MovieChat Forums > Monty Python's Flying Circus (2018) Discussion > A theory about why Python caught on so w...

A theory about why Python caught on so well in the us


(Ahem)
I was 7 years old when Monty Python first started airing in Kansas City, where I lived in 1974.

As I recall, airings were quite sporadic and unpredictable. It was common for episodes to show up late or not at all, and for repeats to occur frequently. TV Guide at the time was not very reliable, and so was no help at all.

However, whenever the show showed up, it was always funny (except, of course, "The Golden Age of Ballooning," but that's a topic for another post).

So the experience of looking forward to the show was what psychologists would say was one of intermittent reinforcement. Which, they will also say, is an incredibly powerful pattern to solidify behaviors.

In other words, PBS of the mid 70s psychologically trained us to become Python fanatics.

That is my theory, it is mine and what it is too.

What do you think?

reply

Well, I have another theory which is different. And it's mine, and here is what it is:

*ahem*

The "Golden Age of Ballooning" was tres amusement, it was "Psychoanalysing Hamlet" which wasn't funny.

That was my theory.

And it was mine.

reply

[deleted]

Monty Python's Flying Circus caught on well in the US because it contained scenes of violence involving people's heads and arms getting chopped off, their ears nailed to trees, and their toenails pulled out in slow motion. In addition it featured scenes of naked women with floppy breasts, and also at one point you can see a pair of buttocks; there's another bit where I swear you can see everything, but my friend says it's just the way he's holding the spear.

reply

Probably 6 main ways, appealing to different or the same people:
The violent , comic book-like, slapstick of Holy Grail.
Poking mild fun at Upper Class British in Flying Circus. (although the show also pokes fun at middle and working class).
Surrealism of Gilliam's animations and sketch concepts (although very many don't seem to get or care for the juxtapositions that make the humour).
For some students / atheists in America, The Life of Brian had particular appeal.
Confidence in its own world. (more than strong writing, even though it often has that).
The way that, in the USA stadiums, the Pythons were regarding as treating comedy as a form of rock and roll. The Beatles ' sense of humour had already been a comedy - music link but they'd long been linked in English music hall anyway).

Although point 5 on its own isn't enough for mass appeal (if it was then something like Reginald Perrin would be better known in the USA), it puts the seal of approval on the 4 above it. Flying Circus, at least, has an assumption (which would often be largely misplaced these days) that its audience were broadly totally law-abiding, relatively cheerful, relatively clever people who put on a shirt and tie to go to work, spoke to the neighbours, deferred to police, teachers, lawyers, the armed forces. I may be more largely talking about UK fans there. In the USA, I think more of the Live at the Hollywood Bowl / long haired university fans. By comparison, something like Peep Show has a sardonic, nothing will ever get better, slobby part of the middle class, swearing because it's 'normal' rather than for dramatic effect, nature to it which I hate as a non-slobby part of whatever people call working class.





reply