Number of words: 5,810<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI want to murder this thing,\u201d says John Cleese, fiddling with a medical contraption that\u2019s attached to his leg. The 77-year-old founding member of the Monty Python comedy troupe \u2014 arguably humanity\u2019s greatest comedic endeavor \u2014 and the star and co-creator of perennial best-sitcom-ever contender Fawlty Towers<\/em>, is in his office on a cool London summer morning, going about things with what I suspect is his usual air of amused irritation. \u201cI\u2019ve got a leg infection and now have a fucking cube\u201d \u2014 Cleese, sitting in a brown leather chair, pulls up a leg of his jeans and taps on a pump with his index finger \u2014 \u201csucking out the scunge. It\u2019s quite annoying.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, it seems, are a great many things for the charmingly cantankerous Cleese, who still performs regularly, both onscreen and onstage, the latter typically as a one-man show. \u201cWe\u2019re living in the age of assholes now. It\u2019s breathtaking,\u201d he says, eyes wide with wonder. \u201cThey\u2019re running everything.\u201d His leg beeps. \u201cThe cube does that when it\u2019s been unplugged,\u201d Cleese explains, before disconnecting the device entirely. \u201cThat\u2019s much better,\u201d he says, stretching out. \u201cNow let\u2019s talk.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Is death funny?<\/strong> So has what you find funny changed as you\u2019ve gotten older?<\/strong> Would you mind not?<\/strong> Why is that? Are you just disinterested?<\/strong> Given your own disinterest in watching comedy, is it at all weird to you that people still want to talk about Monty Python?<\/strong> What accounts for that difference?<\/strong> When\u2019s the last time someone who you thought was stupid made you laugh?<\/strong> What happened?<\/strong> I\u2019m glad you were able to find the humor there.<\/strong> Does comedy have any surprises for you anymore?<\/strong> Just to go back to subject of American audiences: You\u2019re in September. Have you been following any of the controversies over free speech on college campuses? You\u2019ve <\/strong>talked often<\/strong><\/a> in public about your frustration with the idea that political correctness has run amok.<\/strong> Because they\u2019re scolds?<\/strong> \u201cThis year, all cultural jokes will henceforth be made at the expense of the Danes.\u201d<\/strong> Didn\u2019t Monty Python make a whole movie satirizing Jesus?<\/strong> I get what you\u2019re saying here but if a certain group of people says particular jokes are offensive to them, do you really want to be in favor of reinforcing power dynamics that those people find hurtful? I can\u2019t help but think that when certain people today are saying everyone else is too sensitive \u2014 and maybe this is a straw-man example \u2014 but it\u2019s akin to certain people 80 years ago saying, \u201cBlackface comedy is just affectionate teasing. What\u2019s the big deal?\u201d There are reasons certain forms of entertainment get challenged.<\/strong> When they\u2019re treated equally outside of comedy. I don\u2019t think anyone would seriously argue that Germans are dealing with systematic oppression. <\/strong> I think the line is actually pretty thick: The people who historically have had more power in a society don\u2019t get to decide what\u2019s offensive to those who historically have had less power. <\/strong>Eighty percent of people out there on the sidewalk will tell you they are oppressed by the system. All I\u2019m saying is that all these definitions and rules are not cut-and-dried. Let me tell you something my wife told me which I thought was very funny: It\u2019s the difference between a black fairy tale and a white fairy tale. You know this one?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seven years.<\/strong> When they\u2019re treated equally outside of comedy. I don\u2019t think anyone would seriously argue that Germans are dealing with systematic oppression. <\/strong> I think the line is actually pretty thick: The people who historically have had more power in a society don\u2019t get to decide what\u2019s offensive to those who historically have had less power. <\/strong>Eighty percent of people out there on the sidewalk will tell you they are oppressed by the system. All I\u2019m saying is that all these definitions and rules are not cut-and-dried. Let me tell you something my wife told me which I thought was very funny: It\u2019s the difference between a black fairy tale and a white fairy tale. You know this one?<\/p>\n\n\n\n No, I don\u2019t. <\/strong> Oy, John.<\/strong> Let\u2019s shift gears a little. You\u2019ve lived in America part-time for decades. Did Donald Trump\u2019s election change your thinking about Americans?<\/strong> Tell me more about your impression of Trump.<\/strong> May you live in interesting times?<\/strong> I was just looking back at some old Monty Python photos from the early \u201970s, and it struck me that while the other guys sort of looked like rock stars with long hair and groovy clothes, you had short hair and dressed conservatively. Were you as engaged with the politics and social dynamics of that period as you seem to be with what\u2019s going on today?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s interesting, because there was always such a strong link between rock culture and Monty Python: <\/strong>John Lennonsaid he would\u2019ve loved to have been in Monty Python and I know that members of Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin helped finance <\/strong>Monty Python and the Holy The admiration there wasn\u2019t reciprocal?<\/strong> Maybe it\u2019s because the <\/strong>Ministry of Silly Walks<\/strong><\/a> and <\/strong>Dead Parrot<\/strong><\/a> sketches seemed like they could only have been the product of someone who was stoned.<\/strong> Were you?<\/strong> Does a different kind of person prefer <\/strong>Fawlty Towers to Monty Python? There are so few comedic similarities between the two.<\/strong> The emotion in <\/strong>Fawlty Towers<\/em> is so much more acute, though. Basil Fawlty\u2019s behavior makes me cringe in a way that nothing in <\/strong>Monty Python<\/em> does.<\/strong> That\u2019s the second time you\u2019ve mentioned therapy. Does the fact that you\u2019ve been married four times suggest the limits of the practice for you?<\/strong> Has being in therapy for so many years affected your work?<\/strong> Why less productive?<\/strong> I have another perhaps slightly morbid question, if you don\u2019t mind.<\/strong> Excellent. Just last night, I reread the infamous <\/strong>eulogy<\/strong><\/a> you gave at Graham Chapman\u2019s funeral. Have you ever wondered what the other Pythons might say at your funeral?<\/strong> So many books you read about Monty Python \u2014 including ones written by members of the group \u2014 suggest that the other guys found you controlling. Is that characterization fair?<\/strong> So \u201ccontrolling\u201d was just the other Pythons\u2019 word for when you expressed opinions?<\/strong> Were you inflexible?<\/strong> I was struck by a paragraph near the end of your memoir where you describe looking out from backstage at the massive crowd at one of the massive Monty Python <\/strong>reunion shows in 2014, and you recalled feeling no excitement in that moment. Does that mean you were ambivalent about the reunion?<\/strong> Would you be happy, then, performing with some version of Monty Python again?<\/strong> Have you seen Terry Jones since he was diagnosed with dementia?<\/strong> You also wrote in your memoir \u2014 just in passing \u2014 that you believe you\u2019re considered pass\u00e9 in England. Why is that the case?<\/strong> Can you see Monty Python\u2019s influence anywhere? The work you did together has obviously lasted, but even though you\u2019ll read things like how Lorne Michaels originally envisioned <\/strong>Saturday Night Live<\/em> as a cross between Monty Python and <\/strong>60 Minutes<\/em>, it doesn\u2019t feel like you can point to very much post-Python comedy that really displays the group\u2019s sensibility. <\/strong> Were you a fan of <\/strong>Saturday Night Live<\/em>?<\/strong> You and Palin did eventually do <\/strong>the <\/strong>Dead Parrot sketch on <\/strong>Saturday Night Live<\/em><\/a>, though. How\u2019d that come about? <\/strong> On the idea of success breeding copycats, I\u2019m curious about whether or not after <\/strong>A Fish Called Wanda<\/em> you had Hollywood opportunities that you never followed up on? Looking back at your filmography, there\u2019s no clear sense that you tried to capitalize on how well that film did for you.<\/strong> Certainly as far as American audiences are concerned, you\u2019re best known for Monty Python, <\/strong>Fawlty Towers<\/em>, and <\/strong>A Fish Called Wanda<\/em>. Is there a correlation between the work you\u2019re known for and the work you\u2019re proudest of?<\/strong> Were you inflexible? I was struck by a paragraph near the end of your memoir where you describe looking out from backstage at the massive crowd at one of the massive Monty Python reunion shows in 2014, and you recalled feeling no excitement in that moment. Does that mean you were ambivalent about the reunion? had to pass for it to be acceptable to make jokes about the dead British?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seven years.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is. Death is certainly present in my life, and there\u2019s humor to be mined from it. Somebody was saying to me last week that you can\u2019t talk about death these days without people thinking you\u2019ve done something absolutely antisocial. But death is part of the deal. Imagine if, before you came to exist on Earth, God said, \u201cYou can choose to stay up here with me, watching reruns and eating ice cream, or you can be born. But if you pick being born, at the end of your life you have to die \u2014 that\u2019s nonnegotiable. So which do you pick?\u201d I think most people would say, \u201cI\u2019ll give living a whirl.\u201d It\u2019s sad, but the whirl includes dying. That\u2019s something I accept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Well, I could easily rattle off a rote answer for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Okay, let me really try and think about my answer. I do think my sense of humor has expanded but that\u2019s to do both with age and with being in therapy. I\u2019ll give you an example of what I mean: In the \u201970s, I went to see a play by a man named Alan Ayckbourn. He\u2019s not very well known in America and I think that\u2019s because his humor is all about rather ineffectual men, and in America when men go wrong they become psychos, whereas in England they become wimps. So Americans don\u2019t respond to his work. Anyway, in addition to comedy, Ayckbourn used serious emotions in his work, and the first time I ever saw that, I was uncomfortable because I would be feeling sad for one of his characters and then suddenly something funny would happen and I found the emotional back-and-forth confusing. I don\u2019t have that problem anymore. I used to think of comedy as its own separate bracket, and the less attractive parts of life were to be kept away from it because they stopped the comedy from being bright. Over time, therapy expanded my comfort level with emotional areas that otherwise would\u2019ve made me uncomfortable \u2014 things like death, for instance. So I\u2019m less hesitant about more material, if that makes sense. But that\u2019s about me specifically. I don\u2019t have an answer for what has changed generally about what the culture finds funny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t know much about contemporary comedy. I don\u2019t watch any. I\u2019m 77. I will almost certainly be dead within 10 years \u2014 maybe I\u2019ll get 15. So to sit down to watch a sitcom seems to be a rather futile way of passing the time. It\u2019s as simple as that. If I have a free evening, I\u2019ll read, because there are so many things I don\u2019t begin to understand and that I\u2019d like to try and get a handle on before I\u2019m dead. I\u2019d rather do that than watch comedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The more interesting thing to me is seeing how different types of people respond to Monty Python. People always say the English have a different sense of humor than Americans, but I think America itself has two senses of humor. There are the folk in the Midwest and in the South who are much more literal-minded in what they laugh about, and then once you go to the coasts you get an audience that\u2019s totally at home with irony and absurdity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To be perfectly honest, the people on the coasts and in the big cities are a lot smarter. Whenever you\u2019re out in the sticks with a slower audience, it\u2019s not that they enjoy the comedy less, because they\u2019re still laughing, it\u2019s that they don\u2019t enjoy it as quickly. It\u2019s always a bit disconcerting when people are laughing three seconds into the next joke because they just got the last one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That would be the film director I worked with two days ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just things he wanted to cover with the camera. It was a complete waste of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s wonderful humor everywhere. I\u2019ll give you an example: I was in Miami, only about four or five months ago, and I had a massage in the hotel spa. Afterward they called me: \u201cMr. Cleese, you left your shoes in the spa. Can we send them up to your room?\u201d I said, \u201cOh, how nice of you.\u201d So, five minutes later, knock knock<\/em>, someone opens the door. \u201cMr. Cleese, here\u2019s your shoes.\u201d \u201cThank you.\u201d \u201cCould I see some form of identification?\u201d \u201cNow, you know I\u2019m Mr. Cleese because you just called me Mr. Cleese, and you know the room that Mr. Cleese was in because you came to my room number. So what are we doing asking for identification?\u201d And the guy said, \u201cWell, I\u2019m sorry, I still need to see some form of identification.\u201d So I went over and I got a copy of my autobiography and I said, \u201cThat\u2019s me there on the cover. And down there it says \u2018John Cleese.\u2019\u201d You know what he said to me? He said, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, that\u2019s not good enough.\u201d You couldn\u2019t write something as wonderful as that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not many. Jesus is said to have never laughed in the Bible, and I think it\u2019s because laughter contains an element of surprise \u2014 something about the human condition that you haven\u2019t spotted yet \u2014 and Jesus was rarely surprised. I still laugh, but many of the things that would have made me laugh 30 years ago \u2014 paradoxes about human nature \u2014 wouldn\u2019t make me laugh anymore because I just believe them to be true. They\u2019re not revelations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I haven\u2019t spoken at Cornell for eight years, so I can\u2019t say I have firsthand experience of how receptive students are to having their thinking challenged. I\u2019d planned to go back to the school sooner but I was hit with a divorce and didn\u2019t have time to return because I was busy doing money-grubbing work to help pay for the settlement. So I\u2019m quite curious to see how things are now. In fact, other comedians have tried to warn me off of speaking at colleges \u2014 they tell me it\u2019s not worth the trouble. Jon Stewart said something like that to me about two years ago. But the thing about political correctness is that it starts as a good idea and then gets taken ad absurdum. And one of the reasons it gets taken ad absurdum is that a lot of the politically correct people have no sense of humor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because they have no sense of proportion, and a sense of humor is actually a sense of proportion. It\u2019s the sense of knowing what\u2019s important. In my stage show I tell jokes that make the audience roar with laughter, jokes about the Australians or the French or the Canadians or the Germans or the Italians. I make all these jokes and everybody laughs \u2014 and we don\u2019t hate those groups of people, do we? Take this joke: \u201cA guy walks into a bar and says to the barman, \u2018You hear the latest Irish joke?\u2019 The barman says, \u2018I should warn you, I\u2019m Irish.\u2019 So the guy says, \u2018All right then, I\u2019ll tell it slowly.\u2019\u201d That\u2019s funny! But if you tell that joke and replace \u201cIrish\u201d with \u201cbarman who isn\u2019t very intelligent\u201d it isn\u2019t funny at all. Why should we sacrifice laughter to the cause of politically correctness if that laughter isn\u2019t rooted in nastiness? This actually reminds me of an idea I had: Every year at the U.N. they should vote one particular nation to be the butt of the joke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s right. They would just have to accept that they\u2019re the butt of the joke for a year. People find it hard to believe this, but unless we\u2019re talking about puns and wordplay, all <\/em>humor is essentially critical. So to eliminate jokes that are at the expense of other people is to eliminate most jokes. If you laugh at someone, it\u2019s because his behavior is inappropriate. That\u2019s why you can\u2019t really be funny about Jesus Christ or St. Francis of Assisi, because everything they do is pretty appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not Jesus, his followers. That\u2019s the key difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not that simple. At what point are we allowed to make a joke? After the Charge of the Light Brigade, say, how many years Of course, seven years. How foolish of me. In A Fish Called Wandmy character says to Kevin Kline\u2019s character that the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War. Kevin\u2019s character then says that the Americans didn\u2019t lose that war \u2014 it was a tie. So clearly, enough time had passed to allow for us to make jokes about the Vietnam War. And similarly, if I can make jokes about Americans or English or Germans but I can\u2019t make jokes about black people, then the question is this: When will we be able to treat black people in the same way that we treat Germans?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Well that\u2019s right, but when will be able to say things are equal? Where\u2019s the line? Here\u2019s another example: Americans love jokes about English dentistry. Now that\u2019s not very nice, is it? Have you ever heard an Englishman saying, \u201cStop persecuting me?\u201d So where\u2019s the line about what\u2019s allowable? It\u2019s very thin, wherever it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course, seven years. How foolish of me. In A Fish Called Wanda my character says to Kevin Kline\u2019s character that the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War. Kevin\u2019s character then says that the Americans didn\u2019t lose that war \u2014 it was a tie. So clearly, enough time had passed to allow for us to make jokes about the Vietnam War. And similarly, if I can make jokes about Americans or English or Germans but I can\u2019t make jokes about black people, then the question is this: When will we be able to treat black people in the same way that we treat Germans?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Well that\u2019s right, but when will be able to say things are equal? Where\u2019s the line? Here\u2019s another example: Americans love jokes about English dentistry. Now that\u2019s not very nice, is it? Have you ever heard an Englishman saying, \u201cStop persecuting me?\u201d So where\u2019s the line about what\u2019s allowable? It\u2019s very thin, wherever it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The white fairy tale starts, \u201cOnce upon a time\u201d; and the black fairy tale starts, \u201cYou motherfuckers ain\u2019t gonna believe this shit.\u201d Is that in any way unpleasant about black people? What they\u2019ve said in the latter joke is much more fun and humorous than white people\u2019s \u201conce upon a time.\u201d The problem is that people are knee-jerk in thinking something is offensive. Sometimes in my show I say, \u201cThere were these two Mexicans\u201d and immediately the whole audience goes, \u201cOooh.\u201d People think something is going to be offensive before it\u2019s even been said. The story I then tell involves an American patrol boat in the Gulf of Mexico. The guy on the boat is cruising along, and suddenly sees two Mexicans going for the border. The guy says, \u201cHey, what are you doing?\u201d And the Mexicans say, \u201cWe\u2019re invading America.\u201d And the guy on the boat says, \u201cWhat, just the two of you?\u201d And the Mexicans say back, \u201cOh no, we\u2019re the last ones. The others are already there.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But is that a nasty joke? Thinkabout the content of it. The Mexicans are actually the heroes! They\u2019ve won! There are millions of Mexicans in America. Are we trying to pretend that isn\u2019t the case? So is that a nasty story to tell? I don\u2019t think it is. And isn\u2019t it condescending to say that certain people can\u2019t take a joke? But when there is<\/em> a nasty quality to the joke, then that\u2019s not good humor. That\u2019s cruel, and that\u2019s something we need to avoid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mm-hmm<\/em>. What I found surprising was that the least successful people supported Trump. You understand the wealthy wanting tax cuts, but why on Earth did the less successful people think Trump was going to do anything he said he was going to do to help them? I\u2019ll give an analogy: I remember going to see professional wrestling when I was 18 \u2014 wonderful entertainment, obviously rigged. The thing that astounded me as I looked around Colston Hall in Bristol is that quite a lot of the audience thought what they were seeing was for real. That\u2019s what\u2019s incredible to me about such a large swath of the American people: They can\u2019t see that Trump is fake. And if they can\u2019t see that when it\u2019s right in front of them, how can you convince them of anything critical about the man? It\u2019s like holding up a red sign to a person and the person says it\u2019s blue. You can\u2019t logically argue them into seeing red. The inability of people unable to intuit what was going on with Trump \u2014 I was impressed by it, not repelled. It was extraordinary to me that people couldn\u2019t see how clueless he is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What also appalls me is the language of him and his cronies \u2014 people talking about sucking on their own cocks and such. I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s universal or distinctly American, but the vulgarity of the language of powerful men: It all comes down to penises and pissing and cocks. They talk like out-of-control 6-year-olds. I was thinking yesterday about a Chinese blessing. Can you guess which one?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Close. That\u2019s the curse. The blessing is to live in un<\/em>interesting times. But I\u2019m glad to be alive now. I wouldn\u2019t swap these times for any other, because even though the whole world is a complete madhouse, it\u2019s never been more interesting to me, even if stupidity has become rampant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oh, I was interested in a lot of the \u201960s and \u201970s but not the counterculture. Where I grew up, in Weston-super-Mare, our life was very proper and middle class. So the counterculture was very much counter to myculture. I never read Jack Kerouac or anyone like that. I just wasn\u2019t terribly interested. I did find, though, that on the West Coast of America there were a lot of people who, like myself, do not like the materialist reductionist view of the world I was more interested in that than I was in Haight-Ashbury, though Haight-Ashbury is somewhere I would\u2019ve liked to visit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I didn\u2019t know at the time that John Lennon was a fan. But I\u2019m very strange about music, and for some reason I don\u2019t really like rock, which is almost heresy. I remember coming back home once when Python were on tour \u2014 I think we\u2019d just been in Newcastle \u2014 and the next morning Eric Idle said, \u201cI went out to a dinner and David Bowie was there!\u201d He was really excited. But if someone had said to me, \u201cWant to come and meet David Bowie?\u201d I would\u2019ve just thought, why? <\/em>I didn\u2019t quite understand the assumption that I had an affinity for the counterculture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yeah, there were a lot of people that thought we were on pot when we were writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No, and the suggestion vaguely irritated me. A prim part of me wanted someone to acknowledge that the humor we were doing in Python was quite clever, and instead it was always \u201coh, you obviously must just smoke pot and go crazy.\u201d I\u2019d think, Well, no, it\u2019s a bit more skillful, actually. It requires more thought than that.<\/em> and I would spend an entire day deliberating over the right word for a sketch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s tremendous overlap of fans, but, you see, there are some people who just don\u2019t get Python and I think that\u2019s a function of education. There\u2019s some subtle stuff that makes Python as funny as it is, and you have to be able to catch it. The thing about Fawlty Towers<\/em> is that almost anyone can understand the comedy of it. It\u2019s just about people getting frightened or scared or trying not to get blamed. A child of 8 can follow everything in it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People get embarrassed when they watch Fawlty Towers<\/em>. I was in a therapy group once with a judge; when he joined the group he had no idea who I was. Most of the other people in England at that time would have some idea but he didn\u2019t. When I told him what I did for a living, he said he\u2019d watch Fawlty Towers<\/em>. When I saw him next he said he\u2019d started to watch it and had become so embarrassed by everybody\u2019s behavior that he had to leave the room. The vicarious embarrassment was too much for him. I thought that was just perfectly funny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t know how to answer that. I think as you go along with therapy, you gain insight into yourself, hopefully, and also into other people, and you begin to see that there are better ways of handling both yourself and of handling other people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Certainly. I had a very friendly argument about a year or two ago with [Terry] Gilliam because he felt that becoming more self-aware made you less creative. I said no, it makes you more creative but less productive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because you become less driven. The neuroses and anxieties that make you driven become reduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why stop now?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes, I have, and I don\u2019t think it would be particularly complimentary. I mean it would be affectionate, but we\u2019re like brothers who squabble and fight and a vast majority of it is pretty good-natured. Gilliam and I pretend to hate each other more than we do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those things usually come from Gilliam and am I right in thinking he\u2019s a film director? Am I right in thinking that film directors are among the greatest control freaks on Earth? So there might be a bit of denial and projection going on. Gilliam is one of the worst judges of psychological matters I\u2019ve ever come across. He\u2019s very intelligent in a lot of areas, but psychologically he just doesn\u2019t get it. If he experiences me as controlling, it probably just meant that I had different ideas from his. And you can ask Terry Jones about controlling, because while we were making Holy Grail<\/em>, he and Gilliam were supposed to be directing it together, but they would sneak into the editing room at night when the other one wasn\u2019t around and change things. That\u2019s <\/em>controlling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The thing about my being controlling is there were times that we would do stuff and I\u2019d say, \u201cI don\u2019t think that\u2019s funny.\u201d Is that controlling? Because if expressing an artistic disagreement to people who are about to do something that you don\u2019t think is good enough is being controlling, then perhaps I am. And we did used to squabble about scripts, but I cannot remember a nasty fight about who should play what part. In all the Python years I can\u2019t remember that kind of argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps to a degree. I was much more rigid in those days about what constituted good comedy. But a lot of younger people are a bit rigid about what they think is good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s been misunderstood, including by Michael Palin. Eric and I were briefly keen to do a tour after those reunion shows and Palin didn\u2019t want to do it. That was okay, you can\u2019t force people to do things they don\u2019t want to do, but when we asked him why he was opting out he said he had other plans. Fine, but then I think he felt guilty about saying no and started suggesting that the reason we didn\u2019t go on tour was that I didn\u2019t enjoy the reunion shows. That wasn\u2019t what I\u2019d said. I\u2019d said I wasn\u2019t excited<\/em> by it. I enjoyed<\/em> it a lot. I make a distinction between being excited and being happy. There\u2019s a moment of excitement in creative things, which is where the addiction to doing them comes from. When Chapman and I suddenly saw the comic possibilities of an idea, the excitement was like a shot of something very special. Happiness is something else. I\u2019m happy when I\u2019m eating a wonderful meal, but I\u2019m not excited by it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019m sure, but maybe this helps: If I didn\u2019t get a buzz out of 20,000 people watching me at the reunion shows, then that says something about my attitude to performing. Does that make sense? Today I can say that Monty Python ended in a very satisfactory way, and the ending taught me something about performing, which is that it doesn\u2019t give me a high like the writing can.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I haven\u2019t seen him for quite a long time. I saw him at a funeral probably 18 months ago. And he \u2026 he\u2019s not getting any better. He has a full-time caregiver, he goes for walks, enjoys his food, he can watch things on the box and read, but he can\u2019t adjust to a conversation. He can be going down one conversational track and if you say something that\u2019s not on that one track he derails. It\u2019s very sad. He\u2019s a sweet guy, and very talented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Deliberate neglect by the press. Once you\u2019ve made a name for yourself, which I did a long time ago, the British press will always try to cut you down. And also, which is very strange, the BBC hasn\u2019t put Python out for years. In America, the younger generations keep rediscovering us and here it\u2019s gone quiet. It\u2019s ludicrous: We\u2019ve done something that is basically recognized all over the world as being special and, to give one example, during the run of the reunion shows, a British paper ran a piece<\/a> asking, \u201cIs Monty Python really funny?\u201d Not for everyone, no; but for an awful lot of people, yes. That ingrained negativity toward us is quite different from the rest of the world, who still see it as important and not just historical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t see our influence. When I look at English comedy, which I don\u2019t do very often, I never really saw any Python in it. I don\u2019t know why there aren\u2019t at least more attempts to copy us. Not that it bothers me \u2014 it puzzles me, because it violates the rule that if you do something successful then people will try to replicate it. When I was in the midst of Python, and even for a while after, I used to watch other comedy very carefully to see who was coming up on the rails. I was interested in seeing if there was good competition coming along, and there never was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I liked it. They asked me to host it, but I used to be much too purist. I never wanted to do a show where you had to rehearse an hour and a half of stuff in a single week. I don\u2019t believe you can do all the material well given that deadline. So I declined offers from them two or three times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Only because we wanted to publicize something, I\u2019m sure. We did the Dead Parrot sketch in some strange corner of the studio where the audience couldn\u2019t really see us properly. We\u2019d asked the show to let us do new material and they said no. I remember Michael and I were sitting at a steakhouse in New York with our wives before the show trying and failing to recall lines from the sketch. I said to him, \u201cDo you realize we could go out onto the pavement and stop people and they could tell us the lines? But we just don\u2019t know it anymore.\u201d Of course, the sketch went down like a lead balloon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of my sadnesses is that I had a real Hollywood moment and didn\u2019t take advantage. I\u2019m just remembering something from that time: I was in the swimming pool at the Four Seasons and they brought to me one of those old mobile phones, one of the huge ones. I took the call and it was Frank Oz, in London, offering me Michael Caine\u2019s part in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. My second marriage was a mess, and I thought, Can I really go off<\/em> and do a movie without resolving whether I was going to stay married or not<\/em>? So I turned the part down. I think if I\u2019d done it, I would\u2019ve gotten lots more Hollywood offers. Around Wanda<\/em> I was hot for a year or so, but having a chaotic private life takes its toll. I also just didn\u2019t have a sufficient commitment to film. I feel dead sitting in a trailer waiting for things to happen. I remember one of my friends, Michael Winner, saying to me back then, \u201ctypical Englishman: you have a big hit and then you go off and sit on the top of a mountain instead of getting on with another movie.\u201d That was true. That\u2019s what I did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Work and notoriety is a funny thing. It has always seemed to me that there are two types of work. One is the work you do because you need money, and there\u2019s another kind of work \u2014 a more enjoyable kind where money is absolutely not the key thing. When I\u2019ve worked for money it\u2019s been fine, but I don\u2019t often feel anything like as involved as when I do things that were not for money. But, you see, after that very expensive I mentioned earlier, I was basically forced to go and earn money. I had to earn $20 million, and you don\u2019t get that sitting around drinking coffee and reading a good book. So I went off and I did all these one-man shows and I enjoyed it, but if I hadn\u2019t needed the money I wouldn\u2019t have done it. Instead I\u2019d have gone off and written something that was more original. But I needed the money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps to a degree. I was much more rigid in those days about what constituted good comedy. But a lot of younger people are a bit rigid about what they think is good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s been misunderstood, including by Michael Palin. Eric and I were briefly keen to do a tour after those reunion shows and Palin didn\u2019t want to do it. That was okay, you can\u2019t force people to do things they don\u2019t want to do, but when we asked him why he was opting out he said he had other plans. Fine, but then I think he felt guilty about saying no and started suggesting that the reason we didn\u2019t go on tour was that I didn\u2019t enjoy the reunion shows. That wasn\u2019t what I\u2019d said. I\u2019d said I wasn\u2019t excited<\/em> by it. I enjoyed<\/em> it a lot. I make a distinction between being excited and being happy. There\u2019s a moment of excitement in creative things, which is where the addiction to doing them comes from. When Chapman and I suddenly saw the comic possibilities of an idea, the excitement was like a shot of something very special. Happiness is something else. I\u2019m happy when I\u2019m eating a wonderful meal, but I\u2019m not excited by it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n