A few days earlier, Monty Python members planned to travel to Tunisia to begin filming Life of Brian. Bernard Delfont chose to read the script, after being captivated by box office data for Knights of the Square Table, which grossed $5 million on a modest $400,000 budget. The EMI managing director had not felt the need to review the document until that moment, but once he did, he pulled the plug on funding immediately.
The origins of Bria’n’s Life trace back to the Knights of the Square Table project. When asked again what their next movie would be, the group grew tired of the question. Eric Idle proposed Jesus Christ: Desire for Glory, which evolved into Jesus Christ: ansias de Gloria in Spanish. The team found the idea compelling and started shaping it, documenting the first century and its surroundings while examining biblical texts with fresh curiosity. The Dead Sea Scrolls become part of Idle’s process as the writers retreat to the Bahamas to craft the script. Even Graham Chapman, facing serious alcohol troubles, decided to quit drinking to ensure a productive, focused collaboration on set.
Few could have anticipated that Bernard Delfont would opt for an expensive breach-of-contract lawsuit against EMI rather than endure another religious controversy like the one that surrounded The Beatles when John Lennon asserted that the Fab Four were more famous than Jesus. In a twist of fortune, another Beatle would later step in to support the comedians. He realized the production faced real danger. George Harrison mortgaged his mansion, formed a production venture with manager Denis O’Brien, and financed the film, which eventually released in 1979.
Nearly half a century later, screenwriter and author Javier Durán revisits the Monty Python story in Torton (Plataforma Editorial, 2024). In an essay-length piece, he reviews The Life of Brian, calling it one of cinema history’s finest comedies and praising its audacious wit without glossing over the sharper tensions involved.
For instance, the leper scene where a lost life is found again through a certain healing act stands out as a prime example of their sketchcraft. It becomes a memorable premise drawn from a seemingly simple moment of “an evil miracle.”
Durán describes a film marked by freedom and ingenuity, taking a world-famous narrative and transforming it into pure comedy. The opening move is brilliant; the film is a string of memorable jokes, including the moment when a benevolent figure alters a life and leaves a lasting footprint on his followers. The leper scene has become a staple prop in the troupe’s repertoire, a wickedly clever miracle, he notes. The group’s intelligence shines as they offer a pointed critique of religion through humor.
Durán highlights lines that critique populism, fanaticism, and messianism in a single breath, and points to the sandals Brian leaves behind as an emblem later venerated by his followers. John Cleese himself described the sequence as the film’s most expansive, surreal, and grand moment—almost like a spaceship in cinema history. Durán adds that Monty Python reshaped the founding myths of Christianity into a modern, musical finale. What began as a bold comedy has grown into a legend, shaping how audiences view religion through satire today.
A chain of miracles
If making Life of Brian felt miraculous, securing its release proved equally miraculous. Some nations censored the film, and thirty-nine councils in the United Kingdom prohibited its screening. Yet the film endured, even where cinemas were scarce, despite critics who banned it without viewing it, arguing it mocked Catholicism and, by implication, could provoke similar controversy around Muhammad.
“The film aligns with Christian iconography and presents a hero ripe for parody.”
Durán explains that the project resonates with Christian imagery and uses a familiar hero to fuel humor. Terry Jones once observed that this is a religion that reframes suffering into an iconic image, which became a source of comedy fodder. The broad appeal of Catholic imagery helped the film travel internationally, contributing to its broad reception—though Durán carefully weighs whether the work is blasphemous, perverse, or a sharp satire of beliefs. The discussion remains nuanced and thoughtful.
Terry Jones stated that the film is perverse but not blasphemous, arguing it doesn’t mock religious belief so much as populations’ misunderstanding of it. Idle supported this view, while Cleese suggested religion is questioned more about how people interpret teachings than about the beliefs themselves. Durán suggests that the movie challenges dogma by scrutinizing messianism and blind adherence, while recognizing that some implications can be sensitive in different contexts.
Four decades after its debut, The Life of Brian continues to resonate with both longtime fans and new viewers. Durán anticipates that its positive reception will persist, though certain dialogues and scenarios would likely be treated differently today as society evolves. Still, the film’s endurance speaks to its enduring capacity to parody a foundational story while provoking discussion about belief, culture, and the role of humor in social critique. The book also notes how distributors have repeatedly integrated The Life of Brian into Bible-themed programs, a sign of the lasting legacy of Monty Python’s approach to satire and film history.