What ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ Teaches Us About Filmmaking

Hello cinephiles! It’s time for another installment of What
I Learned From Watching. Today, we take a look at the film you voted
for—the classic comedy by the Silly Six, the British Buffoons, the Preposterous Pythons- “Get on with it!” “Yes! Get on with it!” “Yes! Get on with it!” You know what it is, you saw the title. Join me as I take a look at what Monty Python
and the Holy Grail teaches us about filmmaking… Monty Python’s first attempt at a feature-length
film was And Now for Something Completely Different, directed by Ian MacNaughton in
1971. In spite of the title, the film was not very
different from the television series at all. It was made up of reshot sketches from the
first two seasons of Monty Python’s Flying Circus including such classics as The Lumberjack
Song, Nudge Nudge, and Dead Parrot, to name a few (Wiki). And Now for Something Completely Different
was meant to bring Monty Python’s fame to America, which it was unsuccessful in doing. This is probably why they chose the title
Monty Python and the Holy Grail seeing as the title And Now for Something Completely
Different doesn’t advertise the famous group (Larsen). It wasn’t until the group was between the
third and fourth seasons of Flying Circus in 1974 that they decided to make an attempt
at a real feature film made up entirely from new material (Wiki). John Cleese: “We went away and wrote bits
and came back and put them together into a first-draft. This is probably fifteen months ago, I think. Not more than ten or fifteen percent still
remains. And then we sort of went on playing with it
and got it into one shape, and in that shape, half of it was medieval and half of it was
modern.” It was fascinating to learn that there wasn’t
any adlibbing in the film. Every line was scripted and rehearsed beforehand. In the original draft of the screenplay—
that switched back and forth between King Arthur’s story and the 20th Century—the
Holy Grail was eventually found at Harrods—a departments store—at their “Holy Grail
Counter.” John Cleese: “The very first draft of the
script, ninety percent of it was thrown out. Ninety percent. By the time it got to the fourth draft, it
bore no resemblance to the first.” After the new screenplay was finished, most
of the rewrite was completed by Michael Palin and Terry Jones and the final screenplay was
finished on March 15th, 1974 (Larsen). The germ of the idea started from a sketch
that Michael Palin and Terry Jones had written involving the bit about the swallow and King
Arthur (Tribeca Film Festival). This was also the first scene they shot (Commentary). They liked the concept of using the King Arthur
and the Holy Grail story because there was basic legend they could parody and so they
could stay along this basic path and deviate however much they wanted (Tribeca Film Festival). So, what can we learn? Number one: First Feature Directing The film was directed by Python members Terry
Jones and the American, Terry Gilliam. Of course, Gilliam would go on to become one
of this era’s most imaginative directors. When the group was working on And Now For
Something Completely Different, the two Terrys thought they could do a better job than director
Ian MacNaughton was doing. So, when they began to work on Monty Python
and the Holy Grail, the two Terrys threw their hats into the ring despite neither of them
having any experience directing a feature film (Gilliam 155). “How do two people who have never directed
a film before in their lives direct a film?” Terry Gilliam: “Well, I don’t know. We’re really learning as we do it. That’s what’s nice, we’ve been given
a whole feature film to learn how to make films on.” “Where’s the other Terry now?” Terry Gilliam: “He’s directing. He’s directing the film… we do tag-team
directing. When he finishes that, he’ll come out here
and exhaustively tap me on the shoulder and I’ll rush into action and away we’ll go.” Having two filmmakers directing their first
feature together was beneficial at times. The ability to split the directing duties
allowed for the two Terrys to keep from collapsing under the burden of directing a feature film
for an already famous comedy group. In his autobiography titled Giliamesque, Terry
Gilliam writes: “One particular crisis while shooting Monty
Python and the Holy Grail came when we had to dig a hole to get the camera in the right
place to film for a special effects shot that involved animals being thrown over the battlements. The others didn’t understand the importance
of having to kneel uncomfortably, aligning them beneath the level of parapet so later
I could get a clean matte, and the heated debate which ensued culminated in me proclaiming,
‘You wrote this sketch and I’m just trying to make it work!’ Then I stomped off in high dudgeon to lie
down in the tall grass. At this point it was a good job that we had
two directors, as it meant the other Terry could take over while I quietly processed
the realization that perhaps I didn’t want to direct Monty Python films any more” (Gilliam
159). Terry Jones: “Well, Terry Gilliam and I
took it in turns to- every other day we did the show- directing.” Terry Gilliam: “Yeah, I mean, we were doing
all of the work and they were doing all of the complaining basically is what was going
on.” Terry Jones: “Yeah, well it’s a dogs-body
job actually directing think. You really just got to organize things and
work out what you’re doing in the morning and it’s a very thankless task.” Of course the drawback of having two directors
is having two different minds with different visions and equal influence over the film. There were many disagreements between the
two Terrys—Gilliam thought Jones was choosing takes during the editing process based on
the memory of which takes seemed to work on the day rather than objectively looking at
the takes in the editing room. Gilliam confessed that he and editor John
Hackney would switch out the shots late at night without Jones’ knowledge (Gilliam
160). There were also multiple occasions where the
two Terrys had disagreements on whether or not a shot was ruined by lighting issues. “Cut it.” “Cut.” “Cut.” The two Terrys are members of Monty Python
and contributed to the screenplay as well as acting in the film. Being on the same level as the other Python
members and suddenly raised up to the task of directing this film gave them a kind of
authority over the group that no one was used to. Because of this, their authority was not always
recognized and the fact that they were inexperienced in the job of directing further intensified
this sentiment. Gilliam writes: “It was inevitable that the rest of the
group would have some difficulty coping with the idea of Terry J. and I having any kind
of authority over them. But the speed with which the ‘them against
us’ divide opened up took us both by surprise” (Gilliam 155). Terry Gilliam: “Keep going, do it once again. John, really move your head around from the
beginning. Start again.” John Cleese: “Jesus Chris! How much do you think I could move it here,
Terry?” Terry Gilliam: “I know but just… Keep going.” “We weren’t even that bossy, but someone’s
got to tell people where to stand, and in which direction to point the camera. Graham was the worst, because he and Ian [MacNaughton]
had been drinking partners. He used to get really pissed at night and
be incredibly brutal: ‘Why isn’t Ian directing this thing? Ian was great, but this is in shambles…’” (Gilliam 155). John Cleese: “I mean, there’s never been
any mutual respect within the Python group at all as you probably know, but we’re withholding
a lot of the criticism that we would normally be making.” Gilliam addressed this in his auto-biography. He writes: “I think I’d also started to suspect that
comedy wasn’t of quite such paramount importance to me as it was to the others. I thought it was just as important to get
the mud and the squalor of the setting right, so an exchange like “Must be a king.” “Why?” “He hasn’t got shit all over him.” could really resonate. As far as I was concerned, if we hadn’t
managed to make something coherently real and gritty feel to it, we’d have been left
with just a collection of sketches” (Gilliam 161). This makes sense, there needs to be some kind
of legitimacy to the mise-en-scene for the humor to work properly. And considering how low the budget was, it
is amazing some of the detail they were able to get. In the commentary, Gilliam points out how
great the characters look in this scene. The look of the people is giving the world
character. Look how the baker is covered in flour and
this guy looks like he’s in the middle of shaving. There was even a gag where Michael Palin,
as one of the villagers, had to crawl across the ground and eat some mud. The mud was specially made and Palin had to
do it over and over and they ended up cutting it from the film (Commentary). Number two, Comedy’s influence on film form. Gilliam had said that, in hindsight, they
shouldn’t have shot so wide in this scene, and wishes that he had shot some close-ups. He points out that they shot it similarly
to how they’d shoot the television show— more or less like theater. The actors play out the scene in real-time
with more than one camera setup so they could switch between the angles. Gilliam said that, when it comes to comedy,
the theory is that if you can see all of the faces at the same time, it’s funnier (Commentary). I guess the aim of the production was to,
for the most part, deviate from the “collection of sketches” that they would do on the show
and instead, employ cinematic techniques to make something more cohesive. Making a comedy that isn’t grounded in reality
affords some great opportunities to play with film form for comedic effect. We have become very accustomed to comedies
nowadays relying pretty much solely on dialogue to create humor, but this is really only utilizing
one tool that can be used. Of course, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
is loaded with witty dialogue, “Ni! Ni! Ni!” but it also finds humor in how films are constructed. For example, in this part where Sir Lancelot
is running towards the castle, they are juxtaposing shots of the castle guards looking off in
the distance with the same shot of Lancelot running over and over again. Because of the way an audience member’s
mind works, they are able to play with our expectation by cutting from a repeating shot
to shots of time passing. It almost tricks us into thinking that, because
Lancelot is so far away, he isn’t making very much progress toward the castle in the
short amount of time we see him. We begin to realize something isn’t right
and suddenly all of our spatial awareness is destroyed when Lancelot suddenly reaches
the castle. A side note: this shot was actually a pickup
shot after principle photography ended and it was filmed in England and not in Scotland
like nearly all of the film. They had shot the clip of Lancelot running
toward the castle in Scotland during the shooting of the film, but they didn’t liked the way
John Cleese was running—too silly apparently (Larsen). Another example is how occasionally past or
future scenes will interrupt and comment on current scenes, “At least ours was better visually.” “Well, at least ours was committed. It wasn’t just a string of pussy jokes.” “Oh, I am enjoying this scene!” “Get on with it!” (Sigh) or we’ll see the present day, or characters
will refer to something that happened in the film by its scene number. “Look! There’s the old man from Scene-24!” “What is he doing here?” All of this purposefully takes us out of the
diegesis of the film in order to find absurdity in what the film actually is—it’s not
just a story, but it is a movie made by people we already know. Terry Gilliam as himself actually dies while
making the animation for the film in the film, but more on this later. Considering all of the period films that had
been made leading up to 1975, the film clearly parodies the style of what cinema history
expects from a period piece. It is also possible that there are direct
filmic references. Of course Ingmar Bergman is in there, but
in a book titled, A Book about the Film Monty Python and the Holy Grail: All the References
from African Swallows to Zoot, a connection is drawn between the beginning of the film
and the beginning of Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood which played in London throughout
the 60s and 70s (Larsen). You be the judge. Some of my favorite bits in the film are what
we’ll call “time-wasting jokes.” “Make sure the Prince doesn’t leave this
room until I come and get him.” “Not to leave the room, even if you come
and get him.” “No, no. UNTIL I come and get him.” “Until you come and get him, we’re not
to enter the room.” The humor in this scene isn’t just derived
from the confusion of the guard, but in subverting the rules of cinema. One of the biggest don’ts in the school
of cinema are scenes that don’t further the plot or build character. In movies, time is precious and things that
waste it are avoided or cut out. It’s why you’ll probably never see a serious
movie where someone is told to turn on the news and have to sit through a commercial
before the relevant information comes on the television. “And imagine the impact if that had come
on right when we turned on the TV!” Another example of this is the Holy Hand Grenade
scene. “Three shall be the number thou shalt count
and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shall thou not count, neither count thou
two excepting that thou then proceed to three.” These scenes also work wonders for the budget
because you can just let the camera roll without needing special effects, big coordinated scenes,
or sight gags and it’s still funny. “Five, is right out!” According to John Cleese, this was the humor
style of Terry Jones and Michael Palin (Dick Cavett). While writing the show, the Python members
would break into pairs. Terry Jones and Michael Palin’s sketches
would often set up a dramatic scene only to get side tracked by an argument about misplacing
a hammer or something like that. This concept also helps slow the pace down
a bit. In the commentary, it is mentioned that one
of the issues they had were too many jokes too fast, which would fatigue the audience. This way, they can slow it down while keeping
the humor going and there isn’t really a chance of missing a joke because it’s, in
essence, one joke. The budget of the film was quite low— only
229,575 British Pounds. That would be around 1.7 million Pounds today
or 2.1 million US Dollars. The film was pretty much entirely financed
by popular musicians in England like George Harrison, Elton John and the members of Pink
Floyd and Led Zepplin. You see, in 1975, the taxes on the rich in
England were extremely high, so these musicians could keep more of their money by taking tax
losses (Commentary). And, of course, the film ended up being a
huge success. But, because they had so little money to work
with, the group had to make some creative decisions with the budget. You can even see some of these decisions at
the very beginning of the film. They couldn’t afford an opening credit sequence,
so they substituted a hilarious bit around Swedish subtitles—extremely cheap. Of course this bit is a joke, but apparently,
Swedish doesn’t actually use the O with a slash through it (Larsen). Also, a side note: in Sweden the movie was
titled Monty Python’s Crazy World (Larsen). The parts with the book were there to keep
the cost down, and, of course, the coconuts— they couldn’t afford horses, so they had to invent
one of the greatest visual gags in the history of cinema. One of the funnier budget stories involves
the rabbit. They actually borrowed this rabbit from a
woman and they weren’t supposed to get it dirty, so they had to have someone keep her
busy with something else while they lathered the rabbit with fake blood. And apparently the woman got pretty upset
(Commentary). Perhaps the most prevalent cost-cutting measure
was something the Python gang was quite used to and would have done even if they had a
bigger budget and that is having the Python members (and others) playing multiple roles. This gives the Python gang more opportunity
to create comedy with different characterizations, but it sets a precedent for the film: that
verisimilitude is off the table and they are not trying to fool you into accepting the
reality of the film. The group can (and will) do whatever they
want, no matter how absurd. Sometimes the Python members play multiple
parts even in the same scene. And the Python members weren’t the only
ones playing multiple parts in the film. John Cleese: “I remember the last day, but
one of the movie, being driven to the location and I said to the driver, I said, ‘you’ve
managed to sneak into a couple of scenes haven’t you? How many have you actually been in?’ and
he said, ‘I’ve played eleven parts so far.’ And he was aiming to get it up to fifteen
by the end of the movie. If the driver’s playing fifteen, we’re
working pretty hard.” The absurdity of the film was perfect for
first time directors with a low budget because it really doesn’t matter if you screw things
up. Very close to the start of production, the
National Trust denied them the ability to shoot in any of the castles they had scouted. A similar thing happened when they were denied
permission to shoot at Edinburgh Castle for episode 38 of Monty Python’s Flying Circus
for a segment called “Kamikaze Highlanders” (Larsen). They ended up using Norwich Castle. For Holy Grail, they had to shoot all of the
castle scenes at one privately owned castle called Doune Castle (Tribeca Film Festival). This was the castle that was surrounded by
water. So, when they wanted to show a different castle
in the distance, they used a flat 12-foot cutout of a castle (Commentary). Gilliam’s character even mentions that it’s
fake in the movie. “It’s only a model.” “Shhh.” The film ends in the unique way it does largely
due to the production running out of money. King Arthur’s army was made up of the entire
crew and their children. They didn’t have enough costumes, so they
positioned the costumed people in the front. This was shot in a different location and
they intercut with the shots of the castle. When the police show up the extras were students
from Sterling University (Commentary). Number three, Animation. John Cleese: “Two or three of us are very
verbal. I’m fairly verbal, Eric is even more verbal
than I am, and then we have an American who can hardly speak who is almost completely
visual. If he wants anything, he has to draw a picture
of it.” Dick Cavett: “Who is that?” John Cleese: “Terry Gilliam. Terry talks like that, yeah.” The animation in Monty Python’s Flying Circus
sort of serves a different purpose than the animation in Holy Grail as Gilliam points
out: “In the TV series, the squishing foot from
the Bronzino painting almost became a cue to cut back and forth between the unconscious
mind and the world of physical reality. The disruptive interventions I make on screen
in Monty Python and the Holy Grail – via the Beast of Aarrgh, or as Patsy, pointing
out to others that Camelot is only a model when they’re still trying to play it straight
– probably stemmed less from any counter-cultural or surrealist ideology than from my status
as the member of the group most responsible for ensuring that what we were filming made
sense on a physical level. It was just a way of solving problems. We only ended up doing that ridiculous thing
with the cut-out because we got banished from the real castle, so come on, let’s comment
on it and admit it’s only a model” (Gilliam 156). Terry Gilliam – who was responsible for
the animations in the TV show as well as the film—got his inspiration for the animations
in Holy Grail from a book of drawings in the margins of medieval manuscripts. Presumably monks in medieval times got as
bored as we do and would occasionally doodle in the margins like we might during a long
lecture (Gilliam 157). A book historian at Leiden University in Holland
named Erik Kwakkel has been searching for medieval doodles and sharing his findings. A lot of these drawings are really fascinating
and you can see more on Erik’s tumblr page, which you can find a link to in the description. Gilliam based the weird creatures like the
Black Beast on what he calls “non-descripts,” – pretty much bizarre imaginary animals
– found in the margins of these medieval texts (Gilliam 157). The Black Beast was also a cost-saving concept
and the animator in the film—played by Gilliam himself—dies of a heart attack simply because
they had written themselves into a corner and needed to move on (Gilliam 157). God, in the film, was portrayed entirely in
animation using a photo of a famous British cricket player named W.G. Grace (Commentary). That’s quite a beard, isn’t it? But aside from the humor and the low cost,
the animation served a much more important purpose. Terry Gilliam: “I don’t know if ultimately,
in the end on a film like this, they add to that overall texture that you feel, by the
time you’ve walked out of the film, you’ve been part of this much more complete world.” I would say that this is indeed what it does
for the film. The animation is one of several attributes
that are uniquely Monty Python and without it, the film wouldn’t feel quite right. I’d say it’s very much like James Bond’s
action set-piece openings, opening credit sequences, theme music, gadgets, etc. There is an interesting opportunity to set
up certain expectations that keep audiences coming back to the franchise and you feel
more like you’ve been transported to a unique and somewhat familiar world. There is also this sense of pure creativity
in Gilliam’s animations. The Museum of the Moving Image in Queens,
New York, has these little stations where you can use cutouts to make simple animations. Here is a short animation I made there. There is something very interesting in beginning,
not a planning stage, but the actual execution of an animation without any idea where you’ll
end up. You can also see I accidentally photographed
my hand in some of the frames—those mistakes can’t be easily fixed, so it also sort of
teaches you how to keep the creative expression going without over-thinking it too much. Which, I must admit, is kind of funny for
me to say in a video that has taken so long for me to finish. Because of Gilliam’s style in the animation,
this cohesive world easily made the jump outside of the films themselves to the posters and
other marketing materials. The look of the illustrations as well as the
jokes on the posters perfectly tease the world of Monty Python without the need to show a
single frame of the film. Of course there is the Ben Hur joke, but they
almost had a tagline that was a parody of George Lucas’ American Graffiti. American Graffiti had the marketing slogan:
“Where were you in ’62?” and Holy Grail’s producer suggested, “Where were you in 1282?”
as a tagline (Larsen). As you’ve probably heard, Terry Jones has
sadly been struggling with Frontotemporal Dementia, which has taken his ability to speak. I can’t imagine how difficult this must
be for Jones, his family, and his friends. I want to thank him and the rest of the pythons
for cracking me up ever since I was a kid and making me laugh throughout the entire
process of making this video. And thank you for watching! A special thanks to my patrons who suggested
this video. If you would like to be a part of the suggesting
process for future videos, head on over to Patreon now and pledge as little as $1 and
you’ll be able to pick three movies for the next vote. And if you’re new here, please hit that
subscribe button now because there are plenty more videos on the way for cinephiles like
you. Thanks again for watching!

100 thoughts on “What ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ Teaches Us About Filmmaking

  1. Terry Gilliam, still to this day, always directs his movies by following his actors, banging coconuts together.

  2. They liked the Holy Grail because they wanted to poke holes in the status quo. Something you in your "oh so very serious" studies will never get…

  3. If it taught Americans anything about humor, we would have made a Space Balls sequel with all of what's going on with Star Wars… ESPECIALLY since now, with all that is wrong about the way Disney destroyed Star Wars, there's more material for what comedians working with the politically incorrect director, Mel Brooks, can work with… But no… Any comedy is going to revolve itself around useless bickering, sex, drugs or white-boy bashing as a means of humor… How Hollywood destroyed comedy for politics…

  4. i thought the holy grail was actually one of the most brilliant, atmosphere-rich films I'd ever seen – now i realize it was the gilliam effect

  5. i think the MOST obvious 'time wasting' scene (obviously?) was the attack by john cleese's character on the wedding at the castle – where they keep cutting between him running from the same point and checking the guards' reactions – at which point the editor is very clearly toying with the audience. hilarious.

  6. Regarding the time wasters, the TV show had a classic example in which someone goes to the basement to get something, and we see people upstairs in real time waiting for him to return.

  7. 🤣 they found the grail at Harrods at the holy grail counter 🤣😂🤣 That would have been the perfect ending

  8. My mom first watched this on acid as a double feature with the texas chainsaw massacre with her friend and his dad, who had no idea they were high off their ass's. She said it was the most confusing thing she'd ever seen and never wants to see it again XD

  9. "in high dudgeon

    If you do something in high dudgeon, you do it angrily, usually because of the way you have been treated.

    Compare with "In a high dungeon".

  10. When I was 12 years old, I saved up my allowance for seven months in order to buy the book/script and then proceeded to memorize the entire script.

  11. I can still remember being taken to this when I was 13 yrs old, I had already watched some of the TV show and their first movie which was a sort of best of the TV show, but I liked what I seen, but I had to go with my uncle as it was PG and you had to be a certain age, but
    it was the most hilarious thing I'd ever watched and because of the laughter ,I missed scenes because of it, but it didn't matter as we came back a few times as it was so great and I've watched it now more times than I can count, but it's still fresh and I can still laugh and enjoy it like the first viewing , and that's the product of great film making and story! I wish we still had that in today's world but ,there's still the classics!

  12. Sooooo…. I never told my son but he was made on the floor of my husband and my first apartment while we watched Monthy Python and the Holy Grail and smoked some weed. He is in film school now. lol. I don't know if I should ever tell him.

  13. "In the frozen land of Nador, they were forced to eat Robin’s minstrels…and there was much rejoicing."
    My favorite line from the movie, and it's simply narration over some of Gilliam's animation.

  14. The most incredible thing is that it was all filmed at one castle….i never knew until i saw the documentary….

  15. Norwich (terrible pronunciation BTW) was also a famous code used on letteres from WW2 British servicemen to their wives and girlfriends. Actually spelling license used too substituting "N" for "K" which is phonetically correct.

  16. I'll tell you what it didn't teach you: How to pronounce their name. Even Terry Gilliam says 'Python' the English way!

  17. If you can't think of an ending bring out the boys in blue. Classic ending and once appeared on a quiz night and everyone looking round going was he on a cross singing? 🙂 My misspent youth of watching Monty Python came in handy that week

  18. From most of the things I've seen about Monty Python (which isnt a whole lot I'll admit) Terry Gilliam seems to come up a lot when conflict is involved and not in necessarily a good way

  19. How can you make an examination of Monty Python and the Holy Grail so damn boring you suck and need to quit do something different with your life

  20. Great video. I hate to be nit-picky. Castle Stalker was the one in water. Only exteriors. Doune Castle was used for exteriors and interiors for all the others.

  21. When I saw this film it and Woody Allen's "Love and Death" became my favorite comedies Well "Animal House" as well. Man those were good comedies.

  22. One of the best movies of my life so far. As were all the follow ups. I rank it right up there with a new hope. Or episode 4 of a now destroyed disney owned franchise. If I had a dollar for every person I introduced to this movie and Monty Python in general that laughed their asses off. I'd have about 9 bucks 😆

  23. Learn how to pronounce the names of Scottish castles and towns, please!
    The castle used for all the swamp castle, castle anthrax and the french taunting is not surrounded by water. I should know, I used to live near it

  24. That guard scene plus the swamp castle scene still crack me up to this day.
    Shame about Terry Jones, I hadn't heard that.

  25. Another excellent video on an iconic movie. If you don't like M.P.&t.H.G., leave this planet now, and go live on Uranus. Or even better, in Ur anus. (The extra space in Uranus is correct). (See that? I got you to read Uranus multiple times). HaHa! Now leave, or I will break wind in your general direction, English pig dog.

  26. Terry Gilliam is my favorite Director and my favorite movie is Brazil.
    All of his movies are fantastic the Baron Munchausen, Fisher King, Tideland, Time Bandits, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing, Zero Theorem, Imaginarium.

  27. 15:20 the castle is pronounced doon castle and it is not the same as the castle surrounded by water (that’s castle stalker in the highlands while Doune castle is in central Scotland) source: me I live next to doune and have been to castle stalker a few times.

  28. Great video man, first time seeing your channel surprisingly because I watch a ton of video essays about movies but I'm glad a found your channel. I love the longer form deep dives on your subjects, sometimes it's hard to really get an idea across in 10 min. Keep up the good work you got a new subscriber!

  29. "And Now for something Completely Different" was MY introduction to Python… And I was completely hooked after that. Then Live At the Hollywood Bowl, Meaning of life, then (the holy grail) Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    Just incredible comedy and script writing.

    It wasn't until years later that I 'got' Life of Brian.

  30. I don’t care for your denigrating judgemental commentary. I watched the show way before I saw any of the movies. You could have presented facts instead of your opinions. Fuck off. And I’ll keep my money.

  31. Now think in a 12 years old kid, who was into RPG and know nothing about comedy waiting for midnight to catch this medieval film on TV. I won't say I've hated, but I was kinda frustrated, specially with the end. But strangely enough every time it was aired I was eager to rewatch it. Now I am big fan of them XD

  32. As a Scottish person I can tell you that the "-brugh" "Edinburgh" is not pronounced "-berg" like "ice-berg". It is actually pronounced like "bruh"
    So it's "Edin-bruh".
    And "Doune" castle is pronounced "Dune" so it rymes with tune.

  33. Last time I tried to watch this movie with a friend we couldn't get past the opening credits. We paused every time they changed, read every occupation, name and subtitle and were dying of laughter for like an hour. After that we were to drunk to actually watch the movie and played Mario Kart instead (doing something interactive, like playing video games, helps keeping you awake when you are drunk).

  34. I like to watch videos while I shower and dress. And let me tell you I was not expecting the bugles out the buttholes.

  35. You left out the music. I found the story of the background and theme music fascinating. Test audiences hated the film and didn't find it funny especially the beginning. So they shelled out a small amount of money for the soundtrack and suddenly people were getting the jokes. It made a contrast with all of the mud.

  36. Saying the film was entirely scripted with no ad libbing is slightly innaccurate – the clip where idle says "he hasn't got shit all over him" wasnt in the script. Idle and Jones just added it as a gag on the spot, they didn't know it would be left in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *