Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.jokes.d
Subject: Is it Satire or is it Funny?
Message-ID: <2233@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 17:56:23 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2233
Posted: Fri Nov 15 17:56:23 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Nov-85 06:25:26 EST
References: <2134@pyuxd.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 86
Xref: linus net.religion:7862 net.jokes.d:976

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