You guys are looking at this all wrong. First of it is “Certainly not with her hands.” ‘Not with her hands’ isn’t as funny and its misleading. You guys are reading way too much into this. It’s a very simple joke.
I can only get it if it has the setup of someone in the audience asking it in apparent sincerity, as described in the article. If it’s just a bit, it falls flat. The added punch of having to respond to such a ridiculous question makes it work, to me.
His feud is with Gilliam. Like he said in the article they play it up for audiences but it is there. Gilliam is controlling. Cleese comes off as more opinionated than controlling.
At one point when he spoke he fired off a bunch of ethnic humor jokes. Yeah it seemed jarring now. I think that was his point. Humor shouldn’t be safe. Humor shouldn’t worry about hurting people’s feelings. Humor towards a group of people is ok as long as it’s not coming from actual hate. People should be able to laugh at each other. He doesn’t like political correctness and throws it right in your face. He seems to collect these jokes and my only problem with it is most were old and not original.
No. It’s not just this board. Python had a run on PBS in the US, and in Canada in the 1970s that introduced people here to the absolute absurdness of British humour.
The proper British accents and dress juxtaposed with the silliness was a masterpiece to behold.
I just watched season (series) one last night on DVD and these guys are about as funny as anyone could possibly get.
Thing is, when we have a president who won based on the Build a Wall promise, with ads showing swarms of swarthy men scurrying over the border into our country (actually the Morocco/Melilla border, but that was a simple error on their part no doubt), telling a joke about Mexicans invading the US has got some serious resonance. His reflection on the joke was this:
That reads as either completely disingenuous or completely stupid to me. He might defend the joke on other grounds–he could make at least a debatable argument that humor needn’t recognize politics at all–but to say it makes them Mexicans the victorious heroes is ridiculous.
People are overthinking this. Cleese didn’t write this as a stand-alone joke. He was at a public appearance, taking questions from audience members, and somebody asked him if he thought Queen Elizabeth killed Princess Diana. Cleese responded “Not with her own hands.”
So it was an example of quick wit not planned out humor.
He was justifiably challenged on that issue by the interviewer. The interviewer pointed out that there’s a power issue in ethnic humor. He noted there’s a difference between when a member of the strong group makes a joke at the expense of the weak group and when a member of the weak group makes a joke at the expense of the strong group. Cleese basically avoided the questions until the interviewer gave up and moved on to the next topic.
Yes. It isn’t intended as a greatest joke, just an example of absurdity which came to Cleese at that moment. And absurdity is the hallmark of Monty Python.
The joke explained:
Two famous humourists Eric Idle and John Cleese were doing a show in Florida. They talked to the audience. We would expect a range of questions about Python, the films, their personal lives, future plans etc etc. Even British politics.
What they (and we) would not expect was a question as a complete nonsequiter - utterly unrelated to humour or them. The question was beautifully absurd. There is humour right there and it would still have been funny had they had merely smiled and winked.
Cleese is brilliant. He took it up another level.
“Certainly, not with her own hands” is how it was delivered = Yes, the Queen killed Diana, but not using her own hands implying it was from a distance.
And it would have taken a moment or two to sink in. Wicked.
Like I said, when he was talking about it when I was in the audience it felt very jarring. I think his point was we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously. In his mind he isn’t a member of a strong group, he is a group of one. The motivation for the joke is important. From his point of view he isn’t saying it out of hate. He picked a joke for about 10 different groups including the English. He doesn’t think that taking a piss out of someone is a bad thing and no one needs to be protected from humor or offense. The jokes got some groans and most were ones I’d heard when I was 12 which I think hurt his point. Give me a well crafted joke and the point would hit home better.
Although I suppose he is probably the most conservative of the Pythons he is certainly still liberal and no fan of Trumps.
Again, I think you’re taking it a step too far: he isn’t saying “yes, but not with her hands.” Instead, he’s effectively saying “well, if she did, it wasn’t with her hands.” You know, as if (a) that’s what the questioner may well have had in mind, and as if (b) that’s the part that should be crisply addressed before we discuss anything else.
In fact, he’s so intent on dealing with that element first that he never actually gets around to answering that question with a “yes” like you’d said – or, for that matter, with a “no”. It’s as if he doesn’t care whether she was responsible for murder or not; just as long as we all agree she didn’t use her bare hands, that’s the important thing here.
Yeah a pretty basic poke at what makes British royalty “proper.” Murder or not murder? That’s not improper or proper of any significance, done all the time, but using ones hands? Certainly not. The same concept was the riff of “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” Of course a Kingsman kills, on command and without question. But a Kingsman is above all else always a gentleman. Manners.