Sense of humour no

[Grace2022]

I came across a discussion in 1979 about the 'Life of Brian'. People were and probably still are, divided about whether it is funny to make comedy about the life of Jesus.

I wonder if it is ok to laugh about this? Personally I don't find Monty Python funny, but I do sometimes laugh if other comedy is good and not too irreverent about such matters. Like Father Ted is funny to me because it is not crossing a line - it is obviously not serious. We do possess a sense of humour perhaps to stop us being too deadly serious all the time. But I feel a guilt if I laugh sometimes.

 

[TheWhat?]

Mocking Jesus is a no-go.

Brian was not Jesus, and this was part of the humour of the movie. It is perhaps something christians can identify with, and there's nothing especially wrong with a little self-deprecating humour, as a christian, except that if you're not careful, you can go too far and end up insulting christians in general by making too little of yourself. Still it's not a terrible offense. A bit rude maybe or a social faux pas.

 

[Halbhh]

When I was young, from about age 12 through 15, my circle of friends and I thought Monty Python, which showed every week on our broadcast TV, was fun.

Life of Brian turned me off of them, even though I didn't even have much religious dedication. It was just so nasty in a way, the mocking. I'd not mock even my worst enemy that way. It's just too low a level of nasty (even though now we have that low level as more common, such as the example set by Donald Trump of mocking others), but back then it below even what I could tolerate even as a teen that enjoyed making fun of a lot of things. Maybe because I knew Christ was good, and depicting him as less than smart or effective -- for instance preaching the Sermon on the Mount then leading a listener to be so lost and get nothing of use from it -- is too much a reversal of what is good, calling good bad. Even then, even for a teen. So, after seeing part of that movie, I turned it off and I ceased to be Monty Python fan. And that was even when I had much less faith and understanding of how good Christ is.

Also, of course, that Brian is also over and over making a parallel to Christ's life, and then that parallel is also ludicrous, thus implicitly mocking Christ, who instructed us to follow Him, even to 'take up your cross and follow me' -- so implicitly all of Christianity is mocked in that indirect way, at least to the not-very-religious watcher. Which would be most people.

While some tiny portion might instead make a distinction (most watchers would not make) to use it to mock some misled 'Christians', even that would be wrongful also, as 2 wrongs don't make a right: mocking is a sin even if we mock those in the wrong.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Life of Brian is my favorite Monty Python film. Given that, I do not see it as making fun of Jesus specifically as Jesus only makes a cameo giving His sermon on the mount. Brian is a guy who, through a series of unfortunate events is repeatedly confused as being a savior...despite his insistence that he is not who they are looking for.

 

[Halbhh]

Life of Brian is my favorite Monty Python film. Given that, I do not see it as making fun of Jesus specifically as Jesus only makes a cameo giving His sermon on the mount. Brian is a guy who, through a series of unfortunate events is repeatedly confused as being a savior...despite his insistence that he is not who they are looking for.

Your post was helpful to make me edit mine to make it clear why the film is harmful, for most that watch it.

 

[TheWhat?]

Also, of course, that Brian is also over and over making a parallel to Christ's life, and then that parallel is also ludicrous, thus implicitly mocking Christ, who instructed us to follow Him, even to 'take up your cross and follow me' -- so implicitly all of Christianity is mocked in that indirect way, at least to the not-very-religious watcher. Which would be most people.

I disagree. There's nothing humorous about the gospel narratives. If it were the intent to make light of them, the film would be in bad taste and a dismal failure. It doesn't require extraordinary logic to "get it."

You're entitled to your opinion, but your criticism strikes me as excessive moralization. This is perhaps related to what some viewers, including myself, found especially humorous about the film -- that shenanigans in the christian world in our day could land you in the shoes of Brian, being crucified by your own people over absolute nonsense.

so implicitly all of Christianity is mocked in that indirect way

Maybe you're right that some people within christianity were made light of to a degree, but I wouldn't intentionally confuse that with being against Christianity in totality. Bear in mind, this is not a post-christian Britain that is responsible for the film. Some likely identified as christians. Self-deprecating humor is not intended to be malevolent, but rather, to make light of situations.

 

[TheWhat?]

Consider the closing scene, imagining modern day christians finding themselves in the terrible irony of the situation:

 

[Halbhh]

I disagree. There's nothing humorous about the gospel narratives. If it were the intent to make light of them, the film would be in bad taste and a dismal failure. It doesn't require extraordinary logic to "get it."

You're entitled to your opinion, but your criticism strikes me as excessive moralization. This is perhaps related to what some viewers, including myself, found especially humorous about the film -- that shenanigans in the christian world in our day could land you in the shoes of Brian, being crucified by your own people over absolute nonsense.



Maybe you're right that some people within christianity were made light of to a degree, but I wouldn't intentionally confuse that with being against Christianity in totality. Bear in mind, this is not a post-christian Britain that is responsible for the film. Some likely identified as christians. Self-deprecating humor is not intended to be malevolent, but rather, to make light of situations.

It's not a reasoning process (like 'moralization') here I'm pointing at, but a perception/impression.

I felt very clearly that Christ was being mocked, as a person at that time who was not very religious. I'd feel the same way now I think, having seen a bit of the film many years later, and still getting the same impression, a second time.

Got that? -- seeing a section of about 10 minutes or more again very many years later, I still got the same impression.

So, if I felt that way, then millions of others would also. It will be the message that many get from it.

Here's a parallel to consider: some would be offended by the art called "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Christ" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[bles... do not curse][bless and do not curse]_Christ . (the one where an artist put a crucifix in urine)

We shouldn't really say to them that their offense at that art is just 'moralization' about it. Instead, they are reporting to us their honest reaction.

 

[TheWhat?]

It's not a reasoning process (like 'moralization') here I'm pointing at, but a perception/impression.

I felt very clearly that Christ was being mocked, as a person at that time who was not very religious. I'd feel the same way now I think, having seen a bit of the film many years later, and still getting the same impression, a second time.

Got that? -- seeing a section of about 10 minutes or more again very many years later, I still got the same impression.

So, if I felt that way, then millions of others would also. It will be the message that many get from it.

Here's a parallel to consider: some would be offended by the art called "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Christ" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[bles... do not curse][bless and do not curse]_Christ . (the one where an artist put a crucifix in urine)

We shouldn't really say to them that their offense at that art is just 'moralization' about it. Instead, they are reporting to us their honest reaction.

No, sorry. There is no comparison. I don't see any reason to be offended for the sake of Christ in this instance, because Brian is explicitly not Jesus and this is integrated into the humor of the plot -- it is perhaps intentional, producing a kind of real-life irony involving the reactions of those who would choose to be offended, for no good reason.

Self-deprecating humor was never wrong. Christians are allowed.

Edit: Jews, even, seem to have a healthy appreciation for self-deprecating humor. It just adds to the irony.

 

[Halbhh]

No, sorry. There is no comparison. I don't see any reason to be offended for the sake of Christ in this instance, because Brian is explicitly not Jesus and this is integrated into the humor of the plot -- it is perhaps intentional, producing a kind of real-life irony involving the reactions of those who would choose to be offended, for no good reason.

Self-deprecating humor was never wrong. Christians are allowed.

Edit: Jews, even, seem to have a healthy appreciation for self-deprecating humor. It just adds to the irony.

Perhaps you didn't' see all of post #3 or perhaps didn't believe my report of my real reaction. So, I'm not doing: "choose to be offended, for no good reason."

Suppose you think I'm merely mistaken to even have the reaction I have. If that was your view, then even then you'd be under this rule in that case: Romans 14:3 The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him.

We hear we should not look down on (or discount to nothing the feelings) of someone else when they are offended at something we think they should not be offended at.

So, all the people that are offended at Life of Brian matter, and we should not try to discount their reactions even if they are different from ours.

 

[TheWhat?]

Perhaps you didn't' see all of post #3 or perhaps didn't believe my report of my real reaction. So, I'm not doing: "choose to be offended, for no good reason."

Suppose you think I'm merely mistaken to even have the reaction I have. If that was your view, then even then you'd be under this rule in that case: Romans 14:3 The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him.

We hear we should not look down on (or discount to nothing the feelings) of someone else when they are offended at something we think they should not be offended at.

So, all the people that are offended at Life of Brian matter, and we should not try to discount their reactions even if they are different from ours.

After encountering quite a lot of negativity directed at myself, even at this forum over the years, I think I have good reason to say you are being a little sensitive and you are reading into this a mean-spirited intent that simply isn't there. I've witnessed threats of physical violence, I've been the recipient of real harm, I've been accused horribly and this, nonsensical bit of nothing is somehow too much to handle and cause for serious controversy? I'm not buying it.

 

[Halbhh]

After encountering quite a lot of negativity directed at myself, even at this forum over the years, I think I have good reason to say you are being a little sensitive and you are reading into this a mean-spirited intent that simply isn't there. I've witnessed threats of physical violence, I've been the recipients of real harm, I've been accused horribly and this, nonsensical bit of nothing is somehow too much to handle and cause for serious controversy? I'm not buying it.

Here's how it is for me: if my local city's art museum wanted to display that art work I used above an example (the one with the crucifix I pointed out above) -- I'd oppose that and write a letter to the editor or such, send an email, politely.

I'd surely not attack anyone. But I'd politely point out that I don't want my city to display that in our museum. I'd say what I think in a normal way (in a polite and friendly way), as a person expressing a view.

 

[TheWhat?]

Here's how it is for me: if my local city's art museum wanted to display that art work I used above an example (the one with the crucifix I pointed out above) -- I'd oppose that and write a letter to the editor or such, send an email, politely.

I'd surely not attack anyone. But I'd politely point out that I don't want my city to display that in our museum. I'd say what I think in a normal way (in a polite and friendly way), as a person expressing a view.

Ok. There is so-called "art" that I think is ludicrous and rightly considered offensive. But these aren't the same. Christians should have the right to be themselves. We need the right to exist without being persecuted. That means we need to put in-check sometimes, those who would come against them over every little thing even if they are christians also.

 

[SuperCow]

I think some of these comedians attempt to be ridiculous enough so that they push the edge, but don't cross the moving line. Everyone knows it's supposed to be humour. I think serious movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ" are far more hostile to Christianity than anything Monty Python has done. (Including the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch in the Holy Grail, or some questionable comparisons between Catholics and Protestants along with the Grim Reaper scene in the Meaning of Life.)

It's true that the gospels are not humorous, but traumatic events have been made into nursery rhymes and humor for centuries. Kids were singing ring around the rosie for 600 years after a plague wiped out a third of Europe. Humor about tragic events can help people to cope with the tragedy. Obviously there is a red line that moves back and forth, and it is crossed at different points for different people.

I worry more about people seeing the NBC movie with Jon Voight or the more recent Russel Crowe movie about Noah, and thinking that the nonsense they see is actually in the Bible. And you can see what a few decades of Hollywood does to the attempted cinematic weakening of the Exodus narrative from the Charlton Heston version to the Christian Bale version 6 decades later. (Though I did find it interesting to read Exodus with my son, and then watch Exodus: Gods and Kings and discussing with him what was wrong with their depiction.)

 

[SuperCow]

Not to stoke the flames any, but this skit (5 minutes) was on Mad TV in the 90s. I think it's too funny not to mention as it is related to this discussion. It's technically a satire of Terminator 2, but the premise is that the Terminator Robot (like the movie) is sent back in time, but instead of saving Sarah Connor, he is sent back 2000 years to save the life of Jesus Christ from crucifixion.

 

[Halbhh]

I worry more about people seeing the NBC movie with Jon Voight or the more recent Russel Crowe movie about Noah

Wow, interesting. I have just the opposite take: the big budget Noah (2014) movie is pretty harmless, and even shows God as real.

(While in Life of Brian, my impression is in that movie God doesn't exist it would seem, and all is just a farce: all human struggle may as well just be a source of humor then (when God doesn't exist)....)

So, the Noah movie is pretty good, and as a Christian (that believes in 100% of the Bible by the way), I'd recommend it, even like this:

Recommended for harmless entertainment that is compatible with faith:

And It doesn't matter that the angels are just imagined, as we all know it's only a movie. But the most important thing is that in this movie God does exist....

 

[TheWhat?]

Look, I don't want to get on anyone's case for making light of me as being an anti-terminator terminator (I don't know what even), but that was low even for my own bad sense of humor -_-

I still have to insist that Brian is not the messiah!

 

[SuperCow]

Wow, interesting. I have just the opposite take: the big budget Noah (2014) movie is pretty harmless, and even shows God as real.

(While in Life of Brian, my impression is in that movie God doesn't exist it would seem, and all is just a farce: all human struggle may as well just be a source of humor then (when God doesn't exist)....)

So, the Noah movie is pretty good, and as a Christian (that believes in 100% of the Bible by the way), I'd recommend it, even like this:

And It doesn't matter that the angels are just imagined, as we all know it's only a movie. But the most important thing is that in this movie God does exist....

The NBC movie mangled everything in Genesis to such a bad extent it made the whole story look ridiculous.

You are correct that the 2014 movie was much better in that regard, and I can respect that supplementing the story with the book of Enoch and Jasher (and possibly other Midrash) to fill in the story is a reasonable cinematic decision. (And the special effects and depiction of the physics of the flood were great)

Where it falls short and gives a dangerous depiction is Noah's attitude towards wanting to end humanity and sought to kill his grandchildren, even though he changed his mind in the end. Also the family infighting with Ham betraying Noah and helping Tubal-Cain because of leaving his friend to die. And of course the rock monster watchers shouldn't really be there and are depicted weirdly too.

So the righteous are depicted as bad (maybe not as evil as everyone else), and the watchers are depicted as good, even though they are condemned by God. So, it's the moral flip-flops that are dangerous. The NBC version made it clear that Noah shouldn't tell the whole story, implying that it would make God look bad.

 

[Halbhh]

The NBC movie mangled everything in Genesis to such a bad extent it made the whole story look ridiculous.

You are correct that the 2014 movie was much better in that regard, and I can respect that supplementing the story with the book of Enoch and Jasher (and possibly other Midrash) to fill in the story is a reasonable cinematic decision. (And the special effects and depiction of the physics of the flood were great)

Where it falls short and gives a dangerous depiction is Noah's attitude towards wanting to end humanity and sought to kill his grandchildren, even though he changed his mind in the end. Also the family infighting with Ham betraying Noah and helping Tubal-Cain because of leaving his friend to die. And of course the rock monster watchers shouldn't really be there and are depicted weirdly too.

So the righteous are depicted as bad (maybe not as evil as everyone else), and the watchers are depicted as good, even though they are condemned by God. So, it's the moral flip-flops that are dangerous. The NBC version made it clear that Noah shouldn't tell the whole story, implying that it would make God look bad.

Ah, but every movie depicting bible events makes mistakes we can find. Do the mistakes cause us to lose our faith?

Some depictions can be more dangerous. Consider depicting a person listening to Christ during the Sermon on the mount as more interested in a woman, and/or just generally misled and likely to do humorously aimless things? Depending on the tone, and the person watching, (other people, who are not you or me...) , that could be more dangerous, in that it's like God doesn't even exist, in that movie world. Christ's words without power. Just a good setting for a farce.

 

[SkyWriting]

I came across a discussion in 1979 about the 'Life of Brian'. People were and probably still are, divided about whether it is funny to make comedy about the life of Jesus.

I wonder if it is ok to laugh about this? Personally I don't find Monty Python funny, but I do sometimes laugh if other comedy is good and not too irreverent about such matters. Like Father Ted is funny to me because it is not crossing a line - it is obviously not serious. We do possess a sense of humour perhaps to stop us being too deadly serious all the time. But I feel a guilt if I laugh sometimes.

No need to feel guilty. There is a lot of humor in the scriptures most people are not aware of.