To describe the Monty Python comedy and the Holy Grail (1975) of Monty Python’s British comedy group within two adjectives, it must be cheap and insidious. But that is not a decry.
Born in 1975 with an extremely tight production budget of $ 220,000, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is always able to laugh at every generation of viewers with crazy, illusory, yet innocent characters. poetry, full of ideas. They are the Don Quixote of an absurd context based on the myth of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail.
While films of the Middle Ages are always heavily invested in costumes in order to reproduce a lavish atmosphere, Monty Python and the Holy Grail are sarcastic voices when everything in the film appears in a grotesque way.
King Arthur (Graham Chapman) is full of humor while riding on a fantasy horse and using coconuts to make a sound that filters piles for a real horse. The creativity that made everyone laugh was actually derived from the very limited funding, so the crew could not hire horses. Laughter popping out of these scenes comes from the contrast of the act of fantasy riding and the seriousness of the characters. An unreasonable action is done very meticulously. It was amusing because it broke the usual frame of reference, as our imagination about the life of a king is to be extravagant.
Instead of telling a story about finding the Holy Grail, Monty Python and the Holy Grail are a mixture of surreal elements, but don’t make us feel angry. On the contrary, I was extremely pleased with the interpretations in the film. Perhaps the film is inherently absurd.
Terry Gilliam in his debut long film soon showed his mockery when building an extremely meaningless journey with a very tight structure. Although the situations are overlapping; like Man in scene 24, King Arthur’s army or controversy about swallow swallows. Done all is not excessive, they all appear intentionally and go back in the next situation.