Review of Life of Brian (1979) by Shane S — 14 Jan 2012

Decidedly more Brit-centric than the relatively kid-friendly "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," the Pythons' religious satire/parody of Biblical epics "Life of Brian" is a naughtier form of comedy, but also a very human portrayal of people that have been long written as pure good or pure bad. Also, there's a great message about being yourself (and how believing in the same thing that others believe in isn't helping your situation), but who cares? We all know this film is blasphemous just because it makes fun of Jesus, right?

Why people are so uppity about making fun of any basic aspect of Christianity is because it's written down in the Bible: in it, according to classic tradition, it's advised that you don't say God's name or criticize any of the stranger actions he's gone out of fear of bad luck. So, naturally, whenever somebody actually decides to make a simple and harmless joke about God, people will protest out of fear that God will smite them with another set of ten plagues.

Now, as I saw the film, I saw that the Pythons weren't making any big jokes about the historical Jesus himself. No - that's not their intent. The intent (and the whole point of the film) is to make fun of the obsessive followers that couldn't take his advice at face value and instead turned his persona into an exaggerated mythical figurehead for a religion that they simply retooled just to insert their new leader into. We've seen this happen in history, from the foundations of Rastafarianism to Scientology to (a more recent example) the Kim dynasty in North Korea. People sometimes are so dependent on their own desires that they start placing them on certain groups of people that they find very inspiring.

Also, there's another great point made by the film (for comic purposes): the Romans noticeably improved Jerusalem. And hell, they didn't really actively persecute the Jewish people - that would be inhumane. If you've read the Old Testament, you get an idea of what Jerusalem looked like in those old times - where the kings had fantabulous temples devoted to their religion (though God made do in the early days with simple altars) and everybody else was in deep, deep poverty. With the Romans, there came a more direct middle class, albeit a small one.

However, we ask ourselves, "If the Romans brought innovation to backwards places, then why would people want to cry for revolution?" Is it because of the Romans' religion? No - this has nothing to do with religion. Is it because of crucifixions and cruelty? No - only the worthy got to be punished. Is it because the Romans felt like their power was challenged and the Jews had to defend themselves? No - according to archaeology (not the Rick Santorum College-Level World Civilization Home-School Course), there were several Messiahs at the time. The Romans simply thought as them as simple nuisances. With the Bible, the Romans didn't care much about Christ - the Sanhedrin called for his death because he proposed to get rid of Judaism. And after Jesus' death and the emergence of Paul, the Roman Empire chugged on, having not reached its apex with the rule of Constantine. Is it because of taxation without representation? Not really. Nobody vocally complained about the taxes. They didn't like tax collectors (for completely different reasons), but the taxes themselves weren't half bad.

Tl;dr - this film subverts everything you've been taught about ancient Jerusalem and you know it.