this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
3 points (57.9% liked)

Asklemmy

53787 readers
441 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SteposVenzny@beehaw.org 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Think about the end of the movie. Our protagonist is being crucified. A whole field of people up on crosses with him. And this happens on this scale regularly. There’s a tradition of sparing one and only one person out of these groups by request so as to pacify the citizens by giving them an illusion of power. And the citizens, rather than even trying to save one life, prioritize laughing over and over at a speech impediment.

But against all odds, our protagonist is chosen through that process to be spared. But he isn’t, because Rome cares so little about any of this that they make absolutely zero effort to verify who they’re sparing. Not that the guy they let down deserved to be crucified, either.

And a rebel group shows up to maybe save these people from, and I can’t stress this enough, being crucified. And instead they too die pointlessly. By their own hands. On purpose. And the movie ends on a jaunty musical number about how terrible everything is and frankly maybe it’s better to die than to be a part of this world.

When I look at the scene you’re talking about in the context of the rest of the movie, it looks less like “Rome is good actually” and more like “why are these the freedom fighters we have?” Whether being conquered by the empire also comes with perks isn’t the point and it’s meant to be frustrating that they chose this ineffectual argument.

[–] markz@suppo.fi 11 points 6 months ago

Don't think so. I guess it's there because they came up with a bit that makes the resistance look like idiots, as they do for everyone in the movie. The Romans and their crucifixion system weren't shown in a good light either.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Probably not on purpose. It was made by Br*ts, it just happens naturally to them.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Most propaganda is like this: you've subconsciously absorbed it all your life and it comes out ur mouth. That's how ideologies get perpetuated usually, rather than by cunning.

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Also, according to the propaganda model, in developed democratic societies, the propaganda is assumed to be true, and if you're not on board with that, you're not part of the debate.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] lime@feddit.nu 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

i mean, it is also textually pro-colonialism, while being mainly about pedantry. it's a "yet you participate in society" sort of sketch. life of brian is like 80% symbolism, 20% biggus dickus.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In effect yes, but propaganda has a lot to do with intention, and being Monty Python are brits, it was likely not intentional

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think propaganda has a lot to do with intention

[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Propaganda, even in its original neutrally descriptive sense, is all about intention to persuade or influence people. If you start calling things that weren’t intended to be propaganda, propaganda, then literally all fiction becomes propaganda.

So yeah, if you define everything as propaganda, it sure is

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah, kinda one of the assumptions of my pet comm !noyank@lemmy.ml

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Given the type of people the Pythons were (British Oxbridge men hand-picked by the major producers) and the time period, it has to be, right?

And they'd have a point, if the supposed great development benefits of being a British resource colony had ever materialised.

Sure, they built (limited) railways, but somehow India was never as rich as it was before colonisation. Japan did quite well by contrast. I'll go ahead and say Roman provinces saw more development, mostly because the iron age default was total stagnation and infighting. Even there, it's possible living in Rome was worse in some way which is not visible in the archeological record.