Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)

The chronicles of Brian of Nazareth, whose life parallels his better known neighbor, Jesus.

You are either a Python fan or you’re not. The second of four feature films (if you include Live at the Hollywood Bowl) under the Python banner took religious satire to a new level. Annoyed by being repeatedly asked what’s next, Eric Idle sarcastically replied “Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory”. While considering a movie about Jesus, they didn’t find much humor in it. Rather, they created Brian, born at the same time and mistaken for the messiah. Christian conservatives were not amused.

Because of the sensitive subject matter, financier EMI backed out. Private funding came from, of all people, George Harrison. When asked why he did this, his response was “I wanted to see the movie”. Terry Jones, who directed, joked it was the world’s most expensive cinema ticket.

Life of Brian faced widespread protests, and bans that lasted decades. And despite this, it was a huge commercial success, out earning The Holy Grail seven fold. The group argued quite correctly that the film does not satirize theology, but dogma. Depictions of Jesus were handled with respect. It’s everyone else that is skewered. The various anti-Roman separatist groups fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting the Romans, their propensity to endlessly debate rather than take to action, and the people following Brian not agreeing what his message actually was.

But the message, plainly stated, is that you don’t have to follow anyone. You need to make decisions for yourself. This leads to quite possibly one of funniest scenes in any film, where Brian confronts his followers with the above message and they reply in unison “Yes, we are all individuals”.

The Holy Grail may be the troop’s most accessible film, but Life of Brian exceeds it in social and political satire, and is arguably the funnier film. AMRU 5.

"I'm not"

Agatha (1979)

In 1926 mystery writer Agatha Christie disappeared causing a media sensation. When she was discovered after eleven days she claimed not to remember anything of what happened. As the opening crawl says, this is a speculative story about a very real mystery.

Agatha’s (Vanessa Redgrave) marriage to husband Archie (Timothy Dalton) is falling apart and, after ditching her car, checks into a spa using her husband’s girlfriend’s last name. Fictitious reporter Wally (Dustin Hoffman) is on the case.

What follows was certainly not what actually happened. My guess is Agatha, under serious emotional distress, experienced a well deserved nervous breakdown. She pushed her troubles out of her mind, consciously or otherwise. And what better place to do this than a spa. Well, maybe not the spa in the film. That place looked dreadful.

Redgrave’s frightened and vulnerable glances contrast with the impeccably dressed and supremely confident Hoffman. Wally was initially intended to be a tall, blonde Englishman but when Hoffman became involved, he changed to, well, Dustin Hoffman. His role in the film was also greatly expanded.

I’ve been on a sizable Agatha Christie kick lately and I figured I needed to watch this before my DVR deleted it on me. Agatha was reasonably watchable, but with the potential of a mystery about a mystery writer, and two of the top acting talents of the day, this should have been better. Both actors may have been miscast but did what they could with the material. AMRU 3.

Manhattan (1979)

Shriveled Isaac (Woody Allen) is dating a hot teenager way out of his league (hot teenaged Mariel Heming-way out of his league) when he learns that his married friend is having an affair. He meets Mary (Annie Hall … I mean Diane Keaton) and immediately dislikes her. So obviously, he becomes obsessed, screwing up his relationship with the hot teenager way out of his league.

Meryl Streep is here in a small role as Isaac’s pissy lesbian ex-wife, intent on embarrassing him. She shot her scenes while on break from Kramer vs. Kramer. I wonder if she regrets it.

The creep factor for this film is off the scale. The obvious starting place is Allen’s 42 going on 62 Isaac dating 17 year old Hemingway as a plausible plot point. But it gets worse when you realize that the man himself was actually dating two different teenage girls during that time. His first wife was sixteen when they wed and his current wife was born nine years after Mariel. It became fashionable to dump on Allen after his Soon-Yi fiasco, but all the warning signs were there.

The success of the film hinges on caring about the Woody Allen character and sympathizing with his concerns and problems. He’s an intellectual snob who hates intellectual snobs, is the catalyst for all of the problems in his life, and whines about everything. But how does one relate to an ugly man who screws up relationships with hot women who for some reason sleep with him? Some of them minors by certain standards. I’ve seen six or eight of his films, which is a small percent of his total, but I am tired of his schtick. His brand of humor (“I think people should mate for life, like pigeons or Catholics”) just doesn’t do it for me anymore. His pedophilia-adjacent behavior notwithstanding.

Manhattan’s saving grace is it’s cinematography. Filmed in black and white anamorphic widescreen, it gives the city a vivid, lush, and classic look. And the city is framed beautifully in every scene. It is truly stunning. Sometimes called a love letter to New York, I think it would have worked better if it was just that, and left the story out of it. AMRU 2.5.

Being There (1979)

Chance (Peter Sellers) is a simple man who tends the garden for an old rich man. When the old man dies in his sleep, he is forced to leave the estate for the first time. He is injured by a parking car owned by a rich industrialist and DC power broker. Fearing he will sue, they take him in and mistake his simple speech for deep insights. Simpleton Chance the gardener becomes Chauncy Gardiner, philosophical guru.


Peter Sellers was nuts. He became so engrossed with the characters he play that he didn’t know who he was between projects. Panther director Blake Edwards thought him mentally ill with no real personality of his own. Friends would be confused when they would see him after a significant absence and find him to be a different person. There are so many weird stories about his life that I am surprised a biopic hasn’t been made.

Once inside the fancy Rand estate, Chauncy befriends another sick old man Benjamin (Melvyn Douglas), who is a close friend of the president (Jack Warden). He also attracts the affection of Ben’s wife Eve (Shirley MacLaine). Chauncy likes to watch.

Most of Being There is people interpreting Chance’s words as insightful or clever, filling in the gaps themselves as a sort of conversational Rorschach test. In one scene Chance is in an elevator, sitting in a wheelchair, chatting with the man helping him to his room. Chance says he’s never been in “one of these before”, meaning the elevator and the man assumes he means a wheelchair. They continue conversing without knowing they are talking about different things. It’s a masterful scene.

Being There is a unique film and Sellers was brilliantly understated in his role. Nominated for an Oscar, he very well may have deserved it. He was nuts, but he was also a genius. AMRU 4.

“I have no claim. I don't even know what one looks like.”

Mad Max (1979)

Hot rod cops do battle with a renegade gang. Wow, am I surprised how bad this movie is.

Back in the day I knew people who were obsessed with Mad Max. I was the lame outsider because I never saw it. Thirty years later I still had not seen it. So, in an attempt to acquaint my sons with the movies of my youth (Die Hard, RoboCop, Total Recall ...) I had them watch Mad Max. We were all in agreement. Dull city.

I like low budget films, and am willing to forgive the grindhouse/exploitation genre for what it is, but there is a large stretch in the middle that could be removed without harming the story, such as it is. Cool explosions at the beginning, better than fair climax, and about a half hour of almost nothing in between. Had they clipped the 90ish minutes down to around 60 this would have been a lot more watchable. Had they the budget to do explosion scenes they planned, all the better.

So, I guess I'm glad I saw it because it's kinda an essential in some circles. This is the movie that made Mel Gibson a star (and back in the day, youngsters, he was a big star). I cannot, however, give it a passing grade with a clear conscience. And I do know that it's the sequel that was great. But the 1979 effort: AMRU 2.5.

RIP Anita Ekberg. I once started watching La Dolce Vita on a work night and had to stop for sleep. The next morning, Netflix removed it from streaming. I always wanted to see it through. Boccaccio '70 is available, and I guess I will settle for that.