The Ribat of Monastir, Tunisia will be familiar to any Monty Python fan as the scene for Brian’s latin lesson in The Life of Brian.

Originally built in AD 796, the ribat was a military lookout post, watching for hostile ships approaching across the Mediterranean. While some of the original building has gone, the main prayer room remains in very good condition.

We have added new slogan based prints to the Monty Python collection.

You can also save 15% on all online purchases up to Christmas – just use discount code : PYTHON40TH

http://www.id-wall.com/brands/62/0/1/monty-python-prints

This is a clip of a very famous interview and is always nice to see again.

E’ stato un periodo di “quelli un po’ così”. Di quelli in cui vorresti scrivere sul tuo blog, ma alla fine decidi che è meglio uscire ed affrontare il Mondo Sporco e Bastardo.  O forse è solo che hai abbastanza energie giusto per tirarti fuori dal letto e buttarti in una metropolitana umida, sopravvivere alla giornata e ricominciare il tutto dopo poche ore di sonno disturbato.

E’ stato un periodo di “quelli un po’ così”.  Speriamo sia passato. Le farfalle nello stomaco dicono di sì. Io vorrei non fidarmi, ma preferisco un’illusione ad un altro periodo di “quelli un po’ così”.

Canzone a tema, e Twitter follie:

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
Don’t grumble, give a whistle
And this’ll help things turn out for the best…

And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…

If life seems jolly rotten
There’s something you’ve forgotten
And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you’re feeling in the dumps
Don’t be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle – that’s the thing.

And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…

For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.

So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath

Life’s a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ‘em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

And always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the right side of life…
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the bright side of life…
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life…
(I mean – what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing – you’re going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life…

We live in interesting times. While debates continue to rage about whose human rights trump those of others, it emerges that huge wads of money are currently being spent on religious films – or, more specifically, on films about Muhammad. One new biopic – by the Oscar-winning producer Barrie Osborne – has been budgeted to cost around $150m (£91.5m). (Another film is the planned re-make of  the controversial 1976 The Message – to be entitled The Messenger of Peace.)

Apparently, Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mustafa (chairman of Qatar-based production company Al Noor Holdings) spotted what Mel Gibson ‘achieved’ with his Passion of the Christ and decided it was time to do something similar with the prophet of Islam. According to an article in the Guardian, he said:

The film will shed light on the Prophet’s life since before his birth to his death… It will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad.

And, according to the producer Barrie Osborne (Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc.), the film will be “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam”.

Of course the interesting thing about this is that the story of Muhammad will be told without actually showing the prophet himself – in accordance with Islamic law. So, any comparison with Gibson’s Passion of the Christ ends right there. I still haven’t seen Gibson’s bloody epic – partly because I don’t like watching violence and also because I hated the way many Christians who would normally oppose violence in the cinema excused this one because of the subject.

It will be interesting to see (a) how Osborne’s film, particularly, will handle the person of Muhammad without showing him and (b) how interested people will be in seeing it: after all, most people think they already know everything about Jesus (wrongly), but might be intrigued to have their ignorance of Muhammad corrected without having to read the Qur’an. It will also be interesting to see just how brave the critics are when it comes to pouring their scorn on the subject-matter – as they happily do with anything Christian.

But, there is a sort of parallel in the Christian world. I often offer congregations two options for understanding the society and context in which Jesus lived and died (and was raised): Monty Python’s Life of Brian or Gerd Theissen’s Shadow of the Galilaean. The former is a film, the latter is a book by a German academic theologian who writes for ordinary people like me. (I was asked by a BBC interviewer recently whether I thought the Life of Brian was blasphemous and offensive; I responded that the clue is in the title and that the name is the give-away.)

Theissen tells the story of Jesus without ever bringing Jesus himself into the picture. We learn about Jesus from the impact he has on the people around him. It is a brilliant, evocative, challenging and moving book – and allows Theissen to play some games with academic approaches to biblical texts along the way.

In the end the credibility of the Christian community depends on the extent to which that community resembles the person whose shadow falls across the real world – and Muslims might like to be the judges of that. Equally, the Muslim community only has credibility insofar as it reflects the person of Muhammad – and maybe Christians should be the judges of that. It is only from the outside that any community can be truly judged – ‘insiders’ rarely know what it feels like to be ‘outside’ the camp.

So, if Muslims are perceived as aggressive and violent, it will not be surprising if we assume Muhammad to have been aggressive and violent. And if Christians are perceived as thin-skinned wets, then it should not come as a surprise if Jesus is thought by ‘outsiders’ to have been a thin-skinned wet. But, perhaps if humility is allowed space in both communities, each might learn to regard the other through fresh eyes – generously allowing their own faith and the other to be judged by their best examples and not their worst.

Maybe the films might help?

This is the third week of the course Introduction to Philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center.  During the week we will be discussing four major positions regarding this subject

1. Rational Theology
2. Atheism
3. Agnosticism
4. Non-Rational Theology

As a rational atheist I have my mind pretty clear on this subject.  I am continuously reading books on this subject, and love to remind my friends and colleagues about the infinite list of death and suffering caused by religions during thousands of years.  That being said, I hope you’ll enjoy the video “Life of Brian” made by the guys from Monty Python in 1979.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian (part 1 of 11)

I ”Life of Brian” sier moren til Brian irritert til sønnens ivrige følgesvenner: ”He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy”. Media som insisterer på å knytte terrorister til Mohammed gjør ondskapen mer religiøs enn den egentlig er.

En gang var slike bilder noe norske myndigheter mente deres inbyggere ikke tålte.

Ingenting gjør islamstiske terrorister mer fornøyd enn å bli direkte assosiert med Mohammed. Det legtimiterer saken deres. Å drepe uskyldige i en guds navn er en praksis som mer enn noe annet krever at målet bokstavelig talt helliger midlene.

Islamister hevder de forsvarer islam og at vestlig krigføring i Midtøsten er en kamp mot islam. Ingen av delene er riktig.

Kamp mot islam vs. kamp mot terror
Vesten hevder at de kjemper en kamp mot terrorisme. Det er bare delvis riktig. Ja, våre ledere har et legitimt ønske om å beskytte sine innbyggere mot terrorangrep. Med det en ikke snakker så høyt om er regionens oljeressurser. Det siste er en erkjennelse som dessverre fortsatt sitter langt inne hos vestlige politikere.

Under Irak-krigen jobbet jeg som informasjonsrådgiver i sekretariatet til daværende utenriksminister Jan Petersen. På et møte med en liten krets på Petersens kontor i forkant av krigen ristet en avdelingsdirektør på hodet over at enkelte medier hevdet at Irak-krigen dreide seg om olje.

Som ung byråkrat var jeg naiv nok til å slå fast at: ”Det er vanskelig å unngå å kommentere at situasjonen i Irak også handler om olje, stabiliseringen av oljeleveransene har jo f.eks. stor betydning for verdensøkonomien”. Det ble helt stille, og jeg hørte aldri problemstillingen bli nevnt igjen på de møtene jeg deltok på.

Antidemokrater vs. antidemokrater
Den såkalte stabiliseringen av oljeleveransene gjør at Vesten i årevis har støttet antidemokratiske regimer som igjen har undertrykt antidemokratiske religionsbaserte grupper. De samme regimer har bare tillatt religiøse grupper å uttrykke sine frustrasjoner når det har vært rettet mot Vesten.

De rituelle ”Ned med USA”-demonstrasjonene foregår i stille overenskomst med makthaverne. De danske imanene som turnerte omkring med karikaturtegninger og opportun vranglære fikk turnere i fred.

11. september viste en gang for alle at denne kombinasjonen er livsfarlig. Vesten hadde allerede  flere allierte blant myndighetene i strategisk viktige land i Midtøsten. Men de hadde ikke allierte i befolkningene – den såkalte ”Arab street”.

Lærepengen USA fikk var at en måtte øke fokuset på ”public diplomacy”, som er diplomati rettet mot befolkningen, ikke bare myndighetene, i et annet land.

Religion vs. politikk
Karikaturebatten handler med andre ord ikke om at vestlige kommentatorer lar seg forundre og provosere at over at mange muslimer reagerer på Mohammed-illustrasjoner som om det var kryptonitt. Den handler som så mye annet tilsynelatende religiøst, om politikk. (Jeg har blogget om karikaturdebatten også her: Ekstraomganger i karikatursaken).

Opplysningstiden startet ved at borgerskapet stilte krav til den politiske eliten om deltakelse og religiøse lederes vranglære ble avslørt av vitenskapen. Slik vil den også gjennomføres i Midtøsten. Det er den politisk-demokratiske kampen som må støttes. Teppebombing av muslimer med Mohammed-karikaturer tester kanskje motet til journalister i fjerntliggende land, men er å ta blikket vekk fra ballen.

Have a nice day!

☺☺☺☺☺

La vita di Brian si sviluppa contestualmente a quella di Gesù in quel di Nazareth pur godendo di meno fama del suo coetaneo. Nazareth è una città colma di santoni e improbabili forme di religioni e il nostro Brian si muoverà in questo clima partecipando come spettatore ad una lapidazionealcontrario e come attore involontario ad una organizzazione rivoluzionaria anti-imperialista il Fronte Popolare di Giudea ed infine sarà scambiato per il Messia, sorte che gli procurerà un biglietto in prima fila per la crocifissione.

Avvertenze :

Per chi adora la comicità dei Monty Python come il sottoscritto è un film imperdibile e divertentissimo, ma anche un film che nella sua vena ironica e satirica fa riflettere e trarre ad ognuno le proprie considerazioni. L’unica forma di blasfemia esistente è la stupidità, è noto. Astenersi bigotti sempre.

Alla prossima pillola. 

President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and you know what? That is completely kick ass and TOTALLY deserved. I love how instantly all these people are like, “What did he do to deserve that?”

Really? That is the best you’ve got? Hmmm… Okay, remember this, Reg?

Oh, and by the way, if you are actually curious about the decision to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (rather than just bitching for the sake of bitching), here is what the organization had to say about it:

In a press release, the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated that he was selected “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” In addition, his selection also has to do with his goals of nuclear non-proliferation and global nuclear disarmament.

It certainly underscores what I saw during the election, and following the Obama win throughout the international community; people see this as the first step in righting America’s image in the eyes of the world. Still, I long for the day when people begin to resist cynicism. Until then:

It’s been my experience that people either prefer one thing over the other, be it vanilla or chocolate, summer or winter, Pepsi or Coke.  That said I have been in many conversations where people take firm stances as the which camp they belong, and considering this topic there are some people I’ve met with avid respect, opinions and devout favoritism to one singular movie vs. another.  In the crazy, silly, confusing but absolutely brilliant world of Monty Python crafted expertly by Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, John Cleese, Michael Palin people either take a firm stance that their favorite MP is either The Holy Grail or Life of Brian.

No one person I’ve met will admit to liking both but will take up arms to defend their sole preference, so as to quote Highlander…”there can be only one“.  That said, I am going to state, proudly, that I love Life of Brian, and to me, I find it the superior Monty Python film.  Sure, Holy Grail is funny and probably the most quoted film in history (aside from Caddyshack) but LoB is constructed better and therefore the main reason I find it to be funnier, more clever and just one insanely ludicrous film that I enjoy watching on repeat viewings.  When I just need a solid run of laughs, I play my Life of Brian DVD.

Now before I get any lambasting comments that involve (but are not excluded to) expletives, rants and obscenities about my lack of cinematic taste, I’m going going to say that opinions are subjective and I like what I like (much like each of you) and that’s why we all have our own blogs:)  So with that said, I’ll continue…

Life of Brian follows, well Brian, in his attempts to live a normal life around the same time as the Christ.  From the very beginning, this film struck a nerve with me becasue it provided the first over the top and yet still subtle parody of the Catholic upbringing my parents tried so hard to instill in me.  This movie wasted no time in throwing out the serious and replacing it with the absurd.  A movie pretty much all about mistaken identity, Brian is mistaken for (of all people) Jesus Christ and the insanity ensues showing the lengths people will go through just to have something to believe in.  This movie, without much more explanation (I wouldn’t want to ruin it and similarly it wouldn’t make much sense out of context), is such a gut busting delight.

What I find most interesting and impressive is that the entire MP cast plays all the roles in the film, making for a feature-length type skit, when all is said and done.  Though no one really attempts to take themselves seriously, the lengths to which their skits go just to get a laugh are some of the very best ever caught on film.  From the “alms for an old ex-leper” to the  “Brian graffiti and grammar lesson” scene to the side splitting “Centuwion, fwow him to the fwoor!!”, Life of Brian makes me laugh in succession like few films have before.  Every time I watch this I can’t help but wonder why more modern day films don’t have an ensemble cast playing all the roles like MP films.  But the more I think of it, the more I realize that Monty Python was a special period of time where what they did was acceptable and worked, hence their brilliance.  To try it today would seem a cheap imitation that some people probably wouldn’t get.  Though if I had to suggest one comedy team who could pull it off, I’d like to see the Apatow crew give it a shot…but I’d still rather they didn’t.

I believe considerable attention should be brought to Graham Chapman who is the only actor playing a constant and substantial (not to mention titular) role throughout the film.  I do think his skill takes a back seat to Cleese’s and Idle’s acting contributions but he still has some of the funniest lines in the film.  There is undeniable chemistry, comfort and confidence displayed between all of the Python troupe which is what I believes makes watching them such a joy. Each member really plays their strengths although when watching Terry Jones or Eric Idle play a woman (so very unconvincingly) you have to wonder what those would be other than just great timing and a funny voice, but it still works.

Call some of their humor stupid and I might agree with you…call it low brow and I would have to ask you to leave.  Though the level of their jokes may border on idiotic, they are still completely capable comedians that give an elegance to a performance that, had it been given by anyone else, would come across as unskilled or amateur.  Basically they can made dumb jokes very, very smart, and that’s their true gift.  Much of their other work can either go over my head or just leave me scratching it.  However the brilliance in their humor is that not everyone gets it, but to those who do, MP is probably the finest comic troupe of all time.

To end this…much the way MP ends all their movies, I will do so without any clear resolution or point other than to suggest giving this film a try (for those out there who haven’t already seen it or for you die-hards encompassing way too much favoritism for Holy Grail).  Finally if you take my advice, you will be able to understand what the hell the video below is about but also all of the hilarious events leading up to it:)

G-S-T Seal of Approval: GRANTED

Motto:

Always look on the bright side of life

Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”

Astazi, pentru a celebra primele zile de cursuri, va prezint un cantecel aparent tembel care m-a scos din mai multe gauri negre in istoria recenta.

Cantecelul apare in finalul comediei mele preferate, cu care i-am torturat pe toti prietenii mai apropiati, numita “Life of Brian” si realizata de echipa Monty Python pe vremea cand erau ei tineri/intregi/vii, dupa caz.

Stiu ca nu aveti de ce sa ma credeti asa pe cuvant, dar filmul e genial [desi usor cam explicit pe alocuri ]. Just crackpot absurd british comedy set in Jesus’ time. Cu siguranta suna genial, nu?

Ce sa mai zic? Va las cu aceasta melodie de maCSima inspiratie, si cu speranta ca am provocat un ranjet sau doua. Versuri below.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

words and music by Eric Idle

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
Don’t grumble, give a whistle
And this’ll help things turn out for the best…

And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…

If life seems jolly rotten
There’s something you’ve forgotten
And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you’re feeling in the dumps
Don’t be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle – that’s the thing.

And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…

For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.

So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath

Life’s a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ‘em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.

And always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the right side of life…
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the bright side of life…
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life…
(I mean – what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing – you’re going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life…

Your favorite crackpot,

X.

Flying Circus debuted 40 years ago today.

From The Life of Brian, which is incredibly blashemous yet completely hilarious:

From The Holy Grail:

And a couple from Flying Circus:

</object

It was hard to narrow it down to just these….

Monty Python’s Flying Circus was first broadcast 40 years ago this week. To celebrate this and as part of Birmingham Comedy Festival, the Electric Cinema is screening Monty Python’s best known films.

Saturday 3 October 6.30pm
Monty Python and The Holy Grail (cert 15, 89mins)
Made in 1975, the Pythons team’s first proper film pretty much rips up all the conventions of cinema and spits on the tattered pieces.
Killer rabbits, the black beast of Aaaargghh! and Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film all feature (or don’t feature) in a completely pointless (or utterly heroic) quest. 

Monday 5 October 2009 6.30pm
Monty Python And The Life Of Brian (cert 15, 93mins)
The film that nearly brought down Christianity! It’s the story of Brian, a witless nobody mistaken for the Messiah who spends the whole film trying to avoid the nutters and zealots who want to bow down and worship him.

Tickets: £6, £4 concessions, £12 sofa. You can find more information on Birmingham Comedy Festival here.

Hallo liebe Leser, da unser Blog gerade irgendwie an Stoff verliert, werde ich das (so gut ich kann) zu verhindern versuchen.
Womit? Mhm…da fällt mir gerade die skurilste Fahrstundenerfahrung die ich je erlebt habe ein:
Stelle euch vor, ihr sitzt am Steuer eines VW Golf, neben euch ein gut genährter Fahrleherer mit weißem Bart.
Bis jetzt nicht gerade spannend, was?

Stellt euch nun vor, ihr rast mit 100Km/h durch die Pampa und ca 300m vor euch entdeckt ihr eine “T-Kreuzung”. – nichts besonderes, wird jedem mal passieren.(bis auf das mit den Fahrlehrer)
Ihr seid auf der Vorfahrtsstraße und bemerkt ein rotes Auto – Kombi – Unbekannter Hersteller – das an Besagte T-Keuzung von Links her fährt, und als er bemerkt, dass eine Fahrschule ankommt nochmal ordentlich Vollgas gibt um dann wenige Meter vor euch über die Straße zu breschen. – Immer noch nicht soooo besonders? Dann:
Im Auto ist SWR3 eingestellt. Es läuft irgendeine Version von: “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” (DAS Lied am ende von “The Life Of Brian”) – Euer Fahrlehrer singt natürlich(wie könnte es anders sein?) MIT!
Der unanständige Überhol-Mensch wird vom Fahrlehrer mit “So ‘n Sack.” kommentiert und er singt weiter.
Da fragt sich der normale (nerdig veranlagte) Bürger doch : “WTF?” – und genau das hab ich mich auch gefragt, hab den Lachanfall unterdrückt – den Zorn auf den “Sack” auch und bin weiter gefahren.
Euer Tobi

In the hands of a different cast and crew, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Le Scaphandre et le Papillon) could have been bad – or worse, it could have been absolutely nothingy. Of course the real-life premise is memorable and impressive – locked-in syndrome, being a prisoner inside your own body – but making this work as a magazine article or even a book is very different from making it work as a film. Without a keen directorial vision, this would’ve turned into the worst kind of movie-of-the-week.

I’ve never seen any other films by Julian Schnabel (the sheer silliness of his name may have kept me from watching his earlier work), but based on this film I’m definitely going to keep my eyes open for Basquiat and Before Night Falls. The movie isn’t overburdened by directorial flourishes, but Schnabel has a strong sense of the visual, in the real scenes as much as in those that take place in Jean-Do’s imagination or are inspired by his words. Talking of which, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, based on Jean-Dominique Bauby’s memoir (the film could be described as a sort of making-of of the memoir, but that would be far too banal a description for what Schnabel achieves), strikes a deft balance between the visual and the verbal. It hums with the energy of words – Jean-Do is filled with language, even if his condition doesn’t allow him to express them easily. Each word is a battle, each phrase is a war – at least at first, but one of the refreshing aspects of the film is that the women who help the man express himself are all French beauties of the Emanuelle Seigner type (and one of them looks like a Gallic dead ringer for Naomi Watts), and Jean-Do is the kind of man who falls in love, at least a bit, with every woman he sees.

The lightness that the film has, derived equally from Bauby’s ironic tone (he isn’t afraid of laughing at himself and his situation) and Schnabel’s visual idiom, doesn’t detract from its darker side, though. Quite the opposite, in fact. The horror of Jean-Do’s situation makes especially the first twenty minutes almost unbearable at times. Schnabel doesn’t need to emphasise this – he shows, quite simply and unflinchingly.

I’ve only just finished watching the film about an hour ago, so my first impression is still fresh and might change. However, throughout the movie I kept thinking of another film, this one by Alejandro Amenábar: The Sea Inside (Mar Adentro), also a true-life story, based on the struggles of a Spanish quadruplegic fighting for his right to die. Both films are centred on men who have been taken prisoner by their failing bodies; both men are full of life, yet have been deprived of the ability to life as fully as they desire; and both The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and The Sea Inside use similar imagery, especially the ocean and seaside. To some extent they feel like a French and a Spanish take on similar issues and would make near-perfect companion pieces.

On a different note: we’ve added another HBO series to the already considerable list. It’s called Wome, at least if you ask Michael Palin:

And like so many HBO series, it’s got a pretty cool title sequence. Enjoy!

I have always identified myself as being to the left of Labour. Well, that’s not hard these days with even Roy Hattersley coming across as a dangerous left-wing extremist!

The best characterisation of the left is the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when the People’s Front of Judaea hate the “enemy” separatist faction, the Judaean People’s Front, more than they hate the Romans

So to does it sometimes appear on the left of British politics. The number of left wing factions is laughable.

The Socialist Workers Party is largely made up of middle age men, still fighting student union battles of the 70s and 80s, with slogans to match.

Disillusioned lefties, such as Dave Hill, have left Labour yet dream of great victories by gathering in new parties such as No2euYes2democracy or the Socialist Labour Party.

Even those leaders of the left during the halcyon days of the poll tax are sidelined. Whatever happened to Richard Stanton? Sheila Hall emigrated to Spain, Jean Calder ended up writing for the Argus (although she does not seem to have betrayed her feminist and left-wing credentials), and Andy Winter  does little more than watch and write about cricket!

There are two main consequences of all this. Young people and campaigners are focusing their time and effort into single issue campaigns, with the wider Labour movement becoming increasingly moribund.

The rightward drift of Labour has created perfect conditions for the growth of the BNP. The rise of the far right is not the fault of the left. It is the failures of the Labour government that has caused division and disillusionment.

A strong “opposition” within the Labour Party could have prevented this.

Villigheden til ganske ureflekteret at påtage sig en patetisk offerrolle er en af vor tids plager, med visse muslimske kredses globale forurettede (automat)reaktion på Jyllands-Postens Muhammed-tegninger som grelleste eksempel.

Nigeria er den seneste instans til at protestere og true med censur grundet afbildningen af en bestemt befolkningsgruppe i fiktiv sammenhæng. Baggrunden for balladen er District 9, som jeg selv så i aftes og ikke vil tøve med at kalde for en af de bedste og mest originale science fiction-film i mange år. Det falder imidlertid Nigerias informationsminister for brystet, at en depraveret, morderisk og kannibalistisk bande af gangstere i filmen beskrives som nigerianere. Bandens leder, ‘Obasandjo’, deler desuden (næsten) navn med Nigerias tidligere præsident Obasanjo, oh ve og skræk!

Det officielle Nigeria har derfor indstillet til landets biografer, at filmen tages af plakaterne, da den stiller nigerianere i et dårligt lys. Bandlysning af film (eller anden kunst), der anses for at have en stødende karakter, er naturligvis sørgelig dagligdag i store dele af verden, så der er ikke så meget nyt under solen her. Selv i den såkaldt ‘frie verden’ er der fortilfælde. Således blev Monty Pythons religiøse satire Life of Brian (1979) i sin tid forbudt i dele af USA og Storbritannien samt i Irland og Norge (hvilket fik svenske distributører til med guddommelig indsigt at markedsføre Life of Brian som “filmen, der er så sjov, at den blev bandlyst i Norge!”)

Den nigerianske informationsminister går imidlertid et skridt videre. På vegne af sin regering forlanger hun en undskyldning (hvor har man hørt den før?) fra filmens producent, Sony Pictures, og kræver, at de passager i District 9, hvor der refereres til ‘nigerianere’ og ‘Obasandjo’, klippes ud. Jamen, halleluja!

Det står selvsagt Nigerias ømskindede regering frit for, hvis den ønsker at berøve landets filmgængere muligheden for at opleve District 9, men her stopper legen så osse. Kulturkampen er global, og udmeldingen fra Lagos er blot seneste i en lang række af eksempler, der udstiller en misforstået opfattelse af kunstnerisk (ytrings)frihed og integritet. Sagen er tillige et udtryk for en tragikomisk mangel på proportioner og sund fornuft.

Jeg undrer mig først og fremmest over den nigerianske tankegang. Det er svært at se, hvordan dets folk ikke skulle kunne ‘overleve’, at en tilfældig gruppe af gangstere i en fiktiv fortælling tilfældigvis er af nigeriansk afstamning og at bandelederen bærer navnelighed med landets eks-præsident (der sandt at sige har et noget blakket ry og rygte). Med 155 millioner indbyggere er Nigeria sit kontinents mest folkerige nation og det land i verden med det ottendehøjeste indbyggertal, hvorfor landet ikke ligefrem hører til i kategorien for minoriteter (præcis som verdens samlede antal muslimer heller ikke gør det). Minoritetskortet er ellers det hyppigst spillede i sammenhænge, hvor der protesteres over indholdet i eksempelvis populære film. Jeg kan huske, da jeg begyndte at interessere mig for film i starten af 90′erne, at Silence of the Lambs (Ondskabens Øjne) og Basic Instinct (Iskoldt Begær) fik en rasende modtagelse blandt transseksuelle grupper, der mente, at disse film portrætterede seksuelle minoriteter som psykopatiske mordere. Dengang som nu fremstilles det af de indignerede parter som om, at beskrivelsen af nogle enkelte karakterer automatisk betyder, at ALLE transseksuelle og nigerianere er afvigende, hvilket jo er noget vås og siger mere om disse menneskers manglende evne til at læse indenad.

Jeg har det nu, som jeg havde det dengang: hvad med alle de tusindvis af andre film, hvor skurken er af heteroseksuel observans? Skal jeg som heteroseksuel føle mig trådt over tæerne i sådanne tilfælde? Nej, for det er ganske enkelt ikke en agenda. Jeg er ikke blind for den omstændighed, at minoriteter (om de så er seksuelle, religiøse, politiske, racemæssige eller noget helt femte) befinder sig i en mere udsat position end resten af samfundet, men det øjeblik, hvor jeg som person for alvor bliver stødt, er, når der lægges pres på kunsten for at give visse grupperinger positiv særbehandling. At nægte transseksuelle eller nigerianere retten eller evnen til at forfalde til dårskab som os øvrige dødelige, er at nægte dem deres menneskelighed og lige rettigheder.

Dét ville jeg se som den ultimative fornærmelse!

It’s no secret I’m a pop culture junkie. I know more useless trivia about celebrities, musicians and movie stars than I know my parent’s anniversary.  But I’m definitely not the only one. During the film festival, I made a list of celebrities I wanted to see/meet (unfortunately, I only got to one of these events).  So I waited outside the red carpet for two hours, and I met a nice group of people (mostly women) who shared their exploits about celebrity watching and who they want to see. I also chatted with a bouncer/security guard who joked around with us about being rowdy and told us about some of the celebrities he’s seen.

This got me thinking about celebrities as a religion. Like John Lennon compared the Beatles to Jesus, do we civilians put these celebrities on a higher plane then ourselves?

I re-watched Life of Brian over the weekend, and realised how dead-on Monty Python captured not only the ancient beliefs in the Messiah, but also celebrity culture in general. People scramble after celebrities to feel higher than themselves (I can only surmise that this the answer). They copy their dress, manners, habits and like what they like to feel closer to the ultimate pinnacle of popularity.  They break into their houses, sell gum wrappers on Ebay, and follow them constantly. They are hoping for some higher learning, and in their mind, celebrities are the prophets of this power. Blogs, magazines and entertainment news shows are the bibles and Masses we attend to.

After I  came to this conclusion, I realised that I was guilty of part of this. I always thought that I  merely looked at celebrity culture as a fierce curiosity and a desire to learn about other people’s dramas to make my life a lot less boring. And when I go looking for celebrities, it’s because I admire their work or them personally (the event I mentioned above was to try and meet Terry Gilliam, of Monty Python and directorial fame). To me, really seeing them as people makes me feel closer to them, more like a friend than a fan. But could I be substituting Brad for Jesus? Thoughts?

*Note: my background is Catholic, I’m not saying that celebs should be a new church (i.e. the Church of the Fonz). I’m just comparing the experience of church going to celeb watching. I also do not intend to blaspheme, more just open the lines of communication about what religion means to you.

**I’m also not saying that Brad, Angelina and Britney Spears are the holy trinity of celebs, just random celebs I picked.

In meiner leider nun schon einige Jahre zurückliegenden Jugend war der gerade von der Britischen Insel nach Deutschland exportierte Monty-Python-Film Life of Brian (deutsch: „Das Leben des Brian“) ein „rotes Tuch“. Am konservativ-katholischen Niederrhein hatte man Notiz genommen von einem angeblichen „Jesus-Film“, der gegen jeden Anstand über das Christentum herziehe und dabei den Glauben lächerlich mache. Kurz: Der Film landete auf dem Index und wurde auf diese Weise für die katholische Jugend interessant. So wurde er des (Video-)Nachts heimlich konsumiert wie eine harte Droge.

Mittlerweile habe ich „Das Leben des Brian“ vielleicht 30-, vielleicht auch 50mal gesehen. Mehr und mehr hatte ich dabei den Anspruch, nicht nur die lustigen Blödeleien als unterhaltsames Komödiantentum abzutun und mich zu amüsieren, sondern hinter den vielen Anspielungen, Persiflagen und Verfremdungen eine epistemische und eine ethische Bedeutung zu erkennen – einen Sinn im Blödsinn, eine Sittlichkeit im Sarkasmus.

Auch auf die Gefahr hin, bei der ein oder andere Szene über den intendierten Sinngehalt hinauszudeuten, habe ich zum 25-jährigen Jubiläum des Films (2004) eine Interpretation der 54 Szenen versucht, die im Freundes- und Bekanntenkreis sowie in Stellungnahmen von klerikaler Seite sehr unterschiedlich aufgenommen wurde. Auf Basis dieses Manuskripts möchte ich mich im Herbst erneut an den Film heranwagen und eine Überarbeitung vornehmen, so dass anlässlich des 30. Jahrestags der Erstausstrahlung des Films eine in bestimmten Fragen revidierte Deutung vorliegen wird, die meinem heutigen Empfinden entspricht.

Als Erscheinungstermin ist der 20. Dezember 2009 vorgesehen.

Josef Bordat

“PARTY!!”

Stampen i gulvet.. svedende kroppe overalt.. musikken kører i et ensformigt beat.. dum. dum.dum. dum.. mens et kamera filmer alles bevægelser.. men de svedende kroppe ignorerer kameraet og fortsætter med at danse som vilde. arrangørerne begynder at blive bange for loftet i lejligheden under dem.. men de svedende kroppe lægger ikke mærke til noget, andet end de svedende kroppe omkring sig..

SVED!

indtil pludseligt er det overstået og et nyt kapitel begynder.. Uden sved, uden beat og uden noget kamera..

men det var nu meget sjovt!

Vorgeschichte

An meinem ersten schwarzen Abend waren unter anderem Schildmaid, Hostmam und die wunderbare Welt des Wissens zu Gast, die irgendwann damit begannen, “The Life of Brian” zu rezitieren. Da ich den Film nicht kannte, war ich natürlich über den Quatsch komplett verwundert und liess mir von Schildmaid erklären, dass dies eben “The Life of Brian” sei. Als dann vor kurzem Farin Schweinlaub bei mir eintrudelte, lag dem Paket eine liebe Karte bei und die DVD zu “The Lif of Brian”, um mir diese Sprüche verständlich zu machen (Danke nochmals!). Daher habe ich gestern den Film geschaut – jedoch mit der DVD meines Bruders, da Schildmaids DVD lediglich Hindu-Untertitel besass Der Film zählt jedenfalls zu einer meiner Lieblingskomödien!

Schwarzer Humor

Der Film trieft regelrecht vor schwarzem Humor. Der typisch britische, schwarze Humor hält den Film zusammen und überbrückt langweiligere Teile so, dass dem Zuschauer nie langweilig wird. Das Tüpfelchen auf dem I ist doch, als zum Schluss Brian und alle anderen Kreuzgenossen “Always look on the bright side of life” singen und dabei dem Tod direkt ins Auge blicken. Ebenso schwarz ist auch die Szene, als ein Bürger das Kreuz für einen anderen hält, der dann schnell abhaut, sodass der unschuldige Bürger gekreuzigt wird. Wer mich kennt, weiss, dass ich schwarzen Humor liebe, weswegen dieser Film ein gefundenes Fressen für mich ist !

Story

Jibbet nicht. Genau wie bei “The Hangover” mangelt es bei diesem Film an einer Story – was – wie auch bei “The Hangover” - den schwarzen Humor in den Vordergrund hebt. Klar, gibt es eine Story. Diese ist aber so unscheinbar, dass man sie genausogut als “nicht vorhanden” bezeichnen könnte. Die Story besteht aus den Faxen und Scherzen der Monty Python-Truppe. Das tut dem Film gut, denn eine komplexe Story würde den Zuschauer lediglich verwirren, wenn er dabei auch noch auf die Scherze achten müsste.

Biggus Dickus

Einer meiner Lieblingsscherze ever. Pontius Pilatus ist der Lacher schlechthin, mit seinem Sprachfehler und dem “roman friend called Biggus Dickus”, der ebenfalls einen Sprachfehler hat. Der absolute Höhepunkt ist wohl, wie er einen Gefangenen freilassen will, und vom Volk verarscht wird, das lediglich an seinem Sprachfehler interessiert ist. Getoppt wird dies von Biggus Dickus’ Ablesen der Gefangenenliste. Für solche Scherze liebt die Welt Monty Python!

Aliens & Hoffnungsschimmer

Vom künstlerischen her gesehen sind die Aliens, die Brian entführen, schlecht. Zu Zeiten von digitalen Höhenflügen der Star Wars-Macher schaut diese Szene blass aus. Der Seitensprung der Drehbuchschreiber mit den Aliens ist von der Idee her ganz gut und erfrischend. Das Publikum wird dabei klar im Glauben gelassen, dass die Story mit den Aliens weitergeht, was aber ein abruptes Ende findet. Überhaupt spielen die Macher mit dem Publikum. Gerade bei Brians Kreuzigung keimt immer wieder Hoffnung auf, als mehrfach “Rettung” auftaucht, die sich dann aber als alles andere als Rettung entpuppt.