Thorny Issues MOZAIK 2004/2 Peter CIACCIO Are Religion and Satire Mutual Taboos? A Comment on the Life of Brian The week before Christmas, the Birmingham IS SATIRE ABOUT LAUGHING? Repertory Theatre withdrew a play, Gurpreet Kaur Before going further, let us focus on what satire is. Most BHATTI’s Behzti (Dishonour), as some protesters from people mistakenly consider satire as an entertaining per- the Sikh community, offended by one of its scenes rep- formance that makes fun of something else, often in a silly resenting a rape in a Gundwara (a Sikh temple), vio- way. So, some subjects should not be fodder for satire: for lently attacked the theatre. example, religion, and in some countries, politicians. A few months prior in the Netherlands, film-maker On the contrary, to write or perform a satire is one of the Theo VAN GOGH was killed by a young man Muslim for most difficult and serious actions an intellectual may do. the director’s offended by his continuous media A true satire consists of the re-presentation of reality in a attacks on Islam. Since 9/11, it seems that religions way people may understand it better. have become a dangerous taboo, as the mass media The reaction of laughter provoked by this representation show an escalation of violence due to religious intoler- is the psychological defence of the viewer’s mind against ance and hatred. the hardness of reality. One example may help: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley KUBRICK, 1964) satirically presented the RELIGIOUS SATIRE AND RELIGIOUS possibility of an atomic war. VIOLENCE Those were hard years: the Cuban Missile Crisis has had Nevertheless, even if media show VAN GOGH’s murder been just resolved by establishing a direct telephone line and the Behzti case as something new, or as a sign of the (the red phone) between the White House and the times, religiously justified violence is part of European Kremlin. In this famous movie, a mad U.S. Army officer history, both distant and recent. organises the launch of atomic missiles at the USSR. For example, there are many similarities between the The US president calls the Kremlin through the red circumstances of the withdrawal of Behzti and the 1988 phone in order to explain the accident. The phone call is bomb attack in a Paris cinema showing Martin SCORSESE’s hilarious: “Hello Dimitri, it is me … something happened? Last Temptation of Christ. No, nothing worrying …” and so on. In both cases, in fact, the authors and the attackers share The viewer laughs right from the beginning, but is left belonged to the same religious affiliation (Sikh for Behzti with a bitter smile at the end as World War III destroys the and Roman Catholic for Last Temptation of Christ), and Earth. Dr. Strangelove does not tell a funny story, but the attackers did not have a real knowledge of the play or rather makes a satire of the relief after the missile crisis. film but rather believed the rumours about it. It is like saying, “There are thousands of atomic war Anyway, since the public opinion senses an escalation in heads around — is that a stupid red phone a serious solu- religious violence, politicians are searching for ways to tion?” A good satire does not present people and stories in overcome this delicate matter. The British government, a paradoxical and funny way, but instead unveils an for example, proposed a bill to limit freedom of expres- already-existing paradox. sion if it might cause religious hatred. There are two categories of people who oppose this bill, who are usually reciprocal enemies: religious fundamen- THREE EXAMPLES OF RELIGIOUS SATIRE talists, as they who see it as a limit to their “evangelistic” FROM LIFE OF BRIAN style of preaching; and comedians. Comedians, who A. The Three Wise Men Go in the Wrong Stable instead, say it is a liberal principle to be able to say anything The first scene of the movie shows the tthree wise wise and that there is no such thing as the right to feel offended. men men mistakenly bringing gifts to Brian. Brian’s moth- Let us then analyse the implications of religious satire in er: Who are you? The wise men: We are three wise men. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (Terry JONES, 1979), as many Brian’s mother: Is this some kind of joke? The wise men: people consider it the most offensive movie for religious We are astrologers … we were led by a star! Brian’s moth- people ever made. er: Or led by a bottle, more likely. Life of Brian is a spoof of the Jesus movie sub-genre: it is Brian’s mother is very sceptical about the three men, the story of a Jewish man, Brian COHEN, born the same day especially of their wisdom. It is quite understandable that as Jesus in a neighbouring stable. Most of the scenes and this scene may seem blasphemous to some people, as it dialogues of this movie satirise Christian tradition and seems to mock the Gospels. “Jesus film” patterns. But, if we wear the glasses of satire, we see that it unveils Curiously, most cinema and theology scholars debating a dualistic attitude of many western Christians, who do Jesus movies consider Life of Brian one of them, even if not reflect deeply on the meaning of the visit of the Magi we see Christ only once, when He delivers the Sermon on to Jesus. The Gospels tell us that they were led by a star — the Mount. does that mean Christians believe in astrology? Was the birth of Jesus something magical? Or is the mes- sage of this story another one? Brian’s mother’s attitude is very common nowadays in Western Europe towards peo- ple of other beliefs, traditions or behaviour. 35 MOZAIK 2004/2 Thorny Issues Do we really reflect on the impli- scene: the hunger for a cations of Mary and Joseph not miracle, the collection sending the wise men away of relics and the sup- because they did not comply with pression of a heretic. Jewish traditions? The clever This may also may satire of this initial scene makes us seem a mocking scene reflect better on the story of the as where the people Magi and its implications on inter- follow Brian as they religious dialogue today. might may well follow Christ, Mohammed, B. Women Dress as Men to Buddha or others. So, the claim for truth Stone a Blasphemous Man and exclusiveness Brian and his mother leave the seems to be challenged crowd that listens to Jesus’ by this scene, but let us Sermon on the Mount, as they wear the glasses of prefer going to a stoning (a satire satire once more and on the rejection of a non-violent message). The man who we will see that if faith is lived only like Brian’s followers is to die is guilty of saying that his supper “was good do, other people may think that religions are pretty much enough for Jehovah.” the same, that there is not much sense in choosing one Apparently, most of the people ready to stone the man religion instead of and not another one. are actually women who are disguised by fake beards. In This satire sounds prophetic to me more rather than the end, they stone the priest when he accidentally says offensive: it reminds me of the ancient prophets of Israel “Jehovah”; all the women then clap their hands. who were telling the people that God preferred their pure This scene may seem anti-Semitic, as it mocks Jewish hearts to sacrifices and rites. Naturally, it does not mean regulations that condemn a man to be stoned to death, that rites are not important; it means that faith cannot be disproportionately to the offence. But, if we wear the limited to them. glasses of satire, we clearly see that it is not anti-Semitic. Instead, it is one of the best examples of Jewish-style humour. In fact, as Jews have been persecuted and risked DOES GOD NEED TO BE DEFENDED? extermination for two thousand years, they developed the In his youth, Monty Python member Terry GILLIAM was only weapon they could use against more powerful ene- very involved in his local Presbyterian church in the mies: humour. United States. Then something happened: his fellow For example, the story told in La vita è bella (Life is beau- Christians did not like his vocation for humour and satire. tiful, Roberto BENIGNI, 1997) recalls true stories of survival As a result he left the church, as thinking, “What kind of in concentration camps. As laughter and intellect distin- church is this that my feeble little jokes are going to guish human beings from animals, it is clearly and unmis- threaten its belief?” This brings us to a final considera- takably states stated who is human between the victim tion: does God need to be defended from religious satire? and the slaughterer. Many people who have claimed to defend God and God’s Mass media often tell us stories of women in Muslim truth have been doing it in violent ways. The violent atti- contexts who are condemned to be stoned for reasons we tude not only brings destruction but is theologically dis- cannot understand (but did not Christians burn “witches” putable: as followers of a religious faith (in my case, of for centuries?) This scene from Life of Brian presents a the God of Abraham), we should instead seek and serve paradoxical situation where public ston- the truth.