Review: Monty Python and the Holy Grail

(Photo Credit)

For those unfamiliar with the comedy style of Monty Python, a step into their world can be seen as strange and peculiar. The group is best known for their ability to satirize just about anything they chose at the time. One could think of their comedy as a giant, “what if?” where people and things are put out of context to show their truly perplexing qualities. Most notably on their television series, the group would frame absurd sketches like questioning what would happen if Hitler escaped to England, changed his name, and lived like a typical English-person? Awkward, and sometimes uncomfortable, scenarios like this are the specialty of the comedians of Monty Python and they take this unique comedy into their classic 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The film is set up to share qualities with famous medieval epics, like The Song of Roland, which instantly is noticeable with the inclusion of the heroes of the movies, King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Along with the legendary characters in the story the movie includes, like Bennett alludes to, an adventure of epic proportions, blood and gore, and characters able to survive their mortal injuries (which becomes a running gag throughout the movie) (283). The movie has many memorable scenes like these including, the black knight, whose limbs are all cut off but yet he is still ready and willing to fight (hopefully this is reminiscent of The Song of Roland).

(Photo Credit)

What the film does well in this epic-like styling is ask, what if medieval knights, who supposedly have these legendary traits and abilities, are not that legendary nor epic and instead flawed humans? In this context, viewers can begin to think about their preconceptions of the medieval period and see how some of the preconceptions are a little embellished. Like how Arthur and his Knights towards the end of their quest, fail to defeat a small but ferocious bunny, which kills most of the group, in close combat.

Although, not entirely accurate for historical purposes, the film does hit upon some truths about medieval life while greatly exaggerating most other aspects. The film’s main story features King Arthur and his Knights, who are called by God to go and search for a holy relic that is revealed to be the Holy Grail. The combination of religion and the ruling powers of a kingdom were an important part of medieval governance since Charlemagne. Furthermore, kings did include some religious aspects to their territorial expansion and conquests. Religion, especially Christianity, shapes the characters in the film and their adventures. This includes one knight named, Sir Galahad the Chaste, whose encounter with a castle that is only inhabited by women leads him to desire to be less than his name before being rescued by his fellow knights. For the most part, the mail that the knights wore showed how knights were still able to move even with heavy armor on.

The greatest historical fault to the movie was that many things were just put in the wrong time periods, for instance many knights have barrel helmets which did not appear until the 12^th century. However, I do not think the writers were going for the most accurate portrayal of the medieval period because the point of the film was to satirize people’s preconceived notions of knights and medieval life, by making it seem over-the-top and humanizing medieval people.

References:

Bennett, Judith M. Medieval Europe: A Short History. McGraw-Hill, 2011

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Terry Gillam and Terry Jones. EMI Films, 1975

Newman, Paul B. Daily Life in the Middle Ages. McFarland, 2001