Scene One
In a Bethlehem Manger—(PSC) Bethlehem continues to be a point of argument for Bible scholars, and even the Gospels disagree as to its exact significance in relation to Christ’s birth. Luke’s account notes that Jesus’s parents traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where the child was born (2:4); while Matthew avers that Joseph and Mary already resided in Bethlehem (2:1).1 There is not complete agreement as to how old the child Jesus was when the magi finally arrived, either, with many arguing that the “infant” was two years old or more by the time of the visitation. What the Pythons are appropriating and then sending up is not scholarship, but the Christmas card, hymnal, and accreted traditional versions of the nativity,2 often as depicted in films, and much not part of the Gospels accounts: Mary riding a donkey, the holy family being refused a place at an inn, the child born in a stable, angels singing to shepherds, the baby Jesus not crying, or even three kings on camels, and so on. The BBC’s Who Was Jesus? summarizes the generally accepted scholarly view of the nativity in 1977, just as the Pythons were writing and planning Brian:
Overall, the most likely conclusion must be that the nativity stories are not historical. They do not belong to the primitive tradition about Jesus, but were developed by the early Church out of the Old Testament. . . . There is no reference to ox or ass in the Gospels. Our modern version of the nativity story has borrowed them in just the same way from the Old Testament: “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib.”3
In this same year, though, the BBC also produced a “schools programme” for children on the series Watch. Filmed in studio and on location in Bethlehem and environs, the show took children on a “gently religious” journey through the nativity.4 Joseph and Mary’s arduous journey, their rejection at every inn, and the birth in a stable are all depicted or sung about. What’s more, this program echoed a believer’s sentiment to a great degree, especially cohost James Adair’s songs: “His name was Jesus, he came to save us / Open your hearts, and let him come in.”5 Many Christian believers likely disagreed with the “accreted nativity” interpretation, while “permissive society” types balked at the BBC indoctrinating children with religious claptrap.
The Pythons’ argumentative approach to the subject of the nativity is then based on centuries of these disagreements that seemed to be reaching a critical mass in the mid-1970s, just when the Pythons were penning Life of Brian. In a special letter to the Times, professor of theology R. P. C. Hanson discusses the “state of deep confusion” around Jesus:
The articles and letters devoted to the origins of Christianity published in this paper during the past few months are sufficient to demonstrate this [confusion]. Drastic and diverse and often contradictory interpretations of the evidence are put forward by people whose competence cannot be doubted by even the most sceptical or the most imaginative critic. Further, it is perfectly clear that this community regarded itself as entrusted with authority from God as a result of the career (or what is believed to be the career) of Jesus, and that this authority included the power to forgive or not to forgive sins, and to include in or exclude from its number and to further the expansion of the community itself by disseminating the good news about Jesus of Nazareth (whatever it may have thought that good news to be).6
Professor Hanson goes on to assert that active, believing Christian communities across Britain would be the answer to this disconnect and disagreement.
Secondly, in late February 1976 the Church of England released Christian Believing, a report discussed in an article by Lord Hailsham. The conservative Hailsham saw three main problems with the tract. First, the absence of much discussion about the existence of God, or the spirit world in general; second, the use of “highly metaphorical, or almost unintelligible” language when making doctrinal statements (“What is, or can be meant by . . . ‘conceived’ by the Holy Ghost?”); and third, any thoughtful, scientific discussion of the “allegedly miraculous” events that pepper the Old and New Testaments, including the belief that the world is a mere six thousand years old.7 The dangers of not drilling deeper into these areas include, for the first, an embrace of materialism rather than spirituality; second, confusion of terms leading to fractiousness; and, third, failure to even attempt to reach the “scientifically-minded modern man.” Fittingly, the last such report had been issued in 1938, just as Hitler was busy annexing parts of Central Europe, a prelude to the horrors of World War II. In 1976 there followed a number of theologians who wrote in support of the new report, as well as a number (including the religion correspondent for the Times) who found the doctrine troubling. In short, after Time magazine had asked in 1966 “Is God Dead?” and after the race riots, political assassinations, kidnappings, acts of terror, predictions of environmental apocalypse, and years of economic malaise of the following decade, it’s no surprise that letters to the editor tended to wax pessimistic, especially in regard to God, faith, and the more supernatural aspects of Christianity.
That being said, the Pythons’ nativity account seems to have been mostly inspired by Luke, likely because it is better known than others in the Gospels. The Lucan isn’t even the earliest gospel account, though the synoptic gospels share a good deal of material.
THREE WISE MEN on camels—The camels and magi are dressed very similarly to those seen just months earlier in Franco Zeffirelli’s version of the Christ story, Jesus of Nazareth. The three kings wear flowing, draped robes that hang down well below their stirruped feet, and the camels they ride are similarly festooned. These “exterior” scenes were shot back at Shepperton Studio, west of London, while the manger scenes were filmed near Carthage.
A star leads them towards BETHLEHEM—This special effect star is actually moving across the night sky, and stops directly over what appears to be an image of Jerusalem (not Bethlehem)—from the viewers’ point of view, meaning the Wise Men would have a different angle entirely. (Cinematically, a perspectival alignment would be confusing, so purposefully bad perspective actually looks better on film.) In this version of the Jerusalem silhouette, the Dome of the Rock can be glimpsed, which is the film’s first, likely incidental anachronism. This Islamic structure wasn’t completed until about six hundred and sixty years after Christ’s crucifixion. This is the type of greeting-card Jerusalem image captured by dozens of Western artists in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. If the Pythons (and most likely Gilliam) had chosen to use an image of Jerusalem, circa 33, audiences would likely not recognize the very different cityscape.8
Already missing from the film is a shepherd scene. They talk about the loveliness of sheep, except at shearing, and in their inattention, miss the star visiting other shepherds.9
Visual beanfeast with inspiring music—(PSC) In the 1977 recorded table read for the script (one of many script “drafts”) Palin actually reads this as “beau feast,” meaning he and writing partner Jones likely did not write this section. Aside from being mentioned by Veruca Salt10 in her self-serving song from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), a beanfeast is popularly a dinner given by an employer for employees. Appropriately, though, it also refers to the annual feast the night before Twelfth Day, also known as Three Kings Day. Politically, the term was often used in British newspapers when either party wanted to lambast the other over profligate spending proposals.11
(draft) NARRATOR: (Audience thinks ‘They’re really doing it!’ Uneasy tittering. Catholics gather their belongings)—(PSC) From the moment the Pythons mentioned the possibility of doing a Christ or New Testament–based story they knew there would be many, even fans of the Flying Circus and Holy Grail, who would be offended by the irreverent treatment of sacred subject matter. At this point, however, the setting and treatment are quite on point, which, to Python-acculturated viewers, certainly meant that an undercutting was the other shoe waiting to drop. These asides have become common in Python scripts, though there are relatively few in this finished version of the Brian script. See the entry “Or, could a shaft of light . . .” below for more.
The Pythons only mention the Catholics as likely to be offended by this treatment. Perhaps they assumed that Anglican adherents wouldn’t care enough to be offended, nor would Jews, and that American faiths would ignore the irreverence, as well. What they’re presenting is a more catholic version of the sacred event, and it seems less likely to offend Christian viewers. As it turned out, it was often the more fundamentalist flocks within the larger, heterogeneous faiths that reacted most strongly. The Church of England, per se, wasn’t against the film, but Mary Whitehouse and her more activist fellows reacted to any increase in the depictions or discussions of sex and amorality in schools, on television, and in films. There was nowhere near the eruption of public antagonism in regard to the forthcoming Life of Brian as there had been for the announced Danish film The Sex Life of Jesus Christ in 1975–1976.12 There were minor protests against Brian, including one outside the Plaza in Lower Regent Street, though none terribly well-attended.13 The real difference between Life of Brian and other projects decried as blasphemous (the film The Sex Life of Jesus Christ;14 the poem The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name15) is the fact that the Pythons purposely avoided implicating Christ in any irreverent or sacrilegious setting. In Brian, both depictions of Jesus are straightforward and sober, with the Sermon on the Mount being almost reverent (before the camera pulls away from Christ, revealing a bickering flock at the back).
the town is very full—(PSC) This from the original printed script, as read. As the Wise Men enter the city in the finished film there is no indication of any other person, but the pathways are lined with stacks of goods and such, perhaps indicating a host of sleeping people. This sequence was shot long after location shooting, and back at Shepperton, to boot. British extras would have cost much more than the handful of dinars paid to extras in Tunisia, so a late-night setting and the cover of darkness cloaked the otherwise empty (studio) streets.16
plumb line from the star—(PSC) A plumb line and bob are used to determine the verticality of a structure; here, the indication is that the line and bob would reach from the star to the manger, meaning a fake star hanging above the manger set. This level of context-smashing—only suggested here in the scenic description—will be on display in the Pythons’ final film, Meaning of Life. In the closing sequence, “It’s Christmas in Heaven,” another nativity scene is depicted during a musical number, and a nimbed Mary eventually bursts through the stable roof, singing full-throat.
(Or, could a shaft of light shine, suddenly, directly on the roof of the stable?) (Think about it)—(PSC) Likely referring to the many illustrations of the nativity where such obvious, typographical elements are employed, including nimbs, spiritual radiances, and shafts of heavenly light.17 In the painting of the nativity at the Church of the Shepherds in Bethlehem, for instance, the light does indeed shine directly from above, through cherubs on clouds and a star-like Chi Ro, onto the nimbed and glowing holy family.
This is one of only a handful of intertextual comments made by the scriptwriters to themselves, a carryover from both the Flying Circus and Holy Grail scriptings.18 In the first television episode as written and recorded, the animated title sequence is described in the script as being “possibly connected with the stretching of owls” and “proceeding from a bizarre American’s fevered brain.”19 Gilliam’s animated contributions are often described this way, since the Pythons generally didn’t see them until the day of the show’s taping.20
A fairly typical manger scene—(PSC) The more “typical” the scene is, of course, the more effective the Pythons’ undercutting of the moment will become. This is more like a St. Francis–type nativity scene, one staged before a cathedral or church during the Christmas season, or those appearing in paintings since about the fourth century.21 The bright nimbs are disappearing from painted nativity images by the late fifteenth century, and may be used here since they are so iconic (and blindingly bright). This also resembles the very popular rehearsal of mystery plays at York (which Palin and others may have grown up seeing), though the mystery plays tended to use medieval costumes as opposed to first-century costumes. Gilliam will borrow a version of the baby Jesus from one such “typical” Doré work. See the entry for “infant Brian on a cloud” below for more.
Incidentally, there was also a very recent mystery play adaptation by Tony Harrison playing at National Theatre in 1977 and 1978. There, portions of the Wakefield, Coventry, York, and Chester cycles were performed in a new setting, with plenty of working-class tradesmen-actors and lots of broad northern accents and verbiage. The accent of Mrs. Big Nose (heard later) doesn’t sound nearly as out of place after watching this remarkable play.
THREE MEN approach the manger (audience shift uneasily)—(PSC) The “shift uneasily” bit means the Pythons are also aware of what a Python audience might bring to the cinema—seeing just how far into reverent orthodoxy the boys will go before pulling the rug out from under the scene. There’s almost a “Wait for it!” moment (heard much later) implied in this tension.
The First Wise Man is “blacked up” for the role, which the Pythons employed more than once during the run of Flying Circus.22 The Goons also mention “blacking up,” as well.23 There had been a long tradition of blackface performances on British stages and screens, and the Pythons had called for blackface performances in Eps. 20 and 29. The popular Black and White Minstrel Show was, coincidentally, taken off the air just as the Pythons were producing Life of Brian. This depiction may also be simply another borrow from the recent Jesus of Nazareth film, where black American actor James Earl Jones plays one of the Wise Men (along with Donald Pleasance and Fernando Rey24), or one of hundreds of paintings, altarpieces, and frescoes that have depicted the nativity since about 500. A number of such images do depict a wise man of color (Balthazar, who generally represents Africa), though many also present three fair-skinned magi and the occasional black servant or slave carrying one of the gifts. By the time the Pythons are producing their final feature film Meaning of Life, the nativity is being broadcast on TV in heaven, Mary and Joseph are dancers, and the Three Wise Men are all black and pushing shopping carts loaded with their gifts.
(draft) (No ocelots. This bit is serious please.)—(PSC) Part of the Python humor has always been the appearance of normalcy and somber sobriety in both character and setting, followed by a transgressive intrusion that completely undercuts the situation. The more real the medieval world of Holy Grail looked and sounded, the funnier the moments of deflation. Well into the film, when frocked monks walk together through a small, filthy town, chanting, nothing seems amiss—it is a scene drawn from The Seventh Seal, and perfectly medieval. This is undercut when they whack themselves in the foreheads with large planks of wood—the Pythons’ version of flagellant monkery.
The ocelot, as a New World animal, would qualify as an out-of-place manger inhabitant, thus spoiling the “serious” tone. The Pythons often telescope history and create anachronisms, of course, including coconuts in medieval England, “orangutans,” “fruit bats,” and “breakfast cereals” in the holy scriptures of the same period, and so on. In Flying Circus Ep. 25, a perfectly dramatic, realistic World War I scene—where a young private is trying to tell his sergeant of life back home—has to be cut short thanks to a sheikh, a mermaid, and a spaceman in the shot.25 In the nativity scene as completed in Life of Brian, only a cow stands beside the manger (though a chicken can be heard at points).
The mother nods by the side of the child—This is Mandy, played by Terry Jones. She is never called Mandy in the film. In Holy Grail Jones played Dennis’s mother, and she was draped similarly. There, her name was also never mentioned, nor was her relationship to Dennis. Most assumed they were husband and wife. “Mandy,” incidentally, was the street name for Mandrax, a methaqualone and antihistamine recreational drug mix popular in the 1970s in Britain. In Ep. 41 of Flying Circus, Michael Ellis’s mother (also Jones) mentions the drug as one to which her son’s pet tiger is addicted.26
She wakes from a lightish doze, sees them, shrieks and falls backwards off her bale of straw—The Third Wise Man’s response to this is an exaggerated eye roll, meaning the bloom of sacredness is already off this rose. This gestural acting is likely a nod to farce films, classic British TV, and even the music hall stage, where such gestures were necessary when playing to the back stalls. In Holy Grail, Arthur’s first encounter in the film—with the battlement sentries who digress into swallow minutiae—ends with Arthur raising his eyes “heavenwards.”27
She is a ratbag—(PSC) This description is a Python portmanteau reference for the slovenly Pepperpot-ish woman seen a number of times in Flying Circus, and then Holy Grail. “Ratbag” means frumpy and unattractive, a reader of the Express or Telegraph, and likely a racially insensitive Tory; the pejorative is used in Eps. 9, 16, and 21.28 During the run of Flying Circus Jones specialized in playing this type of character, culminating in the outrageous mother character in Ep. 45’s “Most Awful Family in Britain” sections. In Holy Grail, Jones plays yet another ratbag, this time mucking around in the filth as the mother of Dennis, the so-called “constitutional peasant.”29 Of the decision to cast Jones in Life of Brian as this recurring Python character, Palin wrote the following: “Casting completed this morning. Most of the main parts reaffirmed. Brian is Graham (unchallenged), Terry J Mandy (John being the only other one in the running, but it was felt that a motherly rat-bag was needed, and TJ’s women are more motherly than JC’s long, thin, strange ones), Eric Otto, me Pilate, and so on.”30 Palin would add a clarifying footnote to an entry from 1972, on the occasion of hearing Jones’s mother had passed away: “I had got to know Terry’s mum well in the days when I visited the family home in Claygate, Surrey. She was an endearing lady and we were very fond of each other. Some of Terry’s drag roles on Python were uncannily like her, though absolutely not Mandy in The Life of Brian.”31
FIRST WISE MAN—None of the visiting magi are given names in the printed script or in the finished film, they are just “Three Wise Men.” Clearly, though, the Pythons are mimicking the most popular Christian tradition for these depictions, offering two “white” characters (Gaspar and Melchior) and one “black” (Balthazar). Many medieval manuscripts produced in Western Europe—such as the St. Albans Psalter and the St. Wulfram’s Gospels—depict three very European-looking magi. Occasionally, the Gothic illustrators gave one Wise Man a darker beard, likely to indicate African ancestry.
THIRD WISE MAN: “We are astrologers. We have come from the East”—These visitors from the “East” only appear in Matthew’s version of the Christ story: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”32 There isn’t a number provided there, and the astrologers aren’t given names in the best-known versions of the story. It’s also unclear where they came from, precisely, excepting somewhere east of Palestine. It’s likely that since there are three gifts enumerated—gold, frankincense, and myrrh—it was assumed three men carried them.
MANDY: “Is this some kind of joke?”—In Ep. 41 of Flying Circus, the odd behavior of the clerks behind the ant counter prompt a complaint from Chris (Idle), and the Real Manager (Jones) tells him their “performances” are part of the store’s “rag week”: “A university tradition where students help raise money (via sideshow-type performances) for charities. Both Cambridge and Oxford participate in the long-standing ‘raising and giving’ tradition. The student fun and games during rag week could be rather over the top.”33 This explanation is actually able to elicit a donation from Chris for the store’s charity; Brian’s skeptical mother is able to (momentarily) collect charitable donations from the visiting magi.
FIRST WISE MAN: “We wish to praise the infant”—There are several versions of this scene in Matthew, chapter 2, that the Pythons could have used as their scriptural foundation. Both the Revised Standard Edition (1952) and the New International Version (1973) agree almost completely with the King James Version:
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
See the next entry for the Pythons’ word choice. Pilate’s wife will also be warned in a dream that her husband should release Jesus; he does not follow her advice.
MANDY: “Homage!! You’re all drunk . . .”—A Pythonesque misunderstanding, certainly. Perhaps Jones is riffing on the medieval, knightly definition of the term, meaning the acknowledgment of a vassal-lord relationship. Even though Jones is an avid and published medieval historian, it’s more likely that Mandy simply hears “homage” and “balm” in her own way. In Flying Circus Ep. 5, a management training interviewer (Cleese) interprets an applicant’s simple, seemingly obvious and normal gestures (sitting down, standing up, sitting down again, answering “Good morning”) in aberrant, mystifying ways. The applicant (Chapman) has no way to interpret the odd goings-on during the interview, and eventually has a tantrum. In a later episode a character must learn to talk faster or slower, higher or lower (in register), louder or softer, just to facilitate a police report.34 Communications in the Python world are very seldom straightforward, and often the characters involved have to work out, in scene, how to effectively communicate:35
The importance . . . of communication in [Flying Circus] is a significant trope. In Ep. 14, the Minister delivers his answer in his “normal voice, and then in a kind of silly, high-pitched whine.” Other characters only speak parts of words, so that only in a group can they utter complete sentences; one character speaks in anagrams; and one insults the listener with every other sentence, etc. In a nicely visual twist on the trope, in Ep. 30, gestures are offered to denote “pauses in televised talk.”36
Mandy won’t know what the magi mean by “Wise Men,” “homage,” “myrrh,” “balm,” “praising,” and “Capricorn,” and her interpretation of being “led by a star” is being “led by a bottle,” a more human, earthy metaphor that’s closer to her character’s range of understanding and experience as a “ratbag” Pepperpot. She immediately comprehends when the Wise Men offer her gifts, however, specifically when they’ve mentioned “gold.” She also understands “astrologers” and “star signs,” like Mrs. O and Mrs. Trepidatious in Ep. 37 of Flying Circus. They—along with closet mice (Ep. 2), “Ideal Loons” (middle-Britain Conservatives; also Ep. 37) and awful British tourists abroad on package tours (Ep. 31)—read the Daily Express for its horoscope and sordid human interest stories.37
Most of the major versions of the Bible available to the Pythons as they wrote do not use the word “homage” in relation to the nativity. In one or two versions (e.g., the RSV for Catholics) “homage” appears in the Gospels, but only when Christ is being tortured and humiliated, and then only in Mark.38 This might be one of the most identifiable influences, then, of the Zeffirelli version in Jesus of Nazareth. In the scene where the Wise Men are in the manger, and they’ve all agreed this is the king they were sent to find, they speak of their praising and gift-giving in this way:
Balthazar: Accept these poor tokens of our homage. Incense, to perfume the holes in thy feet.
He places the vessel on the floor at Mary’s feet.
Melchior: Gold, for kingly rule.
He places the box on the floor.
Gaspar: Myrrh, the most precious herb of the east, and the most bitter.
He places the vessel on the floor.
The very seriousness of this moment, followed as it is by Melchior’s warning to Mary that Herod is likely a threat to her son, means it’s ripe for the Pythons. In most editions of the Bible, the Wise Men “worship” (also “worship,” “worshipped,” and “worshipping”) the baby Jesus. The Pythons’ version of the Three Wise Men will do this, as well, in unison, in a moment.
MANDY: “. . . some tale about Oriental fortune tellers . . .”—They are “from the East,” and Mandy’s decided that means the Orient, which was a generalization of the period. Babylon had been the center of Oriental trade, and the Jews had been exiled in Babylon, though this exile had ended some six hundred years prior to the film’s stated time. Both frankincense and myrrh would have necessarily found their way to Jerusalem via the “Incense Route,” as perhaps would tales of “Oriental fortune tellers.” And since both frankincense and myrrh were burned as holy incense in the temple in Jerusalem, regular and dependable sources would have been crucial.39 Mandy doesn’t know what myrrh is, she’ll admit in a moment, and that may mean she has no knowledge of the inner workings of the temple—a lack of knowledge likely shared by many everyday Jews (and perhaps especially female Jews) of her time.
MANDY: “Go and praise someone else’s brat! Go on!”—This bossy, over-the-top characterization is typical of some of the Pythons’ ratbags, but there is also a character in Jesus of Nazareth they likely drew from. In the manger scene, the woman taking care of Mary after the birth takes charge rather authoritatively, giving Joseph instructions and seeing to the new mother’s needs. At this point shepherds appear at the manger door, and she immediately tries to give them the bum’s rush: “Who’s that? What do you want? This is no place for you! Get out! Get out, do you hear me?” At this point she aims to physically hustle them back out the door, like Mandy with her visitors: “Off! Off with you! Can’t you see? The poor girl has just had a child!” After revealing by what means they were led there (a star, not a bottle), the shepherds are invited in by Joseph, without the promise of gifts.
MANDY: “Led by a bottle, more like”—The possibility of drinking spirits from a glass bottle was real during this period, though the more likely container for wine could have been amphora or oak barrels brought in by hated Romans. Later, the Peoples’ Front of Judea will count imported Roman wine as one of the positive things about the Roman occupation.
FIRST WISE MAN: “Gold, frankincense, myrrh”—Wine mixed with myrrh will be offered to Christ as he is placed on the cross, in a passage found in Mark 15, “but he received it not.” Myrrh was used in Roman times as a fairly effective painkiller, as well as for its fragrant properties.40 The shepherds who visit the child in Harrison’s The Mysteries miracle play bring gifts, as well: “a bob of cherries,” a bird in a cage, and a tennis ball for the child to play with. And even though it sounds like a Pythonesque anachronism, the gift of the tennis ball comes from very old versions of the Wakefield cycle.41
THIRD WISE MAN: “It is a valuable balm”—This is an answer to Mandy’s question “So what is myrrh, anyway?” a question many have likely asked over the years. The Johannine account tells of Nicodemus bringing a myrrh mixture to anoint Christ’s body after his crucifixion, and with Pilate’s approval.42 Myrrh had both medicinal and sacerdotal applications, meaning it would have been both valuable and available in Jerusalem during this time.
MANDY: “What are you giving him a balm for? It might bite him”—It might seem that at first Mandy may have heard “bomb,” and we could assume that in her world there are “Holy Hand Grenade”–type devices as there had been in Holy Grail.43 She takes the reference sideways, of course, thinking a “balm” is some kind of wild animal. She’s already assumed that “homage” is “disgusting,” so her version of malapropery is betrayed. Misunderstandings and failures of communication are wrecking balls in the Python world, smashing contexts and diverting narratives onto seemingly unintended paths. In Flying Circus, the Pythons had merely carried on a long-standing English dramatic tradition of the “comic misunderstanding,” leading to silly or (narratively) fatal results. In the first episode of the TV series, an Italian language class is underway, being taught to, of course, Italians:
It’s already clear that almost everyone in the classroom is Italian, and only the teacher seems to have missed this point. The irony of teaching introductory, conversational Italian to native Italians is the obvious joke, and it’s compounded by Python’s characteristic “comic misunderstanding” trope, thanks to the teacher’s failure to recognize his students’ nationalities. This comic misunderstanding occurs when peasants refuse to recognize kings, in the Python world, or when Thomas Dekker’s lower-class characters consort with upper-class characters on the same social level, and without self-consciousness, in The Shoemaker’s Holiday (1599). The tradition is also carried on in myriad eighteenth-century plays (e.g., Sheridan’s The Rivals) and novels (Fielding’s Tom Jones).44
Cleese’s Centurion and Palin’s Nisus Wettus will struggle mightily as they try to communicate later with jailers, both fairly unhelpful, narratively speaking. Also in Flying Circus, a tobacconist’s signs may or may not be sexual double entendres (“chest of drawers,” “a bit of pram”),45 and a man asking to be married at the Registry Office is mistaken for/as proposing to the Registrar. By the time that scene is complete, five men are happily married to each other.46 Brian’s mother’s misunderstandings might simply be a comment on her ratbag rusticity, and her inability to differentiate between reality and what she might have dreamed.
MANDY: “Yes, it is. It’s got great big . . .” (she gestures)—Tim the Enchanter (Cleese) describes the beast waiting for the knights should they approach the Cave of Caerbannog in a very similar way, including using his fingers to indicate the creature’s “nasty, big pointy teeth.”47
THIRD WISE MAN: “No, it isn’t, it’s an ointment”—In the printed script Mandy fingers the jar (offered by the helpful First Wise Man) to get a feel for the ointment, but in the finished film that “grubby finger” moment is elided. They obviously shot this moment, as well, then edited it out; all that’s left in the finished film is Mandy enigmatically holding up her index finger, as if she’s testing the breeze. Not being a woman of wealth, Mandy might be excused for not appreciating expensive unguents. If she had been wealthy and interested in perfumes, she would have “known that scents and ‘ointments’ were greatly in vogue, and often most expensive (Matt. 26:7). The latter were prepared of oil and of home or foreign perfumes, the dearest being kept in costly alabaster boxes.”48 As the film plays out, only Gregory and his wife, those Romans and preferred servants of Pilate’s household, and the assembled Roman audience at the Colosseum would have ritually availed themselves of these luxuries.
MANDY: “Or did I dream it?”—The dream as portentous is common in the scriptures. In the New Testament, dreams related to the Savior include: the aged Zacharias being visited in a “vision” by an angel who told Zacharias that his son, John, would be “great in the sight of the Lord”;49 in Matthew, Joseph’s concerns about putting away Mary “privily” are assuaged by the visitation of an angel;50 and Joseph will be visited again with a supernatural prompting to take his wife and child out of Herod’s reach.51 Just prior to this last visitation, the Three Wise Men will also receive a message from God to “not return to Herod,” but “[depart] into their own country in another way.”52 Later, Matthew 27:19 tells of Pilate’s wife warning her husband to have “nothing to do with that just man,” meaning Jesus—her dreams had made her “[suffer] many things.”53
Mandy’s dreams of a biting animal called a “balm” sound more like the visions given to John and recorded in Revelations, where there are myriad dragons and beasts. There is a “behemoth” mentioned in Job, but “he eateth grass as an ox,” so isn’t likely to bite anyone, as well as “leviathan” mentioned in Isaiah, Psalms, and Job.54 With the vagaries of medieval translation noted, there are also unicorns, cockatrice, and even satyrs. These fanciful creatures can be seen in the margins of Gothic illuminated manuscripts, and on maps from the same period, when some of the major biblical translations were being accomplished.55
MANDY: “So you’re astrologers are you?”—In the Zeffirelli film Jesus of Nazareth, just prior to finding the baby Jesus at the stable, the Wise Men gather with their astrologer’s paraphernalia (maps, charts, etc.) and discuss the signs and meaning of the coming miracle.
MANDY: “What star sign is he?”—This “star sign” talk appears earlier in a Pete and Dud sketch from their 1968 BBC series Goodbye Again, when Dud visits the doctor (he fears he’s been cursed by an angry palmist):
Dud: So I said “I am the Ram” . . .
Pete: Ares.
Dud: Ares. “Mercurial, quixotic . . .”
Pete: “. . . tempestuous—tempestuous. Given to sudden flights of fancy . . .”
Dud: (laughing) For Valerie Pearson at four in the morning . . .
Pete: Exactly.
Dud: Uh, “outgoing, ingoing, avoid brunettes, lucky number four.” . . .
A number of tabloids, including the Daily Express, The Sun, and the Daily Mirror, boasted popular horoscope sections. In Ep. 37, “What the Stars Foretell” sketch in Flying Circus, two ratbags (Chapman and Idle) discuss star signs (“. . . the zodiacal signs, the horoscopic fates, the astrological portents, the omens . . .”), reading especially from the Daily Express.56
FIRST WISE MAN: “. . . Capricorn”—Simply meaning that these Wise Men assume (and so do the writers of the film, and much of the world) that Christ was born sometime between 22 December and 20 January. This reference likely pricked the astute, younger audience members’ memories, given that seven years earlier American singer and songwriter Kris Kristofferson had released the song and album “Jesus was a Capricorn”:57
Jesus was a Capricorn / He ate organic food
He believed in love and peace / And never wore no shoes
Long hair, beard and sandals / And a funky bunch of friends
Reckon we’d just nail him up / If he came down again.
There are many opinions as to when Christ was actually born, differing for Jew, Christian, and pagan, though a winter birth seems unlikely given the cold weather. Arguments against a December nativity do include the cold—shepherds would not have been in their fields with flocks overnight, for example; also, the Augustan census was underway, which would have been scheduled in better travel weather to ensure a higher, more accurate count, etcetera. Calculating against Christ’s cousin John’s birth puts the blessed event sometime toward the end of September. If the date is set toward the end of September, then Brian (and Christ) would have been Libra, not Capricorn.
In December 1976, the Pythons were meeting fairly regularly to share story and scene ideas for the forthcoming film. On 10 December, a small story appeared in the Times, “Astronomy: The Star of Bethlehem,” which was itself adapted from an article appearing the previous day in the scientific journal Nature. For the articles, D. W. Hughes of Sheffield University examined all the available information explaining the Star of Bethlehem, whether a comet, a nova, or even a particularly bright planet Venus. None of these match the astronomical situation of the period (about 7 BC), and he proposed instead a “triple conjunction,” wherein Jupiter and Saturn moved very close together three times over a space of six months, appearing incredibly bright. He finds that the “triple conjunction (in the constellation Pisces) had been calculated and predicted” in Babylonian cuneiform tablets, and astrologers like these magi would have known (or even been responsible for) these predictions. And, “astrologically, the event could have been full of significance for Babylonians steeped in Jewish tradition. Not only is Pisces associated with the Jewish people, but in traditional Jewish astrology Saturn protected Israel. In addition, Jupiter was considered to be a lucky and royal star.”58 The “guided by a triple conjunction” explanation may have elicited the same response from Mandy (“You’re drunk!”), but at the time the Pythons were actually writing the movie, it was the most recent and most defensible scientific explanation for the Star of Bethlehem.
FIRST WISE MAN: “He is the Son of God. Our Messiah”—Beginning in January 1976 George Lucas and the large film crew that would create Star Wars began work at Elstree Studios in Borehamwood. The Star Wars novelization59 and first trailer appeared later in December 1976, when the Brian screenplay was still in its early stages. Parallels between the emerging Luke character and Brian, as eventually realized, can easily be drawn. The image of the young, infatuated naïf who aspires to greater things is common to both, for example. Palin’s version of Brian and his trajectory read quite familiar:
Today we decide on . . . the rough pattern of Brian’s life—a bastard with a Roman father, toys with joining various Messiahs, is disillusioned, joins, or dabbles, with the resistance, is caught, escapes from the Romans, disguises himself as a prophet and gains a large and devoted following which he also tries to escape from.60
Luke follows the Joseph Campbell–inspired path of the mythic hero: He is introduced to the “problem” (the empire taking over the universe) but he demurs, for domestic responsibilities, until his family are killed and he is free to escape home and join the rebellion.61 Brian must defy his mother to join the rebellion, he is thrust out of the (safety) of the community—he is hunted and eventually captured—and then he himself is the sacrifice. These aren’t mirrored narrative journeys, but the Pythons were obviously very aware of the Star Wars world. (Both Luke and Brian eventually fly in spaceships, as well, a surprising but acknowledgeable coincidence for a scene intended to lampoon the special effects–laden space blockbusters of the day.) It’s also hard to miss the visual similarities between Luke and Brian. Both are dressed in tunics that are light-colored, textured and woven, gathered at the waist, setting them apart from most of the characters around them.
It is noteworthy that the Pythons were thinking along the same lines as George Lucas at this point, though the historical, archetypal elements of these characterizations are probably clear anyway. Frank Herbert’s 1965 Dune had also posited a bastard-type, insider-cum-outsider-cum-savior in young Paul Atreides.62 There were plenty of messiahs in the news of the day, too, and of all stripes: from Charles Manson to Tony Benn to union activist Derek Robinson to Ted Heath—the epithet was used often and widely. Similarities to Star Wars’ character and narrative construction become more possible after the Pythons begin principal writing in January 1978, when they were together in Barbados.63 Star Wars had become a worldwide hit, released in the UK at Christmas 1977 to long lines and much hype. Palin specifically praises the film in his diaries, which he’d screened for the first time just days before heading to Barbados and the final group writing for Life of Brian.64
SECOND WISE MAN: “King of the Jews”—This is the title that Pilate applies to Jesus as he is sent to the cross. The priests who saw to Jesus’s condemnation objected to the sign that Pilate had made, “The King of the Jews,” and, in a Pythonesque bit of semantics, asked that the sign be changed: “Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.”65 Pilate refused to change what he had ordered written. In Matthew, the Wise Men ask around to find “he that is born King of the Jews”;66 elsewhere in the NT, the phrase is only used in relation to Jesus’s appearance before Pilate.
MANDY: “. . . Brian”—There’s no sign of a Joseph figure here, and we’ll soon learn that Mandy was raped (“at first”) by a Roman soldier, who is Brian’s alleged father. It’s certain that Mandy, as the mother, will name Brian, which goes along with tradition, according to Susan Ackerman: “In the Hebrew Bible, mothers are more often said to name their children than fathers.”67 But Ackerman also goes on to mention the significance of the name itself, discussing “Micah,” which when fully extended means “Who is like God?”: “Therefore, an Israelite audience would likely have understood that the mother had bestowed upon her son a name that celebrates Yahweh as the object of her religious devotion.”68 This last section is significant, at least for a Python audience, since it means Mandy has gone well away from a devotional naming, unless she is somehow devoted to Prince Charles (known as “Brian” in the pages of Private Eye), or the Brians mentioned below. Of Irish and Celtic origin, “Brian” is very familiar to Python fans:
A Brian-named character appears in [Flying Circus] Eps. 2, 4, 9, 11, 13–14 (three characters), 19 (four characters), 20–23, 29, 36–37, 40–41, 43, and 45. There are many possibilities for the high status this name seems to occupy in Python, including [Flying Circus] staff member Brian Jones, and various BBC television commentators sharing the name. . . . The most likely, however, refers to Captain Brian Trubshaw, British test pilot and first pilot of the Concorde SST, whom the Queen referred to openly as “my Brian.”69
One can also factor in popular cricketer Brian Close, sports commentator Brian Johnston, footballer Brian Clough, and boxer Brian London—each of these Brians is mentioned more than once during the run of Flying Circus. In the pages of Private Eye, Prince Charles was often referred to as “Brian,” while his mother the Queen was known as “Brenda.”
There are a number of seemingly out-of-place names in Jerusalem today like “Wilson’s Arch” and “Robinson’s Arch,” ancient structures named for later imperialist adventurers who “discovered” them.
MANDY: “Oh! Well, if you’re dropping by again do drop in”—According to the Gospels, the magi went home a different way to avoid having to report to Herod. From Matthew: “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.”70 These won’t be “dropping by again,” certainly.
MANDY: “. . .thanks a lot for the gold and frankincense . . . but don’t worry too much about the myrrh next time . . .”—Given that the smoke of “frankincense and many other aromatics” were common “methods of controlling insects,” Mrs. Cohen should have been quite happy to receive the resin—she is, after all, living in a stable. The “mosquitoes, flies and other insects” would have starved for oxygen in proximity to the smoke, and the rough room would have smelled much more pleasant.71 Earlier, in Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s live stage show Behind the Fridge, newspaper correspondent Matthew (Moore) interviews a Shepherd (Cook) about the nativity events, and the shepherd mentions that the “atmosphere was very, very smelly” in the stable. The shepherd also points out that he thought the Wise Men were actually “bloody idiots” who gave the Christ child gold—“fair enough, a little nugget of gold always comes in handy”—but the gift of frankincense and myrrh was thoughtless: “What is a little kid gonna do with frankincense and myrrh? Myrrh is the stuff what poofs put behind their ears!”72
Lastly, Mandy clearly doesn’t know the relative value of the gifts her child’s being offered. In ancient Rome, myrrh was said to be valued much higher than frankincense. She’s holding three treasures, at least for a few moments. In a draft version of the script Mandy “gives them the presents back and receives a gift of cash.” This is an example of a “flog back” where a prize (won on a game show) could be traded for cash. In the Flying Circus sketch “It’s a Living,” the Compére (Idle) recites the show’s rules: “The winners will receive an additional fee, a prize which they can flog back and a special fee for a guest appearance on Late Night Line Up.”73 The equating of a visitation to the blessed Son of God and a modern game show transaction should be noted, of course. This isn’t a surprise, though, given that elsewhere in Flying Circus historical figures including Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, John the Baptist’s head, Genghis Khan, St. Stephen, Richard III, Julius Caesar, and King Edward VII all participated in TV game shows.74 The Pythons regularly drag both respected and reviled persons of history out of their historical contexts and into the modern world of film and television.
MANDY: “Out of their bloody minds . . .”—The coarse accent is the first sign, but the use of “bloody”—a particularly English epithet—sets the tone for the rest of the film. These are various English men and women in the Holy Land setting, with no pretense of period language or accents. This practice had become de rigueur in Hollywood films, for example, with the mixing of American and British accents in films like The Ten Commandments, and the use of British accents in place of German accents in many Hollywood World War II films. The Goon Show had really led the Pythons here, no surprise, placing very British characters—including a “Nomad Arab” who’d gone to Cambridge to study Cockney—into Middle Eastern settings.75 The various Carry On films, including Carry on Cleo, employed various British accents and mannered speech, from the high camp of Kenneth Williams (as Caesar) to the rough Cockney of Sidney James (as Marc Antony).
The use of “bloody” had also come of age in broadcasting and the movies as the Pythons came to be. A BBC internal document published in 1948 (and still in effect when the Pythons took to the air in 1969) laid out standards and practices on the use of expletives (“Bloody, Gorblimey, Ruddy”), with a “serious dramatic setting” being the general underpinning.76 Though not beholden to the BBC, the British Board of Film Classification shared opinions with the Beeb as to expletives, and it wouldn’t be until the advent of New Wave films and, specifically, Angry Young Men raging across screens in the late 1950s that words like “bloody” found their way into more common parlance at cinemas. In I’m All Right Jack, a comedy produced in 1959, Mr. Kite’s wife rails at him for his stubbornness and politics: “Oh, yes, you’re chairman of the Works Committee, don’t we all know it. I’m sick to death of you and your Works Committee! Union this, union that. And your—blasted Soviet Union!” When saying “blasted,” Mother Kite obviously curbs her own tongue, as she clearly (pausing, the “b” on her lips) wants to say “bloody Soviet Union.” She doesn’t, replacing it with her own “innocuous expression,” but she could have just a few years later, even in a comedy.77
Later in Life of Brian, at the back of the crowd during the Sermon on the Mount, Mr. Big Nose hears “bloody” and tells Mr. Cheeky to not “swear” at his wife; the Ex-leper will also complain about “bloody donkey owners” and that Jesus, who healed him, is a “bloody do-gooder”; and Ben, hanging in Pilate’s jail, is grateful that the Romans have brought discipline to the Jews, otherwise there’d be a “right bloody mess.”78
(draft) They turn and we see an identical Manger Scene in the other corner of the barn—(PSC) Not so, precisely. This would perhaps have been even funnier, given that the actual infant Jesus and his nativity scene were just a head-turn away as the silliness with Mandy and Brian unfolded. In the finished film, Mary and Joseph are in a nearby manger, just across the way. Coincidentally, in a 1977 issue of Private Eye, the “November Books” column advertises a new book, The Ted Heath Book of Bethlehem: “The former Prime Minister tells the familiar Christmas story in his own inimitable style, with cut-out nativity figures, pop-up Xmas tree and free, giveaway record of well-loved Yuletide carols.”79
MARY and JOSEPH and JESUS with haloes—There is a common mixing of depictions here, since Matthew mentions only Jesus’s mother in attendance as the Magi visit. These nimbed versions of the nativity are plentiful, and Gilliam even used several (angels and perhaps a Mary figure) in the animated opening credits of Holy Grail.80 Gilliam earlier included two versions of the Madonna and child imagery in Flying Circus animations, using Bellini’s Madonna of the Meadows in Eps. 19 and 25, and di Credi’s Virgin and Child in Ep. 26.81
Like the Sermon on the Mount scene earlier—at least that portion of it featuring Jesus—this is one of the few scenes in Brian played straight. This may have been why the Pythons chose to remove the proper nativity from the same manger where Mandy and infant Brian are found. Lifted right from popular versions of the Gospels, these scenes, if removed from the Pythonesque context, would fit into a completely orthodox production of the nativity. Here the holy family is in place, the proper animals are gathered, and the Wise Men approach and kneel just as they should, as if posing for a mystery play tableau. There is no other shoe waiting to drop, no undercutting. (That happens when we cut back to Mandy and Brian, and she slaps him for crying.) This was one of the earliest ideas for the entire film, where a “St. Brian” just misses the miracles, the events of the Passion, etc., always arriving too late.82 It is perhaps the very reverent and traditional nature of these scenes as conveyed—both including the Savior—that inflamed public opinion against the film, given the language, nudity, and/or irreverence in scenes before and after. It’s equally possible, though, that a straight-ahead lampoon takes “the curse off it.”83 A sort of Carry On Jesus would have likely been clucked at but largely ignored. Private Eye had, in September 1977, offered a story from their “World of TV” section depicting presenter and host Bamber Gascoigne84 as a Christ figure, complete with disciples, mentions of fishermen and famous Jews, and a sermon on the mount in rural Spain: “It was on a hillside very similar to this, on the outskirts of the little town of Granada, that Bamber first delivered his immortal challenge to his little group of young disciples. ‘Here,’ he told them, ‘is your starter for ten.’”85 A few months earlier the magazine had lampooned the BBC 2 documentary Who Was Jesus? in an article entitled “Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up and Be Counted!”86 The article tends to poke fun at the presenters and the show itself, and not Jesus. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore had treated stories from the Gospels several years earlier for their show Behind the Fridge, and sent them up.87 In one scene, as an obviously iconic Jesus (Cook) walks on the water, his disciple (Moore) walks just behind him, chronicling the miracle, slowly sinking deeper and deeper (to audience giggles), until he splashes out of sight. Cook even finished with his arms outstretched, a gesture that could have offended, it seems, more sensitive viewers. Cook and Moore’s approach to the Gospels was a lampoon, start to finish, and without nudity or cursing.
. . . pushing MANDY over—The obvious jerkiness of this movement results from the removal of a handful of frames from the action, causing a noticeable “jump” in the otherwise fluid motion. This effect has been used since film began, from Georges Méliès’ “trick-film” fin-de-siècle shorts through Gilliam’s Time Bandits and beyond.88
This unflattering, unattractive depiction of women is the Pythons’ métier. By the final episode of Flying Circus, all stops are out. In Ep. 45 Jones plays a screeching, appalling mother figure (wearing a dress and wig but called “Dad”) in the “Icelandic Honey Week” sketch. In that same episode, the mother (Idle) is equally appalling; she screams every bit of dialogue and worries about honey giving Dad “plop-plops”; the salesman is a man dressed in female Icelandic traditional costume, and hates his job but it gets him away from “gloomy” Iceland; and the son (Gilliam) is also cross-dressed and wearing garish makeup. Everyone here is cross-dressed at the actor level (four male actors dressed as females), while at the level of the fiction, the sketch, Jones’s “Dad” character is a man dressed as a woman; Idle’s “Mother” character is a woman dressed as a woman; the honey salesman (Chapman) is a man dressed as a woman; and the son (Gilliam) looks like he is a man dressed as a schoolgirl (school tie, cap, blazer, and skirt).89
MANDY and her brat—These characters have gone from being the holy mother of the Savior and the Messiah himself to a “ratbag” with “brat” rather quickly, as is customary in the Python world. This setting is beginning to feel much more like the world of a Snoo Wilson play, perhaps especially Vampire, which premiered in 1973, and was then rewritten and restaged in 1977.90 One of Wilson’s obituarists described him as “often overtly political, Snoo was a Marxist ‘tendance Groucho’; more subtly subversive and humorous” than other post-1968 British playwrights.91 Wilson characters in his 1976 and 1977 plays included Afrikaners and ghosts, vampires and punks, and even “real” people like Eugène Marais, Lynda Marchal, and Enoch Powell as a bloodsucking vampire.92
(draft) (MANDY pokes it with a long pole)—(PSC) In the finished film, Mandy actually slaps the crying baby.93 This off-camera slap was earlier used in Ep. 4 of Flying Circus. There, two art-loving mothers (Chapman and Cleese) visit an art gallery where their children (never seen) allegedly have “smeared tomato ketchup all over Raphael’s Baby Jesus,” manhandled a “Baroque masterpiece,” smashed an entire contemporary sculpture exhibition, spray-painted Vermeer’s Lady at a Window, and “eaten most of the early nineteenth-century British landscape artists.”94 As the mothers tell each other of their children’s bad behavior, each slaps her child several times, with sound effects provided by someone offscreen.
This seems to be a nearly direct reference to two recent and much-ballyhooed royal births—for Princess Anne and Mark Phillips,95 and for the daughter-in-law of the Duke of Gloucester. The Phillips’s child Peter was born 15 November 1977, and the papers carried information about his mother’s normal pregnancy, the boy’s weight and health, and even who his nanny would be. Quite interesting for us is an official statement made on 9 November, just days before the royal birth. The Palace announced that the royal child would not be awarded a title, and that he should be known as “Master Phillips.” His un-royal father, Captain Phillips, would not receive a title, either, nor would his mother, Princess Anne, be created a duchess.96 This was page-one news in most broadsheets and tabloids of the day. The Sunday Times went so far as to remind everyone that Master Phillips, grandchild of the Queen, was “technically a commoner”; just five days later, and in the same hospital, the daughter of the Duchess of Gloucester, Birgitte (van Deurs), was born with title, and officially known as Lady Davina Windsor.97 The pregnancies had coincided with April announcements, July–August “retirements” from public engagements, then nearly-aligned November deliveries. Private Eye’s resident caustic Auberon Waugh98 characterized the event in “lowly stable”–like terms:
Rumours which continue to reach me that there is something terribly wrong with Master Peter Phillips can only be strengthened by the Queen’s decision to have him improperly christened in a drawing room at Buckingham Palace instead of publicly in Church, as his religion demands. . . . First reports that the lad was born with five legs can surely be discounted. It is quite normal for the male organ to appear disproportionately large in new-born infants. The truth may be simpler, that the Princess Anne Dame Anne Phillips has given birth to a centaur. If so, it is hard to decide whether one should congratulate her on her good fortune or commiserate with her. It happens in the best families.99
So, baby Peter Phillips, grandson to the Queen, was slapped by the Palace, the peerage, and the press as he lay swaddled in hospital, the wise men of the day taking his gifts and moving off to a nearby birth of more significance. Fascinating.100
The music sweeps—desperately—The lyrics were principally written by Palin, well away from the rest of the troupe. Palin self-deprecatingly records that when the orchestrated version of the song was played for the group, it went over fairly well: “Played the Bassey Brian. Good reaction, especially from JC. All full of admiration for André’s arrangement, though not for my lyric particularly. I agree.”101
Notes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, Bible citations will be drawn from the King James Version.
2. In this book I will spell both “nativity” and “temple” without capital letters (except as part of a title or quote), with the understanding that they each refer to a singular event (Christ’s birth) and structure (the temple in Jerusalem).
3. Cupitt and Armstrong, Who Was Jesus? 46; Isaiah 1:3.
4. Louise Hall-Taylor went on location; Adair made cutouts and sang songs in the studio. The show also presents canonical angels appearing to the shepherds, and the Three Kings’ visitation with gold, frankincense, and myrrh, all guided by a star.
5. Audio transcription (a.t.) from the program.
6. “The Living Reality of the Christian Community,” Times, 24 January 1976: 14.
7. “Urgent Questions Awaiting a New Doctor Angelicus,” Times, 21 February 1976: 16.
8. A detailed model of first-century Jerusalem was built for the Holyland Hotel in 1966, and could have served as a photographic model, had the Pythons demanded period authenticity. Pictures of the large model were splashed across many British newspapers (i.e., The Illustrated London News 24 December 1966: 26–27). The 1976 film The Passover Plot used shots of this model as establishing shots.
9. Various DVD versions offer the missing scenes that were photographed, including “Shepherds,” “Pilate’s Wife,” “Otto,” “The Sign That Is the Sign,” and “Souvenir Salesman.”
10. Played by English actress Julie Dawn Cole.
11. “Labour Expected to Reject Secret List of MP’s Interests,” Times, 24 April 1973: 4.
12. Discussed in more detail later in the “Stoning” scene. Other period films, like the biblically themed and homosexual-oriented historical thriller Sebastiane (the life and death of St. Sebastian), directed by Derek Jarman, raised no fuss.
13. “Python Film Protest,” Daily Mail, 9 November 1979: 19. Hewison’s Monty Python: The Case Against covers these reactions thoroughly.
14. In the 1 October 1976 issue of Private Eye the film becomes “The Sex Life of Her Majesty the Queen,” which “include[s] ‘hard-core hand-waving scenes’, and explicit, no-holds-barred close-ups of the royal hat” (12).
15. Also discussed in the “Stoning” scene.
16. Palin mentions the pay rate of extras for shooting in Tunisia (Diaries 1969–1979, 491–92).
17. This shaft of light is glimpsed behind the chatting shepherds in the elided “Shepherds” scene.
18. See Larsen, MPFC: UC, 1.21 for a discussion of this practice.
19. ATW, 1.2.15.
20. MPFC: UC, 1.5.
21. St. Francis began the practice of staging somewhat elaborate nativity scenes as early as the first quarter of the thirteenth century.
22. For the “blackface” and “blacked-up” moments in Flying Circus, see MPFC: UC, 1.104, 313, 315, 324, and 344; and 2.42, 46, and 209.
23. The “blacking up” moments (and references) are found in Goon Show episodes “Red Fort,” “The Nasty Affair at the Burami Oasis,” “The Raid of the International Christmas Pudding,” “Ill Met by Goonlight,” and “The Great Regent’s Park Swim.” Private Eye also occasionally employed blackface moments (18 March 1977: 13).
24. Jones had voiced Darth Vader in Star Wars this same year, and plays the traditional role of Balthazar here. Pleasance plays Melchior, and Rey plays Gaspar.
25. ATW, 2.25.20–21; MPFC: UC, 1.371–84.
26. MPFC: UC, 2.173.
27. Larsen, BAFHG, 64; also, 70n117.
28. MPFC: UC, 1.151, 260 and 335; 2.135.
29. See the entries for the “Dennis the Peasant” scene (BAFHG, 94–160).
30. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 434.
31. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 91.
32. Matthew 2:1.
33. MPFC: UC, 2.174.
34. ATW, 1.12.154–55.
35. MPFC: UC, 1.85.
36. MPFC: UC, 1.191.
37. See the index in MPFC: UC under “newspapers: Daily Express” for more. Private Eye would regularly run a snippet from the Daily Express horoscope section, poking sophomoric fun, like the following, for Gemini: “Uranus adds a touch of novelty to what you’re doing this evening” (2 September 1977: 5). In Private Eye, the Daily Express was often the Daily Getsworse.
38. Mark 15:19.
39. See Cohen, “A Wise Man’s Cure: Frankincense and Myrrh.”
40. See Freese, “Medicinal Myrrh”; also Jeremias, JTJ 4, 8–9, 28, 95, and 121. In the 1976 film The Passover Plot, this offering is mixed with a sedative that Yeshua accepts, convincing attendants that he has died on the cross.
41. See Gillmeister’s Tennis: A Cultural History, 27–28.
42. John 19:38–40.
43. “Bomb” is also a sixteenth-century term, so out of time here.
44. MPFC: UC, 1.12.
45. MPFC: UC, 1.165–66, 225–26.
46. MPFC: UC, 1.289, 299.
47. BAFHG, 437–40. Arthur and his knights simply mark the Enchanter’s “eccentric performance,” and go to the cave anyway.
48. From “Pharisees: Their Dress,” Bible History Online.
49. Luke 1:5. Zacharias was very old, as was his wife, and he had to be struck dumb by God to convince him of the dream’s accuracy. The Pythons don’t include any John the Baptist, forerunner-type character. (The Baptist appears in both The Passover Plot and Jesus of Nazareth.) The hermit Simon is similar, but he has no connection to Brian, other than being stepped on by him.
50. Matthew 1:19–20. The Pythons also do without a Joseph-type character, rendering Brian’s conception a few steps below “immaculate.”
51. Matthew 2:19.
52. Matthew 2:9. There are no dreams, visitations, or visions depicted in the finished film. The nearest extranatural moment comes when Brian is accidentally swept into the Star Wars–type space dogfight.
53. Pilate’s wife is included as an active character in the script, and there were even scenes shot featuring the actor, John Case, in the role. None of these scenes made the final cut.
54. Job 40:15 for the behemoth; Isaiah 27:1, Psalms 74:14 and 104:26, and Job 41:1 for the leviathan mentions. In one draft of the script, Pilate’s wife is described as a “Leviathan” rising from her bed.
55. Discussed in relation to Holy Grail in BAFHG.
56. ATW, 2.37.197; MPFC: UC, 2.139.
57. Kristofferson had been in London in June 1972 appearing on Rolf Harris’s very popular TV show, and he would return to British television in December of that same year.
58. Times, 10 December 1976: 19.
59. Ghost written by Alan Dean Foster.
60. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 355.
61. Lucas demands this of all his major characters in his early films—THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars.
62. A “Kwisatz Haderach,” the universe’s super being, is prophesied (and manipulated) by the Bene Gesserit order. Paul becomes this being earlier than predicted, and outside of the Bene Gesserit order’s control. In Star Wars, Luke’s assumed position as the second-most-powerful Jedi in the universe, to his father Darth Vader, is also hijacked by Luke’s choices.
63. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 428–34. In the United States, Star Wars was still in first-run cinemas until almost November 1978. In late 1978, Star Wars was playing in London at the Dominion.
64. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 428. Palin would attend a party with Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, and Harrison Ford, among others, in June 1979 as the Star Wars cast worked in England on The Empire Strikes Back (559–60).
65. John 19:21.
66. Matthew 2:2.
67. Ackerman, “Women in Ancient Israel,” unpaginated.
68. Ackerman, “Women in Ancient Israel.”
69. MPFC: UC, 1.28–29.
70. Matthew 2:12. This is the KJV translation, which isn’t remarkably different from the RSV, excepting in the KJV the warning is said to come “of God.”
71. Neufeld, “Hygiene Conditions in Ancient Israel,” 60.
72. Behind the Fridge was a live show shot in Australia in 1971, an offshoot of the popular Not Only . . . But Also television series (BBC 2, 1965–1970). This setup looks much like Brian’s elided “Shepherds” scene.
73. Flying Circus Ep. 19; see MPFC: UC, 1.294.
74. See the index for these names in MPFC: UC, as well as entries in Eps. 1 and 13 for more on where history and game shows intersect.
75. “The Gold Plate Robbery,” February 1959.
76. MPFC: UC, 1.50.
77. Mr. Kite is allowed to say “bloody,” however.
78. In Ep. 17 of Flying Circus, a BBC Man (Palin) lists the words not allowed on the BBC, including “bum,” “botty,” “pox,” and “knickers” (ATW, 1.17.231; MPFC: UC, 1.264–77). The BBFC provided the Pythons with a list of words and images that could be removed from Life of Brian (and earlier, Holy Grail) if the Pythons wanted a lower rating. They eventually remove a swear from Holy Grail, but decided to keep the swearing in Life of Brian.
79. 11 November 1977: 10. Also, Monty Python’s Previous Record features a “Teach Yourself Heath” demonstration.
80. This sequence is annotated in BAFHG, 265–69.
81. See BAFHG, 74, 290, 372, and 386. Haloes are a pagan addition to Christian iconography by Roman artists, part of the Romanization of the Church (Richard, WWAR, 275).
82. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 310–11.
83. On the Pythons’ Contractual Obligation Album, an ad man (Cleese) is spit-balling ideas for a “string” sales pitch, proposing a nude woman in the bath with the string. “Too sexy,” he concludes, and decides that putting an archbishop in the bath with her “will take the curse off it.”
84. Gascoigne, host of the very popular quiz show University Challenge, has been mentioned earlier by the Pythons in Flying Circus Ep. 45 (MPFC: UC, 2.202).
85. “The Long Search for Things That Really Matter,” Private Eye, 30 September 1977: 13.
86. 29 April 1977: 10.
87. The stage version of Behind the Fridge (directed by Joe McGrath) was playing at the Cambridge Theatre from November 1972 through fall 1973. The Pythons had lampooned McGrath as “McRettin” in Ep. 23’s “Scott of the Antarctic” (MPFC: UC, 1.353–54).
88. In Time Bandits (directed by Gilliam; cowritten by Gilliam and Palin), one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men sucker punches each of the poor as they receive gifts from the grinning Robin (Cleese). The punches are made all the more egregious with a crunchy sound effect.
89. ATW, 2.45.331–32; MPFC: UC, 2.202–10.
90. Contemporary reviews in the Spectator and the Times were enthusiastic for Wilson’s mid-1970s work; “Marais Resurrected,” Times, 4 February 1976: 9, and “Blue Rooms,” Spectator, 25 March 1977: 26.
91. Dusty Hughes, Guardian, 5 July 2013.
92. Marais was a South African naturalist; Marchal (later Lynda La Plante) was an actress (Coronation Street) and author; and Enoch Powell was an MP during this period, and not leading the party. Coincidentally, Carol Cleveland was lifelong friends with La Plante (“The Monty Python Pin-Up Carol Cleveland,” Daily Express, 13 January 2014).
93. Having now shown the actual Christ Child elsewhere, this is a point where the film demonstrates Brian is the Son of Mandy, not the Son of Man. The balance of the film follows the Brian-is-not-Jesus thread, which many critics missed or ignored.
94. ATW, 1.4.42–43.
95. In 1974, Princess Anne had also been the subject of an attempted kidnapping, which will be discussed in “The PFJ Plan Their Raid” scene. When asked to get out of the car at gunpoint, she reportedly retorted, “Bloody likely.”
96. “No Title for Princess Anne’s Baby,” Times, 9 November 1977: 1; “No Title for Royal Baby,” Telegraph, 9 November 1977: 1. Had Captain Phillips been offered and then accepted a peerage, he would have been titled, and his offspring could use courtesy titles. This was hashed through many times—beginning the day the pregnancy was announced—over the following months prior to the birth (“Princess Anne to Have a Baby,” Times, 9 April 1977: 1).
97. “A Girl for the Gloucesters,” Sunday Times, 20 November 1977: 1. Now married, she is Lady Davina Lewis; her father is Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
98. Waugh’s “diaries” discuss primarily news of the day along with politicians, novelists, and journalists. He also contributed to the Spectator for many years, and bashes the royals often.
99. Waugh, FCY, 31 December 1977.
100. Less than a year earlier the Pythons had cemented the Brian idea; just days before baby Peter’s appearance they’d settled on Tunisia for location shooting (Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 442).
101. Palin, Diaries 1969–1979, 443. The Shirley Bassey–like song was sung by Sonia Jones.