This has been going on for the better part of a week.
“We own everything we ever made in Python and I never dreamed that at this age the income streams would tail off so disastrously. But I guess if you put a Gilliam child in as your manager you should not be so surprised. One Gilliam is bad enough. Two can take out any company.”
In his tweets he also takes shots at John Cleese, and my sense is that they are well deserved (including the fact that it was Cleese who fired the prior manager and put Holly Gilliam in charge).
He’s still entertaining, though, and positive about many things, and if you have an X account it’s worth following him (and his daughter’.
I suspect the Python collapse has more to do,with a changing society that no longer appreciates their humor.
And their best movie, “Life of Brian”, has been pretty much shunned because of political incorrectness. “I want to be Loretta” does not play well any more.
Also, so much of Python’s humor was based on lampooning British lifestyles and manners of the 70’s and 80’s. That world no longer exists.
That’s not a reasonable assumption for any revenue stream, particularly in entertainment. I doubt that the actors in The Cosby Show expected that their residuals would immediately disappear.
I’d be curious to see the average age of a Spamalot audience. I suspect it might be like classic rock band audiences - the audience they had when young is still mostly there, but now they have a lot of money. So you pay $500 for an Eagles ticket, and it looks like the money teain will go on forever. But if you look at the audience, it’s full of gray hair. What can’t last, won’t.
As boomers die off, a lot of boomer music and comedy will die with them. Some of it will be picked up by younger generations, but comedy rooted in a particular date and time is unlikely to survive. Vaudeville tried to transfer to movies and TV, and a few stars made it for a while, but it died out eventually from irrelevance.
I can’t muster much sympathy for him if he failed to plan for himself financially. I do not have to work for a living (any more), and I’m sure I’ve earned a whole lot less than he has in my lifetime.
This sounds like I’m bashing him, but I like Idle (and Python). It’s just that his remarks seem to indicate that he bears no responsibility for whatever his current situation is.
Many Python fans of a certain age probably get their fix from Michael Palin’s and John Cleese’s newer work as well, rather than somehow continuing to re-pay for movies and TV made decades ago.
I think part of his problem is that while John Cleese has had a pretty robust post-Python career, and Michael Palin has basically branched out into being a sort of TV presenter/travel show host, it looks like Idle went into less lucrative work like cartoon voice work and clever songwriting.
I haven’t researched this, but I seem to recall Cleese has worked as hard as he has at least in part to finance his several divorces. Robust career, yes. But I’m not sure how much he’s enjoyed it. And I read not long ago that Idle is actually the wealthiest of the Pythons because of his leading the efforts on Spamalot (the Broadway show, I don’t know about the upcoming film), the live shows they put together ten years ago and music royalties for songs he’s written.
Up-thread someone mentioned Life of Brian’s reputation suffering from political correctness. I don’t really see it. The film certainly had its detractors when it came out, but those attacks were largely from offended religious people (who often hadn’t seen it). Again, I’ve done no research, but I think it stands as a wonderful critique of organized religion. I talk about the Pythons and their films with a lot of people, and I’ve never heard a critique from the standpoint of political correctness. Maybe you wouldn’t show it to a young kid because there’s full frontal nudity. But apart from that, I even know a public school language teacher who shows the “Latin lesson” scene between Cleese and Chapman in her classes.
I’m reminded of how we often hear movies like Blazing Saddles “couldn’t get made today”. I’m pretty dismissive of such assertions. It used the N word a lot, yes - mostly to highlight the idiotic racists using the word who were portrayed as bumbling, brainless twits. Yet Django Unchained got made not long ago. Very different film, of course. Could someone make a similarly irreverent film today? I think so, yes. Maybe not of the same quality.
The allusion apparently is to a number of specific gags:
The recurring one about “but we recognize his (OR HER) right to WANT (OR not want) to have a baby” with Idle’s trans character and Cleese’s reaction to it. (Allegedly transphobic, I suppose. )
“Sure, but BESIDES the roads, aqueducts, post office, law courts, sanitation, etc., what have the Romans done for us?” — (allegedly an apology for colonialism?)
The ridiculing of “Liberation Movements” in general.
As mentioned, this seems to be a reprise of the whole “you could not make Blazing Saddles again” fallacy — as if those signs of their time were the point of the work. But really, I have heard little if anything like that about Life of Brian. I suppose in 5 years when it turns 50 we may hear more of that.