It's so evident early on that Muggeridge and Stockwood didn't see the beginning of the film. And Michael even brought it up toward the end of the debate, but they still didn't get it. I can't imagine anyone NOT getting that Life of Brian is lampooning human nature and nothing more.
My favourite moment is when Michael Palin finally gets slightly frustrated and destroys Malcolm Miggeridge simply by saying 'Yes, I know, you started with an open mind'.
On the first look its creepy how close minded and how defensive they were about their religion 30 years ago. They wont even accept, that main idea in the movie is basically "sapere aude".
Then again I could name countless amounts of people acting like this to this very day.
I love this stupid fucking "ownership" they think they have on their saviour. Just because you worship him, doesn't mean him or his feelings/thoughts belong to you.
It's as Palin said much later: The Life of Brian is not a blasphemous film, as Stockwood and Muggeridge thought, it's a heretical film. That is to say, it didn't "lampoon" Christ but rather the interpretations of him and the social constructs built upon those interpretations.
They lost their credibility when they insulted Cleese's and Palin's intelligence and that of the film.
In short, they missed the point that they were missing the point.
The really funny thing is that everyone recognizes the two idiots on the left as idiots and this is shown by the life of brian being incredibly popular and Christianity still existing. Also u have to wonder if they did miss the first 5 mins where brian is distinguished as brian and not Jesus
I am struck by the fixation of Bishop Stockwood and Muggeridge on the crucifixion and miss that the entire point of Christ's death was the Resurrection. Although challenging, if LOB were really trying to be "Lampoon Christ" it would have challenged the most important aspect of the incarnation.
@TheApologistx Well said! They truly represent the religiosity-- Jesus Himself was treated so very respectfully in the film. It was all the nonsense we humans added in that lends itself to great lampooning...
I remember that furor as well. As I remember it the film made an assertion that Jesus had committed fornication with Mary Magdalene. In that instance I agree wholeheartedly that the makers were way out of line. Judas was chosen by Christ and the Bible makes it clear that Jesus did not know until shortly before his death who would betray him. Judas was led by his own heart to do what he did. God had nothing to do with it. He was the treasurer of the Apostles and he had been stealing money.
@bashfulbrother If you remember the night before he began his ministry he spent the night praying and meditating about who he would chose to be the Apostles. And Judas is not spoken of as anything but faithful until shortly before Christ's death.
And i especially don't get why it is so holy/sacred, to fling around the cross with a dead man on it as a symbol.
Do these people realize, that it is how he was killed? Do they realize that if he gets killed some other way, that would be hanging from their neck?
Think a really horrific (if crucifixion wasn't enough) act here, how is that so sacred? Welike a couple fellas from history but, i wouldn't wear a noname sack Mozart was thrown under ground in, neither JFK with half of his head missing
About 1500 years, everybody has been belching out this garbage about how it was a wonderful thing from Jesus dying that day...
Why the hell was it so important?!?!
Especially seeing from a different (may i add, the REAL) perspective: that crusifying people was a standard everyday thing, which this particular film showed me, unlike religious people who always talked about it as being the big thing in town that day, and yeah two more somehow got there next to Jesus for some unexplained reason...
@AMYuntold We were taught in school (Catholic) that crucifixion was the standard punishment at the time, though I think Michael Palin's guess of 'hundreds a day' may be a tad high. But the difference was that Christ was tortured along the way: made to carry his on cross on his whipped raw back, crown of thorns digging into his scalp, drudged through the town to have insults and other things thrown at him ... you know, that sort of thing.
Interesting is that they should actually be talking to the censorship committee. They should ask them why they let this movie to be shown in cinemas. Especially when they have a problem that 14 year-olds can watch the movie.
Anyway talking about a bad movie is much more effective than just watching a good movie.
I could have found allot more to say about how I perceived certain scenes and ideas to be harmful to faith (all faiths), but as an Atheist I of course is appalled by the lack of self examination by too many believers, or seemingly lack, as they defend their faith.
This film was not a part in ridding me from Christianity, but it helped me get clear from the mumbo jumbo that surrounds as all and see more clearly and never to stop questioning.
@bashfulbrother I remember when J.C. Superstar came out and there was all this outrage from the various churches. They were so far off the mark on that one. A lot of people were actually pushed towards Christianity, or at least further into it, after seeing the film and listening to the LP over and over. The only thing they really could complain about is that it raised the question that Judas might not have had a choice. He may have been chosen by God to play his part.
He talks about the pitiable condition of the morals in England. Well, that's his job to be teaching the church-goers to live a life in imitation of Christ.If things are not in tip-top shape then he has only himself and his cronies to blame. I mean it's not like they have been corrupt themselves, is it? Oh, yeah, there is that whole child molestation thing.
Considering that Hitchens was a life-long Marxist, he would not have been invited to that debate, in the middle of the Cold War, because anything he said would have been immediately dismissed as the rantings of a godless Communist.
Besides, Hitch was busy reporting on, and participating in, the protests against the coming wave of Conservative rule led by Thatcher.
Maybe if today someone had made a film similar to the Human Centipede and had Jesus starring as the main role then these people's talks of 'lampooning' would be valid, but they seriously think Jesus was the only one crucified. Perhaps if someone had done something else to a cross out of context (the context being crucifixes were used in capital punishment by the Romans) such as pissing on it, then that would be wrong, but there's historical significance here.
I think it's amazing how in those days it was the youth of that generation who spoke with intelligence and the aged that were seen as ignorant. Now today, it's the youth who are deranged and the aged who are intelligent. Why? Because that generation of youth back in those days was the master generation.
Let the narrow minded people talk, that way everybody understands what the film was all about!
Debates were different in those days too, Cleese and Palin are well educated, intelligent people. They respect old age even if they don`t agree with it. Old people are stubborn, thats a fact, but the stubbornness comes from life experience. Two young lads could never make them see anything other than they want to see and they`re smart enough not to try.
14 yr olds are gonna take this seriously? How dumb does he think kids are i'm 15 and i saw this when i was 11 it didnt afect my belief or understanding of jesus in the slightest! and the ending is great u gotta be pretty miserable to not smile at it :D
Fascinating to watch- I'd forgotten how controversial Life Of Brian had been in some quarters when it was released. The movie doesn't mock Jesus in any way in the least- it's only about the people in the background.
in retrospective that is (one of) the things that make them better tha the two old creeps; it is so easy to critizice with indignation the work of others, and i am pleased to see john and michael are not even trying to deffend their otherwise brilliant work, because they don't need to.
The bishop and Muggeridge have every right to be angry with the film. They are exactly the kind of idiots that the film lampoons. They must have seen it and cried, "That's me up on the screen! they're making fun of me!" What's puzzling is why they would then come on this show and demonstrate why the Pythons were justified in mocking them.
You should always question something that a large amount of people blindly believe. It is good for the re-evaluation of one's own beliefs. In turn, it makes us morally stronger human beings.
I can't understand why the hell everyone keeps interrupting Michael. out of everybody he got the least amount of speaking time because everyone kept rudely interrupting him.
what a hateful pair of men (Muggeridge and Stockwood)! and they accomplished the exact opposite of what they set out to since they showed themselves up as driveling idiots while Palin and Cleese behaved rationally and fair-mindedly
@ReX342 I hope you are being sarcastic. Jesus was not a fan of bling. he was born into and lived very much within poverty his entire life. he spend the majority of his life with what most of society considered the lower class. However, I agree the bishop is a fan of catholic bling, and wealth and squabbling riches, which is what I think sets him apart from Christ and makes his entire character complete rubbish.
@TheExLeper Yeah, the Jesus part was sarcastic. I don't think the bishop read matthew 19:24 or Mark 10:25. The reason why it's so obvious* he likes bling, is that he actually plays with it and shows it off. That makes it even worse. If he was humble about the formal attire required by the Church, that would be one thing. But he's showing off his cross like it's a symbol of Jesus' life. It's a symbol of his death and his death was the least of his teaching. It's not about death. It's about life.
@ReX342 That's one of the things that I think is ridiculous in the christian tradition, wearing torture devices around your neck, focusing on the worst moments of the character Jesus's life, preserving that pain in their minds forever. I mean if you lost a relative who became the victim of a ferocious killing, like having their throat slashed or something, would you want to remember the moment that they're choking on their own blood, or would you rather remember the best of memories?
If peoples' faith is so vulnerable, so easily knocked from its place in their lives -- than it can't be much of a faith in the first place then can it? Or it can't have REALLY grabbed them and compelled them as much as advertised. But then irony (and comedy in general) is antithetical to how the profoundly faithful see the world anyway...
So bottom line seems to be, Python realized they really couldn't make fun of Christ, so they decided to make fun of the culture and politics that surrounded the time of Christ. And these two religious figures can't seem to grasp that.
I think John should have gone into this debate in the character of Basil Fawlty. Would have teared them up faster than the Hitch (may he rest in peace).
I think it's great to see how far we've come in only 32 years! A couple of Bozos accusing two of the all time greatest comedic artists of "blasphemy" and cowing them into apologies? Such pomposity and arrogance can only be described as inane delusional anti-rational self-righteousness. Indeed, they showed no redeeming value whatsoever.
Today, I dare say, those Bozos would rightly be booed off the stage for the sheer unadulterated nincompoops they genuinely were.
It just occurred to me that this was filmed in 1979; Christopher Hitchens had already started making waves as a Journalist by this point, writing for the New Statesman... I had a chill imagining the carnage he would have wrought had he been on the panel. Hitch hated lazy thinking, and Muggeridge and Stockwood have it here in abundance.
I looked this up because I just read Palin's account of it in his 1970's diaries. He was very kind in his diary-treatment of both of the arrogant asswipes opposing him on here-- much kinder than I should have been. Truly, he showed Christian humility and charity to a degree unknown by those two. Time to re-think things, Bishop! :D
One of the opposing points is that the film wont make any impact in the future except to be puled out and scoffed at. And still today its one of the biggest debated satirical pictures ever made. Congratulations to all of Monty Python for making both a comedy and a philosophical quandary that holds true for even the last 30 years
I find myself shouting "you bloody idiots i cant believe we watched the same bloody film!!" at the computer screen...god bless every person who was ever part of monty python.
Python wins the day out of sheer modesty. The bishop comes off as a smug, pompous ass utterly satisfied with his own pious excellence. He manages to fit some self-glorifying reference in almost every point he makes. He still does a bit better than Muggeridge, who presents as nothing more than a bully, dominating the air time with a loud voice, interruptions and cheap insults. Not once do they actually do the filmmakers the courtesy of asking what they were trying to communicate.
@SaimDI My interpretation of that moment is that the audience probably thought it was a joke (as anyone should react!) - WE know, looking at the bishop, that he was serious in saying that. Horrid piece of cloth.
@SaimDI they were probably clapping because the producer told them seeing as how it was the end of the debate, but i see your point, whenever the bishop said something that won him a point only 5 or 6 people clapped, cleese and palin had the whole crowd clapping them
Once again the Christian plays the same old card. "Jesus experience was so much more than any other person that was cruxified!" Even though god/he revived him/himself not long after to live in paradise while the theives around him, that were sinners were sent to hell. Extraodinary, once again.
monty python has done more good to humanity then there two old bastards... but what's even more important: who's that bad MOFO playing the slide guitar? he's really good. how great to end such a show with a song about sex??? ;-)
@kochos777 I don't know what you're worried about. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was somewhat agreeing with you. I'm sorry for MY wording that led to a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to come off as rude at all. I was agreeing with you because Malcolm was just rude and had no support for his arguments.
i am a die hard atheist but i found myself showing more respect to the bishop than Malcom...he is a close minded fool making ridiculous assumptions....all brian was saying was to think for yourself...christ was only in the film at the beginning...its very simple and doesnt require a debate...anyone offended by life of brian is a fool...
@kochos777 Seriously. I'm a Christian and I just don't take myself that seriously. I feel like people that are trying to find fault in movies are just sad. Just enjoy the movie and quit complaining so much. It's just a movie! And a good one at that! I love it!
@bibibabkagirl aaaaaarg!!!!! i didnt say i support the bishops point of view i basically just said that i can give the bishop more than malcom because the bishop wasnt as close minded as many religious people are. whereas malcom was acting like fucking Widdecombe... i was supporting john and michael entirely and life of brian is one of my fav movies...sorry since its my unclear wording before that may lead to misunderstanding...
@kochos777 I don't know what you're worried about. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was somewhat agreeing with you. I'm sorry for MY wording that led to a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to come off as rude at all. I was agreeing with you because Malcolm was just rude and had no support for his arguments.
Incomprehensible self-control from Palin and Cleese. Like, when Palin says "I'm sorry, I know you think I'm wrong" - I could never bring myself to be so apologetic and deferent when I wanted to punch someone.
@CCNuck in retrospective that is (one of) the things that make them better tha the two old creeps; it is so easy to critizice with indignation the work of others, and i am pleased to see john and michael are not even trying to deffend their otherwise brilliant work, because they don't need to.
Civilization is not Christianity. In fact, modern day civilization sorely needs to leave these old dogmas behind for it to be a true civilization where children are not lied to, but educated properly in the spirit of science, people are encouraged to question authority and our violent past is not gloried or worshiped in the slightest.
I think Malcolm Muggeridge is confused, thinks that he should be offended, but doesn't really know why. So therefor tries to find reasons. Without listening to the points off the actual film writers/creators.
We call them "Republicans" and their associated pundits in the United States. Examples are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Louie Gohmert.
I'm sitting here speechless (hence why I'm typing). The two pious morons that lack any critical faculties sat speaking for SO long with John and Michael barely able to get a word in edge ways.
I think the whole argument could be summarised like this:
I am offended.
So what?
It is SO laughable that Malcom called this movie 'tenth rate'. Just wow... It's a joy to see just how wrong those two guys were, the movie is still hugely popular and will be for years to come.
Palin was getting quite angry at one point which I think is rare for him. Muggeridge and the Bishop put their point across well but neither of them appeared to grasp the film wasn't ridiculing Jesus himself but was lampooning people who blindly follow religous leaders without question. In the same vein it also poked fun at secular leaders and authority figures and at political extremists and the fanatics who support them.
It was good Rice let the discussion flow and didn't keep interupting!
Cheap shot by Stockwood at the end which was unfortunate, but I guess as a priest he was offended on an emotional level to a degree
1st time I've seen this mini-legendary exchange, what I'd heard was that Cleese/ Palin were confronted by a couple of old reactionary religious guys who were being unreasonable .... turns out not to be the case, I thought Stockwood/Muggeridge won the debate by some margin & Cleese/Palin were shown up
6.30 - Palin's in a mess here & in rout, LOB's intention was to influence people & make them ? religion, it wasn't Abbott & Costello, i.e. slapstick. just trying to get laughs for humour's sake
1.15 - Muggeridge lands another good hit, in order to pursue their objective of ridiculing religious hysteria Cleese & Palin reduced the Christ figure in LOB artistically to being little more than a dupe & void, thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater artistically.
The pink blazer guy talks about how christ on the cross is such a different experience to just the thieves being crucified... but the point is, is that the film is about exactly those average theives. away from the limelight. crhist is over there being all famous and whilst that happened, they have filmed only during this time setting illustrating a funny story about the ignorance of the people. how many people nowadays would be ignored if they decalred their relation to god lol...?
As a Christian myself, I can say that these two religious men do in fact seen quite closed minded themselves, and are clearly making themselves the "bad guys" in this debate.
This priest has no clue what he's on about, Monty Python have influenced a great many of the worlds comedians! Eddie Izzard, one of the worlds best comedians, was heavily influenced by Monty Python!
It's so evident early on that Muggeridge and Stockwood didn't see the beginning of the film. And Michael even brought it up toward the end of the debate, but they still didn't get it. I can't imagine anyone NOT getting that Life of Brian is lampooning human nature and nothing more.
cleeselover 1 day ago
My favourite moment is when Michael Palin finally gets slightly frustrated and destroys Malcolm Miggeridge simply by saying 'Yes, I know, you started with an open mind'.
TheLamontague 2 days ago 3
Comment removed
TheLamontague 2 days ago
On the first look its creepy how close minded and how defensive they were about their religion 30 years ago. They wont even accept, that main idea in the movie is basically "sapere aude".
Then again I could name countless amounts of people acting like this to this very day.
Creepy.
Eckendenker 2 days ago
"for that reason it will have absolutely no influence in the long run" :DDD
plevyman 2 days ago
I love this stupid fucking "ownership" they think they have on their saviour. Just because you worship him, doesn't mean him or his feelings/thoughts belong to you.
NecroplantTheNoob 3 days ago
"Well I just started out thinking 'this is such a tenth-rate film and--'"
"Yes I realize you went in with an open mind, I appreciate that."
Michael Palin *LOVE*
neeeeves 4 days ago 3
It's as Palin said much later: The Life of Brian is not a blasphemous film, as Stockwood and Muggeridge thought, it's a heretical film. That is to say, it didn't "lampoon" Christ but rather the interpretations of him and the social constructs built upon those interpretations.
They lost their credibility when they insulted Cleese's and Palin's intelligence and that of the film.
In short, they missed the point that they were missing the point.
neeeeves 4 days ago 2
The really funny thing is that everyone recognizes the two idiots on the left as idiots and this is shown by the life of brian being incredibly popular and Christianity still existing. Also u have to wonder if they did miss the first 5 mins where brian is distinguished as brian and not Jesus
TheSplendidMrHaza22 4 days ago
I am struck by the fixation of Bishop Stockwood and Muggeridge on the crucifixion and miss that the entire point of Christ's death was the Resurrection. Although challenging, if LOB were really trying to be "Lampoon Christ" it would have challenged the most important aspect of the incarnation.
TheApologistx 1 week ago
@TheApologistx Well said! They truly represent the religiosity-- Jesus Himself was treated so very respectfully in the film. It was all the nonsense we humans added in that lends itself to great lampooning...
frithar 6 days ago
it would have no significance (lol)
it changed the whole of the world ;D
foxsux6000 1 week ago
"No Walter, you're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
BunnyMan456 1 week ago 3
I remember that furor as well. As I remember it the film made an assertion that Jesus had committed fornication with Mary Magdalene. In that instance I agree wholeheartedly that the makers were way out of line. Judas was chosen by Christ and the Bible makes it clear that Jesus did not know until shortly before his death who would betray him. Judas was led by his own heart to do what he did. God had nothing to do with it. He was the treasurer of the Apostles and he had been stealing money.
bashfulbrother 1 week ago
@bashfulbrother If you remember the night before he began his ministry he spent the night praying and meditating about who he would chose to be the Apostles. And Judas is not spoken of as anything but faithful until shortly before Christ's death.
bashfulbrother 1 week ago
6:48, when John and Terry look at one another and just smirk.
Cgreene159 1 week ago
And i especially don't get why it is so holy/sacred, to fling around the cross with a dead man on it as a symbol.
Do these people realize, that it is how he was killed? Do they realize that if he gets killed some other way, that would be hanging from their neck?
Think a really horrific (if crucifixion wasn't enough) act here, how is that so sacred? Welike a couple fellas from history but, i wouldn't wear a noname sack Mozart was thrown under ground in, neither JFK with half of his head missing
AMYuntold 1 week ago
About 1500 years, everybody has been belching out this garbage about how it was a wonderful thing from Jesus dying that day...
Why the hell was it so important?!?!
Especially seeing from a different (may i add, the REAL) perspective: that crusifying people was a standard everyday thing, which this particular film showed me, unlike religious people who always talked about it as being the big thing in town that day, and yeah two more somehow got there next to Jesus for some unexplained reason...
AMYuntold 1 week ago
@AMYuntold We were taught in school (Catholic) that crucifixion was the standard punishment at the time, though I think Michael Palin's guess of 'hundreds a day' may be a tad high. But the difference was that Christ was tortured along the way: made to carry his on cross on his whipped raw back, crown of thorns digging into his scalp, drudged through the town to have insults and other things thrown at him ... you know, that sort of thing.
MaeNotEast 1 week ago
Fuck these morons. Malcolm Muggeridge was apparently a booze loving womaniser until he became a born again Christian.
sbsmonkeyboy 1 week ago
Good old fashioned British television. They even got a man to dress up as woman.
TehDickRoller 2 weeks ago
Interesting is that they should actually be talking to the censorship committee. They should ask them why they let this movie to be shown in cinemas. Especially when they have a problem that 14 year-olds can watch the movie.
Anyway talking about a bad movie is much more effective than just watching a good movie.
MochaeMoepfli 2 weeks ago
This was tiresome to watch.
I could have found allot more to say about how I perceived certain scenes and ideas to be harmful to faith (all faiths), but as an Atheist I of course is appalled by the lack of self examination by too many believers, or seemingly lack, as they defend their faith.
This film was not a part in ridding me from Christianity, but it helped me get clear from the mumbo jumbo that surrounds as all and see more clearly and never to stop questioning.
Thanks Monty Python!
RobLocksley 2 weeks ago
They have succeeded in making a movie, and that's all they ever intended to do. They certainly are not on the level of Judas.
bashfulbrother 2 weeks ago
@bashfulbrother I remember when J.C. Superstar came out and there was all this outrage from the various churches. They were so far off the mark on that one. A lot of people were actually pushed towards Christianity, or at least further into it, after seeing the film and listening to the LP over and over. The only thing they really could complain about is that it raised the question that Judas might not have had a choice. He may have been chosen by God to play his part.
MaeNotEast 1 week ago
He talks about the pitiable condition of the morals in England. Well, that's his job to be teaching the church-goers to live a life in imitation of Christ.If things are not in tip-top shape then he has only himself and his cronies to blame. I mean it's not like they have been corrupt themselves, is it? Oh, yeah, there is that whole child molestation thing.
bashfulbrother 2 weeks ago
john and michael are so damn tolerant.
96marzie 2 weeks ago
That last '30 pieces of silver' comment was really low.
tomsito365 2 weeks ago 2
Lol, segue to blues band.
badmovebaker 2 weeks ago
30 pieces of silver - OH BURN. What a couple of twats.
badmovebaker 2 weeks ago
The absolute arrogance of these two old pompous celibates, further confirms my disbelief in
religion. Where was Christopher Hitchens when they needed him for this BBC(Life of Brian) debate in 79?
mfot2 3 weeks ago
@mfot2
Considering that Hitchens was a life-long Marxist, he would not have been invited to that debate, in the middle of the Cold War, because anything he said would have been immediately dismissed as the rantings of a godless Communist.
Besides, Hitch was busy reporting on, and participating in, the protests against the coming wave of Conservative rule led by Thatcher.
Arondeus 2 weeks ago
Maybe if today someone had made a film similar to the Human Centipede and had Jesus starring as the main role then these people's talks of 'lampooning' would be valid, but they seriously think Jesus was the only one crucified. Perhaps if someone had done something else to a cross out of context (the context being crucifixes were used in capital punishment by the Romans) such as pissing on it, then that would be wrong, but there's historical significance here.
Snagprophet 3 weeks ago
I think it's amazing how in those days it was the youth of that generation who spoke with intelligence and the aged that were seen as ignorant. Now today, it's the youth who are deranged and the aged who are intelligent. Why? Because that generation of youth back in those days was the master generation.
Snagprophet 3 weeks ago
Cleese and Palin`s plan to win the debate:
Let the narrow minded people talk, that way everybody understands what the film was all about!
Debates were different in those days too, Cleese and Palin are well educated, intelligent people. They respect old age even if they don`t agree with it. Old people are stubborn, thats a fact, but the stubbornness comes from life experience. Two young lads could never make them see anything other than they want to see and they`re smart enough not to try.
Robretty 3 weeks ago
14 yr olds are gonna take this seriously? How dumb does he think kids are i'm 15 and i saw this when i was 11 it didnt afect my belief or understanding of jesus in the slightest! and the ending is great u gotta be pretty miserable to not smile at it :D
666Satsujinki 3 weeks ago 2
These two make me want to make a film that is REALLY offensive about Jesus.
There is no point in talking with people like that.
In any case Jesus had it EASIER than every other person who was crucified. He only died for a couple of days (allegedly).
MrSelidor7 3 weeks ago
Fascinating to watch- I'd forgotten how controversial Life Of Brian had been in some quarters when it was released. The movie doesn't mock Jesus in any way in the least- it's only about the people in the background.
jordanthecat 4 weeks ago
Thumbs up if you saw Harry Potter in the audience.
WolfySnackrib666 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in retrospective that is (one of) the things that make them better tha the two old creeps; it is so easy to critizice with indignation the work of others, and i am pleased to see john and michael are not even trying to deffend their otherwise brilliant work, because they don't need to.
mierdadeyouculo 1 month ago
I didnt think it was possible for 2 priests to be that stupid...
Pockydon 1 month ago
The bishop and Muggeridge have every right to be angry with the film. They are exactly the kind of idiots that the film lampoons. They must have seen it and cried, "That's me up on the screen! they're making fun of me!" What's puzzling is why they would then come on this show and demonstrate why the Pythons were justified in mocking them.
lewisejackson 1 month ago 2
You should always question something that a large amount of people blindly believe. It is good for the re-evaluation of one's own beliefs. In turn, it makes us morally stronger human beings.
mackenziew 1 month ago in playlist More videos from nir0bateman
I can't understand why the hell everyone keeps interrupting Michael. out of everybody he got the least amount of speaking time because everyone kept rudely interrupting him.
TheExLeper 1 month ago
@TheExLeper because he's the nicest man in the world, he lets them
TheBestCommenterEVER 1 month ago
That's why catholicism is doomed. It's f.... inconceivable.
p796 1 month ago
The statement "God is truth" is another lie.
p796 1 month ago
what a hateful pair of men (Muggeridge and Stockwood)! and they accomplished the exact opposite of what they set out to since they showed themselves up as driveling idiots while Palin and Cleese behaved rationally and fair-mindedly
Clarana18 1 month ago 2
The bisschop is obvsiously a fan of catholic bling. Just like Jesus.
ReX342 1 month ago
@ReX342 I hope you are being sarcastic. Jesus was not a fan of bling. he was born into and lived very much within poverty his entire life. he spend the majority of his life with what most of society considered the lower class. However, I agree the bishop is a fan of catholic bling, and wealth and squabbling riches, which is what I think sets him apart from Christ and makes his entire character complete rubbish.
TheExLeper 1 month ago
@TheExLeper Yeah, the Jesus part was sarcastic. I don't think the bishop read matthew 19:24 or Mark 10:25. The reason why it's so obvious* he likes bling, is that he actually plays with it and shows it off. That makes it even worse. If he was humble about the formal attire required by the Church, that would be one thing. But he's showing off his cross like it's a symbol of Jesus' life. It's a symbol of his death and his death was the least of his teaching. It's not about death. It's about life.
ReX342 1 month ago
@ReX342 you are exactly right. I can barely watch this debate because it makes me so angry to see how these "God-like" men act.
TheExLeper 1 month ago
@ReX342 That's one of the things that I think is ridiculous in the christian tradition, wearing torture devices around your neck, focusing on the worst moments of the character Jesus's life, preserving that pain in their minds forever. I mean if you lost a relative who became the victim of a ferocious killing, like having their throat slashed or something, would you want to remember the moment that they're choking on their own blood, or would you rather remember the best of memories?
WolfySnackrib666 4 weeks ago
You heard it here first! the only art that matters comes from Christians!
ArtfulDawdger 1 month ago
History has proven that Cleese and Palin were correct and those other two nitwits were (and are) clueless and totally missed the point.
2000jago 1 month ago 16
If peoples' faith is so vulnerable, so easily knocked from its place in their lives -- than it can't be much of a faith in the first place then can it? Or it can't have REALLY grabbed them and compelled them as much as advertised. But then irony (and comedy in general) is antithetical to how the profoundly faithful see the world anyway...
boyndog 1 month ago
So bottom line seems to be, Python realized they really couldn't make fun of Christ, so they decided to make fun of the culture and politics that surrounded the time of Christ. And these two religious figures can't seem to grasp that.
Aquahutch 1 month ago 7
what a "showman" the bishop is-I was waiting for him to get up and do a song and dance---pompous ass
mikie8865 1 month ago
I think John should have gone into this debate in the character of Basil Fawlty. Would have teared them up faster than the Hitch (may he rest in peace).
Thisshitisfuckedup 1 month ago
"It will have no influence in the long run" HAH wrong
fleaonnj4 1 month ago
@fleaonnj4 well, its only the one of the most revered comedy's ever! that didn't help his cause, did it?
Ballsinawad 1 month ago
Palin is the most Godly man on that stage
Lordrevolution77 1 month ago 4
I love how history proves Life of Brian to be a work of comic genius, and these two God botherers as fluff-brained relics...
rogan71 1 month ago 3
Monty Python probably made the world measurably better through their work then the damn bible has done for nearly 2 millennia.
Voxnulla 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it's great to see how far we've come in only 32 years! A couple of Bozos accusing two of the all time greatest comedic artists of "blasphemy" and cowing them into apologies? Such pomposity and arrogance can only be described as inane delusional anti-rational self-righteousness. Indeed, they showed no redeeming value whatsoever.
Today, I dare say, those Bozos would rightly be booed off the stage for the sheer unadulterated nincompoops they genuinely were.
dan91709 1 month ago
Comment removed
dan91709 1 month ago
It just occurred to me that this was filmed in 1979; Christopher Hitchens had already started making waves as a Journalist by this point, writing for the New Statesman... I had a chill imagining the carnage he would have wrought had he been on the panel. Hitch hated lazy thinking, and Muggeridge and Stockwood have it here in abundance.
SoretaYuki 1 month ago
@SoretaYuki "That old fraud and mountebank, Malcolm Muggeridge . . ." Christopher Hitchens, Hell's Angel documentary :)
rationalsalvation 1 month ago
i hope Mervyn Stockwood is in hell what a disgusting and dreadful man.
benblij 1 month ago
I looked this up because I just read Palin's account of it in his 1970's diaries. He was very kind in his diary-treatment of both of the arrogant asswipes opposing him on here-- much kinder than I should have been. Truly, he showed Christian humility and charity to a degree unknown by those two. Time to re-think things, Bishop! :D
frithar 1 month ago
One of the opposing points is that the film wont make any impact in the future except to be puled out and scoffed at. And still today its one of the biggest debated satirical pictures ever made. Congratulations to all of Monty Python for making both a comedy and a philosophical quandary that holds true for even the last 30 years
brianw560 1 month ago
I find myself shouting "you bloody idiots i cant believe we watched the same bloody film!!" at the computer screen...god bless every person who was ever part of monty python.
KruppaF 2 months ago
The pythons are too nice to these two bigoted fascists . I wish Hitchens was on this debate.
MetrazolElectricity 2 months ago 3
Python wins the day out of sheer modesty. The bishop comes off as a smug, pompous ass utterly satisfied with his own pious excellence. He manages to fit some self-glorifying reference in almost every point he makes. He still does a bit better than Muggeridge, who presents as nothing more than a bully, dominating the air time with a loud voice, interruptions and cheap insults. Not once do they actually do the filmmakers the courtesy of asking what they were trying to communicate.
PharadayKage 2 months ago 31
I can't believe people seriously clapped at the "30 pieces of silver" comment
SaimDI 2 months ago
@SaimDI My interpretation of that moment is that the audience probably thought it was a joke (as anyone should react!) - WE know, looking at the bishop, that he was serious in saying that. Horrid piece of cloth.
ExtrackterYT 2 months ago
@SaimDI they were probably clapping because the producer told them seeing as how it was the end of the debate, but i see your point, whenever the bishop said something that won him a point only 5 or 6 people clapped, cleese and palin had the whole crowd clapping them
tk5800thesecond 1 month ago
Once again the Christian plays the same old card. "Jesus experience was so much more than any other person that was cruxified!" Even though god/he revived him/himself not long after to live in paradise while the theives around him, that were sinners were sent to hell. Extraodinary, once again.
Parabol0086 2 months ago
What a surreal show...going from this great religious debate to Paul Jones playing the blues....
pdobi 2 months ago
Michael Palin is hot when he's right. Which is always.
whatiwasgoingtosay 2 months ago 9
monty python has done more good to humanity then there two old bastards... but what's even more important: who's that bad MOFO playing the slide guitar? he's really good. how great to end such a show with a song about sex??? ;-)
TheHenryMorganShow 2 months ago
Why did he call the moderator Judas? And why did that cause the audience to clap?
nanaforiod 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kochos777 I don't know what you're worried about. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was somewhat agreeing with you. I'm sorry for MY wording that led to a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to come off as rude at all. I was agreeing with you because Malcolm was just rude and had no support for his arguments.
bibibabkagirl 2 months ago
i am a die hard atheist but i found myself showing more respect to the bishop than Malcom...he is a close minded fool making ridiculous assumptions....all brian was saying was to think for yourself...christ was only in the film at the beginning...its very simple and doesnt require a debate...anyone offended by life of brian is a fool...
kochos777 2 months ago
@kochos777 Seriously. I'm a Christian and I just don't take myself that seriously. I feel like people that are trying to find fault in movies are just sad. Just enjoy the movie and quit complaining so much. It's just a movie! And a good one at that! I love it!
bibibabkagirl 2 months ago 2
@bibibabkagirl aaaaaarg!!!!! i didnt say i support the bishops point of view i basically just said that i can give the bishop more than malcom because the bishop wasnt as close minded as many religious people are. whereas malcom was acting like fucking Widdecombe... i was supporting john and michael entirely and life of brian is one of my fav movies...sorry since its my unclear wording before that may lead to misunderstanding...
kochos777 2 months ago
@kochos777 *more respect than malcom
kochos777 2 months ago
@kochos777 I don't know what you're worried about. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was somewhat agreeing with you. I'm sorry for MY wording that led to a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to come off as rude at all. I was agreeing with you because Malcolm was just rude and had no support for his arguments.
bibibabkagirl 2 months ago
@bibibabkagirl yay christians and atheists can live together :p
kochos777 2 months ago
@kochos777 Well, I've always thought so. :)
bibibabkagirl 2 months ago
Incomprehensible self-control from Palin and Cleese. Like, when Palin says "I'm sorry, I know you think I'm wrong" - I could never bring myself to be so apologetic and deferent when I wanted to punch someone.
CCNuck 2 months ago 64
@CCNuck in retrospective that is (one of) the things that make them better tha the two old creeps; it is so easy to critizice with indignation the work of others, and i am pleased to see john and michael are not even trying to deffend their otherwise brilliant work, because they don't need to.
mierdadeyouculo 1 month ago
Civilization is not Christianity. In fact, modern day civilization sorely needs to leave these old dogmas behind for it to be a true civilization where children are not lied to, but educated properly in the spirit of science, people are encouraged to question authority and our violent past is not gloried or worshiped in the slightest.
flutterandwow 2 months ago 3
I think Malcolm Muggeridge is confused, thinks that he should be offended, but doesn't really know why. So therefor tries to find reasons. Without listening to the points off the actual film writers/creators.
LickMyComment 3 months ago 5
Is the song at the end about knocking his girlfriend out because she's been cheating? That's easily more controversial to me than The Life of Brian.
TwoTube2 3 months ago 4
i love the sudden transition
from a well educated and lukewarm debate about the defacing of christianity
to a blues number about a man who's been looking for his baby tonight. : ))))))
nelsonesq 3 months ago
Man in mustard jacket's plan of how to win a debate:
1. Talk very loudly over everyone else.
2. Fail to appreciate the opposition's points and generally ignore them.
3. Be generally rude towards everyone whilst relaying the same points over and over again.
PRO-DEBATER!
weebruceymctaylor 3 months ago 77
@weebruceymctaylor Actually, the term is "master debater" and, as has been proven in this debate, also the origin of "wanker".
Lessdeth14 2 months ago 2
@weebruceymctaylor he would fit in perfectly at fox news!
abchandler4 2 months ago
@weebruceymctaylor Hey it's just like Bill O'reilly, haha
chadbrochill61 1 month ago 3
@weebruceymctaylor
We call them "Republicans" and their associated pundits in the United States. Examples are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Louie Gohmert.
ragefororder71 1 month ago
I'm sitting here speechless (hence why I'm typing). The two pious morons that lack any critical faculties sat speaking for SO long with John and Michael barely able to get a word in edge ways.
I think the whole argument could be summarised like this:
I am offended.
So what?
It is SO laughable that Malcom called this movie 'tenth rate'. Just wow... It's a joy to see just how wrong those two guys were, the movie is still hugely popular and will be for years to come.
ubernaffa 3 months ago
Palin was getting quite angry at one point which I think is rare for him. Muggeridge and the Bishop put their point across well but neither of them appeared to grasp the film wasn't ridiculing Jesus himself but was lampooning people who blindly follow religous leaders without question. In the same vein it also poked fun at secular leaders and authority figures and at political extremists and the fanatics who support them.
It was good Rice let the discussion flow and didn't keep interupting!
cjknotty 3 months ago
I CANT WAIT FOR PEOPLE TO WRITE COMMENTS ON THIS POST ABOUT HOW WRONG PEOPLE ARE FOR DISAGREEING WITH WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN!!!
WHY AM I YELLING!?!?! ITS BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!!!
NOW, FUCK OFF!!!
WKRPinCINN 3 months ago 2
It's old cunts like these 2 that destroy human spirit...i want all religious people dead
jamiehunt100 3 months ago
Cheap shot by Stockwood at the end which was unfortunate, but I guess as a priest he was offended on an emotional level to a degree
1st time I've seen this mini-legendary exchange, what I'd heard was that Cleese/ Palin were confronted by a couple of old reactionary religious guys who were being unreasonable .... turns out not to be the case, I thought Stockwood/Muggeridge won the debate by some margin & Cleese/Palin were shown up
Thx 4 the upload
kcirdrab 3 months ago
6.30 - Palin's in a mess here & in rout, LOB's intention was to influence people & make them ? religion, it wasn't Abbott & Costello, i.e. slapstick. just trying to get laughs for humour's sake
kcirdrab 3 months ago
1.15 - Muggeridge lands another good hit, in order to pursue their objective of ridiculing religious hysteria Cleese & Palin reduced the Christ figure in LOB artistically to being little more than a dupe & void, thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater artistically.
kcirdrab 3 months ago
@kcirdrab BRIAN IS NOT CHRIST FOR FUCK'S SAKE
EvilRadiatedMonkey 3 months ago
@EvilRadiatedMonkey just like jesus isn't the messiah. there's my anti-religion statement. BOOM!!
trock151 3 months ago
disinterestedeness: now THAT is tenth grade humor!
SuperJasminification 3 months ago
Is that Mark Knofler playing with Paul Jones ?
mrbillhicks 3 months ago
The pink blazer guy talks about how christ on the cross is such a different experience to just the thieves being crucified... but the point is, is that the film is about exactly those average theives. away from the limelight. crhist is over there being all famous and whilst that happened, they have filmed only during this time setting illustrating a funny story about the ignorance of the people. how many people nowadays would be ignored if they decalred their relation to god lol...?
Rivalhopeso 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Brilliant upload!
As a Christian myself, I can say that these two religious men do in fact seen quite closed minded themselves, and are clearly making themselves the "bad guys" in this debate.
Shame on them... grumpy old men.
Also, gotta love Cleese's unstoppable wit
jallen9343 3 months ago 3
Thanks soooo much for posting this!!!!!
ThePythonfan 3 months ago
This priest has no clue what he's on about, Monty Python have influenced a great many of the worlds comedians! Eddie Izzard, one of the worlds best comedians, was heavily influenced by Monty Python!
SerasXHarkonnen 3 months ago
@SerasXHarkonnen Steve Martin,Robin Williams,Fry and Laury,Rowan Atkinson,Ricky Gervais and that's only half of them!
ThePythonfan 3 months ago
@ThePythonfan Yeah, they've influenced so many people, Eddie is just a great example :)
SerasXHarkonnen 3 months ago
@SerasXHarkonnen True! And what a great stand up comedian too!
btw it's so irritating that these two keep talking and talking and neither John nor Mike can utter a word.
ThePythonfan 3 months ago
@ThePythonfan The priests had their head up their self righteous arses, that is all..
SerasXHarkonnen 3 months ago
@SerasXHarkonnen Haha I'll say!!!
You're right!
ThePythonfan 3 months ago