I have often wondered whether I find the crucifixion scene in Life of Brian hilarious or offensive. Or maybe even unforgivable.
Is it offensive because it's a parody of Jesus up there being killed slowly, or is it the fact that the Romans, human beings, actually did that, they actually killed thousands of people very slowly. This one of the things that I find a bit annoying about all the business about 'the Passion' (which I have not seen) - people being moved to tears etc. Are they moved because it's the 'Son of God', a man with kind eyes, who all that's being done to, or simply because its being done at all? I would like to think that watching anyone be crucified should be enough to move me to tears - the fact that this is one of the things that humans do to each other, without it having to be someone who is, in addition, blameless. The beginning of 'Saving private Ryan' moves and horrifies me. Some scenes in 'City of God' (children being shot in the feet by a gang leader) made me cry, because these things happened, and still happen.
Kurt Vonnegut in one of his books (Slaughter House 5/Timequake, can't remember which) has an interesting interpretation of the Jesus story - he says that the one lesson that we have learned from the Jesus story is this: if you're gonna do someone in - make sure they're not well connected first. He thinks that the idea of Jesus being God's Son has the potential remove the compassion from the story - if the main folly of the crucifixion lies in who they crucified, and the fact that he had a powerful Dad. Kind of 'Oh! We didn't realise you were important!' Like when you talk down to someone who turns out to be your boss or something. Vonnegut would like to re-tell the story with Jesus as actually just the guy next door, not the Son of God.
Anyway, back to Jesus films and Monty Python. We know that the Romans did crucify thousands of people, some of whom were probably innocent of what they had been accused. So is the problem with the 'Always look on the bright side of life' scene its lack of compassion generally, rather than disrespect to what Christians may or may not call 'the atonement'? Or is it the Python's only possible response to the scale of human suffering in that particular section of history - what else can you say to the fact that people did this to each other, a darkly despairing 'always look on the bright side of life!' Although of course from this point of view there doesn't seem to be a bright side.
I suspect that the Pythons hadn't thought about it this much, but it does make me question what exactly is going on in Jesus films with emotional response to the crucifixion. Are we thinking 'Oh! They shouldn't be doing that to him... (he has kind eyes)' when really we should be mainly thinking 'They shouldn't be doing that at all...' ?
Anyway, they are my thoughts...
Full Version: Crucifixion? Good....(with new corrected spelling)
| QUOTE |
| Are they moved because it's the 'Son of God', a man with kind eyes, who all that's being done to, or simply because its being done at all? I would like to think that watching anyone be crucified should be enough to move me to tears - the fact that this is one of the things that humans do to each other, without it having to be someone who is, in addition, blameless. |
For my wife and me, it was both. The "kind eyes" are a cinematic device (did Jesus have kind eyes?) that conveys something about the character behind them.
It is, of course, scandalous that any mistreatment--even a mean look--should be visited upon Jesus. It was scandalous for him to come to us in the first place. Add to that the severity of the sufferings, and you get an idea. The reason that crucifixion is a story (and not the thousands of others) is because of Who was crucified.
The New Testament writers in several places point out how Jesus died, that is, how he conducted himself. That also distinguished this story. Keep in mind that the first lash (from the soldiers) isn't visited upon Jesus until halfway through the film. Perhaps the most powerful moment in the film, Mary coming to Jesus during the via dolorosa, isn't itself violent--although Jesus is bloodied at that point. His mission in mind, he tells his mother "See how I make all things new." A lot of The Passion is focused on the "how" of Jesus.
No doubt one of the powerful messages we somestimes miss in the preaching in acts is the mention of the crucifixion, since for the hearers it was not some abstract idea, but something many had seen, or at least knew to be shameful. We are so removed from it that it may seem exotic, but not so back then.
Not quite sure where my spelling of 'crucifixion' came from. Anyway...
Yes. That and the idea that he didn't stay dead. I guess I'm a bit hesitant about a big emphasis on the severity of suffering that Jesus underwent. I remember when I was young being slightly bemused when told in church that crucifixion is the cruelest form of death, and wondering to myself if there were actually worse forms of death that someone had thought of (I realise that may sound a bit sick!), and if so, did that matter? And of course the answer is 'no'. Now I think about it, there's that scene in Life of Brian with the stammering guard proclaiming that crucifixion is 'n-n-not as n-n-nasty as something I just thought up...'.
But anyway, here's my point: when Christians are moved by 'the crucifixion', it is never just about the physical event. There are a whole load of factors at work which stem from what someone may describe as their 'relationship with God', the framework from which they see the person on the cross. They already have an idea of who he is, what he's like, and what he trying to do up there. From a kind of neutral, outside perspective (although I have to admit that such an idea is very dubious indeed), all we have is one example of a nasty execution (of an particularly uncomplaining victim, maybe). So what can a film do to make the transition from this outside, neutral view, to the former one, without just making the music more emotional, the blood more sickening, and the eyes kinder?
Assuming, of course that it can...
...line on the left, one cross each...
| QUOTE |
| It is, of course, scandalous that any mistreatment--even a mean look--should be visited upon Jesus. It was scandalous for him to come to us in the first place. Add to that the severity of the sufferings, and you get an idea. The reason that crucifixion is a story (and not the thousands of others) is because of Who was crucified. |
Yes. That and the idea that he didn't stay dead. I guess I'm a bit hesitant about a big emphasis on the severity of suffering that Jesus underwent. I remember when I was young being slightly bemused when told in church that crucifixion is the cruelest form of death, and wondering to myself if there were actually worse forms of death that someone had thought of (I realise that may sound a bit sick!), and if so, did that matter? And of course the answer is 'no'. Now I think about it, there's that scene in Life of Brian with the stammering guard proclaiming that crucifixion is 'n-n-not as n-n-nasty as something I just thought up...'.
But anyway, here's my point: when Christians are moved by 'the crucifixion', it is never just about the physical event. There are a whole load of factors at work which stem from what someone may describe as their 'relationship with God', the framework from which they see the person on the cross. They already have an idea of who he is, what he's like, and what he trying to do up there. From a kind of neutral, outside perspective (although I have to admit that such an idea is very dubious indeed), all we have is one example of a nasty execution (of an particularly uncomplaining victim, maybe). So what can a film do to make the transition from this outside, neutral view, to the former one, without just making the music more emotional, the blood more sickening, and the eyes kinder?
Assuming, of course that it can...
...line on the left, one cross each...
Oh, man, Stu, why did you hafta go and "correct" the thread title? 
I thought "crucifiction" was perfectly apropos for Life of Brian's fictitious crucifixion. I may just have to exercise my administrative powers and put it back.
I thought "crucifiction" was perfectly apropos for Life of Brian's fictitious crucifixion. I may just have to exercise my administrative powers and put it back.
rule one: when you've made a mistake, but it looks like you were dead witty and clever, don't admit to it in public, just leave it.
Yes--I, too, thought you were being rather witty and clever.
Link to the existing Life of Brian thread.
stu wrote:
: Is it offensive because it's a parody of Jesus up there being killed slowly,
: or is it the fact that the Romans, human beings, actually did that, they
: actually killed thousands of people very slowly.
I have always tended to see the scene more as a parody of Spartacus (1960), which also ended with a long, long, seemingly endless row of crosses (which has a basis in historical fact, I believe). Plus, of course, the way everyone selfishly shouts "I'm Brian!" is a parody of the way everyone selflessly shouts "I'm Spartacus!" in the other film.
Then again, as I recall, Spartacus was also somewhat controversial in its own day because it was the first "secular" Roman epic; there are no Christians, only pagans, and the fact that it ends with a crucifixion is bound to evoke our memories of Jesus films, even though the crucifixion of Spartacus took place a century before the crucifixion of Christ and is perfectly historical on its own terms -- you can't accuse the filmmakers of ripping off a bit of Christian symbolism or anything. And yet we Christians cannot help but feel that we "own" such images.
: So is the problem with the 'Always look on the bright side of life' scene
: its lack of compassion generally, rather than disrespect to what
: Christians may or may not call 'the atonement'? Or is it the Python's only
: possible response to the scale of human suffering in that particular
: section of history - what else can you say to the fact that people did this
: to each other, a darkly despairing 'always look on the bright side of life!'
It's the nihilist/Buddhist nature of the film -- the only way to deal with suffering is to stop wanting life to be free of suffering, and the only way to deal with suffering is to recognize that life is just one big bundle of absurdities, so whether you suffer or not, it's all meaningless.
Another interesting question, BTW, is how much compassion we can feel for a person who actually WANTS to suffer, even to the point of masochism, as Mel Gibson's Jesus seems to do. Is Jesus more like Brian, or more like that guy in the dungeon ("You lucky bastard!")?
stu wrote:
: Is it offensive because it's a parody of Jesus up there being killed slowly,
: or is it the fact that the Romans, human beings, actually did that, they
: actually killed thousands of people very slowly.
I have always tended to see the scene more as a parody of Spartacus (1960), which also ended with a long, long, seemingly endless row of crosses (which has a basis in historical fact, I believe). Plus, of course, the way everyone selfishly shouts "I'm Brian!" is a parody of the way everyone selflessly shouts "I'm Spartacus!" in the other film.
Then again, as I recall, Spartacus was also somewhat controversial in its own day because it was the first "secular" Roman epic; there are no Christians, only pagans, and the fact that it ends with a crucifixion is bound to evoke our memories of Jesus films, even though the crucifixion of Spartacus took place a century before the crucifixion of Christ and is perfectly historical on its own terms -- you can't accuse the filmmakers of ripping off a bit of Christian symbolism or anything. And yet we Christians cannot help but feel that we "own" such images.
: So is the problem with the 'Always look on the bright side of life' scene
: its lack of compassion generally, rather than disrespect to what
: Christians may or may not call 'the atonement'? Or is it the Python's only
: possible response to the scale of human suffering in that particular
: section of history - what else can you say to the fact that people did this
: to each other, a darkly despairing 'always look on the bright side of life!'
It's the nihilist/Buddhist nature of the film -- the only way to deal with suffering is to stop wanting life to be free of suffering, and the only way to deal with suffering is to recognize that life is just one big bundle of absurdities, so whether you suffer or not, it's all meaningless.
Another interesting question, BTW, is how much compassion we can feel for a person who actually WANTS to suffer, even to the point of masochism, as Mel Gibson's Jesus seems to do. Is Jesus more like Brian, or more like that guy in the dungeon ("You lucky bastard!")?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.