Fifty years after first hitting theaters, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is still standing, as it holds a lofty position among comedy-movie royalty.
Released by EMI Films in the U.S. on April 28, 1975, the project marked the first original feature for the legendary British comedy troupe that was known at the time for the BBC sketch series Monty Python’s Flying Circus and comprised of John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Michael Palin. Co-directed by Gilliam and Jones, Holy Grail follows Chapman as King Arthur in his quest for the titular vessel. It is considered among the greatest comedic films of all time.
During a conversation with The Hollywood Reporter, co-writer and star Cleese weighs in on how he would change the ending, the group’s members having gone their separate ways over the years, the fact that comedy no longer seems to be prioritized by Hollywood (“It amazes me that people would want to watch it,” he says of Netflix’s Adolescence), the impact on the industry of people who “suffer from literal-mindedness” and his Harry Potter memories as the voice of Nearly Headless Nick in light of the forthcoming streaming series.
Graham Chapman (left), John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin on the set of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Courtesy of Everett Collection
How does it feel to hit a milestone on a movie that is still so well-regarded?
It’s extraordinary. Recently, there was a BBC poll of international film critics, and Python had No. 6 and No. 15 out of 50 best comedies of all time: [1979’s] Life of Brian was 6, and Grail was 15. You feel proud and pleased. I don’t take rankings very seriously, but there’s some sense one knows one was up there with the best, and that’s very satisfying.
Do you have favorite memories of bringing Holy Grail to the big screen?
We had no idea what we were doing. We were very lucky. There was some extremely funny material in Holy Grail, and we somehow got it together because Jones and Gillian managed to co-direct it. [There was] the usual Python chaos with one of them creeping down to the editing room and re-editing something while the other one was asleep upstairs, this kind of thing. (Laughs.)
Then it opened and was a complete surprise hit. We were thrilled because it was the last thing we expected. When we started Python, the general feeling was, “What on earth are these people doing?” [A BBC department head] bumped into our director in an elevator and said, “Is this show supposed to be funny? I think it’s awful.” That was the head of the department. One consistent theme to almost everything I’ve done it is that 85 percent of the people at the top have no idea what they’re doing.
So many lines and scenes have become an indelible part of the culture.
I was terribly impressed when the elder George Bush [was president] and a cartoon appeared with him in it in a pet shop, and it was to do with a parrot [referencing a classic Monty Python sketch]. I remember suddenly thinking, “Whoa, we’ve arrived! We’re in the political cartoons.” [And] more and more, particularly with the Black Knight sketch, which Graham Chapman and I wrote. The guy who won’t lie down. It’s very nice because these phrases, they pass into the language: “‘Tis but a scratch.” I had a small precancerous thing cut out of my arm in L.A. a few years ago, and when the guy sewed it up, he said, “‘Tis but a scratch,” as he walked out of the room. It’s very nice when these things appear in people’s conversation. Python is quite well-known, although I think the younger people don’t know about it, really.
Michael Palin (left), John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam attend a 2015 screening of Monty Python and the Holy Grail to celebrate the film’s 40th anniversary.
Derek Storm/Everett Collection
Any reason for that, or just because the years go by?
I would like to say it’s because American culture, not the individuals, but American culture has gotten more trivial. It’s all about short attention span. In my day, there were many more good shows about good subjects. The subjects that people are now making movies and television about, they just astound me. It’s either people dressed in a cross between Star Trek and something medieval — add a few flying dragons, you know what I mean? It’s either that, or it’s the most extraordinary, sordid stuff, which I know is real, but why people would want to watch it on television? This recent thing that’s had such a huge success — what’s it called? Single word about a boy who kills the girl?
Adolescence.
Yes, Adolescence. Tragic, absolutely tragic. But it amazes me that people would want to watch it. We all know that there are millions of people living in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, but for me, I don’t know it makes particularly good television.
In the U.S., comedies aren’t hitting the theaters as much, or they’re just not getting made, and that’s a sad thing for me.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’m in the process of making three hours for television, sort of Life of Cleese, with masses and masses of archive stuff because I’ve got archive stuff coming out of my ears. What I’m doing in the third of those shows is saying how sad it is that there is so little comedy and what a good effect comedy has on people. I go to these comic-cons sometimes. There were people coming up to me in large numbers saying, “Thank you for helping me through difficult periods of my life.” Because when you laugh, you move your center of gravity to a place that can cope a bit better with the problems of life. That is something that nobody seems to realize at the moment.
Graham Chapman (left) and John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Courtesy of Everett Collection
I totally agree.
There was a famous story about the British Marines in the Second World War, and at one point, they started getting bombed by their own planes because some communication had gone completely wrong. (Laughs.) One of them got really angry about being bombed by the British plane, and the officer said, “Look, if you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined up.” That kind of humor, it moves us to a part of ourselves that is braver and more positive.
We don’t have that now because we have these people leaping out and saying, “That’s not funny.” And the problem, a lot of the time, is that they suffer from literal-mindedness. There are literal-minded people here — particularly in the Midwest, where irony can be hard to find — and you realize that these people don’t really get metaphor, and they don’t really get simile, and they don’t really get comic exaggeration. In other words, the meaning that they get from statements is incredibly narrow. It’s just the literal meaning, as opposed to the figurative meanings, of which there are so many. They’re going through life with this very attenuated emotional spectrum, just seeing things literally, and they’re then trying to tell people who understand irony and metaphor what they should not be allowed to view.
If Holy Grail were being made today, would you have gotten more notes or less freedom?
That’s a very good question. You see, the guy who [originally] told us to make 13 programs, I don’t think he would have given a fuck. But what’s so funny now is I can say “fuck.” If I said “fuck” 40 years ago, the traffic stopped. So that you always have this strange thing. There are certain things that mustn’t be said, and many young people say to people of my age, “Oh, you can’t say that.” I want to say, “Well, I’ve been speaking English quite fluently for 80 years, and I don’t think someone of your age should be telling me what I could say.”
You’ve said previously that you don’t love the ending to Holy Grail. Do you still feel that way?
Yes. It stops being very funny towards the end, and the ending is the best we could come up with. It’s a joke that it’s so bad. I’m coming to America in the fall, and we’re showing Holy Grail and then answering questions afterwards. I have a version of the ending, and as far as I can see, people like it better than the original one. (Laughs.) It’s just pared down. The original one just takes too long to try and build up the tension, and it would be much better if it had been edited. But I think the first hour or so of the film is extraordinarily funny. It tails off a bit, but I’m delighted people like it so much.
With events like that, how does it make you feel about your relationships with the other Python members?
If you look at the history of most groups, you find there’s always quarrels at some point, and I think we’ve done quite well. But what people often don’t understand about a team is that a team is not composed of all people who do the same things well. It’s a group of people who do different things well.
[Terry] Gilliam, at quite an early stage, really decided that he just wanted to direct movies. Eric [Idle] didn’t really come forward until A Meaning of Life because Eric is very, very strong on music, and particularly on lyrics. Michael [Palin], who’s always loved travel, did some travel programs. Jonesy [aka Terry Jones] did all sorts of things. Chapman was two people, really. He was Chapman sober, who was an extraordinarily good writer and a really fine actor, and Chapman drunk, who wasn’t awfully good at anything or couldn’t remember his lines. Whereas I like comedy, and I very much enjoy simple pleasure: making audiences laugh. Very different people, so inevitably, as we get older and become maybe slightly more authentic, we go in different directions.
Do you have any thoughts on the Harry Potter series, given your experience with the franchise?
Well, not really. When you’re doing special effects, you never get to meet the other actors. It’s special effects shooting, which is not really interesting. I said to the director, Christopher Columbus, after a take, “Was that any good?” And he’d say, “I don’t know.” (Laughs.) One special effects person said to me, “Would you look surprised on the next take?” And I did. He said, “That was really good. Can you look surprised at half that speed?” And this is a man [doing] special effects — right at one end of the spectrum — who’s never really spent any time around these human beings because they’re so unpredictable. (Laughs.)
