cheros was one of several readers to note that today, Oct 5, in 1969 was the very first airing of Monty Python. Although not every sketch has aged
particularly well, you'd be hard pressed to find a more influential and funny show. Heck, look at the Icon we use here to indicate humorous stories! Who among us can't claim to have viewed the Holy Grail at least
somewhere in the double digits.
That's unlikely here on slashdot. You see, we in nerdom have taken what Python once stood for, and now venerate the group's work in an entirely inappropriate way. We are worshiping the golden calf, not the god. There will be nothing different here, just a parroting of the same lines, over and over, and over.
Long ago, before most slashdotters, Python was funny because they were doing something that NOBODY else had done. They were pushing boundaries. They were making the establishment feel uncomfortable. They were the Rock&Roll of TV, fighting to sail in their own direction. They were giving glimpses of nudity on television, using inappropriate language, naming characters "Biggus Dickus", and other inappropriate things.
In short, Python was great because they were new, they were fresh, they pushed the boundaries of what was considered indecent back, and they didn't resort to the same tired gag over and over and over.
They were the Shakespeare of their day, hiding grossly offensive material under clever linguistics. They took characters from around us, around history, around time, and put them in places they didn't belong. Then they explored that human dynamic. The English-speaking Brian in Roman lands, failing at Latin; The Viking and King Arthur in modern times; The Grannies in biker gangs; The accountant in places of danger and excitement.
They, like Shakespeare, Longfellow, and David Foley before them took us to a place we knew, and then perverted it while we stood there, slack-jawed. They, like Hisenberg and Bohr, kept us continuously uncertain of where we stood. Of where we started, and of where we would end up.
While many books have been written on the social commentary of the themes within Python's works, the one most cited is that of dying cats. From explosions to old women beating them on posts, it was clear that Python had something out for the furry pussy. While most have glossed over this theme as a histamine sensitivity, it clearly ties into their long-running theme of the uncertainty of the human condition. For them, the human condition has been observed. And it is a dead cat.
For that reason, I put off coming here. I knew that all I would find would be anti-Python. A repetition of lines; against all they stood for; all that made them great. While we can treasure the memories of enjoyment that their shows and movies brought us, we should remember the golden calf.
For that reason, I come here not to repeat a line, but to leave a brief message in their honor.
Do not look at the glass - look through the window. And out that window is a dead cat, having been observed by Python.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday October 05, @09:40AM (#29644153)
Monty Python was a long time ago.
It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker!
It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
Holy Grail is great and all, but I think "Life Of Brian" is the best Monty Python movie. It's the only one where they maintained a coherent plot thread through the whole proceedings, and still had drop-dead-funny stuff.
Holy Grail is great and all, but I think "Life Of Brian" is the best Monty Python movie.
Actually, in an interview about a year ago, John Clease mentioned that, in his experience, Americans tended to favor Holy Grail and Britons tended to favour Life of Brian. He thought it had something to do with the way in which both countries tend to enjoy their humo(u)r. Life of Brian has a continuous plot, whereas Holy Grail is more of a connected series of sketches.
Monty Python, when it started, was about doing something different, absurd, and rebellious. Humo(u)r was stale and repetitive at the time. The devolution of their innovative comedy into a mine for endlessly repeated quotes is antithetical to its spirit. That's why my favorite Monty Python sketch is their performance of the Dead Parrot Sketch at the Secret Policeman's Ball:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTV3lQc4AmQ [youtube.com]
The Life of Brian is especially worth a second view if you saw it when you were younger.
Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah". [Everyone gasps] Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself! Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it? Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He! Jewish Official: Was it you? Stoner: Yes. Jewish Official: Right... Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. " [Crowd throws rocks at the stoner] Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. " [Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
...at it's best to someone who hasn't seen it or doesn't (but might) get it, show them the Spanish Inquisition episode. It has all the right Python-esque elements put together in a perfect way (for them).
One of today's Nobel Prize winners (Carol W. Greider) was quoted in the New York Times:
People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that ''It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'''
Considering what an effect and what a huge fanbase the programmes have, I can't help wondering why no-one has ever tried to make any more. Although you probably couldn't get any of the original caste to take part (and would probably disappoint, if they did - 40 years on), it seems like a wasted opportunity. Especially as so much of todays TV and film output is remakes of stuff from that era.
They addressed this yesterday in a BBC special. Firstly Graham Chapman is dead and secondly they felt like they were repeating themselves at the end of the original series which is why they quit. Terry Gilliam said that if they would come back they should make the first 4 episodes absolutely awful so by the next one only 2 people would be watching and then when they made their most brilliant show ever these guys would rush out and try to explain to incredulous people how brilliant it was. (Oh, and remakes suck.)
If history is any indication, Hollywood will be doing an American version any day now--complete with a cast of throw-offs from assorted Comedy Central shows, former SNL cast members, and various improv troupes. It will be bland and not as good as the original, but it will make the stars a lot more money than the original cast ever got and it will run for about 20 years.
I got this from a friend, and while I can't prove or disprove its veracity, I like to believe it really happened:
Here in Vancouver there are often sightings of celebrities in town for the filming of some project. So one day several years ago, a fellow is walking along downtown and is amazed to see John Cleese walking toward him. This fellow happens to be a Monty Python fanatic. We all know the type; he can (and does) quote many of their skits verbatim.
So the story goes, as he sees his comedic idol walking toward him on the street, he is suddenly in a panic as to what he should say to him. As Cleese is about to walk past he blurts out "Is this the place for an argument"? Without pausing or missing a step, Cleese exclaims "I TOLD YOU ONCE"!
For most of Monty Python's Flying Circus, the opening credits consisted of the Liberty Bell March played over surreal animations from Terry G., with the last note replaced by a loud `squish' sound as a giant foot squashed the rest of the animated stuff.
I hadn't seen either I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners in decades, so I looked up some
clips on YouTube
and had a look. The result? Not funny. Not funny at all. The prototypes of every
sitcom since (a dead, worthless genre, IMHO), plus a healthy portion of nasty dated stereotypes. No thank you!
Not only was Monty Python funny, it changed what we consider funny. It changed what we laugh it.
Few other shows can claim to have redefined a genre, but Monty Python did just
that. Here's to 40 more years of silly walks, dead parrots and arguments!
Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old Slashdotters. There is a pestilence upon this site, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design non-stories are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
This is an excellent opportunity to honor Monty Python by honoring the group's mastery of shock and irreverence and stop quoting, word for word skits and films! The irony is killing me slowly.
Highly apropos XKCD comic [xkcd.com] on the subject.
I disagree. Because you are quoting something surreal does not make it any less surreal. Monty Python is surreal humor, not original humor. Of course, the shock and awe of seeing it the first time is very effective. But that should in no way prevent you from continually enjoying it. If it being original was a requisite to the innate humor, the very act of placing it statically on a medium would remove the humor from it.
Of course it's quotable in the same way David Lynch is quotable or Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory is replicated in anything from The Simpsons to T-shirts. I think that XKCD comic has little to no merit in claiming that Python was loved for their mastery of shock or defiance of convention. They were loved for their humor--be it unique, it was still not entirely original [icons.org.uk]. Quoting Monty Python should make no one more depressed than quoting Shakespeare or Homer. Stop fretting about being unoriginal and enjoy it.
Strangely appropriate for this thread, and really/. in general.
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT? M: Well, I was told outside that... Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! M: What? Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!! M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!! Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it. Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry. Q: Not at all. M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!
And years from now people will quote that comic, word for word. Look how close you are already! Pop culture is incestuous, and to create new works, old works must be cannibalized. When copyrights become no-expiring, creative thought will be a crime. HEX
This is an excellent opportunity to honor Monty Python by honoring the group's mastery of shock and irreverence and stop quoting, word for word skits and films! The irony is killing me slowly.
Highly apropos XKCD comic [xkcd.com] on the subject.
People repetitively quoting them is exactly what makes Monty Python so influential, great, and popular. The world is full of people who quote unoriginally -- that's what creates the value in originality. So while all the people quoting them aren't themselves originally funny, there is no other way it could be. Nothing wrong with that.
I notice your own criticism of word-for-word quoting was little more than a word-for-word quote of someone else. At least the people you are trying to criticize are just tryi
Big xkcd fan, but that particular one is totally without merit--the Pythons were obsessive rewriters. Every sketch went through multiple drafts, they chose their topics and precise wording very carefully. They put a lot of effort into finding the absolute most effective way of surprising the audience, and they usually succeeded. The brilliance of Python is that they took the kind of humor that doesn't rely on surprise (a la Laurel and Hardy), and made it so surprising that everyone mistakes it for surprise-humor. Most comedy incorporates surprise, but nothing stays surprising forever--the comedy that stands the test of time is the comedy that doesn't depend on it. Take surprise out of Python and you still have some of the best-written jokes the world has ever produced. The most common format for their sketches was essentially to repeat the same joke over and over again with different wording--Dead Parrot, Crunchy Frog, Spam, Spanish Inquisition, Self-Defense, etc. After the first twenty seconds, there's nothing left to surprise you even the first time you see it. The humor is in the flawless execution--and that's why it's so obsessively quoted and rewatched.
That's the one thing that was really awkward when I was working IT: how to politely get away from folks when they start the one man Monty Python recitation of skits.
That is easy, just say:
And now for something completely different...
and walk away.
And now..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And now..... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's unlikely here on slashdot. You see, we in nerdom have taken what Python once stood for, and now venerate the group's work in an entirely inappropriate way. We are worshiping the golden calf, not the god. There will be nothing different here, just a parroting of the same lines, over and over, and over.
Long ago, before most slashdotters, Python was funny because they were doing something that NOBODY else had done. They were pushing boundaries. They were making the establishment feel uncomfortable. They were the Rock&Roll of TV, fighting to sail in their own direction. They were giving glimpses of nudity on television, using inappropriate language, naming characters "Biggus Dickus", and other inappropriate things.
In short, Python was great because they were new, they were fresh, they pushed the boundaries of what was considered indecent back, and they didn't resort to the same tired gag over and over and over.
They were the Shakespeare of their day, hiding grossly offensive material under clever linguistics. They took characters from around us, around history, around time, and put them in places they didn't belong. Then they explored that human dynamic. The English-speaking Brian in Roman lands, failing at Latin; The Viking and King Arthur in modern times; The Grannies in biker gangs; The accountant in places of danger and excitement.
They, like Shakespeare, Longfellow, and David Foley before them took us to a place we knew, and then perverted it while we stood there, slack-jawed. They, like Hisenberg and Bohr, kept us continuously uncertain of where we stood. Of where we started, and of where we would end up.
While many books have been written on the social commentary of the themes within Python's works, the one most cited is that of dying cats. From explosions to old women beating them on posts, it was clear that Python had something out for the furry pussy. While most have glossed over this theme as a histamine sensitivity, it clearly ties into their long-running theme of the uncertainty of the human condition. For them, the human condition has been observed. And it is a dead cat.
For that reason, I put off coming here. I knew that all I would find would be anti-Python. A repetition of lines; against all they stood for; all that made them great. While we can treasure the memories of enjoyment that their shows and movies brought us, we should remember the golden calf.
For that reason, I come here not to repeat a line, but to leave a brief message in their honor.
Do not look at the glass - look through the window. And out that window is a dead cat, having been observed by Python.
Parent
Re:And now..... (Score:4, Funny)
Where are the knights who always say: "First Post"?
They are no longer The Knights Who Say First Post. They are now the Knights Who Say Ekki-ekki-ekki-pitang-zoom-boing!
Parent
Stop making a fuss. (Score:5, Funny)
Monty Python was a long time ago.
It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker!
It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies!
Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig!
It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
Re:Stop making a fuss. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Stop making a fuss. (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, okay. I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition...
Parent
Re:Stop making a fuss. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Stop making a fuss. (Score:5, Insightful)
Man did you all miss a load of karma by posting as AC. Oh... wait...
His chief moderation would have been Funny ... Funny and Insightful. Insightful and Funny ...
His two moderations would have been Funny and Insightful ... and Underrated ...
His three moderations would have been Funny, Insightful, Underrated ... and Interesting ...
His four ... no ... Amongst his many moderations would have been such words as Funny, Insightful, Underrated ...
I'll come in again.
Parent
It's not dead! (Score:5, Funny)
Just pining for the fjords.
Obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
NObody expects the anniversary of Python!
I'm actually a heretic. (Score:5, Interesting)
"It says 'Romans Go Home'." "No it doesn't!"
"He has a wife, you know..."
Oh, heck, just see here [imdb.com].
Re:I'm actually a heretic. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in an interview about a year ago, John Clease mentioned that, in his experience, Americans tended to favor Holy Grail and Britons tended to favour Life of Brian. He thought it had something to do with the way in which both countries tend to enjoy their humo(u)r. Life of Brian has a continuous plot, whereas Holy Grail is more of a connected series of sketches.
Parent
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
What, the American or the European version?
Re:Obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know that!
Aaaaiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
This is slashdor you insensitive clod! It should be:
I don't know that!
%&#&%#Carrier Lost
Did he really type Carrier Lost. Maybe he was dictating it...
Parent
The essence of Python... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The essence of Python... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Life of Brian (Score:5, Funny)
The Life of Brian is especially worth a second view if you saw it when you were younger.
Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. "
[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "
[Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
Re:Life of Brian (Score:5, Funny)
The Life of Brian is especially worth a second view if you saw it when you were younger.
I'm not going to bother then. I saw it when I was older.
Parent
If you really want to show Monty Python... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (Score:3, Interesting)
People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that ''It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'''
40 year, fine! (Score:3, Funny)
But what did Monty Python ever do that is worth noting?
Re:40 year, fine! (Score:5, Funny)
Apart from the aqueducts, roads and sanitation?
I'll go out and come in again...
Parent
so successful, yet never remade - why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so successful, yet never remade - why? (Score:5, Informative)
They addressed this yesterday in a BBC special. Firstly Graham Chapman is dead and secondly they felt like they were repeating themselves at the end of the original series which is why they quit. Terry Gilliam said that if they would come back they should make the first 4 episodes absolutely awful so by the next one only 2 people would be watching and then when they made their most brilliant show ever these guys would rush out and try to explain to incredulous people how brilliant it was. (Oh, and remakes suck.)
Parent
Not to worry! (Score:4, Insightful)
All I have to say is... (Score:5, Funny)
My nipples explode with delight!
How to recognize different types of Trees (Score:4, Informative)
#1
The Larch.
requested slashcode tweak (Score:5, Funny)
On this day, make every Anonymous Coward show up as 'Bruce'.
John Cleese Anecdote (Score:5, Funny)
I got this from a friend, and while I can't prove or disprove its veracity, I like to believe it really happened:
Here in Vancouver there are often sightings of celebrities in town for the filming of some project. So one day several years ago, a fellow is walking along downtown and is amazed to see John Cleese walking toward him. This fellow happens to be a Monty Python fanatic. We all know the type; he can (and does) quote many of their skits verbatim.
So the story goes, as he sees his comedic idol walking toward him on the street, he is suddenly in a panic as to what he should say to him. As Cleese is about to walk past he blurts out "Is this the place for an argument"? Without pausing or missing a step, Cleese exclaims "I TOLD YOU ONCE"!
Best way I can think of to celibrate... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait, this is slashdot...
Never mind.
Re:Icon ? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
"You must be ne... wait a minute, 5 digit ID?" (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Icon ? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners (Score:5, Funny)
The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes.
No they aren't.
MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture.
Yes it does.
The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.
No they haven't.
Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.
No it couldn't.
Parent
Re:I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners (Score:5, Funny)
he came in here for an argument? this is "abuse'. You want Room 12-A just along the corridor.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No it isn't !!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's just contradiction. He came here for an argument.
Re:I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners (Score:4, Funny)
Wait wait wait this is the "Argument" sketch, right?
Ding. Time's up.
Parent
Re:I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Lucy vs Monty Python (Score:5, Insightful)
I hadn't seen either I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners in decades, so I looked up some clips on YouTube and had a look. The result? Not funny. Not funny at all. The prototypes of every sitcom since (a dead, worthless genre, IMHO), plus a healthy portion of nasty dated stereotypes. No thank you!
Not only was Monty Python funny, it changed what we consider funny. It changed what we laugh it. Few other shows can claim to have redefined a genre, but Monty Python did just that. Here's to 40 more years of silly walks, dead parrots and arguments!
...laura
Parent
Re:Ni! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old Slashdotters. There is a pestilence upon this site, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design non-stories are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
Parent
Re:Ni! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an excellent opportunity to honor Monty Python by honoring the group's mastery of shock and irreverence and stop quoting, word for word skits and films! The irony is killing me slowly.
Highly apropos XKCD comic [xkcd.com] on the subject.
I disagree. Because you are quoting something surreal does not make it any less surreal. Monty Python is surreal humor, not original humor. Of course, the shock and awe of seeing it the first time is very effective. But that should in no way prevent you from continually enjoying it. If it being original was a requisite to the innate humor, the very act of placing it statically on a medium would remove the humor from it.
Of course it's quotable in the same way David Lynch is quotable or Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory is replicated in anything from The Simpsons to T-shirts. I think that XKCD comic has little to no merit in claiming that Python was loved for their mastery of shock or defiance of convention. They were loved for their humor--be it unique, it was still not entirely original [icons.org.uk]. Quoting Monty Python should make no one more depressed than quoting Shakespeare or Homer. Stop fretting about being unoriginal and enjoy it.
Parent
Re:Ni! (Score:5, Insightful)
Strangely appropriate for this thread, and really /. in general.
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, and you can't quote Caddyshack and Ferris Bueller all day long, you gotta break it up with something...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And years from now people will quote that comic, word for word. Look how close you are already! Pop culture is incestuous, and to create new works, old works must be cannibalized. When copyrights become no-expiring, creative thought will be a crime.
HEX
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is an excellent opportunity to honor Monty Python by honoring the group's mastery of shock and irreverence and stop quoting, word for word skits and films! The irony is killing me slowly.
Highly apropos XKCD comic [xkcd.com] on the subject.
People repetitively quoting them is exactly what makes Monty Python so influential, great, and popular. The world is full of people who quote unoriginally -- that's what creates the value in originality. So while all the people quoting them aren't themselves originally funny, there is no other way it could be. Nothing wrong with that.
I notice your own criticism of word-for-word quoting was little more than a word-for-word quote of someone else. At least the people you are trying to criticize are just tryi
Re:Ni! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Seems random" != "is random"
Big xkcd fan, but that particular one is totally without merit--the Pythons were obsessive rewriters. Every sketch went through multiple drafts, they chose their topics and precise wording very carefully. They put a lot of effort into finding the absolute most effective way of surprising the audience, and they usually succeeded. The brilliance of Python is that they took the kind of humor that doesn't rely on surprise (a la Laurel and Hardy), and made it so surprising that everyone mistakes it for surprise-humor. Most comedy incorporates surprise, but nothing stays surprising forever--the comedy that stands the test of time is the comedy that doesn't depend on it. Take surprise out of Python and you still have some of the best-written jokes the world has ever produced. The most common format for their sketches was essentially to repeat the same joke over and over again with different wording--Dead Parrot, Crunchy Frog, Spam, Spanish Inquisition, Self-Defense, etc. After the first twenty seconds, there's nothing left to surprise you even the first time you see it. The humor is in the flawless execution--and that's why it's so obsessively quoted and rewatched.
Parent
Re:I can. (Score:5, Funny)
That is easy, just say:
And now for something completely different...
and walk away.
Parent