A Very Funny Film, With a Couple of Flaws

Rating: Null/10 (30 January 2004)

I recall how when this film first came out, it generated a lot of controversy. Being a devout Christian, I can easily see how it can offend someone, particularly if that person wishes to be offended. It not only uses the story of Christ as the basis for absurd comedy, it also alludes to a number of offbeat, and some would say sacrilegious theories about Christ (e.g., His mother Mary being raped by a Roman soldier, Mary Magdalene being His wife/lover). In fairness, however, the story clearly makes the point in the prologue scene that the character Brian is not Christ, if that should satisfy anyone.
Make no mistake- this film is a funny one. There are two scenes in particular that are absolutely hilarious. The first is the stoning scene, which I remember had upset some Jewish groups when this film was first released because of its repeated use of the word `Jehovah'. The second is when Brian is brought before a Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment, a role played with hysterically comic mercilessness by Michael Palin. I also liked the `What have the Romans ever done for us?' scene, and several others.
But the film is flawed, too. For one thing, the actors often go too heavy on the British accents, to the point where many lines are inaudible and many jokes are lost, at least to American ears. The Jones character (as the mother) starts to grate on you after a while, though he has some funny lines and moments.
The Terry Gilliam graphics, which were amusingly employed in The Holy Grail, don't fit in this story. The only thing that came to my mind when Brian was scooped up by that alien space ship was the theory promulgated in the early 70s by author Erik Von Daniken that many miraculous events discussed in the Bible were actually descriptions of encounters with extraterrestrial beings. Was that the point of this scene? If not, then what was the joke here?
Like in The Holy Grail, the troupe seems to have trouble finding a suitable ending for this film, although the ending for The Holy Grail was better than the ending here. While I am hard pressed to imagine how they could have suitably closed a story based on the life of Christ, a light ditty sung by a crucified chorus just isn't funny. I once saw an interview with Cleese who said that the point they were making in this scene was that maybe death isn't such a bad thing. I guess that comes through, but the scene doesn't work for me. But I can also see why they stopped the story where they did Â– making jokes about the crucifixion is bad enough; jokes about the resurrection would have gone too far in many quarters.
Yet in spite of these flaws, this is still a movie worth seeing. The extremely talented Chapman, Cleese, Palin, Idle, Jones and Gilliam, who adopted numerous roles in The Holy Grail, take on just as many, if not more, roles in this film. There are a number of perceptive story lines and gags injected into this story (e.g., the smoldering rivalry between the seemingly allied `People's Front of Judea' and the `Judean People's Front' guerilla groups). And the Tunisian sets ironically makes this one of the more accurate depictions of the Biblical era, as did The Holy Grail in its depiction of the filthy, disease ridden Middle Ages. All in all, The Life of Brian is worth a rainy/snowy Saturday afternoon viewing.