Talk:Monty Python's Life of Brian/Archive 1

Will the correct Spike please stand up?
There are at least three different roles said to be Spike Milligan's cameo -- indeed, Spike Milligan and this article give two of them. Which is it? --Charles A. L. 18:44, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone will have to rent it and find out. I'll try to rent this weekend. What does Spike Ol' Boy look like anyway? &mdash;Frecklefoot 19:15, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I just checked. This article is wrong. The Spike Milligan article is correct. I will change this article. Pete 20:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Now changed. Incidentally, following the merger of my and my girlfriend's film collections, I just noiticed I have a spare copy of LoB on VHS-PAL. Let me know if you have a good home for it. Pete 20:14, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Legal problems for printing?
I'd like to see a supporting reference to the claim The printing of this book also caused problems, since there are technical laws against what can and cannot be written about religion. At least in the US, I've never heard of any such law. Elde 19:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the US has that little thing called the first amendment. In Britain, blasphemy is still illegal, and a case was brought as recently as 1979 (R. v. Lemon, commonly known as the 'Gay News' case). In another case, a filmmaker (whose 18 minute film on the sexual pleasures of St Teresa had been banned in Britain) appealed the ban on distribution of his movie to the European Court of Human Rights (CASE OF WINGROVE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM) Read more than you want to know about this here and lost. There's also a 1999 book: Blasphemy in Modern Britain: 1789 to the Present, by David Nash. Hampshire, England and Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1999.- Nunh-huh 05:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you sure blasphemy really still illegal in Britain?--Crestville 00:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It really is. The law isn't much invoked, but it's still there. Bonalaw 09:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I was also confused by this part of the article, and felt that there should be a reference cited, or at least an explanation. In light of this information from the talk page, I have clarified the original article. Aumakua 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a reference for the claim as it currently stands? "(The printing of this book also caused problems, since there are rarely-used technical laws in the UK against "blasphemy" dictating what can and cannot be written about religion—the publisher refused to print both halves of the book, and original prints are printed by two companies). I, for one, don't believe it. A more logical reason for needing two companies to print the book might be that both halves are (from memory) printed in different ways - one colour, one sepia. Either way, confirmation would be good. - Gobeirne 00:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blasphemy is still illegal in the UK, but to put that into context there many other laws on the statue book that have not been removed, such as: every able bodied man must practice archery once a week; no more than 3 Welshman can congregate within Chester's city walls and so on. Markb 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but blasphemy laws have been enforced an awfully lot more recently than those laws which are no longer enforced. Although the last prosecution was almost 30 years ago, it's not clear at all that it's a law that will never be enforced again. (Indeed, I believe that before the 1979 case, the blasphemy law was assumed to be a law that would never be enforced again, having not been used for decades - so I'm not sure we can assume it will not be used again.) Mdwh 01:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus?
I don't think that's supposed to be Jesus carrying the cross at the end of the film. I always thought of him as more of a willing protrayal of Simon of Cyrene. The Entire movie script has him listed as a "Saintly Passer-by" or something. Also, if that were Jesus it would contradict what happens in the gospels, which I don't think the Pythons were trying to do; they were telling a parallel story of someone who was confused with Jesus. -R. fiend

I removed the reference to the 3rd appearance of Jesus in the film. See reasons stated above. -R. fiend

I think that Jesus does appear a third time in the film; he is the one running off after someone offers to carry his cross for him and gets crucified by mistake. This must be a reference to the narrative of the Gospel (I don't remember which of the four); I think it was Joseph of Arimathaea who offered to carry Jesus' cross for him; therefore Jesus was not crucified in the film; according to Python he simply escaped. That has always been my interpretation of this scene anyway. Lucius Domitius 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has a Scottish accent. Neither the escapee nor the saintly passer-by has a Scottish accent. EdC 20:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

it could be a reference to a certain Gnostic belief... but I doubt that is really Jesus


 * Nah, it's really not Jesus. If you look carefully at the start of the film then you can see that Jesus is played by a man who looks awfully like the bloke who played Admiral Piett in two of the Star Wars films. the chap who picks up the cross on behalf of the prisoner (who can't believe his own luck) is played by Terry Jones. Darkmind —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.118.253.194 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
 * His name is Kenneth Colley ...blessed are the cheesemakers.... Ian Dunster 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There was an introductory clause in the reference made in the Legacy:Oratorio section, regarding Eric Idle's satirical reworking of Life of Brian material as a spoof of Handel's Messiah, which read: "Just as 'Life of Brian' was meant as a spoof of the life of Jesus..." This has been removed. It is sad and unfortunate that such statements persist in writings about the film. Even the first paragraph of this very Wikipedia entry makes clear that Life of Brian is not a film about Jesus. More to the point, the surviving Pythons reunited in Aspen, Colorado in 1998 for a show that was broadcast on HBO and has since become available on video. The appearance was billed as the “U.S. Comedy Arts Festival Tribute to Monty Python,” although video releases have gone by varying titles, including “Monty Python Live at Aspen (1998).” The program features several clips from the troupe’s television series and films, but is mostly them being interviewed, on stage, by U.S. comedian Robert Klein. In the section where Life of Brian is being discussed, Eric Idle makes the matter quite clear:

“…because actually what happened was that it started off with a whole series of blasphemous jokes when we first started to write it. And after a bit, we went away, we did some research. We all read the books and we read the books on the books and the gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. And we did research and we came back and, you know, it’s really very hard to make fun of Jesus Christ and what he says and what he is, because it’s very moral. It’s good, moral philosophy. You cannot really abuse it. It isn’t susceptible to laughter. So that sort of altered our thinking on where we come in. And we were very careful, because we put him in twice: his birth is in there and he’s also giving the Sermon on the Mount. So all we did was like, ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if you had somebody who was living at the same time, who was mistaken for the messiah?’ That’s the way we got into it. And we were very careful not to put the Christ in there, but nobody noticed that.”

Why not just 'Life of Brian'?
I know I'm going to be accused of Britannocentrism or something, but the original title of the film is Life of Brian. It's only the Americans who call it Monty Python's Life of Brian, just as they refer to William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, etc. Since this is a British film, shouldn't we use the British title? Furthermore, we should at least be consistent, and use the same convention for this film that we do for The Meaning of Life, which doesn't have the "Monty Python" prefix. -- Heron 19:28, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * My copy calls itself "Monty's Python Life of Brian" and it is a British copy. IMDb lists it under "LoB" and gives "MPLoB" as the UK complete title. By all means lets get the names right, but I suspect both choices are right!

OK. If there's no clear-cut answer, I won't change anything. Thanks for checking, Pcb21. -- Heron 20:24, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest one also refer to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, though I may be barking up the wrong tree. I've heard both versions of Life of Brian/Monty Python's Life of Brian, and am a little more confused about the use of a funny apostraphe in the article title. — AnnaKucsma  (Talk to me!) 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just called "Monty Python's Life of Brian" in the U.S. It's also called that in other countries like Australia (and possibly even other countries of the commonwealth). I Think we should name this article based on a majority of what it's called around the world. 58.174.98.29 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Elusive George Harrison
Where does Harrison appear in the film? I know where Milligan is, but I can't see our George.--Crestville 00:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * After Brian gives his speech to the people outside and his house is filled with people, John Cleese introdices him to a guy thats lending them camels or something. His single line is "hello", and then the scene is over. If I remember correctly. -R. fiend 01:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, cheers.--Crestville 21:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a screenshot of Harrison's cameo to the article. --Jordon Kalilich 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to TOTALLY clarify this, George's character is listed in the script as "Mr Papadopoulis" and he is renting "the Mount" to Brian. (Presumably the same Mount that Jesus gave his famous sermon from). Fork me 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that on many other sites (iMDb and the George Harrison article included) Harrison's character is listed as "Mr. Papadopolous" and not "Papadopoulis" - I'd like to double check and see which spelling is correct, but where was this name found? I don't think he's credited at the end of the film, is he? Ministry of Silly Walks 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't recall him being credited in the film itself. This article uses the rendering in the published script, Monty Python's The Life of Brian/MONTYPYTHONSCRAPBOOKOFBRIANOFNAZERETH, where he's listed as "Mr. Papadopoulis" - that should be the most authoritative spelling. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Judean Popular People's Front
Per the script, the third 'splitter' organization (the one with only one member) is identified as the Judean Popular People's Front, and later referred to shorthandedly as the Popular Front. -- 8^D BD2412gab 07:08, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)


 * I changed it from "Popular People's Front" to "Popular Front" because "Popular People's" is redundant and doesn't occur in the film anyway. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right. I must have glossed over the relevant portion of the transcript. I still think it makes no sense, though. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, of course it make no sense! This is coming from the people who gave us the Ministry of Silly Walks. -- BD2412 talk 21:42, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Jewish rebels
Some one may want to check. When I read about the political milieu of Judaea around Jesus time, I was reminded of the splitters scene. There were lots of messiahs and rebel groups. So maybe the scene is not just about the 1970s, but also inspired by Josephus descriptions.


 * Indeed. I always interpreted that scene to be about the factional infighting of the time or the general tendency of religions to take minor differences very seriously. If someone has evidence that it was inspired by '70s grouplets' they should provide evidence or remove the mention. Ashmoo 07:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, isn't it really, really obvious? They use extreme-leftist rhetoric, their name sounds like that of a communist party, they have an infinite proliferation of 'splitter' groups.  Of course, that's not to say that it's not based on Judaean groups as well, if someone noticed the resemblence between them and 70s groups, but it's certainly not based on religions.  The religious people are the people who follow Brian (and their tendency to split is lampooned as the split between the followers of the Shoe and those of the Gourd). BovineBeast 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well if it was obvious we wouldn't be arguing about it would we? Although I think your reading is mostly likely to be correct, it is hard to say for sure that that is what the author's meant. The author could have meant it to specifically refer to political organisations, or could have meant to parody all human groups and used the language of Marxist groups merely as a device. Specifically mentioning the 70s is especially hard to justify. Ashmoo


 * It could well be inspired by 1970s era Palestinian groups, with names such as Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine(PFLP), Palestinian Liberation Front (PLO), Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine(DFLP). For more, see Rejectionist Front. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.161.86 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I thought it was inspired by the Irish Nationalist groups. John Cleese's character introduces his organization as the "People's Front of Judea (Officials)", which reminds me of the distinction between the Official IRA (Stickys) (sp?) and the Provisional IRA (Provos).  Then again, the tendency of smallish oppositional groups to splinter and attack each other with greater ferocity than the forces of the Establishment is a commonplace.  --Davecampbell 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although you all raise good points, I have to agree that this is mainly aimed at UK left wing politics, something that the Pythons would have experienced directly, rather than the more distant Palestinian or Irish or 1st century Judean politics. The clincher is the scene after Brian is arrested where rather than take action the PJF pass motions, including ones that talk about the need to take action rather than passing motions.  This was a classic indicator of left wing politics at the time (some in the Party would say it still is).  Whatever your opinions of the Irish and Palestinian groups they tended to act rather than debate. Duncan (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemy allegations
I made a few minor edits to the "Blasphemy allegations" section, which I document here in case anyone disagrees or doesn't see why I changed it. I'm afraid someone may take it personally.


 * several even took great pleasure in banning it, even though they had no cinemas within their boundaries: Did they really take great pleasure in it? Is there some video of town council members jumping for joy?  Edited for NPOV
 * This proved rather pointless, since people who wanted to see the film merely went to places where it was not banned. This sentence itself seems rather pointless. Isn't this going to be true of any "banned" material?  It's also a bit non-NPOV (I imagine there are ideological reasons for banning things other than just to prevent people from seeing it).  Removed.
 * (reportedly, the Bishop had not even seen the movie): I have not seen this "reported" anywhere. To the contrary, according to George Perry's Life of Python (London: Pavilion Books Limited, 1983), pp. 171-172
 * When The Life of Brian opened, John Cleese and Michael Palin appeared on a BBC chat show hosted by Tim Rice, and were savagely attacked by the Bishop of Southwark and Malcolm Muggeridge, who had seen the film earlier in the day.

-- Deklund 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a recollection that they added the sermon scene (and possibly the birth scene as well) to clearly show that Brian is nät Jesus. Can anybody verify that? // Liftarn


 * Yes, the Criterion DVD commentary says that they wanted to establish that Brian was not Jesus. AnonMoos 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This film was banned becuase most people thought Brian was supposted to be making fun of Jesus. But in words of Brian's mum, "He's not the messiah, just a very naughty boy!" :) 58.174.98.29 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The DVD
Are there any confusing suprises on the DVD for , like Monty Python and the Holy Grail? --68.37.116.234 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I mean by surprises on the DVD is are there any surprises like on The Holy Grail when "Play Movie" is first played and the first one minute, 47 sec. of Dentist on the Job, then the projector operator (Terry Jones) "changes the reels" and Holy Grail starts. Are there any surprises like that on the LIFE OF BRIAN DVD? -Thank you very much! 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. A very interesting "making of" film with some great interviews but none of the madness of holy grail--Crestville 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Rebel groups
It states in the article that the Jewish Rebel groups are meant to mock 1970's British Leftist Parties, but I find this hard to believe, I have always thought that they were in-fact a reference to Palestinian Rebel/Terrorist groups of the 20th Century. In the way they are all basically the same but all have slightly different names and fight amongst each other, i.e. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestinian Liberation Army, Palestinian National Liberation Movement, Popular Resistance Committees, Palestine Liberation Front etc... I think this is a much more likely explanation (especially the "Popular front" one) for the movie's Splintering groups than 1970's Leftists. --Hibernian 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost scenes
I've just added a section on this, it seemed relevent! I have a 1st edition of the script here (now listed in the references section as I quoted from it) so could add a full or partially full cast list, including the correct names of characters (most of them are not mentioned in the film itself) including Milligan's and Harrison's characters. Would this be appropriate? Fork me 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done it now anyway! Fork me 10:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why classify as a "Christian film"?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is the life of Brain being categorised as a "Christian film"? I mean how exactly can it be considered part of that category? As has been made abundantly clear it is not about Jesus, it is about a guy called Brian who happens to be around at the same time as Jesus. The film is not about Christ or Christianity (although it may be considered to be about religion) so why is it being classes as a Christian film? (I doubt many Christians would agree with that classification, some would probably class it as a "Satanic" film, lol). --Hibernian 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hibernian, this movie is not a 'Christian' movie. It first off has nothing to do with Christ and second it makes fun of organised reilgion. Oh and also, Hinernian my friend, I'm a Christian and I LOVE this movie and I don't see it as 'Satanic' as you think we might see it as, so please keep your comments to your self.A7X 900 04:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hibernian said "some Christians", not all. thx1138 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...The makers did say that they think that a religion that sees an "instrument of torture" as a sacred icon is "a pretty twisted religion" - that's not too Christian-friendly. 'course, that didn't stop my youth group from showing it during church...weird.


 * You can be a christian and think anti-christian movies are funny - part of it laughing when they misunderstand your religion.KrytenKoro 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

origin of the names
Is there any evidence that backs up ANY of the speculation in the part about the origin of the names "Brian" and "Mandy"? Joyous! | Talk 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the Python'sAutobiography here, I'll have a look in the chapter of Life Of Brian this weekend and see if I can find anything. Fork me 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to be original research. I've removed the section. If some sort of sourcing is located, then it's retrievable from the article history. Joyous! | Talk 02:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian's surname
Just out of curiosity, when in the film is it mentioned that Brian's surname is "Cohen"? I don't remember this. John1701 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mandy tells him early on, "Your father isn't Mr Cohen...", implying that's their family name. Later Brian introduces himself to Reg and the other PFJ members as "Brian Cohen". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Box office
This section says "Life of Brian opened on August 17, 1979 in five North American theatres". Does this mean the world premiere was in North America (and which country/ies if so?)? Or does it refer to just the US release, say? Clarify in article? Ta, JackyR | Talk 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Romani ite domum into Life of Brian
Don't Merge Its a good lengthy article, you would have to chop most of it out to move it here Does Not Belong Where it Is in this article. It has been put under Themes and Controversies. Which it certainly does not.66.58.219.109 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * MergeWhy does this particular gag get a separate entry?  It would easily be incorporated into the LOB entry. --Navstar 04:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge I looked it up too. --Dweller 10:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per navstar. --evrik 01:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge - I think that article is already too long to simply be put in LOB, and besides it's a good article in of itself. --Hibernian 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - per Navstar. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not merge-that sketch is so significant that it is a worthwhile standalone article. Chris 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - What's so special about that specific sketch? I do not see it any more significance of it than that of "Biggus Diccus". Surely, if Romani ite domum get's its own entry, so does Biggus Diccus. What makes this sketch so worthy of its own article? --laparapa 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect that page. It's not important enough for it's own article, but it might merit its own section in this one.--Supernumerary 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. Nothing against stand-alone articles on single sketches per se, but such an article must say something useful about the sketch, e.g. its origins and interpretations (cited of course). The Romani ite domum article unfortunately tells us little or nothing about the sketch that can't be gathered from simply watching it. As it stands, therefore, I would at most merge a few of its points (and the screenshot) into LOB so as not to overbalance the film's article - or else simply delete entirely. On the other hand, if someone wants to research the sketch more and incorporate some not-so-obvious - and sourced - material into it, I might well vote No Merge. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is Jesus Christ Superstar: !?!
I'm very surprised not to see any mention of the film Jesus Christ Superstar, which was hugely popular at the time. Life of Brian is a direct spoof, copying it not only in overall approach and atmosphere, but also in details of some of the scenes. While Jesus Christ Superstar isn't actually the target of ridicule, it certainly was the model after which Life of Brian was made.

But I'm not quite sure how to change the article to reflect this.

Rp 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * G'day, Rp. You'd want to be able to cite some reliable published source(s) quoting a) the Pythons saying they consciously used Superstar as their model, and/or b) a commentator or commentators of note arguing that Superstar was 'clearly' their model or inspiration, before adding something to that effect (under the 'Making the film' section, for instance). Have to admit that I can't recall seeing anyone draw that close a connection between the two. Superstar may have come first but, had it never existed, I don't think we can say that the Pythons wouldn't have come up with Brian anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The only real similarities between "Brian" and "Superstar" is that both were subject to controversey. Granted, there is the rather ironic fact that Tim Rice, lyricist of "Superstar", was the host of the "Friday Night, Saturday Morning" episode where Cleese and Palin are ripped into by M. Muggeridge and the Anglican Bishop of Southwark, but aside from that, no there is no real relationship. 67.72.98.92 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot to reply sooner, but after some extensive Googling I have had to conclude that you are probably correct, as unlikely as it seems to me. Rp 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

USA?
Come on, surely this film must have been banned in at least some places in the USA, where there are people obsessed with fanatical Christianity. Can anyone list such places? J I P | Talk 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was banned in some places especially within the 'Bible Belt'. 83.70.74.131 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a line or two on bans in the US under Religious satire and blasphemy accusations a few weeks ago, although the source (Wilmot) didn't actually list the states involved. If anyone can reliably source the actual places, feel free to expand that bit. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

the reason why it was only in 8 cinema's when initially released in the USA ;) Markthemac 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned In Ireland
I don't know of any online sources to verify so don't know if it can be put into the front page article but the "banned in Ireland for eight years" should really read "banned in Irish cinemas for eight years" since due to a legal loophole (namely they hadn't thought of videotapes when the censorship act was made law in the late 1920's and so there was no legal way to ban them ) it was freely available all that time on videotape  Garda40 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case it has been shown several times on Channel 4 (UK television network available in many parts of Ireland) The censorship of films act dates from 1923 BTW and was one of the first pieces of non-emergency legislation enacted in Ireland after independence taking priority over the myriad of other problems faced by the Irish state at the time. 80.229.222.48 10:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned In Italy
Hi all, I'm Italian and apologise for my poor English :-)

I do not have certain information about Italian banning, however Italian banning is NOT mentioned by the Internet Movie Data Base (www.imdb.com). Being 32 years old, however, I remember I actually watched the film on Italian tv first in 1990.

I'd like to add that a most famous comedy group, La smorfia reuning Massimo Troisi, Lello Arena and Enzo Decaro made a very famous sketch " La Nativita' " (Nativity), in which the angel Gabriel announcing Mary she would give birth to the Saviour ... is half blind and enters the wrong house.

In the sketch, the woman misstaken as Mary is played by Massimo Troisi. "Mary" is the wife of a Neapolitan fisherman and complains with the difficult situation of the city of Naples.

La Smorfia's sketch was received with enthusiasm by the Italian audience, although it also had some elements of blasphemy : when Gabriel greets "Mary"/Massimo Troisi with the biblical "Salve Regina" (Hail holy Queen), she/he answers "Buongiorno" (Goodmorning); then, after three visits of Gabriel, "Mary"/Massimo Troisi talks with God on the telephone and has to calm Him down, since He's upset and nervous, being pregnant :-))

One might wonder on who had the idea first, or if it might be a literary "topos", since La smorfia's sketch reportedly dates 1977, which means two years before Monty Pythons' film.

You might watch the sketch on YouTube and on the Italian tv RAI

Instead, another film with religious subject which was actually censored in Italy was Il Pap'occhio, directed by Renzo Arbore, featuring Roberto Benigni, released in 1980.--S vecchiato 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrogate Council
Someone was looking for a citation for the comments about Harrogate council

I can confirm that they were made in a UK Channel 4 programme called "The Secret Life of Brian" broadcast on January 1st 2007 at 8pm.The programme was about the furore among religious groups and the various obstacles to the movie being made and then shown   Garda40 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
For being a part of Category:Articles with unsourced statements. (Ibaranoff24 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Latin Scene
John Cleese went to Weston Super Mare Grammar School for Boys in the 60's (as I did) and we had a Latin master there Mr Pope. Anyone who went to that school and was taught latin by him would immediately recognise the style depicted in the film. John almost certainly modelled that scene on Mr Pope's teaching style at his school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.20.245 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry.I removed this before because I thought it was in the article itself .Garda40 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done that, too. It's all good. Although there are eels in my hovercraft. Chris 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Only thing being that John Cleese was 20 in 1960. Jooler 08:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Romani ite domum.jpg
Image:Romani ite domum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Svetovid 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the film implies ...
"The film also implies that many cryptic "signs" from Jesus Christ were instead bizarre accidents which people interpreted as religious (as when Brian loses his shoe and his over-zealous followers declare it to be a sign)."
 * I don't think that's true at all. Jooler 08:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who thinks it's true or not, you raise a valid point, namely that asserting what the film "implies" really should be backed up by a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that there's little reference to "many cryptic signs from Jesus Christ being bizarre accidents". The film has a reference to a blind beggar being cured by Jesus and thus not being able to earn a living from begging any more, but this does not suggest that the curing was a "bizarre accident". Jooler 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"The representation of Christ alongside comedy proved controversial." - this seems to suggest that Brian is a representation of Christ. Which he clearly isn't as the wise men go off and find the "real" Christ. Jooler 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree on this one. I don't think "The representation of Christ alongside comedy..." suggests Brian represents Christ, it merely points out that Christ is being portrayed in a comedy (as you said, the 'real' Christ in the film, not Brian). Cheers, Ian Rose 11:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "The representation of Christ alongside comedy proved controversial." is an awkward sentence. Christ in the film appears like a shadow, or a Hitchcock cameo. The film does not contain any significant representation of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount ("Speak up") moment and the birth moment is about all. It was not this representation that proved controversial it was the allusion of the life of Christ to the life of Brian, and the smutty jokes and nudity, or perhaps, for those like Muggeridge etc. who had not seen it, the thought that you might joke about the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and other tenets of Christian belief. Jooler 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to say that the movie doesn't "imply" anything, the viewer "infers" it.ROG 19 12:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per request. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC) This article was moved from Monty Python's Life of Brian back in June by User:Lars Trebing with the rationale that the replacement version was "using the typographically correct apostrophe sign instead of that ugly universal typewriter character". I can't see a specific guideline that rules on this, but feel that it goes against the spirit of Naming_conventions, and the article should be moved back. --McGeddon 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, WP:MOS recommends against curly apostrophes, because many users will find them hard to type and search for. Unlike much of MOS, this makes sense. Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - per PManderson. Reginmund 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for typability. 132.205.99.122 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for typability. Chris 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --evrik (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Twice in the article
The rather large section about the reactions to the film following its release appears twice in the article: Once under "Background" and once under "Themes and controversies - Religious satire and blasphemy accusation". Could somebody please change that?
 * Yes, someone copied material from the Monty Python article lock, stock and barrel without any editing - if I get a chance in the next day or so I'll have a go at culling the duplication... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking over it again, I can't see value in attempting to integrate the recently dumped-in material - almost all of it is duplicated and what little is not is uncited - hence I've removed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"According to DVD Commentary"
There are several statements in the article that are preceeded by "According to DVD Commentary". In those cases, that should be removed and the statement should simply say "[insert Python] feels that" or something along those lines, then the statement should have a DVD commentary citation, as well as who said that statement. I don't own the DVD anymore, so would anyone be able to fix that? -- Scorpion0422 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree a proper citation is necessary but unfortunately can't help either (my DVD doesn't include commentary - never actually seen that edition in Oz). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Romani ite domum
Apparantly, this section, which people keep reverting my attempts to remove, is "approved". But that's not how Wikipedia works. First, it's in the controversy section, which it doesn't belong in. Second, it's just overdetailing of a single sequence, with no real world context. Third, it just extends on the plot. For more on this, see WP:PLOT. I had wanted to try to improve the article to the point that it would be a GA, but if I am going to be fought every single time I try to remove something, then I'm not even going to bother. -- Scorpion0422 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the section above entitled "Merge Romani ite domum into Life of Brian". In this case, yes, you will be fought every single time you try to remove it, so your proposed course of inaction is wise. Chris (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So a merge proposal from a year ago demands a large section when it is quite clearly against Wikipedia standards? Look at any GOOD film articles and you will not see anything like that. First off, it fails the WP:FICT guidelines because it is just over-detailing of a single story with no real-world context. Second, it is just an extension of WP:PLOT, which says not to go into too much detail. -- Scorpion0422 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposals have do not mean one article is cut and pasted into another (in fact, that is precisely how merges should not be done). In this case the section can easily be trimmed and included in the plot synopsis, with a bit more emphasis then it would normally receive due to it being a particularly popular scene. I'll look into it. -R. fiend (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A year old informal merge to try to save something that should have just been AfDed is not binding. The section is unnecessary and just pure WP:PLOT. It is not a theme, it is completely unsourced, and makes no sense. It needs to go.AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Scorpion0422 and AnmaFinotera, and I am disappointed in the combative tone that Kintetsubuffalo has exhibited. If secondary sources were available to comment on "Romani ite domum", then these could be supplied. Plot detail is supposed to complement real-world context, but the section that existed did not do that.  There are undoubtedly articles on Wikipedia that are rife with such indiscriminate plot detail and need addressing.  However, seeing that an attempt may be made here to improve the quality of this article per Wikipedia's standards, the article needs to comply with policies and guidelines if it is to assume a more encyclopedic form. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement. I didn't realize that the scene was already given a few sentences in the synopsis, so the section was redundant to begin with. Its removal is certainly a boon. -R. fiend (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with what Erik said. Jauerback (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rating/Rating change
Should we include the rating of this movie? Speaking of which, I noticed that an MA15+ sticker was placed on the box of this movie, whereas before it was only rated M in the Australian rating system. (I guess the re-rating was of request of the church, but I can't believe it wasn't until now the rating was changed). Has the movie been re-rated in any other countries, and does anyone know when this movie was re-rated in Australia? 58.174.98.29 (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rating/Re-rating
We should probably includ the rating of this movie in the article. Speaking of which, I noticed the other day that the box for the movie had an MA15+ rating sticker placed on it, whereas before it was rated M (this is the Australian rating system by the way). I guess it was by request of the church, but I can't believe it wasn't until recently it was re-rated. Does anyone know if it was re-rated in any other countries and when (or if) it was re-rated in Australia? 58.174.98.29 (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I put it in twice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.98.29 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Top British comedy?
ISTR than at the same time that LOB was named Britain's best comedy film, Holy Grail was named the best Monty Python film. Oddly enough, I could almost agree with this(!)

I don't see how it fits into the article though. Apepper (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Life of Brian bbc discussion.jpg
The image Image:Life of Brian bbc discussion.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pompous Limeys
Due to accusations of being one, I have re-edited the beginning of 'Political satire' to more accurately explain that what I meant. What I did mean by starting this with "Almost unnoticed outside of Britain..." is that, when evaluations of the film's message are drawn up, this element of the film is occasionally overlooked by those all hung up on the sections about religion. It just so happens that this oversight normally happens outside of the film's native land, which is where the inspiration of the political element was firmly rooted (and perhaps therefore most recognised). The Pythons themselves have expressed exasperation at those who cannot see the wider points being made by this element (and yes I do acknowledge that it has happened here in Limeyland too, which is why I have not put back any reference to nationalities). Nevertheless, I resolve to be more diplomatic in such choice of language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisbie (talk • contribs) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian's spirits at close
The plot section currently claims that "Brian's spirits are lifted by his fellow sufferers, as they break into song", but is this the case? From what I remember he doesn't seem lifted and continues to look dejected. Open Human (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I watched the ending on YouTube and it's not actually clear whether his spirits are lifted. They don't seem to be at the beginning of the song, so I've tweaked the last sentence of the plot section. Open Human (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See also list
It looks like the list is trying to replicate the function of a Category on blasphemy:


 * Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
 * Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case
 * Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
 * The Satanic Verses controversy – controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses
 * Submission – short film about mistreatment of women in Islam
 * Piss Christ – controversial photograph
 * The Last Temptation of Christ

I suggest that only the first and last of these are really relevant. --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Zionist"?
"a scene introducing hardline Zionist Otto, leader of the Judean People's Front (played by Eric Idle);"

Did the Pythons portray him as a "Zionist" (and therefore deliberately a massive anachronism) or has the person writing this got their terminology mangled and perhaps they mean "Zealot" or similar. See Zionism and Zealot. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Political satire
I have removed the Wiki ident that warns this section contains original research. The points made in that sub-chapter are more than appropriate and correspond to Wiki guidelines: plus it's intelligently written and argued. Absurdtrousers (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've removed the whole section. As you write, it is "argued". That's precisely what original research is, an argument made by a Wikipedia editor rather than an argument reported with citations. For it not to be OR, someone has to have published this sort of analysis. Then we can describe and cite what they've said on the topic. If you can do that, please go ahead and restore any verifiable material with citations. Yworo (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
I havn't seen this movie in a while but reading this entry makes me remember the film as being possibly anti-semitic. Its definately written by some simple gentiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Political Satire
What's happened to this section? I suppose it must have existed at one time, as there are external links to it from redirects (e.g. Judean People's Front), as well as internal references in the article? Jan 1 naD - (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was removed here for being unsourced, it seems. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After a quick search I managed to find this reference talking about it (see footnote 20), which confirms that this is a Proper Opinion and not just OR on the part of some editor. I'd really want something more substantial than a footnote to restore the whole section, though... Olaf Davis (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here're a couple more, both minor references in passing again but between them enough to establish the parody if not to restore all the removed material. I'll have a go. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Title song
There is no mentioning of Brian Song sung by Sonia Jones, please somebody add it.

I would add it myself, but I won't bother because it would be deleted again anyhow because of too little information/wrong location in the article/already covered somewhere else/Wikipedia-rule #54693: "no mentioning of title songs".

Oh sod it, I didn't want to do this, I don't want to be a wikipedia editor.

-- unsigned comment by disillusioned former wiki editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.113.197 (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned in US states?
Although this claim is footnoted to a (British) book, I don't believe it's true; it's been effectively impossible for US states to ban films since the Miller v. California decision. While some distributors and theater chains were reluctant to show the picture, that isn't the same as a "ban" or governmental prohibition. Does anyone have actual evidence that any US state outlawed this picture? If not, the passage should be removed. Solicitr (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned by states: not
I'm removing this line. Although it's been repeated many, many times, never mentioning a particular state or cited to a primary source, it's just not true. States haven't been able to ban films (except on obscenity grounds) since 1973. Solicitr (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Naughtius/Nortius Maximus
The character referred to as Naughtius Maximus in the Wikipedia Life of Brian article is listed as Nortius Maximus in "The Life of Brian Screenplay"(Chapman, Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones, Palin), pg. 18 (ISBN 0-413-74130-3). The same character is listed as Naughtius Maximus in ''And Now for Something Completely Digital: The Complete Illustrated Guide to Monty Python CDs and DVDs." (Alan Parker, Mick O'Shea). The character is also listed as Nortius Maximus on various Python CD's. Can anyone verify the correct spelling? I would think that the official screenplay would be a better reference than the digital guide by Parker/O'Shea. I've always thought it was Naughtius as in Naughty but want to make sure the correct spelling is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.22.251 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Name
The name of the film was chosen via a competition on a Saturday morning children's TV show - I remember it(!) but I can't find a citation. Does anyone know of a reference for this, so that it can be included in the article? Obscurasky (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Criticism of Christianity
Is this category justified? The content of the article, specifically, the section on "accusations of blasphemy" seems to contradict this, as the Pythons themselves do not even agree on the issue. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does seem justified. The category doesn't require that it be a "valid'" or good criticism of Christianity; also, the Pythons' own opinions of the film should have little-to-nothing to do with its public perception.--Blake Burba (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Brian's parents
Brian Cohen's parents were the Roman Centurio Naughtius Maximus and the Jewish woman Mandy Cohen. MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN FILM SCRIPT Scene 6: ‘Mandy: “Well, Brian,... Your father isn't Mr. Cohen.”

BRIAN: “I never thought he was.”

MANDY: ... “He was a Roman, Brian. He was a centurion in the Roman army.” ... “Naughtius Maximus his name was.”’ --Däädaa (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents and Brian
Brian was born about the same time as Jesus and a few yards away. Does the movie explain how Brian managed to survive the Massacre of the Innocents, (the killing of male children born in the same place and same time as Jesus by King Herod. A event similar to the killing of male children by the current Pharoah of Egypt when Moses was born). Joseph (and Mary), were warned to leave the area, so that Jesus would not be killed. How did Brian survive this event, or did the movie ignore it, because they did not want to bring it up. 204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Rhotacism in The Life of Brian
Obviously you are a very experienced Wikipedia contributor, and I won't argue with you. In your reversal of my modest addition to The Life of Brian However, you wrote that rhotacism is self explanatory from the context. Although I have 20 years of educations, I had to look up the word to understand what was meant. I do not know most of Wikipedia policies, but I try to pursue ease of reading and comprehension. I do not intend to engage in a reversal war, and would appreciate if you could explain what principle made you delete my clarification, since that sentence was not self explanatory.--Gciriani (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon Gciriani,


 * Thank you for your posting on my talk page, and welcome to Wikipedia. I commend you for your challenge of my reversion.  This is exactly what editing Wikipedia is all about.


 * My reasoning is merely that by your continuing to read that particular paragraph, the meaning becomes perfectly clear and an explanation followed by the word in parenthesis appears as "over-egging the cake".


 * Sincerely.


 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 16:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to argue with you: by completely reading the paragraph the meaning does not become perfectly clear. At least it was not to me, and I'm hardly uneducated. The expression "speech impediment" is not an explanation, but rather a common English expression to describe this situation. Second, good communication often involves repeating concepts, when they are not clear; just read a newspaper article written by a good journalist. Third, if you dislike redundancy, in my opinion it would be better to exclude rhoticism rather than speech impediment. Maybe you could use lisp instead than speech impediment. In my opinion rhoticism is a specialised word. This is an encyclopedia and not a treaty for logopedist, who are probably familiar with the word you used.--Gciriani (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * However, the hyperlink contained in the paragraph does provide an explanation for any reader unsure of the meaning of rhotacism,doesn't it? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones  (GG-J's Talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that the hyperlink provides an explanation, doesn't detract from the point I made before. Rhoticism is a technical word, and technical words decrease readability. I think such a guideline should be added to the manual of style, if it is not already there. I may want to click on a hyperlink if I want to expand on a particular subject, but I shouldn't be made click on a link to understand a paragraph that can easily be written in plain English.--Gciriani (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I just took a look at the style page. Third paragraph from the top: Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.--Gciriani (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, my friend. I've decided that this would be better in a less private position and shall move this strand to the article's discussion page. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 18:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the hyperlink doesn't entirely clarify the scene - it says that rhotacism "refers to several phenomena related to the usage of the consonant r", so it's not clear which type Pilate is suffering from (is he unable to pronounce Rs, or is he using them excessively?). There's no need to use paretheses to link to the technical term - we can use any text for the link. "Speech impediment" seems clearer; it's still vague, but it saves the lay reader from having to click through to see what the scene's joke was. --McGeddon (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, McGeddon,
 * But is total clarity required here? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones  (GG-J's Talk) 18:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea by McGeddon to link speech impediment to rhotacism makes sense. Actually speech impediment should link to Rhotacism#Orthoepy to eliminate any doubt about which type Pilate is suffering from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Subtitled in Portugese?
Anyone know why the DVD includes Portugese subtitles? (in addition to English subtitles). Seems odd, since most English-speaking movies on DVD containing foreign subtitles are limited to Spanish and/or French. Perhaps there's more than a bit of trivia to this, and it could be worth mentioning in the wiki article. El duderino (abides) 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede
"Written, directed and largely performed"=from conception till final product, it's Monty Python, even if they didn't all direct it, per se. Specifics (as well as full cast list) are described later, and "largely performed" means there are additional actors. We do not need to further complicate the wording, as well as clutter it with the list of all Monty Python members within that particular sentence. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per se? No, the lead is supposed to be accurate, including the directing credit. And what you call clutter is common - WP film article leads almost always name the main cast. The six here were not credited as Monty Python - that was only used in the title, as a possessive. Actual clutter would be indicating there were additional actors. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Talking about accuracy... if there were additional actors and you keep removing that bit of information, there goes your credibility as far as accuracy is concerned. I'm reinstating the pre-dispute version, if you want to change it you are welcome to request a third opinion. I removed the "directed" bit to avoid controversy, as a good faith gesture. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not there are additional actors is beside the point and irrelevant. Why are you so determined to exclude info that is found in nearly every other WP film article lead? I don't need a third opinion to follow policy - per WP:FILMLEAD The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, intentionally excluding the fact that the Pythons were not the only actors is a flat out lie. In compliance with WP:FILMPLOT, I've added Jones. Stop reverting me every time you disagree with a part of it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What is your problem? How is this a lie -

starring and written by the comedy group Monty Python (Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin), and directed by Jones.

Nothing in that says whether or not there are additional actors in the film - so for you to call it a flat out lie is not only WP:Uncivil, but makes it appear you didn't even properly read the text. You just reverted it because you disagree with a part of it. You also didn't acknowledge WP:FILMLEAD, which says the stars are to be identified in the lead. As said before, they were not credited as Monty Python, but by their own names. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Actual clutter would be indicating there were additional actors (...) Whether or not there are additional actors is beside the point and irrelevant." You are the one who seems determined to exclude this vital piece of information, because your version of the lead paragraph makes the reader believe (therefore, a lie – no civility brech here) that all roles are played by the Pythons – which is the case in most of their work, but this film is especially notable for having additional actors play more than one-line minor roles. There is a considerable number of additional actors beside the regular additional actors, which are Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland. Also, the list of their full names is specified in the infobox and the cast list, so listing them as Monty Python is concise and serves the lead paragraph both aesthetically and informatively. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No one other than you thinks starring means "these are all the actors in the film. There are no additional actors." Do I really have to explain that to you? It is unbelievable you would take this position. And whether or not there are additional actors is hardly a vital piece of information for the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Loot
When Brian is arrested by John Cleese's Centurion, the latter says "You're fucking nicked, me old beauty!" This same phrase is used by the character Truscott in Joe Orton's play "Loot", when arresting McLeavy. Smart-arses :-) Mr Larrington (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

smartass alert
When I watched the movie in the 1980s the scene that impressed me most was the tower chase. In the 1990s I found out.Sam Barber: Violin Concerto op. 14 Presto in moto perpetuso. For almost two decades I keep looking for someone mentioning this suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.153.125 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2015
Monty Python's Life of Brian → Life of Brian – WP:UCN, WP:PTOPIC, and recognizability, naturalness, and conciseness under WP:NC. It’s also consistent with other shortened common titles, such as Dr. Strangelove, The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Animal House. 67.234.116.39 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the title loses nothing by having the great and glorious name of Monty Python attached to it and provides great context. It was the original and arguably best Life of Brian.  Monty Python is also a commonly recognisable name and the former bit of the title is every bit as primary as the latter.  Consistency also suggests that we should show the Monty Python in commonality to the presentation of other films in Category:Monty Python films.  GregKaye 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - without any disrespect, WP:CONCISE is, umm, policy. Red Slash 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The poster clearly says: "Monty Python's Life of Brian". That is what it is called and the short form redirects here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dr. Strangelove poster clearly says Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, but for the sake of concision, it was simply shortened to Dr. Strangelove. Similarly, the poster for Rear Window clearly says Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window. It's a Wonderful Life is Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, Pinocchio is Walt Disney’s Pinocchio, etc. Having Monty Python’s above the title is simply an authorial credit, and, unlike, say, Bram Stoker's Dracula doesn’t do much to distinguish it from other Life of Brians (WP:PTOPIC is firmly established by the fact that Life of Brian redirects here).67.234.116.39 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment PTOPIC has nothing to do with this move. Both the current title and the suggested title do not carry parenthetical disambiguation, further, the suggested title redirects to this article. So the film is the PTOPIC for both the current and suggested titles, meaning the "PTOPIC" issue is not relevant to this move request -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment recognizability is better served with the current title, while conciseness is better served with the proposed title; naturalness works for both titles. Too bad Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory is a minority title. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and no CONCISE is not policy; it is one of several WP:CRITERIA to consider. The more complete name is much more recognizable, as very common.   2620:0:1000:157D:7522:8BA:AC49:BE47 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - the film is generally called "Monty Python's Life of Brian" in reliable sources. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Monty Python's Life of Brian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130213025136/http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/greatest/index.jsp to http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/greatest/index.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061030024206/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2006/10/18/python-gang.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/10/18/python-gang.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Life of Brian by Monty Python Online
This movie film is available at The Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/LifeOfBrianByMontyPython was wondering if it would be ok to add this item to the external link section. Dorklestein (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization
I can't quite see how to quickly put this together but the organization definitely needs some work. Content from currently separate sections like "Religious satire and blasphemy accusations", "Political satire" and "Lost scenes" should be spread out over other, more intuitive sections like "Themes" and "Controversies". For a general lay-out guideline and other tips, see MOS:FILM. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status
I have deleted the links to the illicit hosting of this British film on Internet Archive. Five of the six writers (including the director) are still alive, so UK copyright subsists until the end of the year that the last of them to die does so. As a non-US film still under copyright in its country of origin on 1 January 1996, it is protected in the US for 95 years after publication, so to the end of 2074. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monty Python's Life of Brian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405062250/http://www.dvdivas.net/movies/reviews/l/lifeofbrian-BLUERAY.html to http://www.dvdivas.net/movies/reviews/l/lifeofbrian-BLUERAY.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing broadcast dates for 'The Secret Life of Brian' documentary
In the second-to-last paragraph of this wiki page it states "On New Year's Day 2007, and again on New Year's Eve, UK television station Channel 4 dedicated an entire evening to the Monty Python phenomenon, during which an hour-long documentary was broadcast called The Secret Life of Brian about the making of The Life of Brian and the controversy that was caused by its release". I do not understand how New Year's Eve can follow New Year's Day! It precedes it, not follows it. Perhaps the writer meant to say "in the evening of New Year's Day", rather than "New Year's Eve". Hopefully, someone who knows the facts of this documentary's broadcast schedule, can correct that sentence.Hikebladexcski (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Production / Writing Citation Needed Tag
In March 2018 someone flagged a comment about George Harrison's line in the movie for citation. I spend a few hours looking for an independent and verifiable citation and couldn't find one. Should this be removed? That said, the one thing I did find that substantiates this is a short video on which you can hear a brief overdub during Harrison's cameo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUJDvMpLafI Cindy (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Title
I seem to recall the title was chosen by a phone-in on a Saturday morning children's programme - Tiswas, or similar. Does anyone else remember this or have a citation to that effect? Obscurasky (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not
There's a quote in the article in the section Individuality and meaninglessness that I think should be extended, adding the voice at the back. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you've got reliable sources discussing individuality and meaninglessness in Life of Brian, then it might be worth including. If not, not. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same sources that justify putting the quote in at all justify putting in the whole quote, don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How the Hell should I know? You're the one who wants to add something about a voice at the back. Where did you get that? Slowik? Shilbrack? Which of them—or do you have some other source?—makes mention of the importance of this voice? Personally, I thought the "I'm not" was just a typical Pythonesque note of absurdity. It's humor in the middle of social commentary in the middle of satire. But of course, that's just opinion. And who am I? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good questions! I got it from the ultimate primary source, the film itself. And that source is verifiable, and some use of primary sources is permissible.
 * How the hell would you know? Well, I think it is simple logic. But you don't, evidently. I certainly can't claim any sort of consensus here to add the last line to the quote. Pity, but that's what talk pages are for. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's better not adding the extension. It was a situational joke and not germane to the theme of individuality. Nurg (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, it rather completes the joke's framing, doesn't it? The crowd expresses slavish conformity by shouting in unison that they are non-conformists. Then, someone anonymously lost in the crowd expresses non-conformity with the conformist crowd, but does so ironically by claiming to be conformist; and then the conformists subviolently repress the actual individual.
 * But, while everything I stated is true, isn't it OR if I state it? Just find an analysis of the complete scene where the "I'm not." is quoted.
 * Short of that, wouldn't it be enough to just cite that when the scene is quoted, the individual and subsequent repression is included in the whole quote? (If the "I'm not." is included, so should be the "Shhh!")
 * IveGoneAway (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)