REVIEW: Life of Brian

I had already seen virtually this entire film, but never all-at-once. Life of Brian is a popular flick for cable channels like IFC to air, so I’d previously seen bits and pieces of this movie in a non-linear sequence across 10-years. But this was the first time I sat down and watched the entire movie from start to finish.

Frankly, the most impressive thing about Life of Brian is that it was made at all. Well, maybe not that it was made at all. I mean that it is amazing that Life of Brian was made and looks how Life of Brian looks. I’m saying it looks good. It looks expensive. It looks like any other feature length film released in 1979 looks. It’s a movie that clearly had a significant budget, which is remarkable considering the abhorrent content of the film.

So abhorrent that the movie was banned in countries all around the world, and protested by picketers at theaters in the countries where it wasn’t banned. Surely such a reaction was foreseen when the concept for the movie was first considered. The movie is set up as a 94-minute parody of the theological beliefs that billions of people hold dear. Surely the Monty Python crew knew that if the movie ever got made, people would be pissed. But even if they didn’t, how is it that the studio executives who bankrolled the film didn’t forecast an incensed reaction?

Generally, the established pattern of the relationship of budget to non-offensiveness of content in movies looks something like this: At the intersection of “Budget” and “Non-offensiveness of content” you’ll find really weird porn that you can only find in Germany and Japan. Then, as you move up the curve, you find regular conventional porn. Followed by strange art house movies, not unlike ones made by Crispin Glover that feature a cast made up entirely of adults with Down Syndrome. At the very end of the curve, where there’s a large budget and a high degree of non-offensive content, you’ll find movies like Avatar or Toy Story. Stuff like that. Where you can bring the kids.

Life of Bryan, while not wholly pornographic (although it does feature full frontal shots of Graham Chapman and Sue Jones-Davies), is wholly disrespectful of organized religion. Particularly Christianity, whose cohorts, tend to be the most vociferous (topped only by cohorts of Islam). Considering where it ranks on the chart for “Non-offensiveness of content,” the movie should have had a budget just above a soft-core adult film (specially when you consider the presumably uptight mores people had in 1983, the year that preceeded the election of Ronald Reagan). But just look at the movie. It had to have cost millions. Look at the costumes. Look at the extras. Look at the sets. All that stuff costs a lot of money. It’s a remarkable feat that this movie got made and made to look the way it does. Not only are the members of Monty Python candidates for comedic brilliance, but pecuniary brilliance as well.

I can’t tell if I sincerely liked this movie because it was good, or if I liked it because I dislike religion. Either way, the fact that this movie is still widely discussed makes it mandatory viewing.
THUMBS UP!