mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/16/85)
In article <2134@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> I found it very funny myself, because it was (for me) a satire on silly >> notions of God as a gentleman. Can you imagine the TB god speaking to Job >> out of a whirlwind? [WINGATE] >It's a shame you only recognized a small subset of the humorous intent. >It is only in the end of the film that Ralph Richardson appears as the >gentleman god; throughout the rest of the film, god is represented as Mr. >Fire and Brimstone, with an image not too unlike the ridiculously funny >picture of god that Gilliam ALSO developed for MP and the Holy Grail. >The god in Time Bandits speaks out of a whirlwind several times in the film >(e.g., as he chases them out of the boy's room). Gilliam rather brilliantly >depicted all these ridiculous contradictions in people's own depictions of >god. Well, I'd forgotten the chases; but I had the impression at the time that those were sort of masks. God is a bureaucrat at heart, even if he has to shout a lot. But on to the main course (so all those net.jokes.d people can stop wondering why they're being infested by this nasty religion stuff!): >The whole point of the film as a whole was the very ridiculousness of ALL >your notions about god.... >> Now, aren't we taking this a bit too seriously? I mean, this is Monty >> Python we're talking about. Their object is to be entertaining, after all. >> One might as well argue that they did _Brian_ the way they did because they >> knew all the smug people like Rich with their highbrow disdain for >> Christianity would eat it up. That's a silly reason too. >> Did you ever consider that they did it because it was funny? >Obviously your knowledge of Monty Python in particular (and by the way, >for the last time, this movie was NOT a Monty Python project, it was written >and directed by ONE member of Monty Python, Terry Gilliam, though other >members acted in the film briefly), and satire in general, is minimal. I know who did the movie. While the typical Pythonesque silliness is somewhat lacking, there are a lot of stylistic parallels between TB and MP movies. And you're presuming again, Rich. How do you know how much I know about MP? But anyway, back to ENGL 101: > Satire >is humor with a point in mind. It is designed to make you laugh as you are >saying "Wait a minute..." to yourself. Gilliam's object is clearly to >poke fun not just at notions of "gentleman god" but at how contradictory ALL >the existing notions of god are, even within themselves. [Sarcastically] Clearly? Did he tell you in person, or did he write you a letter? > If you knew anything >about the history of "Brian", or if you had taken the time to watch and >understand what was said (the original intended title was "Jesus Christ: Lust >for Glory", but they decided that there were better ways to get their point >across (that could still get their film funded :-), you might not make such >remarks. Again, Rich erroneously presumes my ignorance. But one curious thing about satire is that it can make a far different point on its audience than the intended one. Take the following: Tell me, Charles, what motive do you ascribe to Python's inclusion >of the following prayer and hymn in "The Meaning of Life"? >Oh Lord, oooh, you are so big, >So absolutely huge, >Gosh! We're all really impressed down here, I can tell you. >Forgive us, oh Lord, for this our dreadful toading... Well, for me it's a characture of a certain kind of wishy-washy prayer. Rich, of course, would have the tarry brush swung a bit further. That's just why you can't read intent from this kind of humor; one simply projects one's own views upon the creators. Conspicuously missing, I see, is a justification for not assuming that the reason for the particular subject is simply to cater to the audience. The fact that MP is found around here on PBS, while Benny Hill is found on commercial stations, says a lot more to me about the rationale for the subjects and treatments than Rich's projections of himself upon the MP cast. And besides, humor IS in the eye of the beholder. That's why the Episcopal student group here is going to wath "Oh God" on videotape next week. Any comments from net.jokes.d? Charley Wingate
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (11/19/85)
Satire: "Wit larded with malice". Shakespeare -- Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd \/-\ /\-/
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/23/85)
>>>I found it very funny myself, because it was (for me) a satire on silly >>>notions of God as a gentleman. Can you imagine the TB god speaking to Job >>>out of a whirlwind? [WINGATE] >>It's a shame you only recognized a small subset of the humorous intent. >>It is only in the end of the film that Ralph Richardson appears as the >>gentleman god; throughout the rest of the film, god is represented as Mr. >>Fire and Brimstone, with an image not too unlike the ridiculously funny >>picture of god that Gilliam ALSO developed for MP and the Holy Grail. >>The god in Time Bandits speaks out of a whirlwind several times in the film >>(e.g., as he chases them out of the boy's room). Gilliam rather brilliantly >>depicted all these ridiculous contradictions in people's own depictions of >>god. [ROSEN] > Well, I'd forgotten the chases; but I had the impression at the time that > those were sort of masks. This sounds an awful lot like an after the fact rationalization to me. >>> Now, aren't we taking this a bit too seriously? I mean, this is Monty >>> Python we're talking about. Their object is to be entertaining, after all. >>> One might as well argue that they did _Brian_ the way they did because they >>> knew all the smug people like Rich with their highbrow disdain for >>> Christianity would eat it up. That's a silly reason too. >>> Did you ever consider that they did it because it was funny? >>Obviously your knowledge of Monty Python in particular (and by the way, >>for the last time, this movie was NOT a Monty Python project, it was written >>and directed by ONE member of Monty Python, Terry Gilliam, though other >>members acted in the film briefly), and satire in general, is minimal. > I know who did the movie. While the typical Pythonesque silliness is > somewhat lacking, there are a lot of stylistic parallels between TB and MP > movies. And you're presuming again, Rich. How do you know how much I know > about MP? I know only from what you write about them, and from the example shown above it is apparent that I am not presuming anything, that you simply are unfamiliar with their style and their comedic intentions. >> Satire >>is humor with a point in mind. It is designed to make you laugh as you are >>saying "Wait a minute..." to yourself. Gilliam's object is clearly to >>poke fun not just at notions of "gentleman god" but at how contradictory ALL >>the existing notions of god are, even within themselves. > [Sarcastically] Clearly? Did he tell you in person, or did he write you > a letter? I would have thought interviews with the man would have been enough. Obviously this is not the case. I apologize, deeply and [sarcastically]. >> If you knew anything >>about the history of "Brian", or if you had taken the time to watch and >>understand what was said (the original intended title was "Jesus Christ: Lust >>for Glory", but they decided that there were better ways to get their point >>across (that could still get their film funded :-), you might not make such >>remarks. > Again, Rich erroneously presumes my ignorance. How can it be erroneous when you SHOW your ignorance for all to see in the example paragraph above? Are you denying that you said what you said, which clearly reveals ignorance of the subject matter? >> Tell me, Charles, what motive do you ascribe to Python's inclusion >>of the following prayer and hymn in "The Meaning of Life"? > >>Oh Lord, oooh, you are so big, >>So absolutely huge, >>Gosh! We're all really impressed down here, I can tell you. >>Forgive us, oh Lord, for this our dreadful toading... > Well, for me it's a characture of a certain kind of wishy-washy prayer. Yeah, real wishywashy. I guess it wasn't humble enough for Charles' view of god. > Rich, of course, would have the tarry brush swung a bit further. That's > just why you can't read intent from this kind of humor; one simply projects > one's own views upon the creators. By Charles' reasoning, even the creators have projected their own view onto this, but even that is clearly false because Charles knows what it really means. This is a fine example of a certain type of religionist thinking, imposing one's perceptions of what one wants onto phenomena. "This is good, I want god to exist, so let's say god did this. This is bad, and I don't want to destroy my concept of an almight good god, so let's say that this is really a part of the good god's plan so we can keep this idea rolling... What's that? This thing we always thought was caused by god is actually caused by some specific cause and effect phenomenon? Bloody scientists..." > Conspicuously missing, I see, is a justification for not assuming that the > reason for the particular subject is simply to cater to the audience. The > fact that MP is found around here on PBS, while Benny Hill is found on > commercial stations, says a lot more to me about the rationale for the > subjects and treatments than Rich's projections of himself upon the MP cast. I'll have to "presume" your ignorance again, Charles, when I say that you have practically no working knowledge of Python humor, style, or intent. How you get from "Python is on PBS, Benny Hill is on commercial TV" to your conclusion defies the imagination. > And besides, humor IS in the eye of the beholder. That's why the Episcopal > student group here is going to wath "Oh God" on videotape next week. As does the above statement. "Oh God" is a flagrant apologetic for religionism. Why shouldn't you want to see it? -- And now, a hidden satanic message: _ 9L|^6| _ W6Vn|na| 622 Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/23/85)
> Satire: "Wit larded with malice". > Shakespeare > [PAUL DUBUC] A good dose of satire never hurt anyone. Satire helps one to see things one might not otherwise see, because it presents it in a fashion that allows distancing yet suddenly clasps shut a connection that hits very close to home. It represents the finest cutting rhetorical tool, presenting a scenario disjoint from the phenomenon at hand, letting the reader/listener/observer make his/her own connection and realization, without resorting to flippancy and obfuscation to make the point. Your opinion of satire bespeaks a desire not to ever have to see those things. So be it. The same thing goes for sacrilege. As I used to say, "Providing the minimum daily adult requirement of sacrilege..." -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr