Monty Python Crew To Reunite For Movie 136
dutchwhizzman writes "The surviving members of Monty Python have announced they will make a new movie. It will be titled Absolutely Anything. Graham Chapman won't be there to join them anymore, but they think the movie will still be in the spirit of Life of Brian, The Meaning of Life and other movies they made in the past."
They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition"... (Score:5, Funny)
... because none of us expected it.
Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I can imagine that the title isn't actually "Absolutely Anything", but that "absolutely anything" is what they answered when asked what the title might be.
Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (Score:4, Funny)
... because none of us expected it.
Except when you are, like me, Cardinal Ximinez.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian... (Score:5, Funny)
...it should be something completely different
Re: (Score:1)
It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian... it should be something completely different
Python doing something in their own style, but without coming across as stale or cliched would be the holy grail, I agree.
Re: (Score:3)
What?
He said they've already got one!
Are you sure they've got one?
Oh yes. It's very nice!
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite sketch is, however, a Chapman sketch, and that's the still very shocking Undertaker Sketch, which Chapman deliberately wrote to be as appalling as possible. During his alcoholic years he was indeed far too unreliable to ever take the lead, and in fact according to Cleese it got so bad that that was why left and did the first Fawlty Towers series.
But it was very much Chapman's sense of the bizarre that was used so effectively. He may not have been the out-and-out creative force that the others were, but I doubt the Python's would have seemed very much like the Python's without him. He was of the same kind of anarchic breed as the Python's idol, Spike Milligan (another brilliant comedian and writer who had his own terrible demons).
They all served their function, and that's what makes any potential reunions seem somewhat underwhelming to me. If Idle's not involved, then you lose that element of it, and if Gilliam isn't involved, then you lose that sort of hallucinatory visual style. Python really is a very good example of how the sum is greater than the parts. They've all gone one and done some rather good things (yes, I even enjoyed Yellow Beard), but only Gilliam has ever managed to achieve things that came close to equaling his brilliance in Python.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
having ANY new Python will be so damned refreshing
I certainly hope so. It would be so sad if this generation grow up thinking Monty Python was a bunch of old farts who were only vaguely amusing, and never go on to explore their older works because of this one movie.
It's possible their humour has become a bit dated though wrt what kids/teens these days find funny. When I watched it when I was a kid, Monty Python (and the Goodies, Not The Nine O'Clock News, etc) were the funniest things ever. When I put the Holy Grail on for the kids (aged around 5, 7, 9, an
Re: (Score:2)
I think the movies might be the wrong way to introduce Python to a new audience. I think that Flying Circus is a far better way, in large part because they weren't trying to carry an entire film plot. As much as I love the films, I still think the first three series of Flying Circus are superior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
followed by are You Being Served. I have yet to find anybody who doesn't like Sloakum and Humphries.
You know... I just never 'got' that show. I was probably too young to fully appreciate it at the time (certainly the pussy jokes went right over my head) but still... even now when it's on i still normally just give it a miss.
But you're right, the movie was probably a bad place to start. It's all I had though, and my kids watch too much tv as it is so i have mixed feelings about introducing more of it :)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Behind Python Dave Allen was my favorite (though he's Irish, does that count?) The man was almost the wittiest man that ever lived. His monologues alone were quite brilliant. To some extent I consider Craig Ferguson to be his heir (and certainly the most interesting person on late night).
Re: (Score:2)
Uggh. That's my example that British sitcoms can be just as horrible as American sitcoms. (Of course, in the U.S., we usually see _mostly_ only the good British ones.)
(BTW, "Coupling" is among my favorite shows ever.)
Re: (Score:2)
From the short python sketch(es?) long after python that I've seen them (or part of them) do for tv-specials or somesuch, I'm a bit nervous about this. Maybe they cobbled something together hastily and/or their hearts weren't into it, but that/those sketch(es) looked to me like old men trying to plagiarise their former selves through unoriginal python boilerplate. It was like it was lacking soul or fire, like the old stuff was art and this wasn't.
It seemed like they had become more assimilated into boring n
Re: (Score:3)
I hope this one turns
Re: (Score:2)
The explanation I read was that writing proved quite laborious and that Cleese vetoed a final rewrite, which probably would have cleaned up the unevenness. I have a hard time believing that spending time on location helped Grail at all, as everyone spent most of the time absolutely miserable and Chapman spent much of the time suffering through severe alcohol withdrawal. On top of that, everyone found the co-directing of Gilliam and Jones quite unbearable, as Jones directed things in a fashion compatible to
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I like and respect the members of Monty Python, they're not the same, their comedy is not the same, and comedy is not the same. Which is not to say that they're bad now, just that they've each hit very different comedic strides in the past 30 years. Cleese is more Nearly Headless Nick than the early 80's Robin Williams. Heck, Robin Williams is more like Nearly Headless Nick than the early 80's Robin Williams. Gilliam's such a legendary director that it's easy to forget he was a Monty Python member. Terry Jones is hardly ever on camera now, but has been writing an awful lot (including Labyrinth). And Palin, well, working actor and all that.
When a reunion like this happens, it's always nice to trot out the old gang for once, shower them with applause for the years they've done good work, and pretend that the work isn't mildly disappointing. 99 times out of 100, you can't recapture that lightning. Being influential means that everyone after you copies you, and that makes you less interesting.
We've grown up with Monty Python. We owe huge debts of gratitude and culture to their body of work. But let's not pretend that when the blonde bombshell from the 1970's shakes he tassles again it will be the same as 40 years ago. Entertaining? Yes. Worth seeing? Yes. The same? If they try to be the same, they're going to be dead in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to equate it with Monty Python, but have you seen "30 Rock"? I would definitely call it silly yet thinking. There's a lot of intellectual humor, mixed in with really bizarre/off the wall humor. (A lot of the off the wall stuff involves Tracy Morgan, who I really disliked on SNL, but he's funny in limited doses on this show, doing basically the same thing.. yeah, it's weird.)
Disclaimer: I'm not a huge Monty Python fan. (There are a bunch of funny sketches, but just
why no chapman! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:why no chapman! (Score:5, Funny)
...and why is Graham Chapman not joining them?
Death can put a real crimp on your acting ability. That is unless your name is Keanu, in which case being stiff as a board is an absolute boon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HHGTTG reference me thinks!
Anyway, just because he's dead doesn't mean he's out of the picture, he's just a naughty boy.
Every Python movie so far has something to do with philosophy or religion. Maybe this will be different.
Re: (Score:2)
After Chapman's death, speculation of a Python revival inevitably faded. Idle stated:
"We would only do a reunion if Chapman came back from the dead. So we're negotiating with his agent."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
dig?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's actually in an urn somewhere, unless that reunion just included the urn for comedy purposes. Still, an urn perched in a bird cage could be just as funny (and arguably a lot more tasteful) than a rotting corpse. The idea of someone buying a Chapman who was already cremated and in an urn and then trying to return him because he is dead (and having the shopkeeper try and argue to the contrary) would work on a lot of levels.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why Keanu gets singled out with a meme of his own, when other actors like Tom Cruise are considerably worse in every regard, and more notable.
Re: (Score:1)
...and why is Graham Chapman not joining them?
Graham Chapman died about a dozen years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Graham Chapman died about a dozen years ago.
Remind me never to ask you to change a $20. (Or buy eggs, for that matter.)
Re:why no chapman! (Score:4, Informative)
Because he's dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Chapman [wikipedia.org]
And no - he's not pining for the fjords.
Re: (Score:1)
jesus. these days you can get modded informative for missing the joke.
Re: (Score:1)
jesus. these days you can get modded informative for missing the joke.
I didn't know that Stormthirst is Jesus.
Re: (Score:1)
jesus. these days you can get modded informative for posting any link to wikipedia.
FTFY. Sad, but apparently true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a joke in the OP's comment?
Re: (Score:3)
He is an EX-PYTHON!!!
Re:why no chapman! (Score:5, Funny)
Carl French: (Graham Chapman) It does, yes.
Interviewer: Who died over ten years ago?
Carl French: Uh, that's correct.
Interviewer: Are you lying?
Carl French: No, no, it's just that she'e very much in the public eye at the moment.
Interviewer: Does she have a big part?
Carl French: She is the star of the film.
Interviewer: And dead.
Carl French: Well, we dug her up and gave her a screen test, a mere formality in her case, and...
Interviewer: Can she still act?
Carl French: Well... well, she-she's still has this-this enormous, ah-ah, kinda indefinable, uh... no.
Interviewer: Was decomposition a problem?
Carl French: We did have to put her in the fridge between takes.
Interviewer: Ah, what sorts of things does she do in the film?
Carl French: Well, we had her lying on beds, lying on floors, falling out of cupboards, scaring the children...
Interviewer: But surely Miss Monroe was cremated?
Carl French: Well, we had to use a standin for some of the more visible shots.
Interviewer: Ah! Uh, another actress.
Carl French: Dead actress. But Monroe was in shot the whole time.
Interviewer: How?
Carl French: Oh, in the ash tray, in the fire grate and vacuum cleaner...
How appropriate would it be for them to give him Credit like that?!
Re:why no chapman! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
How appropriate would it be for them to give him Credit like that?!
They tried once [youtube.com] and it didn't turn out so good. :(
Re: (Score:1)
The others didn't believe that he's not dead yet.
Re: (Score:2)
He's pining for the fjords, is he?
Re: (Score:1)
Because Weekend at Bernie's Flying Circus is a bad idea.
Champan's actually starring. (Score:2)
Slashdotter: Timothy, we're all a little mystified by your claim that the new python film stars Graham Chapman.
Timothy: It does, yes.
Slashdotter: Who died over ten years ago?
Timothy: Uh, that's correct.
Slashdotter: Are you lying?
Timothy: No, no, it's just that he's very popular.
Slashdotter: Does he have a big part?
Timothy: He is the star of the film.
Slashdotter: And dead.
Timothy: Well, we dug him up and gave him a screen test, a mere formality in his case, and...
Slashdotter: Can he still act?
Timothy: Well..
Re: (Score:2)
No Eric Idle? (Score:2, Interesting)
The source says that Eric Idle isn't confirmed to be part of the project (yet). So it's not quite a true reunion (yet). So I'm not quite jumping straight out of my window out of sheer joy (yet).
Eric, my life depends on you.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, Slashdot has an Idle section, isn't that enough?
Re: (Score:2)
He might be kind of a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think they shouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think they shouldn't.
Maybe author a movie, but not star in it. They where great at the time (70's and 80's) but now they would risk looking outdated and desperately trying to cling to some sort of success.
So either produce something truly "completely different", or no. Leave those outstanding movies (and of course TV sketches) as they where. Don't do a "Godfather III" or a "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" or a "Blues Brothers 2000" (and on). Please.
Bugger.
Re:I personally think they shouldn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Risk looking outdated? Myself, I'd take that as a given. Their day is past. Long past.
But most of the responses (so far) to story illustrate quite neatly (and for the umpteenth time) just why the entertainment industry (and I include the computer/console games industry in this) keep serving us up just more of the same... because they know people will eat it up with a fangirl "squuueeeeeee" and beg for more.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit skeptical, too. They've lost some of their raw comedic edge over the years (judging by the available evidence).
Should they do it though? Definitely.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't stop so they won't be dated (Score:2)
The only one of them that has redone material is Eric Idle with "Spamalot" and
And check out Jonsies documentaries too. (Score:1)
Good stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I personally think they shouldn't (Score:4)
The Python's (with the exception of Gilliam) started out as writers, not as performers, so as long as the writing edge is still there, then they've got it. I know Palin and Jones have at least tried over the years to keep their own writing partnership going, and Cleese and Gilliam have always seemed to work with Palin when they could. Idle has always been the lone wolf who did most of his writing on his own. For a time Cleese seemed to be greatly reduced; all that psychotherapy had made him happy, but maybe, after the last divorce and the big payout he had to make, he's sufficiently hungry and bitter to put on that semi-anal, semi-mad persona he mined in Python and on Fawlty Towers (and even in his work in A Fish Called Wanda, which really is an exquisitely well-written film).
Frankly the one that has disappointed me the most over the years has been Idle. He came out of the gate with some pretty good work; the Ruttles and Rutland Weekend Television, but by the 1990s his work soured, and then he just started looting the Python past for his stage shows and for Spamalot and the like. I think there may have even been a bit of a falling out with Gilliam, who apparently wasn't overly impressed with Spamalot.
The one I still really watch for these days is Gilliam. I've loved almost all his films, and I think he's a greatly underappreciated talent, a very unique visionary in the history of cinema. Everyone loves Time Bandits and Brazil, and I haven't met a geek who didn't have a soft spot for Munchhausen, but I even like Tidelands, which is a pretty strange film even for Gilliam. To my mind, he is the one that has kept the torch alight far more than Idle's attempted resurrections of Python's larger works. I think after watching all his films that his influence on the troupe has probably been understated, that Gilliam has the conceptual aesthetic that sits underneath the surface of his own work and the Pythons, a certain visual style that, whether it was his cartoons, or his set work in Brian and Meaning of Life or in his own films which is so recognizable and so original that I'm not sure that the Pythons would ever have been quite what they are without him.
Of course, the one thing none of these articles actually mentions is whether Gilliam's involved or not. Without Gilliam, there's a certain of anarchy that wouldn't be present.
Re: (Score:2)
Without Gilliam, there's a certain [amount] of anarchy that wouldn't be present.
And perhaps also, a defining quantity! :)
Re: (Score:3)
Dear Sir,
I am glad to hear that your slashdot audience disapproves of the new skit as strongly as I. As a programmer I abhor the implication that IT is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is Monty Python who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs?
Yours etc.
Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.
Re: (Score:2)
I somewhat agree with you, but think having Crystal Skull was better than NO Indiana Jones movie.. and at least BB 2000 was memorable for the hilarious seemingly un-ending car crash scene, and the way they parked (basically a skidding U-turn directly into the parallel parking spot).
(BTW, after playing Uncharted 1 and 80% of Uncharted 2 so far, Nathan Drake really makes Indiana Jones look like a wimp! This is from someone who kept referring to them as "that game where you basically are Indiana Jones" for
Re: (Score:1)
They've all been HUGELY successful since their python days.... well except for Graham of course.
So you're saying the angels don't enjoy his new show?
Re: (Score:1)
Idle stated: "We would only do a reunion if Chapman came back from the dead. So we're negotiating with his agent."
like Brian did to the hermit. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This article made me break my vow of lurking!
Pfft. Some vow! It didn't even last an hour. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I knew this was inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
...from the moment John Cleese's divorce was final and his ex-wife got half of everything. Woo hoo! Shortly after there was a new Monty Python documentary, and now this.
as you age, you have less time to contribute art (Score:5, Insightful)
aging celebrities know this. musicians, actors know that they only have so much time left.
why not put some more art out there while you still can? I hate to sound morbid but those guys only have a few years left and I'd love to have them put more of their comedy into the world before they go.
its the same way that many older 70's/80's rock musicians are coming back to do a high-def video concert tour. most of their older work was not video recorded (or not done well) and it would be nice to have at least a few HD moments to savor of them, for posterity. its not 'the same' as the old days but its far better than NOT having it! you can always choose to not view it, but if they choose to not produce it, neither of us have a choice.
so, kudos to them for wanting to throw some more of their artful style out into the world before they push up the daiseys.
Re: (Score:1)
its not 'the same' as the old days but its far better than NOT having it! you can always choose to not view it
I don't know. Sometimes the nostalgia is worth more as it exists in your own recollection (which is hampered by a new perspective), and sometimes you don't realistically have a choice not to view it.
Re: (Score:2)
Resurrect Chapman (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of Robin Williams as a talking dog (ugh), splice together Chapman's voice from all his films and Monty Python episodes (like South Park and Chef) for that role. Then sprinkle photos of Chapman in his various outlandish outfits throughout the movie without making a direct reference to them.
I can dream. Feverish dreams.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/about/ [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:2)
just leave it in peace (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Late 60's, early 70's. So? Old people can be funny, and something that takes their senior status into account might be riotous. Anyway, I guess we'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
"Old people can be funny, and something that takes their senior status into account might be riotous."
Like maybe a hilarious (self-referential) movie about the remaining old Python team trying and failing to make a hit movie? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds a little bit Mel Brooks.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, they could do a lot of funny stuff about the changes between the 1960s/1970s and now in terms of social mores, technology, politics, economics, globalization, and so on. Basically, use themselves as the straightmen in a lot of social commentary about "modern times"...
They could try to do things the old way in movie making and be confronted with kids glued to gameboys and video games, audiences that don't go to movie theaters, copyright infringement, two-income families, the changing scale of mo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know... I think they should do whatever. Anything that would make me think its real monty python. Their age shouldn't prevent them from portraying young characters, just as their sex shouldn't prevent them from playing men, women or hermaphrodites.
Re: (Score:2)
They could set it in a retirement home. Trying to think of films that are; Coocoon? So take that and add, I don't know, Spam?
Also trying to think of comedic geniuses who still were writing good material that late in life. Perhaps certain standups, Carlin comes to mind. Helps to be really pissed off, perhaps, to compensate for all the brain shrinkage.
Re: (Score:2)
They could set it in a retirement home. Trying to think of films that are;
Bubba Ho Tep. Elvis Presley's greatest role.
No Eric Idle (yet) (Score:2)
At present, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, and Michael Palin are all signed on to the film. “Eric [Idle] knows about the project” but isn’t confirmed yet, said producer Chris Chesser.
Why no Idle?
Maybe he is stuck in Cardinal Fang's Comfy Chair
I can't wait! (Score:2)
I can't wait for the master of the tantrum to rant again: John Cleese!
Re: (Score:2)
John Cleese rant against communists [youtube.com].
It's a Terry Jones film with Python voice actors (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to be a buzzkill, but it looks like it'll be just a movie by Terry Jones with the other Pythons being voice actors and nothing more. Heck, Terry Jones himself said that "It's not a Monty Python picture".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16744299 [bbc.co.uk] None of the other Pythons are involved in the writing process.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to be a buzzkill, but it looks like it'll be just a movie by Terry Jones with the other Pythons being voice actors and nothing more. Heck, Terry Jones himself said that "It's not a Monty Python picture".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16744299 [bbc.co.uk] None of the other Pythons are involved in the writing process.
The interviewers had a really hard time pretending to give a fuck.
From the link:
A talking dog that will ham the shit out of every scene named Dennis will be voiced by Mrs Doubtfire actor Robin Williams.
FTFY. Will not watch.
Python + Robin Williams (Score:3)
Well, one thing's for sure: The film is going to be very good, or very bad. I can't imagine seeing a combined CGI-and-live-action sci-fi film with substantially all of the Python crew, plus Robin William's voice for "a wry talking dog named Dennis," and walking out unmoved one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine going to see a film with Robin Williams in it and not walking out demanding my money back.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, two of those are Terry Gilliam films. He was very good in The Fisher King.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Morning Vietnam was a nice blend of both.
But, mostly if his comedy isn't a take off on his "this is me high on cocaine" riff then it falls flat. For example, that's why his King of the Moon performance works.
Box Office Woes...? (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing to worry about. (Score:2)
Graham Chapman's place will be filled by Andy Kaufman.
My nipples (Score:2)
please please please (Score:2)
figure out a way to work the fish slapping dance into this movie.
Monty Python Crew to Reunite For Movie (Score:2)
Well? We're waiting over here, so get on with it!