John Cleese refuses to remove ‘Life of Brian’ joke about a man becoming a woman and having a baby that critics call ‘transphobic’

https://www.theblaze.com/news/john-cleese-transgender-political-correctness-comedy

By Paul Sacca

May 28, 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

John Cleese refused to bend the knee to the outrage mob who called for a joke to be removed from an upcoming stage version of Monty Python’s “Life Of Brian.” The controversial scene features a man claiming that he is a woman and he can have a baby.

Cleese is working on a stage production of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian,” a 1979 movie about a man who is mistaken for Jesus Christ. However, actors allegedly told Cleese that one scene would need to be cut out of the reproduction for it not to be offensive in today’s social environment.

The scene in question features a character named “Stan” – who wants to become a woman and have babies.

“I want to be a woman,” Stan declares. “From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.”

Cleese’s character Reg bewilderedly asked, “What?”

Stan fires back, “It’s my right as a man.”

When asked why he wants to be a woman, Stan explains, “I want to have babies.”

Reg quizzically replies, “You want to have babies?”

Stan shoots back, “It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.”

When Reg informs Stan that he “can’t have babies,” Stan plays the victim, “Don’t you oppress me.”

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

Other characters agree that Stan can’t have babies, but argue that he should have the “right to have babies.”

Reg responds, “What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?”

Another character says, “It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.”

Reg quips that Stan has a “struggle with reality” for thinking he can give birth to a baby.

Critics claim the scene in the movie from 44 years ago is “transphobic.”

Despite the controversy, Cleese confirmed that he would not be removing the questionable scene from the upcoming stage show of “Life of Brian.”

Cleese wrote on Twitter, “A few days ago I spoke to an audience outside London. I told them I was adapting the Life of Brian so that we could do it as a stage show ( NOT a musical ). I said that we’d had a table reading of the latest draft in NYC a year ago and that all the actors – several of them Tony winners – had advised me strongly to cut the Loretta scene. I have, of course, no intention of doing so.”

Cleese slammed the media for “misreporting” him about cutting the Loretta scene from the new version, “Amazingly none of the British media called to check.”

Cleese said of the actors in the upcoming production, “These were absolutely top-class Broadway performers and they were adamant that we would not get away with doing the scene in NYC! I asked them, ‘Are Python fans not going to come because we’re doing a scene they’ve been laughing at for 40 years.'”

The Monty Python comedian said, “Producers tend to be scaredy-cats, and they don’t remember that the protests in NYC when ‘Brian’ was released meant we never needed to do publicity!”

May 28, 2023. Tags: Humor, John Cleese, LGBT, LGBTQ, Life of Brian, Monty Python, Movies. Humor, LGBT, Movies. Leave a comment.

CBS Saturday Night Movies Intro (Late 1970s – Early 1980s)

I got so excited at this when I was a kid. It was like a special event, no matter what the actual movie was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5J7MeOu8ls

November 9, 2022. Tags: CBS, Movies, Television, TV. Movies, Television. Leave a comment.

My review of 2000 Mules

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

June 30, 2022

In 1993, I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh with a bachelor’s degree in math, and a minor in computer science. Sometime during my four years at the school, I attended a speech by Dinesh D’Souza. The thing that I remember most about his speech was that he said he immigrated to the United States because he “wanted to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”

On the one hand, I did not vote for Trump. I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2016, and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen in 2020. So I’m not a Trump fan.

On the other hand, I don’t hate Trump the way so many Democrats do. I certainly don’t agree with their claim that he’s a Nazi. In fact, Trump supports the right of gun ownership by all law abiding adult citizens, whereas Hitler banned Jews from owning guns in 1938. So at least in that one regard, Trump is the exact opposite of a Nazi.

It seems to me that a lot of people are rating 2000 Mules based on whether or not they agree with its basic premise, which is that the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was stolen.

But that’s not how I’m rating this movie.

Instead, I’m rating this movie based on how good or bad it is, regardless of my own personal thoughts on its premise.

Now, in order to be transparent, I want to state that I do indeed believe the election was stolen. I first started thinking this on election night, when the mainstream media reported that election workers in Fulton County, Georgia, had “stopped counting votes for the night” due to a “burst water pipe.”

As soon as I first heard them say that, I knew they were cheating.

And here’s my proof that they were lying.

On the night of the election, CBS News aired a TV report called “Pipe burst in Georgia delays vote counting.”

You can watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25DAAHZdEw

Also on the night of the election, ABC News tweeted: “The election department sent the ballot counters at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta home at 10:30 p.m., Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, tells ABC News.”

Here’s that tweet:

https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1323846118208376834

NEW: The election department sent the ballot counters at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta home at 10:30 p.m., Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, tells ABC News. https://t.co/HgCtcXEka3

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) November 4, 2020

However, official security video footage shows that after the Republican poll watchers and news reporters left the room where votes had been counted, a few election workers stay behind and continue counting votes.

And there is no visible water leak in the video.

You can see that video footage here:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rPqQKvuFk473/

There’s only one reason for the election workers to lie about a bogus “burst water pipe,” and use that as an excuse to get the Republican poll watchers and news reporters to leave, and then the election workers themselves go back inside and continue counting the votes while no one else is in the room. They were cheating.

If you want to see me presenting a lot more evidence that the election was stolen, you can read my writing about it here:

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2022/06/23/stop-the-steal-6/

So, I very much believe that the election was stolen.

But guess what?

I didn’t like 2000 Mules.

My biggest criticism of the movie, is that despite its repeated claims that these 2,000 “ballot traffickers” each put mail-in ballots into many different dropboxes, the movie never actually shows video footage of even one of these people depositing ballots into more than one dropbox.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is that they never show this?

If each of these people really did deposit ballots into many different dropboxes, then the movie should show us video footage of some of these people depositing ballots into multiple dropboxes.

But the movie never shows even one person doing that.

I’d like to see video footage of at least 20 different “ballot traffickers,” each depositing ballots into at least 10 different dropboxes.

And I’d like to see their faces.

Even when the movie did show some of these people dropping ballots into a single dropbox per person, they always blurred out their face. Apparently, they were worried about getting sued for defamation. But when someone is sued for defamation, the only thing they need to do in order to prove their innocence, is to show that what they said is true. So if they are so sure that this cheating happened, then why did they blur out their faces?

And since they have video footage of their faces as well as their license plates, and they also have their cell phone location data, they should know the names of these “ballot traffickers.” But they never, ever revealed any of their names in the movie. Again, if they are so sure that this cheating actually happened, they should not be afraid to show the names of the people who cheated.

So, thumbs down for me.

On the other hand, there are some smaller things that I did like about the movie.

The fact that these people are shown wearing gloves, which they remove immediately after depositing the ballots, suggests that they did indeed cheat. So that’s a point in praise of the film.

And some of these people are shown taking pictures of them holding their ballots right before depositing them in the dropboxes, so they can get paid. That’s another point in favor of the film.

And the single biggest evidence of cheating that’s shown in this movie is the nursing home patients who are obviously too sick to either vote or request an absentee ballot, and yet their relatives claim that the official government records show that they had indeed voted.

So there are some things in this movie that do show evidence of cheating.

But those things all receive only a small amount of the movie’s overall time.

The movie’s main premise is that each of these 2,000 “ballot traffickers” deposited ballots into multiple dropboxes. But despite this claim, not once in the entire movie, do we ever see video footage of any of these people dropping off ballots into more than one dropbox.

In other words, the people who made this movie are refusing to show us any video evidence whatsoever that backs up their primary claim.

And that’s why I can’t recommend this movie.

Oh yeah – another criticism that I have is that they never give equal time to their opponents. They never interviewed any experts who believe that there was no cheating. Because of their refusal to present the opposing point of view to any substantial degree, I have to say that this movie seems more like an infomercial than a documentary. I’ve seen a lot of documentaries. And I’ve seen a lot of infomercials. And I know how to tell the difference between the two. When a bunch of people all in the same room all have the exact same opinion, that’s not a documentary – it’s an infomercial.

So, while I believe that the election was indeed stolen, I think that 2000 Mules does a very bad job of making its case, and that this movie is, overall, a failure.