The way I rationalise it is that they were a bunch of crazy people, riding their imaginary horses and believing they are King Arthur and his knights on a quest and end up being taken in by the police at the end.
SNL were huge fans of The python crew, that’s one of the reasons they ended up in the the film The Ruttles ( which was a parody biography of the Beatles) a must watch reaction.
the budget weas around 300.000$ (410.000$ in that time worth) given to them by pink floyd, led zeppelin elton john and others xD so no they had NO money at all. so no horses they are to expensive and also the ending is a "cop out" because they ran out of money and well it fits right ? its a "cop out" xD FYI: in older times, the credits came before the movie not after :) its nothing rly special also british income tax were up to 90% at that time so it was basicly a tax write off for the bands giving the money :)
Not sure on the total budget but about 45k came from bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and either the Rolling Stones or Jethro Tull. The use of the coconuts was because they couldn't afford horses on the low budget.
This was great to watch, always funny seeing how Americans react to British humour The priests was a good catch but its actually or at least I feel Monty Python doing a "Bible Bashers" joke which is a reference to religious folk in the UK... hence the smashing the bible into the face.
There's lots of movies like that. That's not something to brag about, just because they did it intentionally. There's tons of B and C movies that do that unintentionally. This puts this movie in the same category as "The Room". And Neil Breen films. Wait? Is Neil Breen a genius?
@@danielg6566 Yeah, I wouldn't mind a girl with some decent tracts of land. Don't need a ranch or anything. Just enough to grab a hand full of dirt. But since I'm favor smaller "cute" girls over "hot" ones most only have small tracts of land, like an acre at most. Would rather have a more like 5 acres.
Hey...this was THE MOVIE that I loved as a teen...it is so funny when this generation looks at it with confused looks...hilarious! Its Monty Python! Enough said!!!!!!! Need to watch a clip of the LUMBERJACK SONG!!!!
Monty Python does absurdist comedy. Hope that helps 😂 They legitimately didn’t have the budget for horses (except the one ridden by the historian’s killer), so came the coconut bit Oh no no. You _must_ watch this again. You’ll be able to catch a lot more of the jokes
Others have pointed-out that the fact that the knight who killed the historian was on horse-back proves he wasn't with Arthur, so the King is ultimately a victim of... chivalric profiling?
The Monty Python comedy troupe consists of: John Cleese (Sir Launcelot, the taunting Frenchman, Tim the Enchanter, the Black Knight, the newt guy, the guy who wanted to put the old man on the cart) Graham Chapman (King Arthur, the hiccuping guard, middle head of the three-headed knight, voice of God) Michael Palin (Sir Galahad, Dennis the peasant, right head, King of Swamp Castle, narrator, leader of Knights who say ‘ni!’) Terry Jones (Sir Bedevere, Dennis’s mother, left head, Prince Herbert) Eric Idle (Sir Robin, the ‘Bring out your dead’ guy, the confused guard, Launcelot’s servant Concorde, Brother Maynard, Roger the Shrubber) Terry Gilliam (Arthur’s servant Patsy, the Bridge-keeper, the animator)
No they ran out of money for the movie hence the absence of horses and so the end is a literal inside joke "cop out" because the couldnt afford a big battle scene
@@colinclark17 what are you disagreeing with? Why no? There are at least 2 characters in the movie that DO ride a horse, the knight that kills the historian, and the shrubber who sells them the shrubbery. I'm talking about an ironic twist in the writing, and you're talking about behind the scenes logistics. What is your argument?
@@colinclark17 And I'm well aware of the whole "cop out" inside joke, and I'm just saying, there's still irony in the fact that they're getting arrested for killing the historian, and that it couldn't be them because they don't have horses. Both things can be true. You could even point to the historian's wife identifying them as a statement about the weakness of witness testimony, and how it's a parallel to the crowd trying to get permission to burn the witch earlier in the film.
@@colinclark17 The OP is addressing the plot-based irony of the character's wrongful arrest, whereas you're addressing budget constraints affecting the film's production. Two different issues.
@@Wungolioth how is a misunderstanding about coconuts making you so mad you wrote three paragraphs about it to try and prove a point to a stranger? Also its a movie where people bash coconuts together to make pretend horse noises?
This came out when I was 17, and we went to this art house theater to see it. There was a promotion for the first hundred people in the theater. We each received a coconut.
@@DavidB-2268 At the time the move was made credits in the beginning were common practice. It is in the 1980s it became common to just have the movie title and major actors and crew, the rest was listed at the end of the movie. A famous story about is that George Lucas omitted the opening credits in Star Wars, only the name of the movie is in the beginning. He was fined $250,000 by the Directors Guild of America because he did not include the name of the director in the opening. He paid the fine and resigned from the guild.
Also, the troupe reportedly didn't let the extras in on the joke, and they legit thought the stars of the movie were being arrested in the middle of filming.
The budget for this movie was around 400,000 pounds, which is unbelievably low. The reason they came up with the coconuts gag is because they couldn't afford to rent a real horse. Also the only reason this movie exists is because Monty Python was able to secure funding from a bunch of rock bands that were fans, including Pink Floyd and led Zeppelin. Honestly a lot of the jokes you see here are costs that were cut out of necessity, most of these jokes weren't in the script
@blakeyonthebuses Yeah, but that's the Myth (started as an inside joke and is now accepted as Canon). The opening scene (every female I've watched it with gives up after 2 minutes..."This isn't funny, it's stupid") is well thought out, and wasn't slapped together because they couldn't afford Horses. During the filming, they spent enough money at the local pubs to well afford Horses! The comic genius (to my erratic brain) of "Where did you get them?" (Coconuts) "We found them" NEVER gets old! Thanks for the breath of fresh air! I would never fart in your general direction...
TBH, most Reactors out there don't have either the Smarts or the wherewithal to watch something like "Holy Grail". The only reason they're doing it is because others have, and they're all out to collect C's, V's and L's. THAT'S HOW THEY GET PAID.
Who would think that it had to make logical sense??? That's like looking at a cartoon and saying, "These are very strange photographs. There's something wrong with them."
"Life of Brian" for sure (financed by George Harrison incidentally, because he "wanted to see the movie" after reading the script), "Meaning of Life" would probably be a tough watch for the ladies. It's dadaesque in spades, and so you should totally watch it, film yourselves doing so and post it online for our entertainment.
@@Hobodeluxe007 I'll give "Baron Munchausen" a shoutout for sure, but Terry Gilliam's finest works are "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Brazil". "12 monkeys" a close 3rd.
The budget in 1975 was $282K and it made $2.4 million at the box office. Adjusted for inflation in May 2024 that's a budget of $2.1 million with a box office of $17.8 million.
to be fair a lot of people will see a joke but not laugh out loud. Also she needs to watch movies on her own... to cultivate understanding. Leveling up require meeting the material halfway.
I am sure she could understand satire, maybe 2 noobs is not the way to go with this sort of film, she might have enjoyed it more with someone to guide her through it.
"Stand aside worthy adversary." "Tis but a scratch." "A scratch? Your arms off." "No it isn't." "Well, what's that then?" "...I've had worse." "You liar." "Come on, you pansy." *fights more* *Arthur chops off his other hand, then kneels* "I thank thee lord that within thy mercy..." *black knight kicks him*
Pro tip: you can enjoy the movie instead of questioning literally everything that happens. "Why do they all have present day names?", "But why do they need a shrubbery?", "What time period, where are we?". This goes beyond the movie simply not being for them. I cannot even imagine them trying to watch something like Scott Pilgrim, Donnie Darko, or Memento. I will say the guest on the right at least tried to enjoy it a bit so props for that.
I read somewhere that he was supposed have a more 'authentic' name, but John Cleese forgot it and ad-libbed Tim instead, hence the pause and the way he half states, half asks.
To be fair, Timothy is an ancient name. It is a greek name that means “honoured by God”. There is a Saint Timothy who was mentioned in the bible. The new testament has the books “Timothy 1” and “Timothy 2” which were letters written from the Apostle Paul to Timothy. So the name Timothy (or the short form “Tim”) would not have been out of place in the middle ages.
Best review line: "The fake horses sometimes made me laugh and at other times filled me with rage." Holden will probably fill you in, but Monty Python was a comedy troupe that did a bunch of sketches on the Monty Python and the Flying Circus that used to air on PBS. It's quite absurd, but definitely part of my childhood.
@@SilentBob731 Yes, you are correct. I didn't go into details because the Holden and the gang are US based and I was explaining how the US was exposed to Monty Python.
I love how they interwove this whole anti imperialist commentary into the movie completely at random. It reminds me of my favourite Flying Circus skit, the Philosophy Football game. This is without a doubt my favourite Monty Python film.
_"Strange women, laying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean ... if I were to go around saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away..."_
Starts the movie, immediately asks: “Are these the END credits?” [uh oh… 😖] “Wait… but he’s not ON a horse.” “Was Robin Hood a knight?” “But WHY do they need a shrubbery?” [whispers] “What is a swallow?” 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ You two were cracking me up. You’re obviously not big on the Middle Ages or absurdist humor, but I’m glad you tried. If you DO watch this again you’ll “get” more of it & appreciate the numerous memorable lines. Until then, I fart in your general direction. 😏😉
Fun fact, saying someone's mother was a hamster and their father smelled of elderberries were legitimate insults. Calling someone's mom a hamster meant she was a small, kept woman, or that she had a lot of babies, meaning she was "easy." Wine back then used to be made from elderberries, so it implied that the person's father was a drunk
I’m 33 and I’ve been watching this movie my entire life and I just learned this today. Thank you for your service 🫡 there are so many memorable quotes from this that I think of all the time. One of the funniest movies of all time!
I've never heard anyone describe Monty Python and the Holy Grail as "guy humour" before, and frankly, I found that extremely weird. Most people are fundamentally just people, they don't bring gender into everything they do, certainly not what humour they like or what movies they watch. Apart from that, I enjoyed the reaction.
This is literally the first reaction to this movie that I have seen where there wasn't that "Aha" moment where the reactor(s) realized that it was time to just stop trying to take the movie seriously and that it wasn't supposed to make sense.
I think the best way to understand this movie is that it’s nothing but loosely stitched together sketch comedy scenes since Monty Python is a sketch comedy group. You really need to like British humor to find it peak comedy. And the police arresting everyone is how they would end some sketches for “being too silly” so it came from their show.
I'm pretty sure that they were laughing at the majority of the movie. I have a lot of respect for them for laughing at the things they found funny... compared to "okay, laugh here. Laugh at this part. This is the part you're supposed to laugh at." Absurdist humor grabs people differently. Like the "a fish a fish" sketch.
I don't disagree, except that it I wouldn't say it's 'nothing but' loosely stitched together sketch comedy scenes. The old tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are told in just such episodic form, like a lot of little mini-stories strung together, following first one knight, then another, with some scenes where several or all of them are involved, and interact.. The Pythons are just following the traditional format for the telling of these tales, which just happens to perfectly suit their sketch comedy style.
Never thought what it would be like for someone to watch absurdist comedy without getting absurdist comedy…but it’s hilarious! And absurd! Which is happily ironic. 😂
The Monty Python troup was actually broken up before the movie was made. This was a chance to get back together. In the show the Pythons played multiple characters in the show so it was natural they would play multiple characters in the movie.
"It was actually not that bad"? Honestly, I don't think this kind of British humour is something for an average American - the jokes are too subtle. This film is considered to be a masterpiece among those who understand this kind of comedy.
I don’t think to say average American is correct, really. Most people I know whether that be family or friends from around the country love this movie. And I remember people not even in my friend groups back in high school quoting this movie all the time.
@@CGingerbreadman I think a lot of Americans need to be 'primed' to get the British humour. I remember watching a video that tried to explain the differences between UK/US jokes, might have been Steven Fry, but a lot boiled down to the fact that a lot of the UK stuff is self depreciating unlike most in US. And a lot of Americans just don't get it, but once it clicks they are off. This has changed a lot in recent years though as we are both sending shows to each other over the pond.
@@gordon861 Actually that would only be true of Americans in more recent times. When the Monty Python show was originally aired, it was on American tv and was incredibly popular. Many other British comedies were shown in the US as well, quite frankly when British shows and comedies were much better. Americans always looked forward to the next Monty Python movie. It was later that most foreign shows disappeared from the US so younger Americans may not be very familiar with it. With streaming taking over, everything from the past is coming back again so there is hope for the future.
The one obvious thing that people tend to overlook. The guy who killed the historian was riding a real horse. Therefore, the people that got arrested were innocent.
@@Wolfegang25Kevin calm down pal. This is their first time watching anything with British humor in it. Look at the stuff they react to on the channel. It’s all Hollywood movies. This is one of the weirdest movies ever, you can’t expect them to immediately vibe with that. You’ve left so many comments crappjng on this reaction like bro leave them alone and let them figure out Monty python for themselves 😂
Re: the credits. Many people today, if they don't have much experience with films they haven't seen in first-run theaters in their lifetime, may not realize that it used to be a convention to have most or all of the credits at the beginning of the film, rather than at the end. Almost all films today have the long list of every single actor, electrician, lawyer, musician, and intern who ever worked on the film at the end- and most people walk out of the theatre before that list is complete. In earlier decades, most films had a relatively short list of the actors, director, some key film-making positions listed before the film itself started. It was just a different convention. The "Swedish" subtitles are a complete joke, of course, along with all the moose and later llamas that got themselves listed in the credits.
@@craigwheller I always stay around for the whole ending credits, to honor all the people who worked on the film. I know how much work it takes, so I feel I owe it to them to stay and see all their names go by. In the old days, it was just the select few who got their name on the screen; now everyone shares the credit!
@@ianstopher9111 i took it as them referencing the fact that the two of them during the reaction start wondering whether the "Robin" in the movie is actually supposed to be Robin Hood. them: "was Robin Hood a knight?" ... "i think he was!!" me: 🤦♂
@@alefnull I'm not sure where the Pythons got the name Sir Robin from, but I'm guessing that for the knight who was kind of a failure they wanted to make up a new character, and they chose another early-medieval-English-legend name for him.
I will grant them this: they got the "Galahad the Chaste" set-up. So few reactors catch that, and then don't understand why he doesn't want to be, um, examined.
Love you guys so much and I don’t mean this in a mean-spirited way at all but the whole time you were asking “why” about things I was screaming “THAT’S THE JOKE!” 😂 Like with the coconuts instead of horses, the joke is just that they don’t have horses. It’s absurdist humor, you can’t ask questions you just have to go with it lol. Idk if it’s just because I’ve been watching it my entire life and because I’ve always watched a lot of British comedy but I think it’s one of the funniest movies of all time. You just have to go along for the ride! I’d be interested to see you watch it again with Holden now that you know you just have to roll with it without thinking too much into things. And it’s not just guy humor! I’m a 33-year old woman who’s loved this movie my entire life! I think it was one of the first comedies I ever watched and it really shaped my humor into what it is today. Would love to see another girls’ night with a movie that’s a little less absurd so you guys will enjoy it more!
Python's humor is absolutely absurdist, but the original Arthurian legends, especially Mallory's Le Morte de Arthur, have a very mannered style, a number of literary conventions and many supernatural elements that underlie most of the jokes in Holy Grail. Python used those as their starting point and, if you just use the comedic principle of doing the unexpected, their skits are less random than they first seem and make a lot more sense. well, except for the coconuts! also, Terry Gilliam's animations seem less weird when compared to real marginal illustrations in actual medieval texts - rabbits fighting snails, and flying phalluses among other things. I think Life of Brian would be the natural follow-up to Holy Grail, yes? 🤔
Very well said nbunnysnowboard! The notion that Monty Python is "guy humor", is the absurd thing. I was introduced to it by my mother. It was one of the favorite things my best female friend wanted to watch growing up. Sisters, girlfriends...etc. All loved it.
I don't mean to be contrarian but... how many first-time viewers of Monty Python would actually get it? I mean the odds are astronomical. We've all seen the skits thousands of times... some of us may even be familiar with "The Goon Show" and "Fawlty Towers" - I think that this is a pure reaction and I was happy that they laughed way more than I expected. The next steps is not "being told what's funny" but they have to discover their taste on their own - that's how you cultivate a fan. They already laughed at a lot at the absurdist stuff - this could not have gone any better! The "being told what's funny" does not work with "absurdist" humor... you have to blurt-out laugh and spit out your drink involuntarily on your own! Hahaha, I'm saying you can't say "that's the joke" you have to pay attention and when they say "that's absurd!" then you go Yes! That's when you know someone got it 🙂 when they realize it's absurd...! That's step 1, the lol comes later.
@@mannygee005I watched this when I was 10 or 11 & while I didn’t necessarily get the Arthurian & other historical references, I got most of the jokes. I mean, it’s really not that deep🤣
@@mannygee005 In every other reaction I've watched to this movie, though, there was a breakthrough moment for the reactor or reactors where they realized that it wasn't supposed to make sense and started to just roll with it. Usually sometime before Galahad's part
Since Holden is a Christian, I'd be curious to see you guys react to LIFE OF BRIAN. I know it's not for everyone, but I personally think it's a comedy masterpiece that can be enjoyed by both religious and secular audiences.
For context, the comedy group Monty Python had a sketch based TV show called Monty Pythons Flying Circus before this movie. They were such a hit on BBC that they were able to do a movie . The budget was real low but as you can see they made the most of it. They were known for their absurdity based humour but were also very intelligent (they all met at Oxford and Cambridge University except for Terry Gilliam, an American who was a animator from LA who had a BA in Political Science) and could write some brilliant sketches with deep jokes. One of the best I loved was a football (soccer) match between Greek and German philosophers where the players were famous philosophers like Aristotle or Kant. The humour was in the absurdity of them playing soccer while the TV commentator is describing the play where the philosophies of that player/philosopher are used to inform the way they played. If you knew about their philosophies their actions on the screen made perfect sense since they were actually following their famous ideologies to a tee. An example in this movie is the character Denis commenting to Arthur that “Strange women distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. I mean if I tried to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart through a scimitar at me, they would lock me away.” Making fun of the Arthurian Legend (lady in the lake) while simultaneously critiquing medieval political structures. It is them quintessentially both being extremely absurd while also providing deep political commentary and satire. They go even further in their next movie Life of Brian, where they absolutely skewer Religious dogma. So much so that there was a huge controversy where the church tried to get the film banned. John Cleese and Michael Palin actually appeared on a TV talk show in Britain debating with two priests who certainly did not appreciate the satire. So as much as they are downright silly, they can also provide some real cutting commentary on class, politics and social organization.
all of the Pythons were well educated. John Cleese was pre-Law, and Graham Chapman was pre-Med. Terry Jones has had a deep interest in medieval history, reading Chaucer for part of his undergrad degree. Michael Palin majored in modern history, Eric Idle in English. the five Brits went to either Oxford or Cambridge.
That TV appearance by Cleese to defend the film illustrates just how threatened the church was. Terrified of humor. Python clearly wasn't depicting Christ as is seen early w/ the confused wise men, only running with a story about an unwitting prophet.
I'm 4:42 in and struggling to continue. The ladies completely failing to get the credits humour was making me cringe so hard. Talking over the dialogue and missing even more of the humour was killing me. Already, I'm thinking they're right... this movie is aimed at a man's sense of humour (Except for the woman I saw working at the cash register in a cafeteria. She had MASSIVE boobs... like 44GG... wearing a T-shirt that simply read "HUGE TRACTS OF LAND". Goddamn, that was funny and god bless her!)
Trust me, this is a movie that is funnier with each viewing. My gf hated it the first time, but it's an earworm movie. You'll be thinking about it and in the near future and will want to watch it again.
First we can see females view the animal violence very differently, and commented that it is a 'waste of resources' as woman value resources. This type of humor is flying over, under, and all around their heads. They also do not get Skit Comedy. The same actors / comedians are playing different roles in this Documentary. That is why you see the same people in different roles. This movie needs subtitles translating this to "The Wamens" who might be logically challenging, which might be a lot of them, but not all so this is not a general statement. Just like some deaf people need CC captions, Wamen need similar subtitles to explain the humor, sarcasm, and other concepts in the movie. For the benefit of the Wamens, in the past Men, Males, dudes, guys, and bros played the role of Woman, Females, Chicks, Ladies, Broads and Gals, and that is why in that one scene about the peasants who didn't recognize the King of the Britons is actually a male actor playing the role of a female character. Shocking, it was Trans before there was a thing called Trans. Call it Paleotrans or Archaic Trains or just Ancient Trans, take your pick. These same male actors, comedians, performers then would play different roles of different characters. Minds are blown, mostly Wamens minds and the few Tom Boy females who get it and wonder why other biological females do not. Here is some direct evidence to support this analysis: 12:21 "Was Robin Hood a Knight?" Answered by the other Wamen as "I think he was". She won an Historical Razzy award for this statement. Robin Hood was not a knight. He was an Outlaw originally, and throughout most depictions. Sometimes he is presented as a Noble, though historically and in original tales he was not. He was in fact of the class they call Yeoman, or 'free men' and in those days there was no professional standing army so the King or noble trying to gather or "raise" Men-At-Arms would attract (or hire or persuade to join) a force mustered (or put together, see how I'm translating these terms for you) as free men for hire to join such a force. Think of most of them as 'free men who are not serfs' akin to the gunfighters of the Old West of America. They largely were trained in Longbow and the famous effective Longbow archers of England were pulled from this class of fighting men. Sure, there might have been an occasional female who disguised herself as a guy, it is entirely possible, so saying they are 'men' is a blanket generalization ignoring such possibilities. To answer the question Was Robin Hood a Knight. No is the answer. He was not, and confusing King Arthur and Robin Hood is a huge bit of confusion. Robin Hood, if he existed it was hundreds of years later. That is like confusing the Late Antiquity with the early Modern period. Very different times, hundreds of years between these. ss King Aurther and Robin Hood are from stories set in different eras of "British" or English history. Notice how King Arthur mentions he went through the Kingdom of Mercia. That is your Blue's Clue right there. Go look that up. ----------------- NO, the Tale of Sir Robin was NOT referring to Robin Hood either. This is a Knight named Sir Robin a completely different person than Robin Hood. Sir Robin was a knight and what is going on in the Documentary movie is they are showing Tales of each Knight of the Round Table, Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, Sir Robin and others. Just like the New Testament is made up of Gospels by different Disciples who each tell their own version of events, their own insights and points about Jesus. Confusing Robin Hood and Sir Robin is like confusing Bozo the Clown and Andre the Giant (a wrestler). --------------------- For those who do not know Monty Python is Absurdish Skit Comedy. Comedy of the Absurd. This was a, once again, completely historical Documentary movie, similar to the Life of Bryan, that they did, but they added Absurdist comedy into this film. Here is even more evidence these Woman do NOT get Absurdist humor. Exibit A your honor of the court of public opinion: 19:26 so now I will have explain why a Shrubbery. it really does not need one, it is due to the fact this is an Absurd element inserted into the plot and dialogue. Imagine if I said something completely off the wall, but which many could find humorous, at least those who are tapped into the Guy Brain, and yes Absurd things can be said that Wamen will find funny too, and yet absurd or Silly, but this is very different so there is real cognitive dissonance going on in her Lady Brain. She does not get it. It is flying beneath her comedy radar, and her intellectual radar for that matter. Notice how her Lady Brain focused on things like that guys' hair cut: 19:06 Lady Brains operate differently than Guy Brains so Guys, those classified as 'real men' by Wamen are not thinking about hos great a characters hairstyle is. In fact that hairstyle was purposely made to be odd and absurd in fact, a 'wierd' haircut. Go back and look at it. If a guy showed up on a date with that hairdo would YOU date him or even go on that one date with him or say 'nope you need to go and redo your hair mister before I will be seen in public with you. Most woman won't say that. They will just leave and say "this date is over'. But maybe not. This woman clearly does like it so if you are reading this and are her husband or boyfriend, man or her 'backdoor man' on the side test this out. Wear your hairstyle like this. Go out in public or to a family event like this with her. Take a family picture for Christmas or other holiday to be sent out to relatives and friends. I got a sense the way she said "Oh I like his hair' that this guy is the Medieval equivalent of a GigaChad. If she was a peasant girl back in that day she'd be shagged and barefoot in no time. This is a testable idea. Another piece of evidence this movie is flying all around their Lady Brains 19:33 Seriously, I feel like a Medieval Monk who makes little comments in the margins of a medieval manuscript to explain things or meaning of the text that these woman need a Concept and Term Translator who is also knowledgable in history, literature and other topics. Like the humor of the Holy Hand Grendade. Count to three, no more, no less......and three shall be the number, not four, two is not enough, and five is right now. You have to get how Medieval prayers and religious commentary was used and the logic inherent within it.
You need to get your husbands to watch Woman's movies. My prediction is they will fall asleep at some point especially if alcohol is involved. You can't be present when they watch it either. Call it "Just Two Guys and a Chick Flick". Sort of like Straight Eye for the Queer Guy, a show featuring 5 straight guys who dress up a Gay Guy, a variation Queer Eye for the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys dressed up a straight guy (which was a real show).
Right off the bat, while watching a *British* comedy, and saying you " don't do accents ", I'm like wow! Can you BE any more American? 🤣. And yes, it's not just a 'guy' movie, but it's also British humor. Which is its own kind of animal. Glad y'all enjoyed. *ETA* And yeah, the whole "Robbin Hood, is he part of King Aurthur's Round Table? I think he is!" - Yikes. I feel embarrassed on the lack of basic history and lore. (Lots of time to learn though. )
For the record all those watching this video need to know they did NOT watch the movie, but rather cherry-picked parts of scenes. This is a movie you put on and WATCH all of it without interruption other than your peanut gallery comments like in the Science Theater 3000 show. Just put this on, and don't cut it or you shall need to be flogged and put in the stocks. If your husbands disagree, they shall be flogged and, in the stocks, next to you, but you will have the option to throw your own husband under the bus so to speak allowing them to be flogged and put in stocks for you. Then you shall be allowed to go on a date with another man and the whole thing videotaped so he can watch while you are having a fabulous time, and he is suffering for you. While in the stocks he shall wear a "Super Simp Supreme" T-shirt. Children will be encouraged to throw free rotten fruit at him which they are provided free of charge by state expense which is tax money spent on public entertainment.
If you 'get this movie' then this is what you should do. When your bad, really naughty, and you will be at some point, and we assume you have a man or if not a substitute could be found, you say "Naughty (insert your name), very Naughty" Then you say "You must spank me'. Also get your friend to also be there and she will then say 'And when your done spanking her you must spank me too' and if you can get more girls there who are friends they will then all chime in as a chorus 'yes you must spank us all we have all been very bad and naughty'. If you can film this and make a video out of it and post in there. If done right you'll get a lot of views. Oh back to your watching of the Holy Grail movie.
Monty Python is neither a comedy or a drama or a dramedy. It is a Documentary. You should have me there so I can make comments like that in the moment. This is a historical documentary of the historical King Arthur King of the Britons, and the trick is to know who exactly are the Britons. Hint: they are not the Anglo Saxons, nor are they the Normans. This movie explores the mystery of who the Britons are as a people, and the religious practices. You are going to watch this for a while and think 'this is not a documentary but just wait, it will become obvious this is an historical documentary by the end. God has ordained it to be so.
This is all satirical British humor that makes fun of the establishment, and basically everything. Nothing is sacred with Python. They are known for their outlandish animation. It's their signature.
They are also history buffs. Animations in "The Holy Grail" aren't random, they are inspired by real books. Back in medieval times, before print press was a thing, when book was worth a fortune, monastic scribes (plenty young males) would copy books by hand. They had to copy colourful calligraphy and illustrations for months, all day long, to copy a single book (over a year for bigger works). To spice it up, sometimes they would improvise parts of illustrations with less then holy imagery.
Python, while of course it had its own influences was one of the major pioneers of surreal meta humour, absurdism if you like. While British comedy is very broad and expansive and contains, frankly, just about everything you can imagine, its penchant for absurdism is particularly idiosyncratic. You can see examples in loads of iconic places, such as Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, all the way to more modern shows such as The Mighty Boosh, but it's something that in some measure is present in a lot of British comedy, even if it's only subtle. Truly absurd or surreal things are in a way the opposite of a straight man, instead of having someone who behaves normally and takes things seriously, you have something that simply makes no sense and is utterly incongruous. This is also comedy on a slightly philosophical level, because one of the points of absurdism, is that life itself is absurd and we make it normal through our expectations. That things make sense to us because we construct reality in a way that is sensible from our perspective, where in reality from a different perspective things that appear normal to us would be deeply strange. The value of absurdity, sometimes, is to take us out of our expectations, to defamiliarise or alienate the audience. To leave them in an unfamiliar space where their conventional expectations don't work. Humans learn to interpret reality according to what they are used to, to the point of barely perceiving it at all, we're parsimonious, we act on habit, doing countless things each day we don't even remember because we didn't pay attention, because they were so familiar, so rote. Strangeness engages us, especially when it blindsides us, because it forces us into an alert state, suddenly we're not in familiar territory. Suddenly we've having to learn as we go.
Python had NO money for this basically. In fact, it was financed by rock stars. Believe it or not (from online) "Everett 'Collection' Eric Idle has revealed how much money rock bands and record labels contributed to financing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which came out in 1975. According to a tweet, Led Zeppelin contributed £31,500, Pink Floyd Music ponied up £21,000, and Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson put in £6,300 of his own money."
@@danielcobbins8861 You are correct. I neglected to include him, even though I recalled a Beatle contributed, then forgot. LOL. If memory serves correct, Harrison contributed the most.
Monty Python’s Holy Grail epitomizes absurdist humor with its bizarre, unpredictable narrative and outlandish characters. The film parodies the Arthurian legend, featuring scenes like the Black Knight’s comical resilience and the Knights Who Say “Ni!” demanding a shrubbery. Its humor lies in the unexpected, blending historical satire with surreal, nonsensical elements that defy conventional logic. And the lack of horses was not a budget issue.
I promise, it’s funnier on subsequent watches. The first time it bombards you with so much it’s almost overwhelming, especially if it’s your introduction to Monty Python. Once you’ve seen it once and know what you’re in for, it’s all laughs.
You guys just aren't meant for silly comedy. You are trying to make sense of the intentionally absurd. It's not supposed to make sense. That's the point. You dont need to know religion or Arthur. Not trying to be mean but this was like watching people being too dumb to understand something is trying to be dumb.
People who haven't seen older movies are always confused by the credits being in the beginning. They also tend not to pay attention enough to understand when something is a joke.
. If you want more another great Monty Python I suggest Monty Python Life of Brian. Other great comedies/Parodies are Airplane! 1980 ,Top Secret! 1984 and The naked gun trilogy
I won't judge, everyone's different. But yeah it's funny how some people are just SO serious the whole time while watching it, trying to make sense of everything. I personally could never. ^^ When I watch this, I'm having the time of my life lmao'ing every time, this movie is comedy gold. 😂 I think her friend got the humor almost right away, but still held back a little during the reaction, bc she didn't wanna be the only one laughing out loud (even tho she probably wanted to). ;D
out of all the people I've watched this movie with and the dozens of reactors I've seen check it out, this is the first time in my life I'd heard someone refer to this movie as guy/bro humor lol
"Wouldn't that be considered, like, sacrilegious?"
Sounds like someone needs to watch "Life of Brian."
Yeah, big time... or the Meaning of Life.
As if religious groups have never done sacrilegious things lol.
A movie that legit got banned in Norway for blasphemy
@@rowaystarco in Sweden, they used that fact in the marketing
@@CeliusP Yup
The way I rationalise it is that they were a bunch of crazy people, riding their imaginary horses and believing they are King Arthur and his knights on a quest and end up being taken in by the police at the end.
"this movie has accents" is a fucking insane thing to say lmfao
American moment I guess 😂💀
SNL were huge fans of The python crew, that’s one of the reasons they ended up in the the film The Ruttles ( which was a parody biography of the Beatles) a must watch reaction.
Please more "The Girls" reactions!
the budget weas around 300.000$ (410.000$ in that time worth) given to them by pink floyd, led zeppelin elton john and others xD so no they had NO money at all.
so no horses they are to expensive and also the ending is a "cop out" because they ran out of money and well it fits right ? its a "cop out" xD
FYI: in older times, the credits came before the movie not after :) its nothing rly special
also british income tax were up to 90% at that time so it was basicly a tax write off for the bands giving the money :)
Glad you enjoyed it! British humor and the times (in the 70's) are something else. The ladies were actual twins.
Can’t believe you cut the witch bit out 😢
They gotta avoid copyrights somehow.
There was a lot of acid(LSD) being used back then...this was a movie for that crowd.
You ask about the budget ... they used coconuts because they could not afford horses
Not sure on the total budget but about 45k came from bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and either the Rolling Stones or Jethro Tull. The use of the coconuts was because they couldn't afford horses on the low budget.
Pretty much anything you're confused about is due to budget.
It ended where it did because all the money was gone.
She's a keeper if she can get into and enjoy Monty Python
This was great to watch, always funny seeing how Americans react to British humour
The priests was a good catch but its actually or at least I feel Monty Python doing a "Bible Bashers" joke which is a reference to religious folk in the UK... hence the smashing the bible into the face.
Life of Brian that's all I have to say 😂
Of all the reactions to this film, I have never seen this level of incomprehension.
Humour is a lost art.
It was hurting my brain watching them try o comprehend.
@@shaolin1derpalm A friend's girlfriend says "comedy is childish"
Guess it requires just a bit of intellect.
It's really quite scary, even for an American.
The point of the movie is that there is no point of the movie.
Thank you!! Someone here gets it.... :P
“Humor………It is a difficult concept.”
- Lt. Saavik.
@@richardbalducci4490 👏👏👏 I love that line by Saavik, delivered beautifully by Alley.
Like going to see a movie with your mum.
There's lots of movies like that. That's not something to brag about, just because they did it intentionally. There's tons of B and C movies that do that unintentionally. This puts this movie in the same category as "The Room". And Neil Breen films. Wait? Is Neil Breen a genius?
"She's got huge.....tracks of land." is probably one of my favorite quotes from it.
With the hand gestures...
*tracts
It's a measurement :)
I'm always looking for a woman with huge...
tracts of land! 😂
@@danielg6566 Yeah, I wouldn't mind a girl with some decent tracts of land. Don't need a ranch or anything. Just enough to grab a hand full of dirt. But since I'm favor smaller "cute" girls over "hot" ones most only have small tracts of land, like an acre at most. Would rather have a more like 5 acres.
@Zankaroo damn! How many tracts you looking for??!?
British humor isn't for everyone but this movie is the gateway drug for it if there ever was one
Hey...this was THE MOVIE that I loved as a teen...it is so funny when this generation looks at it with confused looks...hilarious! Its Monty Python! Enough said!!!!!!!
Need to watch a clip of the LUMBERJACK SONG!!!!
Na cornetto trilogy is the gateway this is the end point of British humour
It's the funniest movie ever made. Bar none. And these two didn't get any of it. Just painful. Neither would get a second date with most guys.
@@gheller2261 I cannot imagine why you'd bring that insult into it. There's a culture and disposition gap for sure, no need to be rude though.
im american some british movies are ok but romen of mr bean now that i give credit for
The amount of times I say "Silence, foul temptress!" to people is stupid and I never get tired of it lmao
Oh Lord, I died with laughter hearing this. I've said this to any number of dumbstruck recipients.
Monty Python does absurdist comedy. Hope that helps 😂
They legitimately didn’t have the budget for horses (except the one ridden by the historian’s killer), so came the coconut bit
Oh no no. You _must_ watch this again. You’ll be able to catch a lot more of the jokes
Their budget was granted by Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin
Others have pointed-out that the fact that the knight who killed the historian was on horse-back proves he wasn't with Arthur, so the King is ultimately a victim of... chivalric profiling?
@@brianhammond2832 Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Elton John, and Jethro Tull.
Seriously, they talked over some of the best lines.
Also, they didn't know how to ride horses.
The Monty Python comedy troupe consists of:
John Cleese (Sir Launcelot, the taunting Frenchman, Tim the Enchanter, the Black Knight, the newt guy, the guy who wanted to put the old man on the cart)
Graham Chapman (King Arthur, the hiccuping guard, middle head of the three-headed knight, voice of God)
Michael Palin (Sir Galahad, Dennis the peasant, right head, King of Swamp Castle, narrator, leader of Knights who say ‘ni!’)
Terry Jones (Sir Bedevere, Dennis’s mother, left head, Prince Herbert)
Eric Idle (Sir Robin, the ‘Bring out your dead’ guy, the confused guard, Launcelot’s servant Concorde, Brother Maynard, Roger the Shrubber)
Terry Gilliam (Arthur’s servant Patsy, the Bridge-keeper, the animator)
Congratulations! Summarising all the parts of each Python is no small feat. 😊
Supplemented with Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland in the supporting cast!
@@binkle76 Almost "Official Pythons" those two were! They were semi-regulars in the TV series and occasionally in the movies.
PATSY IS TERRY GILLIAM?!!? WHAT?!
The big irony, they get arrested for murdering the historian, who was killed by a knight on a horse, clearly it wasn't them. 😂😂😂
No they ran out of money for the movie hence the absence of horses and so the end is a literal inside joke "cop out" because the couldnt afford a big battle scene
@@colinclark17 what are you disagreeing with? Why no? There are at least 2 characters in the movie that DO ride a horse, the knight that kills the historian, and the shrubber who sells them the shrubbery. I'm talking about an ironic twist in the writing, and you're talking about behind the scenes logistics. What is your argument?
@@colinclark17 And I'm well aware of the whole "cop out" inside joke, and I'm just saying, there's still irony in the fact that they're getting arrested for killing the historian, and that it couldn't be them because they don't have horses. Both things can be true. You could even point to the historian's wife identifying them as a statement about the weakness of witness testimony, and how it's a parallel to the crowd trying to get permission to burn the witch earlier in the film.
@@colinclark17 The OP is addressing the plot-based irony of the character's wrongful arrest, whereas you're addressing budget constraints affecting the film's production. Two different issues.
@@Wungolioth how is a misunderstanding about coconuts making you so mad you wrote three paragraphs about it to try and prove a point to a stranger? Also its a movie where people bash coconuts together to make pretend horse noises?
This came out when I was 17, and we went to this art house theater to see it. There was a promotion for the first hundred people in the theater. We each received a coconut.
"You liar!"
The end of the movie is a literal "Cop Out".
😂 I never caught this.
And it's why the credits were at the beginning.
@@DavidB-2268 At the time the move was made credits in the beginning were common practice. It is in the 1980s it became common to just have the movie title and major actors and crew, the rest was listed at the end of the movie. A famous story about is that George Lucas omitted the opening credits in Star Wars, only the name of the movie is in the beginning. He was fined $250,000 by the Directors Guild of America because he did not include the name of the director in the opening. He paid the fine and resigned from the guild.
@@target844 I'm well aware of the practice. But in this case, it was an important detail for the final joke to hit.
Also, the troupe reportedly didn't let the extras in on the joke, and they legit thought the stars of the movie were being arrested in the middle of filming.
The budget for this movie was around 400,000 pounds, which is unbelievably low. The reason they came up with the coconuts gag is because they couldn't afford to rent a real horse. Also the only reason this movie exists is because Monty Python was able to secure funding from a bunch of rock bands that were fans, including Pink Floyd and led Zeppelin. Honestly a lot of the jokes you see here are costs that were cut out of necessity, most of these jokes weren't in the script
Pink Floyd contributed 200,000 pounds, and I think Led Zeppelin contributed too.
I think they were a few ounces over budget
Actually, the reason they came up with the coconuts gag is because it's funny, and that's it! It's nothing to do with affording horses.
@blakeyonthebuses Yeah, but that's the Myth (started as an inside joke and is now accepted as Canon).
The opening scene (every female I've watched it with gives up after 2 minutes..."This isn't funny, it's stupid") is well thought out, and wasn't slapped together because they couldn't afford Horses. During the filming, they spent enough money at the local pubs to well afford Horses!
The comic genius (to my erratic brain) of "Where did you get them?" (Coconuts) "We found them" NEVER gets old!
Thanks for the breath of fresh air! I would never fart in your general direction...
Also the huge contribution by George Harrison and Hand Made Films who made the film possible.
"But why do they need a shubbery?"
It's Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Don't ask questions about logic! 😂
It's Monty Python. The point is that there isn't one.
TBH, most Reactors out there don't have either the Smarts or the wherewithal to watch something like "Holy Grail". The only reason they're doing it is because others have, and they're all out to collect C's, V's and L's.
THAT'S HOW THEY GET PAID.
Ni!
Who would think that it had to make logical sense??? That's like looking at a cartoon and saying, "These are very strange photographs. There's something wrong with them."
and above all : HOW DO YOU CHOP DOWN A TREE WITH AN HERRING ?
After seeing so many female reactors laughing at this movie, I can tell you it's not a "bro" movie.
Why even divide movies that way? I don't get it.
@@sourisvoleur4854 That's the way it works today. They need the division.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver 😢
@@sourisvoleur4854 Also, it's marketing. You can sell more crapola with divided audiences.
Well, it has to be "Life of Brian" and "Meaning of Life", next.
"Life of Brian" for sure (financed by George Harrison incidentally, because he "wanted to see the movie" after reading the script), "Meaning of Life" would probably be a tough watch for the ladies. It's dadaesque in spades, and so you should totally watch it, film yourselves doing so and post it online for our entertainment.
or the Python adjacent Baron Munchausen
@@Hobodeluxe007 I'll give "Baron Munchausen" a shoutout for sure, but Terry Gilliam's finest works are "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Brazil". "12 monkeys" a close 3rd.
...Life Of Brian....next up.......Peace!
@@jakerobinson5978 Meaning Of Life would be an incredible reaction. I’d also throw out Time Bandits as a Python-adjacent pick.
He's called Tim the Enchanter because John Cleese forgot his line and said Tim instead and they stuck with ir because it was hilarious
Apparently not. Cleese has stated that the "Tim" line was actually in the script. The story about him forgetting is just an urban legend.
@@br1729 ??? Yes he does
We NEED to see Jen and Natalie watching “Life of Brian”. Absolutely!💯
The budget in 1975 was $282K and it made $2.4 million at the box office. Adjusted for inflation in May 2024 that's a budget of $2.1 million with a box office of $17.8 million.
To be pedantic, it was shot in April/May 1974
On the plus side, if you watch it again and actually pay attention you will pick up on the other 70% of jokes you missed :)
Never will happen. She can't understand Satire.
to be fair a lot of people will see a joke but not laugh out loud. Also she needs to watch movies on her own... to cultivate understanding. Leveling up require meeting the material halfway.
I am sure she could understand satire, maybe 2 noobs is not the way to go with this sort of film, she might have enjoyed it more with someone to guide her through it.
Especially if they don't talk over them.
@@johngarrett84you mean have someone explain the jokes.. which in essence also kills them 😂
"He's not on a horse!" - "Oh, you must the brains of this operation.!"
I knew we were in trouble when she said that.
"Tis' but a Scratch.” 😂😂😂
“A scratch?! Your bloody arms off!”
Reminds me of the canterbury tales videos lol
"Stand aside worthy adversary."
"Tis but a scratch."
"A scratch? Your arms off."
"No it isn't."
"Well, what's that then?"
"...I've had worse."
"You liar."
"Come on, you pansy."
*fights more*
*Arthur chops off his other hand, then kneels*
"I thank thee lord that within thy mercy..."
*black knight kicks him*
“Tis’ a flesh wound.”😂😂😂
My memory was "it's just a flesh wound"
Pro tip: you can enjoy the movie instead of questioning literally everything that happens. "Why do they all have present day names?", "But why do they need a shrubbery?", "What time period, where are we?". This goes beyond the movie simply not being for them. I cannot even imagine them trying to watch something like Scott Pilgrim, Donnie Darko, or Memento. I will say the guest on the right at least tried to enjoy it a bit so props for that.
100 percent
The worst was one of the funniest lines of the movie when the wizard said his name was Tim, I don't think she saw any humor in that at all.
I read somewhere that he was supposed have a more 'authentic' name, but John Cleese forgot it and ad-libbed Tim instead, hence the pause and the way he half states, half asks.
To be fair, Timothy is an ancient name. It is a greek name that means “honoured by God”. There is a Saint Timothy who was mentioned in the bible. The new testament has the books “Timothy 1” and “Timothy 2” which were letters written from the Apostle Paul to Timothy.
So the name Timothy (or the short form “Tim”) would not have been out of place in the middle ages.
Best review line: "The fake horses sometimes made me laugh and at other times filled me with rage."
Holden will probably fill you in, but Monty Python was a comedy troupe that did a bunch of sketches on the Monty Python and the Flying Circus that used to air on PBS. It's quite absurd, but definitely part of my childhood.
Pretty sure the re-runs were on PBS and it was a BBC show originally.
@@SilentBob731Yes, it was a BBC show, but no one in the United States had BBC in the 70s, so it was aired on PBS.
@@Vortex1988 I think I got it on CBC back in the day up here in Canada.
@@SilentBob731 Yes, you are correct. I didn't go into details because the Holden and the gang are US based and I was explaining how the US was exposed to Monty Python.
@@woo545 Fair enough. 👍
"Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system" Love the "girls watch" idea. More please.
I love how they interwove this whole anti imperialist commentary into the movie completely at random. It reminds me of my favourite Flying Circus skit, the Philosophy Football game. This is without a doubt my favourite Monty Python film.
@@Jon_FM good one, or the Argument Clinic. Or the dead parrot bit.
@@Jon_FM Or the archaeologist sketch, where they compete by who is taller, finally stacking themselves 3 high
_"Strange women, laying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean ... if I were to go around saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away..."_
Starts the movie, immediately asks: “Are these the END credits?” [uh oh… 😖]
“Wait… but he’s not ON a horse.”
“Was Robin Hood a knight?”
“But WHY do they need a shrubbery?”
[whispers] “What is a swallow?”
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ You two were cracking me up. You’re obviously not big on the Middle Ages or absurdist humor, but I’m glad you tried. If you DO watch this again you’ll “get” more of it & appreciate the numerous memorable lines. Until then, I fart in your general direction. 😏😉
Fun fact, saying someone's mother was a hamster and their father smelled of elderberries were legitimate insults. Calling someone's mom a hamster meant she was a small, kept woman, or that she had a lot of babies, meaning she was "easy." Wine back then used to be made from elderberries, so it implied that the person's father was a drunk
I’m 33 and I’ve been watching this movie my entire life and I just learned this today. Thank you for your service 🫡 there are so many memorable quotes from this that I think of all the time. One of the funniest movies of all time!
Hamsters also breed like mad, so there is an implication of her being a whore, too.
I thought the hamster meant she had lots and lots of babies meaning your mom is easy.
It's the medieval version of "yo momma's a ho and yo daddy's a drunk!"
@@coreymason7017 That's what I also read somewhere.
I've never heard anyone describe Monty Python and the Holy Grail as "guy humour" before, and frankly, I found that extremely weird. Most people are fundamentally just people, they don't bring gender into everything they do, certainly not what humour they like or what movies they watch. Apart from that, I enjoyed the reaction.
Sacked is the British term for fired. They were originally going to have horses but they didn't have enough money so they did the coconut thing.
Also, none of the troupe knew how to ride horses at the time.
Can confirm, they still didn’t understand the movie😂
This is literally the first reaction to this movie that I have seen where there wasn't that "Aha" moment where the reactor(s) realized that it was time to just stop trying to take the movie seriously and that it wasn't supposed to make sense.
When you realize that the knight who killed the historian was not one of Arthur’s men because he was the only one who had an actual horse. 😀
The movie budget could only afford one horse.
I think the best way to understand this movie is that it’s nothing but loosely stitched together sketch comedy scenes since Monty Python is a sketch comedy group. You really need to like British humor to find it peak comedy. And the police arresting everyone is how they would end some sketches for “being too silly” so it came from their show.
The police arresting everyone is also another joke because they didn't know how to end their sketches, so it's quite literally a "cop out"
I'm pretty sure that they were laughing at the majority of the movie. I have a lot of respect for them for laughing at the things they found funny... compared to "okay, laugh here. Laugh at this part. This is the part you're supposed to laugh at." Absurdist humor grabs people differently. Like the "a fish a fish" sketch.
I don't disagree, except that it I wouldn't say it's 'nothing but' loosely stitched together sketch comedy scenes. The old tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are told in just such episodic form, like a lot of little mini-stories strung together, following first one knight, then another, with some scenes where several or all of them are involved, and interact.. The Pythons are just following the traditional format for the telling of these tales, which just happens to perfectly suit their sketch comedy style.
Never thought what it would be like for someone to watch absurdist comedy without getting absurdist comedy…but it’s hilarious! And absurd! Which is happily ironic. 😂
The Monty Python troup was actually broken up before the movie was made. This was a chance to get back together. In the show the Pythons played multiple characters in the show so it was natural they would play multiple characters in the movie.
"It was actually not that bad"? Honestly, I don't think this kind of British humour is something for an average American - the jokes are too subtle. This film is considered to be a masterpiece among those who understand this kind of comedy.
I think you’re just a watery tart!
MP was a weekly show. Mom didn’t want us watching it but then, she didn’t like Spam.
Spam Spam, Spam, Spam!
I don’t think to say average American is correct, really. Most people I know whether that be family or friends from around the country love this movie. And I remember people not even in my friend groups back in high school quoting this movie all the time.
@@CGingerbreadman I think a lot of Americans need to be 'primed' to get the British humour. I remember watching a video that tried to explain the differences between UK/US jokes, might have been Steven Fry, but a lot boiled down to the fact that a lot of the UK stuff is self depreciating unlike most in US. And a lot of Americans just don't get it, but once it clicks they are off. This has changed a lot in recent years though as we are both sending shows to each other over the pond.
@@gordon861 Actually that would only be true of Americans in more recent times. When the Monty Python show was originally aired, it was on American tv and was incredibly popular. Many other British comedies were shown in the US as well, quite frankly when British shows and comedies were much better. Americans always looked forward to the next Monty Python movie. It was later that most foreign shows disappeared from the US so younger Americans may not be very familiar with it. With streaming taking over, everything from the past is coming back again so there is hope for the future.
The one obvious thing that people tend to overlook. The guy who killed the historian was riding a real horse. Therefore, the people that got arrested were innocent.
it always makes me laugh.
@@Aloysius_OHare I know, me too. What does that say about us?
@@thomast8539 We want coconut horses.
Christ this is not for you to react,watch rings of power for Monty you need to go in school and be a educated
at the 5:05 mark...it was right then he realized they weren't going to get the comedy of this movie
I stopped watching at minute 8. Worst reaction to this movie ever. They should remove this video to save the channel
@@Wolfegang25Kevin calm down pal. This is their first time watching anything with British humor in it. Look at the stuff they react to on the channel. It’s all Hollywood movies. This is one of the weirdest movies ever, you can’t expect them to immediately vibe with that. You’ve left so many comments crappjng on this reaction like bro leave them alone and let them figure out Monty python for themselves 😂
4:08 here. If you don't get the horse gag, there is no hope.
Actually it is kind of funny watching people not get the movie. Some of what the women said was pretty funny in itself.
@@QuanTumm1357 They are morons
My favorite "come back I'll bite your ankles off"
Jen: "This movie has ACCENTS???!?!"
Now this is real banter!
And then "Mon-ay Py-thon" 😂😂
@@davelister2961 it’s a Midwest thing
All movies have accents since we all have accents
@@craigwheller
im from california i have a californian accent haha
Re: the credits. Many people today, if they don't have much experience with films they haven't seen in first-run theaters in their lifetime, may not realize that it used to be a convention to have most or all of the credits at the beginning of the film, rather than at the end. Almost all films today have the long list of every single actor, electrician, lawyer, musician, and intern who ever worked on the film at the end- and most people walk out of the theatre before that list is complete. In earlier decades, most films had a relatively short list of the actors, director, some key film-making positions listed before the film itself started. It was just a different convention.
The "Swedish" subtitles are a complete joke, of course, along with all the moose and later llamas that got themselves listed in the credits.
It's a union thing, the unions require that everyone be given credit, so it's got to be at the end
@@craigwheller I always stay around for the whole ending credits, to honor all the people who worked on the film. I know how much work it takes, so I feel I owe it to them to stay and see all their names go by.
In the old days, it was just the select few who got their name on the screen; now everyone shares the credit!
"I don't know any other Robin other than Batman and Robin. And he's definitely not that Robin"
Bruh xD
Robin Hood A.K.A. Robin of Loxley
@@phillipsuttles1926robin of loxley would be king John’s time so not 932. Best not to overanalyse though.
@@ianstopher9111 i took it as them referencing the fact that the two of them during the reaction start wondering whether the "Robin" in the movie is actually supposed to be Robin Hood.
them: "was Robin Hood a knight?" ... "i think he was!!"
me: 🤦♂
@@alefnull I'm not sure where the Pythons got the name Sir Robin from, but I'm guessing that for the knight who was kind of a failure they wanted to make up a new character, and they chose another early-medieval-English-legend name for him.
@@ianstopher9111932 isn't anywhere near Arthur's time either.
I will grant them this: they got the "Galahad the Chaste" set-up. So few reactors catch that, and then don't understand why he doesn't want to be, um, examined.
Love you guys so much and I don’t mean this in a mean-spirited way at all but the whole time you were asking “why” about things I was screaming “THAT’S THE JOKE!” 😂 Like with the coconuts instead of horses, the joke is just that they don’t have horses. It’s absurdist humor, you can’t ask questions you just have to go with it lol. Idk if it’s just because I’ve been watching it my entire life and because I’ve always watched a lot of British comedy but I think it’s one of the funniest movies of all time. You just have to go along for the ride! I’d be interested to see you watch it again with Holden now that you know you just have to roll with it without thinking too much into things. And it’s not just guy humor! I’m a 33-year old woman who’s loved this movie my entire life! I think it was one of the first comedies I ever watched and it really shaped my humor into what it is today. Would love to see another girls’ night with a movie that’s a little less absurd so you guys will enjoy it more!
Python's humor is absolutely absurdist, but the original Arthurian legends, especially Mallory's Le Morte de Arthur, have a very mannered style, a number of literary conventions and many supernatural elements that underlie most of the jokes in Holy Grail.
Python used those as their starting point and, if you just use the comedic principle of doing the unexpected, their skits are less random than they first seem and make a lot more sense.
well, except for the coconuts!
also, Terry Gilliam's animations seem less weird when compared to real marginal illustrations in actual medieval texts - rabbits fighting snails, and flying phalluses among other things.
I think Life of Brian would be the natural follow-up to Holy Grail, yes? 🤔
Very well said nbunnysnowboard! The notion that Monty Python is "guy humor", is the absurd thing. I was introduced to it by my mother. It was one of the favorite things my best female friend wanted to watch growing up. Sisters, girlfriends...etc. All loved it.
I don't mean to be contrarian but... how many first-time viewers of Monty Python would actually get it? I mean the odds are astronomical. We've all seen the skits thousands of times... some of us may even be familiar with "The Goon Show" and "Fawlty Towers" - I think that this is a pure reaction and I was happy that they laughed way more than I expected. The next steps is not "being told what's funny" but they have to discover their taste on their own - that's how you cultivate a fan. They already laughed at a lot at the absurdist stuff - this could not have gone any better! The "being told what's funny" does not work with "absurdist" humor... you have to blurt-out laugh and spit out your drink involuntarily on your own! Hahaha, I'm saying you can't say "that's the joke" you have to pay attention and when they say "that's absurd!" then you go Yes! That's when you know someone got it 🙂 when they realize it's absurd...! That's step 1, the lol comes later.
@@mannygee005I watched this when I was 10 or 11 & while I didn’t necessarily get the Arthurian & other historical references, I got most of the jokes. I mean, it’s really not that deep🤣
@@mannygee005 In every other reaction I've watched to this movie, though, there was a breakthrough moment for the reactor or reactors where they realized that it wasn't supposed to make sense and started to just roll with it. Usually sometime before Galahad's part
She turned me into a Newt, but I got better.
Since Holden is a Christian, I'd be curious to see you guys react to LIFE OF BRIAN. I know it's not for everyone, but I personally think it's a comedy masterpiece that can be enjoyed by both religious and secular audiences.
For context, the comedy group Monty Python had a sketch based TV show called Monty Pythons Flying Circus before this movie. They were such a hit on BBC that they were able to do a movie . The budget was real low but as you can see they made the most of it.
They were known for their absurdity based humour but were also very intelligent (they all met at Oxford and Cambridge University except for Terry Gilliam, an American who was a animator from LA who had a BA in Political Science) and could write some brilliant sketches with deep jokes. One of the best I loved was a football (soccer) match between Greek and German philosophers where the players were famous philosophers like Aristotle or Kant. The humour was in the absurdity of them playing soccer while the TV commentator is describing the play where the philosophies of that player/philosopher are used to inform the way they played. If you knew about their philosophies their actions on the screen made perfect sense since they were actually following their famous ideologies to a tee.
An example in this movie is the character Denis commenting to Arthur that “Strange women distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. I mean if I tried to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart through a scimitar at me, they would lock me away.” Making fun of the Arthurian Legend (lady in the lake) while simultaneously critiquing medieval political structures. It is them quintessentially both being extremely absurd while also providing deep political commentary and satire.
They go even further in their next movie Life of Brian, where they absolutely skewer Religious dogma. So much so that there was a huge controversy where the church tried to get the film banned. John Cleese and Michael Palin actually appeared on a TV talk show in Britain debating with two priests who certainly did not appreciate the satire. So as much as they are downright silly, they can also provide some real cutting commentary on class, politics and social organization.
all of the Pythons were well educated. John Cleese was pre-Law, and Graham Chapman was pre-Med. Terry Jones has had a deep interest in medieval history, reading Chaucer for part of his undergrad degree. Michael Palin majored in modern history, Eric Idle in English. the five Brits went to either Oxford or Cambridge.
You are right of course although I don't think the reactors will understand a single word you wrote.
That TV appearance by Cleese to defend the film illustrates just how threatened the church was. Terrified of humor. Python clearly wasn't depicting Christ as is seen early w/ the confused wise men, only running with a story about an unwitting prophet.
I'm 4:42 in and struggling to continue. The ladies completely failing to get the credits humour was making me cringe so hard. Talking over the dialogue and missing even more of the humour was killing me. Already, I'm thinking they're right... this movie is aimed at a man's sense of humour (Except for the woman I saw working at the cash register in a cafeteria. She had MASSIVE boobs... like 44GG... wearing a T-shirt that simply read "HUGE TRACTS OF LAND". Goddamn, that was funny and god bless her!)
The sheer bewilderment of the girls! 🤣
Since when is Monty Python “bro” humour??
What is "sis" humour, by default?
What's funny is they did intend to have horses but they didn't have the budget so that's how they came up with the coconut joke
what gets me a woman using a cat to hit her dry clean her clothes
Trust me, this is a movie that is funnier with each viewing. My gf hated it the first time, but it's an earworm movie. You'll be thinking about it and in the near future and will want to watch it again.
LOVE a special guest
Edit: Several minutes in and I am a large fan of the chaos
First we can see females view the animal violence very differently, and commented that it is a 'waste of resources' as woman value resources. This type of humor is flying over, under, and all around their heads. They also do not get Skit Comedy. The same actors / comedians are playing different roles in this Documentary. That is why you see the same people in different roles. This movie needs subtitles translating this to "The Wamens" who might be logically challenging, which might be a lot of them, but not all so this is not a general statement. Just like some deaf people need CC captions, Wamen need similar subtitles to explain the humor, sarcasm, and other concepts in the movie.
For the benefit of the Wamens, in the past Men, Males, dudes, guys, and bros played the role of Woman, Females, Chicks, Ladies, Broads and Gals, and that is why in that one scene about the peasants who didn't recognize the King of the Britons is actually a male actor playing the role of a female character. Shocking, it was Trans before there was a thing called Trans. Call it Paleotrans or Archaic Trains or just Ancient Trans, take your pick.
These same male actors, comedians, performers then would play different roles of different characters. Minds are blown, mostly Wamens minds and the few Tom Boy females who get it and wonder why other biological females do not.
Here is some direct evidence to support this analysis: 12:21 "Was Robin Hood a Knight?" Answered by the other Wamen as "I think he was". She won an Historical Razzy award for this statement. Robin Hood was not a knight. He was an Outlaw originally, and throughout most depictions. Sometimes he is presented as a Noble, though historically and in original tales he was not. He was in fact of the class they call Yeoman, or 'free men' and in those days there was no professional standing army so the King or noble trying to gather or "raise" Men-At-Arms would attract (or hire or persuade to join) a force mustered (or put together, see how I'm translating these terms for you) as free men for hire to join such a force. Think of most of them as 'free men who are not serfs' akin to the gunfighters of the Old West of America. They largely were trained in Longbow and the famous effective Longbow archers of England were pulled from this class of fighting men. Sure, there might have been an occasional female who disguised herself as a guy, it is entirely possible, so saying they are 'men' is a blanket generalization ignoring such possibilities.
To answer the question Was Robin Hood a Knight. No is the answer. He was not, and confusing King Arthur and Robin Hood is a huge bit of confusion. Robin Hood, if he existed it was hundreds of years later. That is like confusing the Late Antiquity with the early Modern period. Very different times, hundreds of years between these. ss
King Aurther and Robin Hood are from stories set in different eras of "British" or English history. Notice how King Arthur mentions he went through the Kingdom of Mercia. That is your Blue's Clue right there. Go look that up.
-----------------
NO, the Tale of Sir Robin was NOT referring to Robin Hood either. This is a Knight named Sir Robin a completely different person than Robin Hood. Sir Robin was a knight and what is going on in the Documentary movie is they are showing Tales of each Knight of the Round Table, Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, Sir Robin and others. Just like the New Testament is made up of Gospels by different Disciples who each tell their own version of events, their own insights and points about Jesus.
Confusing Robin Hood and Sir Robin is like confusing Bozo the Clown and Andre the Giant (a wrestler).
---------------------
For those who do not know Monty Python is Absurdish Skit Comedy. Comedy of the Absurd. This was a, once again, completely historical Documentary movie, similar to the Life of Bryan, that they did, but they added Absurdist comedy into this film.
Here is even more evidence these Woman do NOT get Absurdist humor. Exibit A your honor of the court of public opinion: 19:26 so now I will have explain why a Shrubbery. it really does not need one, it is due to the fact this is an Absurd element inserted into the plot and dialogue. Imagine if I said something completely off the wall, but which many could find humorous, at least those who are tapped into the Guy Brain, and yes Absurd things can be said that Wamen will find funny too, and yet absurd or Silly, but this is very different so there is real cognitive dissonance going on in her Lady Brain. She does not get it. It is flying beneath her comedy radar, and her intellectual radar for that matter.
Notice how her Lady Brain focused on things like that guys' hair cut: 19:06 Lady Brains operate differently than Guy Brains so Guys, those classified as 'real men' by Wamen are not thinking about hos great a characters hairstyle is. In fact that hairstyle was purposely made to be odd and absurd in fact, a 'wierd' haircut. Go back and look at it. If a guy showed up on a date with that hairdo would YOU date him or even go on that one date with him or say 'nope you need to go and redo your hair mister before I will be seen in public with you. Most woman won't say that. They will just leave and say "this date is over'. But maybe not. This woman clearly does like it so if you are reading this and are her husband or boyfriend, man or her 'backdoor man' on the side test this out. Wear your hairstyle like this. Go out in public or to a family event like this with her. Take a family picture for Christmas or other holiday to be sent out to relatives and friends.
I got a sense the way she said "Oh I like his hair' that this guy is the Medieval equivalent of a GigaChad. If she was a peasant girl back in that day she'd be shagged and barefoot in no time.
This is a testable idea.
Another piece of evidence this movie is flying all around their Lady Brains 19:33
Seriously, I feel like a Medieval Monk who makes little comments in the margins of a medieval manuscript to explain things or meaning of the text that these woman need a Concept and Term Translator who is also knowledgable in history, literature and other topics.
Like the humor of the Holy Hand Grendade. Count to three, no more, no less......and three shall be the number, not four, two is not enough, and five is right now. You have to get how Medieval prayers and religious commentary was used and the logic inherent within it.
You need to get your husbands to watch Woman's movies. My prediction is they will fall asleep at some point especially if alcohol is involved. You can't be present when they watch it either. Call it "Just Two Guys and a Chick Flick". Sort of like Straight Eye for the Queer Guy, a show featuring 5 straight guys who dress up a Gay Guy, a variation Queer Eye for the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys dressed up a straight guy (which was a real show).
The Black Knight has always been my favorite part. "Just a flesh wound" gets me every time.
Right off the bat, while watching a *British* comedy, and saying you " don't do accents ", I'm like wow! Can you BE any more American? 🤣. And yes, it's not just a 'guy' movie, but it's also British humor. Which is its own kind of animal. Glad y'all enjoyed.
*ETA* And yeah, the whole "Robbin Hood, is he part of King Aurthur's Round Table? I think he is!" - Yikes. I feel embarrassed on the lack of basic history and lore. (Lots of time to learn though. )
This movie is partly why D&D, LARPing, and cosplay exist.
Michael Palin (Sir Gallahad, among others) was actually knighted in 2019.
I hope you realize D&D was released in 1974 and Holy Grail in 1975.
So one year after.
Really, the first integration of larping into a movie, as far as I know....
For the record all those watching this video need to know they did NOT watch the movie, but rather cherry-picked parts of scenes. This is a movie you put on and WATCH all of it without interruption other than your peanut gallery comments like in the Science Theater 3000 show. Just put this on, and don't cut it or you shall need to be flogged and put in the stocks. If your husbands disagree, they shall be flogged and, in the stocks, next to you, but you will have the option to throw your own husband under the bus so to speak allowing them to be flogged and put in stocks for you.
Then you shall be allowed to go on a date with another man and the whole thing videotaped so he can watch while you are having a fabulous time, and he is suffering for you. While in the stocks he shall wear a "Super Simp Supreme" T-shirt. Children will be encouraged to throw free rotten fruit at him which they are provided free of charge by state expense which is tax money spent on public entertainment.
I've been waiting for this since the days of Matt watching starwars. One of the best comedies ever imo
If you 'get this movie' then this is what you should do. When your bad, really naughty, and you will be at some point, and we assume you have a man or if not a substitute could be found, you say "Naughty (insert your name), very Naughty" Then you say "You must spank me'. Also get your friend to also be there and she will then say 'And when your done spanking her you must spank me too' and if you can get more girls there who are friends they will then all chime in as a chorus 'yes you must spank us all we have all been very bad and naughty'. If you can film this and make a video out of it and post in there. If done right you'll get a lot of views. Oh back to your watching of the Holy Grail movie.
"...but why do they need a shrubbery?!" ROFL!!
Monty Python is neither a comedy or a drama or a dramedy. It is a Documentary. You should have me there so I can make comments like that in the moment. This is a historical documentary of the historical King Arthur King of the Britons, and the trick is to know who exactly are the Britons. Hint: they are not the Anglo Saxons, nor are they the Normans. This movie explores the mystery of who the Britons are as a people, and the religious practices. You are going to watch this for a while and think 'this is not a documentary but just wait, it will become obvious this is an historical documentary by the end. God has ordained it to be so.
This is all satirical British humor that makes fun of the establishment, and basically everything. Nothing is sacred with Python. They are known for their outlandish animation. It's their signature.
They are also history buffs. Animations in "The Holy Grail" aren't random, they are inspired by real books. Back in medieval times, before print press was a thing, when book was worth a fortune, monastic scribes (plenty young males) would copy books by hand. They had to copy colourful calligraphy and illustrations for months, all day long, to copy a single book (over a year for bigger works). To spice it up, sometimes they would improvise parts of illustrations with less then holy imagery.
Python, while of course it had its own influences was one of the major pioneers of surreal meta humour, absurdism if you like. While British comedy is very broad and expansive and contains, frankly, just about everything you can imagine, its penchant for absurdism is particularly idiosyncratic.
You can see examples in loads of iconic places, such as Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, all the way to more modern shows such as The Mighty Boosh, but it's something that in some measure is present in a lot of British comedy, even if it's only subtle.
Truly absurd or surreal things are in a way the opposite of a straight man, instead of having someone who behaves normally and takes things seriously, you have something that simply makes no sense and is utterly incongruous. This is also comedy on a slightly philosophical level, because one of the points of absurdism, is that life itself is absurd and we make it normal through our expectations.
That things make sense to us because we construct reality in a way that is sensible from our perspective, where in reality from a different perspective things that appear normal to us would be deeply strange. The value of absurdity, sometimes, is to take us out of our expectations, to defamiliarise or alienate the audience. To leave them in an unfamiliar space where their conventional expectations don't work.
Humans learn to interpret reality according to what they are used to, to the point of barely perceiving it at all, we're parsimonious, we act on habit, doing countless things each day we don't even remember because we didn't pay attention, because they were so familiar, so rote.
Strangeness engages us, especially when it blindsides us, because it forces us into an alert state, suddenly we're not in familiar territory. Suddenly we've having to learn as we go.
Python had NO money for this basically. In fact, it was financed by rock stars. Believe it or not (from online) "Everett 'Collection' Eric Idle has revealed how much money rock bands and record labels contributed to financing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which came out in 1975. According to a tweet, Led Zeppelin contributed £31,500, Pink Floyd Music ponied up £21,000, and Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson put in £6,300 of his own money."
The budget could not afford horses, hence the coconuts which were normally used in radio for horses. It did add to comedy.
@@corpusD also, the lack of horses is the best evidence that none of Arthur's crew were involved with the killing of the Famous Historian 😁
George Harrison contributed money for the movie, too, though I don't know how much.
@@danielcobbins8861 You are correct. I neglected to include him, even though I recalled a Beatle contributed, then forgot. LOL. If memory serves correct, Harrison contributed the most.
@@bitcrafter Yeah, without good old George we would also never got "Life of Brian", which for me is still their best movie.
Monty Python’s Holy Grail epitomizes absurdist humor with its bizarre, unpredictable narrative and outlandish characters. The film parodies the Arthurian legend, featuring scenes like the Black Knight’s comical resilience and the Knights Who Say “Ni!” demanding a shrubbery. Its humor lies in the unexpected, blending historical satire with surreal, nonsensical elements that defy conventional logic.
And the lack of horses was not a budget issue.
I promise, it’s funnier on subsequent watches. The first time it bombards you with so much it’s almost overwhelming, especially if it’s your introduction to Monty Python. Once you’ve seen it once and know what you’re in for, it’s all laughs.
"What is a swallow" -- oh, you poor soul.
Oh I'm sure she knows _that_ kind of "swallow", just not the bird, which calls into question many things.
The animator is Terry Gilliam who is responsible for directing, Brazil, Fear and Loathing and Twelve Monkeys among others.
might be the most quotable movie ever
On a par with Casablanca, and that's saying something. 👍
You guys just aren't meant for silly comedy. You are trying to make sense of the intentionally absurd. It's not supposed to make sense. That's the point. You dont need to know religion or Arthur. Not trying to be mean but this was like watching people being too dumb to understand something is trying to be dumb.
People who haven't seen older movies are always confused by the credits being in the beginning. They also tend not to pay attention enough to understand when something is a joke.
I CANNOT believe you skip the "burn the witch" scene and show the fucking camelot scene instead.
. If you want more another great Monty Python I suggest Monty Python Life of Brian. Other great comedies/Parodies are Airplane! 1980 ,Top Secret! 1984 and The naked gun trilogy
My favorite quote would have to be "Strange women, lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!" Love Michael Palin!
Guy humor is kind of a dumb thing to say. Not just in this context, but in general as well
Dry Humor = yes 👌
Guy Humor = not rly
The dude at the French castle is my favorite! "I told them we've already got one..."
That really bothered me when they thought Sir Robin was Robin Hood.
Not every person named Robin is Robin Hood
This reaction is a train wreck!
I won't judge, everyone's different. But yeah it's funny how some people are just SO serious the whole time while watching it, trying to make sense of everything. I personally could never. ^^ When I watch this, I'm having the time of my life lmao'ing every time, this movie is comedy gold. 😂 I think her friend got the humor almost right away, but still held back a little during the reaction, bc she didn't wanna be the only one laughing out loud (even tho she probably wanted to). ;D
out of all the people I've watched this movie with and the dozens of reactors I've seen check it out, this is the first time in my life I'd heard someone refer to this movie as guy/bro humor lol
YEAAAHHH GIRLS NIGHT 🤠
At least 100 times. Next movie, Life of Brian, lots of funny scenes like Biggus Dickus
It was way, way over your heads even before the Credits finished rolling. It's futile to even try explaining.
Oh no. Edited out the whole witch scene?
They didn't have the budget for horses so just did that instead. That's making it work.
Talking too much through the movies, not paying attention, lacking any knowledge, ....