SuperSunday: Monty Python Films

From left: Top Row: Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam. 
Bottom Row: Terry Jones, John Cleese and Micheal Palin

Introduction
Monty Python. One of the best, if not the best comedy troupe in the world. Four television series, four films, many stages shows and even a few singles have marked them out as witty, satirical and very, very weird. It's this strangeness that tends to ward away most newcomers, as at first it takes a certain frame of mind to comprehend the level of humour on offer here. Nevertheless, the Pythons are a national treasure that really set the bar on the standard of British comedy. This, the first of my Mega Reviews, will cover the four Python films in all their flexibilities. Think of it as four reviews for the price of one.
     I'll also be looking at the group dynamic and how it affected the course of their comedy style. Monty Python were half-oddballs, half-products of their time. The four films are very different in style, and I'll be giving some insight as to why that is...


And Now For Something Completely Different (1972)
In between their penultimate and final series, the Pythons were advised to make a film composed of the best sketches from the show. They did so. And Now For Something Completely Different is the oddball in the Python film series in that it contains a scarce amount of new material.
     In all honesty, this film is more-or-less just a cash-in on the phenomenal success of the series. That isn't to say that the film isn't of very high quality; it just dampens the spirit of the film. Regardless, you can tell that the troupe are giving it their all.
     As mentioned in my first Rhineland post, this was the film that introduced me to Python. What I originally saw didn't impress; in hindsight it seems that most of the funniest sketches were left until the end. Indeed, the missed shots come to a nadir in the centre of the film, with Conrad Poohs and his dancing teeth...
     The film has, however, a wonderful atmosphere that encapsulates not only the general feel that the troupe were going for but also a strange sense of absurdity along with it. This is of course helped in spades by Terry Gilliam's masterful animation.
     At the end of the day, there isn't a lot to say about ANFSCD; simply a summation of the best three series of Monty Python's flying circus. It can be a little uninteresting in places due to its sketch nature, but where it is funny it excels in Python's usual absurdist commentary.

...and the Holy Grail (1975)

Ah, my favourite of the films. Holy Grail takes the pure, unadulterated spirit of the Pythons and channels it seamlessly into a well-researched and hilarious story set around the myths of King Arthur. Directed by the two Terry's, Jones and Gilliam, it often strikes a contract between their two very different styles of direction. 
     Using a (seemingly) rich set of environments, the film shows Arthur's (The great Graham Chapman, who plays it totally straight.) quest to gather his knights (played by the other Pythons), and then, by virtue of God, find The Holy Grail. Eventually, they find the grail in the hands of those filthy heathens, the French.
     The film's intense amount of research and thought only improves the comedic value, as it is able make implicit and explicit statements with every action. The peasants eating mud, for example. A funny gag, or a realistic one? Does their talk of repression refer to the Middle Age despots, or to the problems going on with Communism in the 1970s? There's so much to read into. Too much, one would think. But with all of that, it still remains an excellent piece of work.
     As aforementioned, everyone has a chance to shine. Chapman plays a straight-man Arthur which makes everyone else funnier. Micheal Palin and John Cleese get to play a myriad of characters throughout the film, the former having over 10 to chew on.  The two Terries have fewer roles, because they understandably had their directing duties, but they still make a big impression - Jones with his great Sir Bedevere and Gilliam with his near-random animated shorts.
     Of all of the Monty Python films, this one has had the largest effect on both British and sometimes American culture. Mentioning the troupe in public will often provoke a hail of lines from this film - too many to mention. In filming terms, the film's use of coconuts to jokingly imitate horses has been referenced all over the place, as well as references to Swallows (African or European.) The culture around this film is insane and for very good reason.
     Ultimately, this is Python at its pure, unadulterated best. The film stands as an iconic piece of British culture and set down the basics for almost all modern British comedy. It manages to take the sketch format and run it along a straight enough track to form a basic narrative while still delivering its wonderful randomness. An excellent film. 

 ...'s Life of Brian (1979)
The most controversial Python film (and probably the most controversial comedy) ever made, Life of Brian is surprisingly light and fluffy in comparison to its literally devillish reputation amongst the ignorant. The mere fact that the film was set in Biblical times was enough to cause a storm in a teacup, and many councils around the world banned the film before it was even screened...
     Graham Chapman (again, another brilliantly humourless protagonist) plays Brian Cohen, a boy whose life runs in parallel to that of Jesus Christ and who becomes caught up in the fight against the Roman occupation of Judea. The film, while seeming to satire only religious concepts, was in fact more focussed towards British Left-wing movements in the 1970s. Regardless, it's a film with many, many layers, as well as balancing out a sketch format.
    This time, however, the sketch format is (almost) thrown out of the window, as Brian's story is told more or less in a purely narrative form. This certainly improves both the story and the fluency of the messages they're trying to get across, but it does somewhat constrain the Python's usual creativity to a strict timeline of events.
     Many religious people prop up their criticism of the film on the assertion that Brian is an allegory for Christ, ignoring the fact that Christ appears several times in the film and is perfectly respected. I try not to get religious on this blog, but my anti-religious tendencies were in fact the very reason that led me to watch Life of Brian and properly discover Monty Python.
     Inevitably, the film's slightly anvilicious nature and lack of sketch-format makes laughs a rarer commodity, but where it is funny it strikes into new, much fresher territory that the Pythons tend not to wander into: political satire. And I love political satire. Life of Brian isn't my favourite Monty Python film, but it's certainly a strong one and deserves its place in the public spotlight.

...'s Meaning of Life (1983)

I thought that ANFSCD was the epitome of Pythonesque weirdness, but they really excel themselves in this final, more disjointed effort from the early eighties. By this time the group was becoming tense and their writing a lot more unfocussed. The Python equivalent of Let it Be, Meaning of Life is a last swansong for the group to work their comedy muscles in many ways. As John Cleese once noted, "[The Meaning of Life] contains some of our best and worst material."
      Unlike the previous two films, which were worked on together, each Python worked on their sketches independently - so very rarely did they actually meet, that the development took many wild turns before they settled on the neat framing device the gives us the film's title - sketches examining different areas of "life". The group tension really shows, as the incredibly disjointed sketch structure can be a little jarring. Of particular note in this regard is the expansive short at the beginning of the film (which I could review on its own merits) created as side project by Terry Gilliam. While a fine piece on its own, its unfortunately necessary placement at the film's beginning robs the beginning of the actual film of any gravitas.
     Meaning of Life takes its chances and ups the controversial content to absurd degrees, giving us such gems as "Every Sperm is Sacred", "The Penis Song" and "Wafer Thin Mint" (look it up). This is, however, what Python has always been about - an uncanny ability to shock and teach at the same time. The team manages, through their sketches, to put across their opinions on society, while still being so absurd as to entertain and to offend.
     In hindsight, I'm not too much of a fan of Meaning of Life in comparison to the two previous films because of its last-ditch attempts to retain some fun factor, but really my problem is with its regression from their highly political style into inane sketches. There's a lot to like here, things that will stay with one for a long time after viewing, but there's also a lot to feel a little awkward about.

The last full group photo before the death of Graham Chapman

.

Conclusion  
The Pythons were anything but predictable. Their styles of both writing and comedy changed over the years, as did their attitudes towards each other. Eventually these attitudes broke the group apart, each going on to do their own thing (with the sad, sad exception of Graham Chapman, rest his soul). 
     The noticeable differences of course stem from who was in charge of direction. Holy Grail was directed by the very much differing Terrys Jones and Gilliam, whose styles clashed frequently. Life of Brian and Meaning of Life were solely directed by Jones, and it shows (the directing is generally more straightforward, and there is less animation.)
     Monty Python are a fine institution that while completely absurd and offensive, were also breathtakingly witty and funny. They my have had a lot of extremes when it came to quality, but with their happy-go-lucky approach that was always going to be the case. Three cheers for Cleese, Idle, Jones, Gilliam, Palin and Chapman (r.i.p).


Thanks.