“Well, I didn’t vote for you.”

Monty Python - "I didn't vote for you!"" iPad Case & Skin for Sale by Pelloneus | Redbubble

Monty Python and the Holy Grail subverts narrative conventions and pushes the viewer to constantly question what is coming next. The film cuts between storylines, time periods, animation styles and builds climaxes that meet resolutions that rapidly discard the work and time that built said climaxes. Mittell (2004) deduces that Monty Python’s style can be defined by it’s “narrative complexity”, that is, the group’s desire to create films that subvert popular narrative formulas. The group utilises satire, absurdity and comedic techniques to deconstruct established and popularised narrative conventions. Namely, the film uses anachronisms to accentuate its satirical intent. Characters constantly oppose the apparent historical setting by engaging in modern debates, such as constitutional politics in England: “Well, I didn’t vote for you” (Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975). Additionally, a second story is set up alongside the Knights of the Round Table’s quest for the Holy Grail, that in which a Historian is murdered whilst reporting on the life of King Arthur. This discrepancy between narratives ensues a sense of unreliable narration, one in which the viewer is now unsure of the setting and time period of the Knights existence. The entire film works towards the Knights goal of attaining the Grail — a quest in which materialises to finally resolve as the troops rally to storm the island that supposedly holds the Grail — yet at the peak of audience anticipation, the two timelines finally collide to foreclose a seemingly unsatisfactory conclusion. Through narrative complexity, Monty Python and the Holy Grail subverts viewer expectations, thus amplifying viewer engagement by way of keeping the viewer on their toes and second guessing everything (until an abrupt ending ties most loose ends).   

Sources 

Gilliam T and Jones T (directors) (1975) Monty Python and the Holy Grail [motion picture], EMI Films, United Kingdom.

Mittell J (2004) Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture, Routledge, New York and London.

Reflecting on Weeks 1 & 2

The first weeks of the uncomfortable film studio have not been what I was anticipating, that is to say I’ve enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I’m mainly excited to start creating my own content and exploring the depths of uncomfortability in film making, and what that means to me. I liked the subversion of Monty Python and the Holy Grail more so than Unedited Footage of a Bear, probably because of the humour element in the former rather than the perturbance caused by the latter. As of yet, we’ve explored ways in which to create discomfort in film, may that be through content, cinematography, performance, lighting, editing, sound, or form. We have also touched on genre, expectations and was in which to analyse films more critically. All establishing points for this course as a whole and for the rapidly oncoming assignments. I look forward to creating uncomfortable content as it is not something I would lean towards or strive for ordinarily, so it will good to get out of my comfort zone and explore with the first assignment. Questions I have would generally be around intent: what motivates people to make uncomfortable or subversive content and therefore what will motivate me, especially since it’s something I have to be doing academically? Looking forward to finding out…