It would never have been made, nobody would have touched it, either then or now. What's worse, every politician, celebrity and commentator would criticise the idea of such a film as an indirect attack on muslims.
Why? Because there is a direct threat of violence if the idea were seen to be approved of. So why the double standard?
What double standard? "Every politician, celebrity and commentator" didn't criticise the idea of "The Satanic Verses"; they almost all defended Salman Rushdie, and rightly so. The recent "Four Lions" has a dig at a number of Islamic practices and hasn't caused a stir on that account.
Obviously this film doesn't reference Islam because none of the Pythons is from that background (it also doesn't mention Buddha, Vishnu or Zoroaster), so apart from stating the rather obvious fact that Islamists tend to be more extreme than Christian fundamentalists at this particular stage of history, it's hard to see what your point is.
Furthermore, "Brian" was filmed before the Iranian revolution and Islamic fundamentalism wasn't an issue back then. If you had the slightest grasp of history you'd realise how pointless your question is.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
Hard to see my point? Really!? It wasn't a question on WHEN it was filmed, nor what issues were at large at that time. Equally, Christianity wasnt' chosen by the Pythons because they were from that background. If, for example, a Python had simply drawn a picture of a man, underneath was written 'this is allah', what do you think would have happened?
You are too quick with the insults, my dim-witted friend. Try pausing a little and taking stock.
I tell you what, dear old Krustallos, you draw that picture of 'allah', pop it on your front door and see what happens.
[deleted]
1. I didn't say the film was an attack on Christianity. You have assumed that to give you scope for a pseudo-intellectual rant, but what is in fact something we all know already. This is why I used the word 'referenced'. Please engage brain.
2. I didn't say I want to see a film 'taking the piss out of Islam'. See (1) above. You theory (if that is what it is) plainly doesn't hold water: do you really think this was 'crucially' a money-making exercise for the Pythons?!
Chris Morris is a genius, but I'll find another person to chat to about Four Lions if that's ok.
user-153 you don't have an argument. In 1979 only a very very tiny minority had even hear of Islam, let alone its rule about which you speak of. Why would someone make a movie about a religion that they don't know anything about, a religion which they don't perceive to be popular in "their" world and a religion which none of their target audience know anything about?
Your original post is moronic and illogical. You cannot be taken seriously. Troll.
If, for example, a Python had simply drawn a picture of a man, underneath was written 'this is allah', what do you think would have happened?
The thing is, they only just about got away with it back then and they certainly wouldn't now. They've said as much very recently, they wouldn't even consider it in the present climate. They might have got away with an Islamic-based theme back then because for most purposes Islam was a religious backwater as far as western civilisation was concerned, but if they had I bet you anything you like the film wouldn't now be available.
Cake or death? Cake please.
[deleted]
Thanks. Very helpful contribution. Are you finding schoolwork boring today? Christianity is the reference point throughout the movie. It certainly wasn't a satire of another film.
And 'John Doe' is an American expression. How can you claim to understand a film and yet miss it's basic message?!
it was not referenced towards anything
_________________________________________________
That's right, Lester. A person with no knowledge of the story of Jesus would find this novie hilarious!
Thank you for your well-considered and valuable opinion. I, and we, appreciated the demands on your time and consider ourselves blessed that you have been able to illuminate our discussion with your brilliance.
Again, thank you. Seriously.
sarcasm
shareWell I certainly thought it was a pop at Christianity and religion in general.Carrying the cross,the crucifiction and Brian picking up followers for no good reason were all a laugh at Christian religion - if this film was making fun of the Muslim religion it wouldn't see the light of day.We are going backwards, shedding our values of free speech for fear of upsetting muslim groups.
The comedian Dave Allen had sketches about Catholic and Church of England Bishops in the 70s - without too much of an outcry - if he tried it today satirising Imans - he would be banned.
...and very poor sarcasm at that.
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
An important contribution Mr Siegal, thank you.
shareYou're quite welcome!
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
But that sarcasm was even worse than the first . Have you considered taking lessons?
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
Is that your contribution to this board? Being tiresome?
Could you be tiresome elsewhere?
It would never have been made, nobody would have touched it, either then or now. What's worse, every politician, celebrity and commentator would criticise the idea of such a film as an indirect attack on muslims.
Why? Because there is a direct threat of violence if the idea were seen to be approved of. So why the double standard?
I'll take that as a'no'.
If pointless and tiresome, why do you persist?
You're right. I think it's time to take Twain's advice and leave the field to you.
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
Considerable relief. Perhaps we'll hear more from you when you study another historical figure in school next week. I for one can wait.
shareYou know...on second thought, you've presented ample evidence to distinguish yourself as the fool.
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
A stinging rebuke. I am deeply wounded.
shareOh, there's that poor sarcasm again.
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
Ouch! Oh you really know how to hurt a fellow!
shareIf I keep replying to you here,user-153, will you eventually start deleting your posts as you've done elsewhere, LOL?
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
But why would you bother? Have I gotten under your skin that much? You shouldn't let others affect you so visibly, it shows considerable weakness.
user-135 on Mon Jan 14 2013 06:46:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why would you bother? Have I gotten under your skin that much? You shouldn't let others affect you so visibly, it shows considerable weakness.
PS - Let's see if you have the "strength" not to reply to me .
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
Sorry, I didn't read the diatribe. I will assume it was as amusing as your other rants.
shareSadly, your ripostes have taken on the intellectual equivalence of "I know you are but what am I?"
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
Is that it? Is that the best you could come up with? I'm disappointed. You should study harder at school.
Oh, and you still haven't said why you're bothering. So come on, my petri dish sample, why persist?
by user-153 1 hour ago (Mon Jan 14 2013 14:06:00
Is that it? Is that the best you could come up with? I'm disappointed. You should study harder at school.
Oh, and you still haven't said why you're bothering. So come on, my petri dish sample, why persist?
by user-153 4 hours ago (Mon Jan 14 2013 11:38:59)
Sorry, I didn't read the diatribe. I will assume it was as amusing as your other rants.
Can you say it succinctly? Pretty please? And who is this 'Dorthy'?
shareCongratulations! You got me on a typo! LOL, this must have made your day, Ralphie! I know you've never been guilty of that! Succinctly? *sigh* OK: Sometimes I can't resist a freak show and you put on a very good one.
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
Ah. Erudite. So, Ignatius, if the 'freak show', as you so eloquently put, is mine, why is it you doing most of the talking?
share[deleted]
Why the double standard?
I guess because violence works. Back in the Middle Ages, when Christians had the power to flay you for attacking them, no one did.
Yes, that's it. Violence does work. Not a nice thought, no?
---
Space For Sale.
You do realize that Jesus is actually considered to be a prophet very respected and revered by the Muslim community, right?
I don't get the point of starting such a thread.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
Actually, all the references to the People's Front of this-and-that reminded me a lot of the contemporary situation of the Middle East, with the competing revolutionaries and activist groups forgetting who they're really against just to hate each other and all of that factionalizing. Of course, that's political satire that can apply to many times throughout history, I'm sure. As it is, I would imagine that religious fundamentalists of any color would tend to freak out at this movie. There are extremists of all religions and creeds and let's just leave that at that.
'Irregardless' is not a word
Actually, the first inklings that leftist revolutionary groups in the Middle East were beginning to morph into religious fundamentalist groups could be seen in the Lebanese civil war in the 1970s and 1980s, which was only just beginning to really heat up at the time Brian was being filmed. And at that time the what religious extremism there was could often be perpetuated by Christian Lebanese groups (like the Falangists) as much as Muslim Lebanese groups. If you watch the 1981 German film "Circle of Deceit" about the war in Lebanon, you get a very good sense of how the struggle between Jews, Christians and Muslims was taking on an ever more religious tone. The Iranian Revolution and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (both 1979) also helped inflame the situation. So, I think it's understandable that the extremism Monty Python was satirizing tended to be more political than religious. If it had been made a few years later, then maybe it would have taken that on more forcefully.
Yes, there was a row about some depiction of Jesus by Muslims some years ago...
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
Go on then Maz, draw me a picture of Allah.
Seriously, if you can't understand the distinction between a film such as this directly targetted at Christianity, and the prospect of one directly targeted at Islam, you are not worth arguing with. Yes, it has other elements of satire, that doesn't mean it's not what it obviously is.
Trolls. tut.
Well, I'm an atheist and come from a Muslim family. The Muslims I know are able to make fun of themselves and often do. The Python all grew up in Christian environments and thus were partly poking fun at Christianity from the inside. It's like Jews usually make fun of Jews. Often referred to as "N word privilege". There are also double standards which are used against Muslims. For example, my being dragged to Easter services while at a public school was totally okay, but a lady wearing a headscraf and minding her own business is "forcing religion down our throats". If I, as an atheist, object to generalisations against Muslim people, I am called an apologist and told that this is all "politic correctness gone mad". In any case, I was expecting this question to come up.
shareFor anybody who thinks Muslims don't have a sense of humour about themselves, I'd refer you to an Australian show called "Legally Brown" and the Ahmed Ahmed film "Just Like Us". As Terry Gilliam says, if you can make fun of something and still care about it afterwards, it's worth believing in. I have Muslims in my family, from practicing to extremely lax and the vast majority have a very good sense of humour.
I'm an atheist, I think atheists can be hilarious sometimes. By all means, make fun of atheists. If I think something is being promoted as fact and I think it's factually incorrect, I'll object. If it's a gentle caricature, I'll accept it. I personally don't have any issue with being "politically correct" for basic respect. The problem is when people use sugar-coated language and euphemisms but are being equally insulting, like when somebody says "No offense" before saying something offensive.
Because, as Shappi Khorsandi pointed out, "It all gets a bit deathy!"
shareYou sad twat, count the nominal muslims massacred by pretend chris like each US president, for doing nothing more than living on oil covered by sand....
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.