15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Python Speaks tells the team's story in their own words, April 27, 2000
This review is from: Monty Python Speaks (Paperback)
Monty Python member Michael Palin says, "I think there's a danger in Pythons analyzing their own work. I think we shouldn't do it." Unfortunately for him, he and the other Pythons spend 315 pages doing just that, in a delightful new book titled MONTY PYTHON SPEAKS. For the uninitiated, here's a quick history. Monty Python is the collective name for a group of five Britons--Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin--and a transplanted American, Terry Gilliam. They are responsible for 45 of the funniest half-hours ever broadcast on television (in Britain beginning in 1969, America in 1974) and some equally inventive movies. Chapman died of cancer on the very eve of the group's twentieth anniversary--"Worst case of party-pooping I've ever seen," said Terry Jones.
For Python fanatics (I count myself among them), the new book is akin to the Holy Grail that the group sought in their infamous 1975 movie. The surviving group members and many of their associates are interviewed by David Morgan, and as befits their comedic style, the Pythons are quite open and frank about the group's highs and lows. Among the many illuminated topics and tidbits are:
* Graham Chapman's alcoholism, about which he was quite open himself. (While filming one of their movies, Michael Palin came across a half-empty bottle of gin belonging to Chapman. Palin had seen the bottle completely full earlier in the day.)
* Their first American TV appearance. It was on a 1972 "Tonight Show," where guest host Joey Bishop introduced them with the immortal line, "This is a comedy group from England. I hear they're supposed to be funny."
* Python didn't have a chance in America until a PBS station manager in Texas--"Dallas, of all places," says Cleese--took a chance on them. Friends of the station manager were afraid his station would get burned down.
* Their then-manager absconded with the funds from their 1980 appearance at the Hollywood Bowl. They made no money from the gig until they released their 1982 movie of the concert.
* When ABC-TV brutally edited three of their TV episodes for a 1975 special, the Pythons sued the network, on the grounds that they'd rather make less money than have someone else censoring their work.
The ABC incident points up two concrete truths about Python: (1) Like them or not, their particular world view is uncompromised, and their fans appreciate their honesty. (2) Said view shouldn't be left in the hands of people who just plain don't understand them. The people who would "sanitize" it are the same kind of people that Python's comedy satirizes.
But maybe I romanticize Python only because I grew up with it. I completely don't get the followings for "South Park" or THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, but I can still recite reams of Python dialogue. For others with similar bents, the new book is must reading.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good behind the scenes account, March 18, 2000
This review is from: Monty Python Speaks (Paperback)
If your intent is to locate and memorize the word play of "The Dead Parrot" sketch and other classic Python routines, well you've come to the wrong place, squire! Instead, this book is an insightful account of how six very diverse personalities gelled to form one of the 20th century's greatest comedic ensembles.
I'll second the opinion offered by the California reader from Jan. 14, 2000 - this book is mainly about the Python writing process. In particular, it details the style and output of the 'Oxford team' (Jones and Palin) vs. the 'Cambridge team' (Cleese and Chapman). Then throw Idle's clever word play and Gilliam's revolutionary graphics into the mix. The book details how a side-splitting cohesive whole was formed from these disparate elements.
Like earlier reviewers, I'd like to see more on the post-Python careers. Terry Gilliam gets a fair shake with mentions of 'Brazil,' 'Jabberwocky,' and 'The Fisher King,' but the Cleese/Palin team gets short-changed with no mention at all about 'Fierce Creatures,' their under-rated 'Fish Called Wanda' follow-up.
Furthermore, as a fan of Michael Palin's BBC travelogues, it was disappointing not to get some snippets about some of those excellent works ('Around the World in 80 Days,' 'Pole to Pole,' etc.)
All in all, if you're a Python fan, this is a quick bit of enjoyable reading that will fill in and broaden your knowledge of the group.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A fine account - and there ARE new things to learn., January 14, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: Monty Python Speaks (Paperback)
Having read several other accounts of Python's history - "Life of Python," "The First 20 Years of Monty Python," and "Life Before and After Monty Python" - I must disagree with some of the other comments on this site. This tome DOES offer some fresh insights into the inner workings of Python. Specifically, the group dynamic - and especially the dynamic between the two writing teams of Chapman/Cleese and Jones/Palin - is discussed in greater length than in previous books. The contributions of the late Graham Chapman are especially scrutinized, as the others reveal information surpressed until after his death. Plus, several anecdotes regarding on-set occurences pop up. True, Idle's comments are a bit cheekier and less illuminating than those of his cohorts, but Idle - always considered the most cutting and acerbic Python - is probably (and quite understandably) sick to death of talking about Python when he's done so much quality solo work. Again, the main reason to read this book is to learn more about the WRITING PROCESS of Python... and it's fascinating stuff. And, the writing was always what Python was primarily about. As they've said themselves, they were essentially a writer's collective which performed their own material as a defense against other performers mucking it up. A great read!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No