Romans, I think it was siding against extremists. That is, instead of saying "The Romans are great guys," it was saying, "The Romans do some bad things, but there are more effective and responsible ways of pursuing change than militant fanaticism."

 

[Gaith]

Fair enough - and I don't mean to overstate my case, either. It's perfectly true that nothing in the movie apart from the "what have they done for us" bit really endorses Rome (though IMO, that one scene is pretty powerful even by itself), but I do still hold that, whether mainly concerned with extremism or not, the movie does paint a notably brighter picture of Roman society than Judean.

 

[Thestral]

Fair enough - and I don't mean to overstate my case, either. It's perfectly true that nothing in the movie apart from the "what have they done for us" bit really endorses Rome (though IMO, that one scene is pretty powerful even by itself), but I do still hold that, whether mainly concerned with extremism or not, the movie does paint a notably brighter picture of Roman society than Judean.

Pretty easy to be brighter, shinier, and happier when you have all the money, the legions, and the political power.

 

[Christopher]

Comedy is about human flaws, foibles and failures. So it stands to reason that the protagonists in comedy are often more flawed than their antagonists. Who's a better person, Homer Simpson or Ned Flanders? Who's a more competent police officer, Inspector Clouseau or Chief Inspector Dreyfus (before Clouseau drives him insane)?

I don't think the movie was painting Judaic culture as a whole as as worse than Roman culture; I think it was just focusing on those individuals within Judaic culture who were more inept and ridiculous. The more competent folks within Judaic culture were there; they were just off in the distance, going through their own separate story that's already been told in the Bible. The conceit of The Life of Brian is that this is what was going on elsewhere at the same time. If you were watching a Biblical epic about Jesus and his Apostles and all these noble, holy people, but could turn around and walk down a side street, you might stumble across Brian and the People's Front of Judea. The Biblical tale focuses on one side of the equation, The Life of Brian on the other. (Kinda like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead vis-a-vis Hamlet.)