This book is an in-depth analysis of the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which has become a cult film in the USA, and has more recently been revived as the musical Spamalot. The film followed four television series, totalling 45 comedy programmes, starting in October 1969 and titled Monty Python 's Flying Circus. They relied on skilled wordplay, surprise juxtapositions, anachronisms and silliness. Darl Larsen has previously provided an analysis of these programmes as Monty Python 's Flying Circus: An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorised Guide […] (Larsen, 2008) (RR 2009/138). Larson is a Professor in the Media Arts Department and the Centre for Animation at Brigham Young University.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail was the second film from the Python team, but the first to tell a complete story. The format used in this book is to take each scene, including those that did not make it to the final film, and use pieces of dialogue or text from the script to open up discussion on a particular point. Rather than pick a selection of these, I have chosen to identify the topics and areas of interest that Larsen discusses. A good place to start is with King Arthur. He is a problematic figure in English (or British) history. Some doubt his actual existence, and his historical location and dates are unclear. If he actually existed, then he was probably about in the sixth or seventh century. However, the film is based as if post Norman Conquest, and uses late middle-age castles (real or models). The legend of King Arthur has produced a wealth of stories from the middle ages to Tennyson and beyond into comics. Monty Python (if I may refer them as a group – which I should get away with as the Knights of the Round Table is a group name) has made good use of this literature in concocting their script and film. The quest for the Holy Grail also has a rich literature, in which the legendary Arthur is involved. The main feature of the quest for the grail is that it will ultimately fail, but must be pursued with determination, stoicism and honour.
Overlaying this complex and wilfully complicated story is the political and economic situation at the time the film was made and earlier in the history of Monty Python (both programmes and the lives of the members of the Group). Britain had lost its Empire and was trying to enter the European Community. There was considerable political unrest and economic difficulties. These issues had surfaced in the Flying Circus, and clearly feature in the Holy Grail. Most obviously, nobody shows any respect for the King, especially the French Knights. Arthur claims to be the King of the Britons. The concept of Britain is complex and, in its current form, is a Georgian invention after the Stuart’s claim to the throne became inactive.
Having set the story in a sort of Middle Ages, the question that has to be raised is how accurate is the presentation? In many ways, it is totally misleading. There is no agriculture or industry. There are no church buildings. There are almost no families, except in Swamp Castle. We only know the Old Woman is Dennis’s mother because the script tells us. Nobody fires an arrow. On the other hand, it is probably more accurate than most depictions of the Middle Ages. The plague and death feature. The peasants and the nobles are illiterate and innumerate. Despite Arthur’s annoyance, most mediaeval castles were occupied by French, having been installed by William. The film follows the replacement of superstition around soothsayers and magicians by an organised Christian clergy personified by Brother Maynard, who can read not only Latin (and translate as he goes) but also Aramaic.
The dialogue in the film is a continuation of the Flying Circus. Its origin lies in the Goon Show. This was a comedy series that was on the radio (and later moved to television). Like the Flying Circus, it took faintly unlikely ideas and stretched them beyond normal limits. The script made use of contorted grammar, strange accents, unlikely juxtapositions and a lot of jokes, some of them at school boy standard. The Pythons follow this, albeit at a more intellectual level. The Pythons had learnt their drama skills at university. The Goons had learnt theirs entertaining troops in the Second World War. It is this mainly verbal humour that makes records of the Circus and the films so good. It is a while since I had a working record player, but until it died, I could still hear new jokes when I replayed them. Of course, Monty Python had the images of television, which allowed the jokes and odd association to expand into the visuals. Filming techniques, the use of models, camera techniques and the whole editing process and so on are used to good effect and, at times, stretched beyond limit.
There are also references to other films. Movies about the Middle Ages, Arthur and Robin Hood for example, are copied or parodied at times. There are also direct references to several major films, in particular recent versions of Macbeth. But what Holy Grail has, as did Flying Circus, that is special to these visual entertainments is Terry Gilliam’s animations. These are a mixture of drawing and the use of images. Gilliam provided two linking sequences in these, using or adapting the page edge illuminations for medieval books. The original decorations are often comic, irreverent and a times quite naughty; Gilliam takes them further. This was an incredibly low budget film. This explains some of the strangeness of the film. There are no horses, although the Knights’ pages bang coconut shells. This goes back to radio when noise stage effects were made by a person making noises with their voice or everyday objects. There was no money for large town scenes. No money (or insurance) for archers. Monty Python uses this restraint to good effect turning a misfortune (pun intended) into an advantage. They only got permission to film at two castles in Scotland. Two topics pervade the film. Death and not yet dead and dying occur frequently in the film. These also feature in Flying Circus, and goes back to the Goons where Bluebottle is frequently “deaded”. The other is the power of words. Again, this goes back to the Flying Circus. Its most powerful expression is when it is the word that defeats the Knights who until recently said “Ni”.
So briefly what is the story? It starts with the title and credits which contain various jokes and surprises. The main story starts with King Arthur looking for a knight to join him at Camelot, which includes various strange, dangerous and improbable encounters. Having gathered the Knights, and after God has given Arthur and his Knights the task to find the Holy Grail, they each (or at least as many as the budget can afford) set off on their quests. Each of the Knights comes across challenges – the Knights who say “Ni”, Castle Anthrax and Swamp Castle. These challenges allow the Pythons an opportunity to play with other aspects of society. They finally gather for the last section of their quest, and again, there is an opportunity for some more incongruous situations and word games that test their resolve. They arrive at Grail Castle with a great army (from the University of Stirling). Unfortunately earlier in the film, and unknown to Arthur and his Knights, a famous twentieth-century historian who was describing the story for a TV documentary was murdered by an unknown Knight. You could get away with this in the Middle Ages (as Lancelot did with his massacre at Swamp Castle), but not in the twentieth century. Just as they are about to find the grail, the police arrive arrests the Knights and stops the film. So the quest nobly attempted fails, and provides for a point to ponder on police activity.
Darl Larsen works his way through the film commenting as appropriate on “all the references”. The opening sequence allows him to introduce the characters and the film’s technical team. As the narrative firms up, the comments become more detailed. The origin of some of the dialogue in the Goons and the Flying Circus are teased out. Aspects of medieval life, beliefs and world view are explored. Serious topics such as God and death are explored. He deals very fully with the film techniques and film references; this is his area of expertise. Apart from the Python films, I tended to watch action movies like Full Metal Jacket (which is quest-like story), but I know one of the Bergman references because Jarman has also used it. He also picks up the interesting facts that are easily forgotten now. The Swedish references in the opening sequence parody a newspaper advertising campaign for holiday in Sweden that was ongoing at the time of production. Other references are to the obscure details of the concerns of British politics. Many of the jokes will stand the test of time. Some will gain a new life – does Arthur resemble some British (of other) politician?
This book will be a great help to those who want to understand appreciate this quite remarkable film. The Monty Python team went on to make two more films. Beyond this, individual members went on to make other films; some comic history, some political and social comment and some more mainstream drama. The start of all this is here. There is a degree of repetition in the book; for example, at each taunting of Arthur all the others are mentioned, so it works as a reference book. There is a good index and a very full bibliography. An appendix explains the drawings in the “book”. I have read Larsen’s book studiously and, like Sir Bedevere (or may be one of Robin’s minstrels), wish to explain that hides on p. 97 are not leather items of value but the number of families that can live of the land, a family requiring 30 to 120 traditional acres, depending on land quality – which at least proves I have read the book. Also, I admit to “skipping a bit” like Brother Maynard when faced with the necessary supporting quotes in some of the discussions of important issues. And now, it is time for an update on King Arthur real or legend? An academic (Breeze, 2015) from the University of Navarre has recently argued, on a re-reading of place name in Historia brittonium (see p. 36), that he was actually based in southern Scotland. Nobody expects a Spanish academic.
