For the first time in over a year, I revisit the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by sharing my surprisingly contrarian opinion about a comedy classic: the 1975 British film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” You have been warned.] The History In January 1973, shortly after the conclusion of the third season of their BBC television series Monty Python’s Flying Circus, the comedy troupe “Monty Python” made up of six members (in alphabetical order)—Eric Idle, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palim, Terry Gilliam, and Terry Jones—started writing the first draft of a screenplay divided evenly between the Middle Ages and the present. Throughout the writing process, they ditched the present-day storylines by deciding to focus the script’s narrative on the mythology of the Holy Grail. Having never directed a feature film before, Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones embraced the “hands-on” nature of the directing process. However, no major studios expressed interest in funding the project. So, Gilliam and Jones turned to several high-profile musicians and rock bands—Elton John, Ian Anderson, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd—who found the film as “a good tax write-off” due to the top income tax rate in the United Kingdom at the time was “as high as 90%.” In this manner, they managed to fund the film’s entire $410,000 budget. Principal photography was done primary on location in Scotland and heavily featured multiple castles in central and western Scotland (some exterior shots featured castles in England and Wales). More castles than were ultimately included were supposed to be part of filming, but weeks before shooting began the country’s Department of the Environment forbade castles within its jurisdiction from being utilized by the cast and crew out of fear that allowing this would result in damage. For the scene involving the Rabbit Caerbannog, a real white rabbit was used but switched with puppets for the killing scene. The bite effects were pulled by Gilliam and SFX technician John Horton using special puppetry. During filming, the rabbit was covered in red liquid as a blood simulant in spite of its owner’s preference that the rabbit remain spotless (this was done without the owner’s consent). While the liquid was difficult to remove from the animal’s fur, the rabbit was ultimately unharmed. Additionally, due to budget constraints, Gilliam and Jones refrained from the knight characters riding actual horses and chose to have them mime horse-riding while their porters followed them banging coconut shells together to simulate the sound of trotting hooves. Prior to filming, Chapman (who played the Pythons’ version of King Arthur) suffered from acrophobia (a fear of heights), shakes, and bouts of amnesia due to struggles with alcoholism. Thus, Chapman refrained from drinking during production to remain “on an even keel” before achieving sobriety about three years later after completing the film. Debuting in London on April 3, 1975 before premiering to the American public in New York City on April 28 the same year, Monty Python and the Holy Grail earned £2.3 million pounds during its initial theatrical run (and about $5.5 million from subsequent re-releases). Not long after premiering on various television networks in the late 1970s, the Pythons were dismayed to learn that many networks censored the film’s excessive profanity and use of blood. Consequently, they pulled the broadcast rights of the film and only allowed it to be shown on select U.S. networks (namely, PBS and Comedy Central) that ran the movie uncensored. Contemporaneous reviews of the film were mixed, with some revering the “occasionally inspired” comedic gags, its “youthful exuberance” and “rousing zaniness.” Others, however, felt the movie was simply “an excuse for set pieces” that were not uniformly entertaining” or even lacked funny moments for the majority of its runtime. With the passage of time, however, Monty Python and the Holy Grail has developed a more favorably reputation with cinephiles. It has nabbed a high-ranking spot in the several media rankings of the best comedy films and British films of all time. Thus, it has achieved cult status as a noteworthy piece of independent cinema and postmodern comedy (even being adapted into the 2005 award-winning Broadway musical Spamalot that was supposed to be adapted into a feature film before plans were scrapped in 2021). The Cons There are movies, like Citizen Kane or Mad Max: Fury Road, that are considered classics or fantastic films (or both) that I simply don’t get. These films, however, are meaty enough for me to really dive in & elaborate on several reasons why I don’t connect with them or find them worthy of the reputation they have developed over time. And then there’s Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A comedy that, in my humble opinion, isn’t all that funny. The core of my philosophy when it comes to movies (or any entertainment medium, for that matter) is that their primary purpose should be to…entertain (shocking, I know!). Thus, a comedy film or show should make me laugh above all else. And Holy Grail just doesn’t (for the most part). Maybe I’m just not on the wavelength of fans of this film or the Pythons’ comedic stylings, but pretty much all of their bits that make up the runtime of the movie are, in the words of film critic Gene Siskel, “silence.” I don’t laugh with them or even at them; I simply watch them happen, shrug, and move on to the next scene. Then, I get to the final scene and just roll my eyes. An anti-climactic fourth-wall break that was done better a year before this movie came out by Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles (a movie that I like better than this one, by the way). It was even done better by John Hughes in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (another movie I like better than Holy Grail). Thus, after just over 90 minutes, I find very little redeeming about this movie. Having not seen a single episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, my hunch is that these British comedians’ sense of humor works better in the short-form “sketch” format á la Saturday Night Live than as a feature-length screenplay. The Pros If you were paying attention, you know that I said “most” of the bits in Holy Grail don’t work for me. The one that does (and probably will for most viewers) is King Arthur’s fight with the Black Knight (John Cleese). Aside from the cartoonishly gratuitous violence employed with the villainous knight losing all four limbs during the fight with Arthur, I appreciate how his characterization is an effective satire of the wholehearted chivalry of medieval European culture. In other words, it’s the one and only piece of parody in the entire movie that, in my humble opinion, is genuinely funny (unlike the Knights Who Say “Ni!” who are flat-out annoying or the slaughter of the Rabbit of Caerbannog that comes off as childish). So, what are my final impressions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Aside from a fun, brief scene with the Black Knight, it’s 90 minutes of jokes that aren’t funny with a piss-poor conclusion that John Cleese himself finds retrospectively annoying. Unless you have a full-throated love of British sketch humor or low-budget comedy flicks from the 1970s, then this film probably isn’t for you. What do you think about Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones’ Monty Python and the Holy Grail? What’s your favorite (or least favorite) Monty Python flick? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
|
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|