The (Politically Correct) Life of Brian?

In a time when everyone seems to be pandering to the transgender cult, it seemed inevitable that Monty Python would become a target. But, frankly, I’m surprised the perpetually triggered snowflakes haven’t come after Monty Python sooner. 

While pretty much anything Monty Python is famous for would be “offensive” by current standards, their movie The Life of Brian (1979) is what’s currently at issue. The film tells the story of “Brian Cohen,” a Jewish-Roman man who is mistaken as the Messiah for being born next door to and on the same day as Jesus.

It turns out that Monty Python alumni John Cleese and Eric Idle have been working on a stage production of their classic comedy, which Cleese calls “our best film,” and it’s expected to run sometime next year. 

If you’re familiar with the film, you know it satirizes Christianity, but the radical left is up in arms about it—namely, the trans activists.

The Daily Mail reports:

Cleese, 83, the prime mover in the revival, said: 'I think Life Of Brian is our best film. We are going to do it in London in the second half of next year and I've changed certain things.'

One exchange which has had to come out is the discussion between People's Front of Judea members Stan (played by Idle) and Reg (Cleese). Stan says that he wants to be known as Loretta and to have babies. 'It's every man's right to have babies if you want them,' says Stan. Reg counters: 'But — you can't have babies.' At which Stan responds: 'Don't you oppress me.'

Cleese told an audience at his one-man show last week that when the scene (co-written with the late Graham Chapman) was performed at a read-through for the new show in New York last year, doubts emerged. ‘At the end, I said to the American actors: ‘What do you think?’ And they said: ‘We love the script, but you can’t do that stuff about Loretta nowadays.’

‘So here you have something there’s never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I’ve heard of, and now all of a sudden we can’t do it because it’ll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that? But I think there were a lot of things that were actually, in some strange way, predictive of what was actually going to happen later.’

In the scene, if you’re unfamiliar with it, the character Stan expresses his desire to become a woman.

“I want to be a woman,” he says. “From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta.’” This announcement takes everyone aback and inquires about why he wants to be a woman.

“I want to have babies,” he explains.

Reg cannot comprehend Stan’s desire because, as he correctly pointed out, he “can’t have babies.”

“Don’t you oppress me,” Stan responds defiantly.

“I’m not oppressing you, Stan,” Reg responds. “You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!”

The movie was clearly ahead of its time.

A woman named Judith then proposes a compromise, suggesting that while Stan can’t physically have babies, they should fight for his right to do so.

Cleese has spoken out against cancel culture in the past, so it’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that Cleese would remove the scene to appease the easily offended snowflakes, and the article doesn’t make it clear if that’s a change he was referring to. I certainly hope not.