CLOSE
Original image
YouTube

13 Facts About Monty Python's Life of Brian

Original image
YouTube

After the huge success of 1975’s Monty Python and the Holy Grail, England's silliest comedy troupe needed a follow-up. Naturally, they chose another period piece, this one requiring even more elaborate sets and costumes—and, as a bonus, it was liable to offend everyone. Monty Python's Life of Brian was released in 1979 and, sure enough, caused a stir. It also shot to the top of many people's lists of the best satires ever made, and helped cement Monty Python's legacy. Here, stop arguing about what the Romans have ever done for you and read this reverent list of important trivia. 

1. IT WAS CONCEIVED IN AMSTERDAM, WRITTEN IN BARBADOS, AND FILMED IN TUNISIA.

Monty Python was a very British comedy troupe, but Life of Brian was a truly international production. The lads came up with the idea of doing a Biblical epic while promoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail in Amsterdam in early 1976. (No word on Amsterdam's other offerings, but much alcohol was definitely involved.) The final draft of the screenplay was written around Christmas 1977 in Barbados, where Eric Idle was vacationing; rather than return to London to finish the script, he convinced the other five Pythons to join him there. As for the actual filming, England was short on arid plains that could pass for Jerusalem, so everyone decamped to Tunisia, where Star Wars (and, more relevantly, Jesus of Nazareth) had recently been shot. 

2. THEY USED LEFTOVER SETS AND COSTUMES FROM A REAL JESUS MOVIE.

Italian director Franco Zeffirelli (you may be familiar with his 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet) had made a six-hour English-language TV miniseries called Jesus of Nazareth, seen by a massive worldwide audience in 1977. For the Pythons, one of the perks of shooting in Tunisia was that they could use some of the props, costumes, and sets that Zeffirelli's production had left behind.

3. THE PYTHONS MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO MAKE FUN OF JESUS.

The film's detractors insisted otherwise (most of them hadn't actually seen it), but Life of Brian doesn't ridicule Jesus or his teachings. (His followers; people who misunderstand him; organized religion in general, sure.) The men of Monty Python realized early in the writing process that Jesus shouldn't be a target. This wasn't out of reverence, though, so much as practicality: nobody thought Jesus' words or deeds warranted derision. As Eric Idle later put it, "He's not particularly funny. What he's saying isn't mockable, it's very decent stuff."

4. JESUS HAD A STUTTER. 

Though Life of Brian is about a man whose life parallels Jesus', Jesus himself appears only briefly (and respectfully, the Pythons were quick to point out). According to Terry Gilliam, Kenneth Colley—the actor who played Jesus—had a terrible stammer in real life that cleared up when he was reciting dialogue onstage or in front of a camera. (By the way, Colley also played Admiral Piett, an Imperial officer, in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.) 

5. JOHN CLEESE WAS IN FAVOR OF STUNT CASTING FOR THE ROLE OF JESUS.

His suggestion was George Lazenby. Cleese explained: "I thought that on the poster, to have the words '...and George Lazenby as Jesus Christ' would be something that people would treasure for at least the next millennium." He's probably right, though it's also probably just as well that Jesus wasn't played by anyone recognizable. 

6. THE FILM'S SAVIOR WAS A BEATLE.

Two days before the cast and crew were set to leave for Tunisia to begin shooting, the head honcho at EMI Films, Bernard Delfont, got cold feet and canceled the financing, fearing the film was too controversial to make a profit. (According to Gilliam, the problem was that Delfont finally actually read the script.) Everything was put on hold while the Pythons scrambled to find another backer. Their patron turned out to be George Harrison, a big Monty Python fan who had plenty of Beatles money lying around. Harrison set up a production company, HandMade Films, to make it official, and put up $4 million of his own money. "I liked the script and I wanted to see the movie," he later said. Terry Jones would call it "the most expensive movie ticket of all time." As for Delfont, the film ends with a little inside joke aimed at him, as the singer of "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" can be heard muttering, "I told him, I said to him, 'Bernie,' I said, 'they'll never make that money back.’"

7. IT REQUIRED A MAKESHIFT CIRCUMCISION.

According to Eric Idle, when it came time to film the scene where a nude Brian goes to the window and inadvertently exposes himself to a crowd of disciples, director Terry Jones pointed out a problem with a Graham Chapman's genitalia: "We can see you're not Jewish." This was a good point. Brian would definitely be circumcised, and Chapman was not. Chapman's solution was to summon not a mohel but a rubber band, which he used to help make himself look the part. Acting!

8. BEFORE IT UPSET ANYONE ELSE, IT UPSET SOME MUSLIMS.

For the aforementioned window scene, the crowd was made up of Tunisian extras, almost all of them Muslim. To see a naked man other than one's husband is a no-no for Muslim women, and as Chapman later recalled, "When I flung open the shutters, half the crowd ran away screaming. That had a profound effect on my psyche." 

9. THE FILMMAKERS WORKED HARD NOT TO DAMAGE ANY OF THE SHOOTING LOCATIONS (BUT DID ANYWAY).

Some of the sets had been built for Jesus of Nazareth, and some were made especially for Life of Brian, but some locations were actual old buildings in and around Monastir, Tunisia. The crew took care to minimize their impact on these settings, but not everything could be helped. For example, Terry Gilliam (serving as production designer) believed the black smudge they applied to the stones where the UFO crashes (around the 44-minute mark) would come right off. When it didn't, he sent people in under cover of night to paint the stones the right color again and hoped nobody would notice.

10. THERE WAS A STRATEGIC REASON IT OPENED IN AMERICA BEFORE ENGLAND.

Monty Python had a big following in the U.S., but it was nothing compared to the group's fan base in the U.K. So why did Life of Brian open in the States first? Because the Pythons knew some people would consider the film sacrilegious, and America, unlike the U.K., had no blasphemy laws. They weren’t just being paranoid either, as an actual blasphemy case had recently been prosecuted in England over an erotic poem about Jesus.

11. THE FIRST PEOPLE TO PROTEST THE FILM WERE ... RABBIS? 

Our lads anticipated blowback from Christians over the film, but they were caught off-guard when the first complaints came from a council of rabbis. Their objection? The stoning scene, where Jews' reverence for the name of God is satirized, and in which John Cleese (playing a Jewish leader) wears a sacred prayer shawl. 

12. SHOOTING THE UFO SCENE WAS A RACE AGAINST TIME (AND TAX LAWS).

At the time of the film’s production, Graham Chapman was living in the United States and, for tax reasons, he wasn't allowed to be back home in England for more than 24 hours at a time. Since most of the movie was shot in Tunisia, this wasn't a problem. But the scene where Brian briefly travels inside an alien spacecraft was shot in London. Chapman flew to England, hurried to the set, spent several hours inside the UFO, then had to hurry off again before his 24 hours were up. 

13. GRAHAM CHAPMAN WAS THE SET DOCTOR.

Chapman was a medical student before he turned to comedy, and in fact was already a successful writer and performer for British TV when he finished his studies and became an actual licensed physician. He wore both hats on the Life of Brian set in Tunisia, filming during the day and holding a clinic for cast, crew, and extras in the evening, treating injuries and prescribing medication.

Additional Sources:
Criterion Collection DVD bonus features and commentary

Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva
arrow
technology
Man Buys Two Metric Tons of LEGO Bricks; Sorts Them Via Machine Learning
Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva

Jacques Mattheij made a small, but awesome, mistake. He went on eBay one evening and bid on a bunch of bulk LEGO brick auctions, then went to sleep. Upon waking, he discovered that he was the high bidder on many, and was now the proud owner of two tons of LEGO bricks. (This is about 4400 pounds.) He wrote, "[L]esson 1: if you win almost all bids you are bidding too high."

Mattheij had noticed that bulk, unsorted bricks sell for something like €10/kilogram, whereas sets are roughly €40/kg and rare parts go for up to €100/kg. Much of the value of the bricks is in their sorting. If he could reduce the entropy of these bins of unsorted bricks, he could make a tidy profit. While many people do this work by hand, the problem is enormous—just the kind of challenge for a computer. Mattheij writes:

There are 38000+ shapes and there are 100+ possible shades of color (you can roughly tell how old someone is by asking them what lego colors they remember from their youth).

In the following months, Mattheij built a proof-of-concept sorting system using, of course, LEGO. He broke the problem down into a series of sub-problems (including "feeding LEGO reliably from a hopper is surprisingly hard," one of those facts of nature that will stymie even the best system design). After tinkering with the prototype at length, he expanded the system to a surprisingly complex system of conveyer belts (powered by a home treadmill), various pieces of cabinetry, and "copious quantities of crazy glue."

Here's a video showing the current system running at low speed:

The key part of the system was running the bricks past a camera paired with a computer running a neural net-based image classifier. That allows the computer (when sufficiently trained on brick images) to recognize bricks and thus categorize them by color, shape, or other parameters. Remember that as bricks pass by, they can be in any orientation, can be dirty, can even be stuck to other pieces. So having a flexible software system is key to recognizing—in a fraction of a second—what a given brick is, in order to sort it out. When a match is found, a jet of compressed air pops the piece off the conveyer belt and into a waiting bin.

After much experimentation, Mattheij rewrote the software (several times in fact) to accomplish a variety of basic tasks. At its core, the system takes images from a webcam and feeds them to a neural network to do the classification. Of course, the neural net needs to be "trained" by showing it lots of images, and telling it what those images represent. Mattheij's breakthrough was allowing the machine to effectively train itself, with guidance: Running pieces through allows the system to take its own photos, make a guess, and build on that guess. As long as Mattheij corrects the incorrect guesses, he ends up with a decent (and self-reinforcing) corpus of training data. As the machine continues running, it can rack up more training, allowing it to recognize a broad variety of pieces on the fly.

Here's another video, focusing on how the pieces move on conveyer belts (running at slow speed so puny humans can follow). You can also see the air jets in action:

In an email interview, Mattheij told Mental Floss that the system currently sorts LEGO bricks into more than 50 categories. It can also be run in a color-sorting mode to bin the parts across 12 color groups. (Thus at present you'd likely do a two-pass sort on the bricks: once for shape, then a separate pass for color.) He continues to refine the system, with a focus on making its recognition abilities faster. At some point down the line, he plans to make the software portion open source. You're on your own as far as building conveyer belts, bins, and so forth.

Check out Mattheij's writeup in two parts for more information. It starts with an overview of the story, followed up with a deep dive on the software. He's also tweeting about the project (among other things). And if you look around a bit, you'll find bulk LEGO brick auctions online—it's definitely a thing!

Original image
iStock
arrow
Health
One Bite From This Tick Can Make You Allergic to Meat
Original image
iStock

We like to believe that there’s no such thing as a bad organism, that every creature must have its place in the world. But ticks are really making that difficult. As if Lyme disease wasn't bad enough, scientists say some ticks carry a pathogen that causes a sudden and dangerous allergy to meat. Yes, meat.

The Lone Star tick (Amblyomma americanum) mostly looks like your average tick, with a tiny head and a big fat behind, except the adult female has a Texas-shaped spot on its back—thus the name.

Unlike other American ticks, the Lone Star feeds on humans at every stage of its life cycle. Even the larvae want our blood. You can’t get Lyme disease from the Lone Star tick, but you can get something even more mysterious: the inability to safely consume a bacon cheeseburger.

"The weird thing about [this reaction] is it can occur within three to 10 or 12 hours, so patients have no idea what prompted their allergic reactions," allergist Ronald Saff, of the Florida State University College of Medicine, told Business Insider.

What prompted them was STARI, or southern tick-associated rash illness. People with STARI may develop a circular rash like the one commonly seen in Lyme disease. They may feel achy, fatigued, and fevered. And their next meal could make them very, very sick.

Saff now sees at least one patient per week with STARI and a sensitivity to galactose-alpha-1, 3-galactose—more commonly known as alpha-gal—a sugar molecule found in mammal tissue like pork, beef, and lamb. Several hours after eating, patients’ immune systems overreact to alpha-gal, with symptoms ranging from an itchy rash to throat swelling.

Even worse, the more times a person is bitten, the more likely it becomes that they will develop this dangerous allergy.

The tick’s range currently covers the southern, eastern, and south-central U.S., but even that is changing. "We expect with warming temperatures, the tick is going to slowly make its way northward and westward and cause more problems than they're already causing," Saff said. We've already seen that occur with the deer ticks that cause Lyme disease, and 2017 is projected to be an especially bad year.

There’s so much we don’t understand about alpha-gal sensitivity. Scientists don’t know why it happens, how to treat it, or if it's permanent. All they can do is advise us to be vigilant and follow basic tick-avoidance practices.

[h/t Business Insider]

SECTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
arrow
BIG QUESTIONS
WEATHER WATCH
BE THE CHANGE
JOB SECRETS
QUIZZES
WORLD WAR 1
SMART SHOPPING
STONES, BONES, & WRECKS
#TBT
THE PRESIDENTS
WORDS
RETROBITUARIES