"Burn the Witch" is a famous sketch from the British comedy group Monty Python. The sketch features a group of villagers who come together in a medieval town to hunt down witches. The villagers, led by a pompous character called Sir Bedevere, accuse various women of being witches based on absurd reasons. They include having a wart, being lighter than a duck, or even weighing the same as a duck. The sketch humorously highlights the irrationality and superstitions prevalent in those times. The villagers approach each accusation with seriousness and conviction, feeding into the atmosphere of hysteria.
The villagers approach each accusation with seriousness and conviction, feeding into the atmosphere of hysteria. They are determined to root out witches, even if it means engaging in illogical practices like weighing women against ducks. The absurdity of the accusations and the villagers' reaction adds a satirical layer to the sketch.
We've Found a Witch!
There is a scene in the old movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail that reminds me of a number of arguments I’ve witnessed online in recent months and years. In this scene, a group of angry peasants drag a woman before the knight Bedevere claiming that she is a witch and demanding that she be burned. They know she is a witch, they say, because she looks like a witch, but she only looks like a witch because they dressed her up to look like one.
Bedevere tells the mob that there are ways to discover whether she is a witch or not. Essentially, it boils down to this. We burn witches, and the reason witches burn is because they are made of wood. If she is made of wood, she is a witch. Because wood floats, we can tell whether something is made of wood by determining whether or not it floats. Ducks also float in water, so if the woman weighs the same as a duck, she must be made of wood and is, therefore, a witch. Despite the complete lack of anything resembling logic or real evidence (which is part of the joke), the mob remains insistent that the woman be burned. The entire scene is obviously intended as a not so subtle criticism of the medieval idea of the trial by ordeal.
If the film had not been made in 1975, I would be convinced that the filmmakers were also deliberately parodying the way the Twitter mob functions in today’s world. Almost every day, the Twitter mob drags someone forward screaming, “We have found a monster! Burn her!” “How do you know she is a monster?” someone responds. “She looks like one!” Ultimately, the accused is burned by the mob because the accused weighed the same as a duck, and the person who questioned the mob is probably next.
Sadly, this level of irrationality is sometimes found in Christian discussions too. It takes a number of forms, but the one I have noticed occurring more and more frequently in recent years is a guilt by association accusation in which the “association” is grounded on insignificant correspondences. Something like this happened to me several years ago when an author said I was a theonomist. What were the grounds for this claim? Well, I have published a number of books with P&R Publishing Company. P&R Publishing Company has also published books written by theonomists. Therefore, I must be a theonomist. In other words, I weigh the same as a duck.
There are Christians online who think they are helping others discern false teachings, but because they have not taken the time to understand either the Scriptures or the false teachings they want to fight, all they end up doing is firing blindly into the flock, wounding and killing sheep while the wolves over at the edge of the field wonder what all the ruckus is about. All they can hear is someone yelling, "He turned me into a newt!"
The fact that this is going on in the Christian world makes me hope that no one ever discovers that the atheist Richard Dawkins believes that 2+2=4. I believe that 2+2=4. If we compare my weight to that of a duck, someone is almost certain to conclude that I'm an atheist too.
Years ago, Nicholas Carr wrote an article entitled "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" He expanded on this theme in his book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. Based on what I see becoming more and more common, he was essentially correct. The levels of irrationality and dishonesty in online discourse is astounding. If we continue allowing Twitter to teach us how to think and communicate, we better build some scales and buy some ducks.
As the sketch progresses, it becomes clear that the villagers are not interested in any rational evidence. Instead, they are driven by their preconceived notions and a desire to find someone to blame for their problems. The sketch brilliantly exposes the dangers of groupthink and the consequences of blindly following the mob mentality. The phrase "Burn the Witch" is repeated throughout the sketch, representing the collective desire of the villagers to condemn those they accuse. The repeated phrase underscores the intensity and severity of their intent. However, in the context of the sketch, it is used in a comedic manner to highlight the absurdity of their actions. "Burn the Witch" is a prime example of Monty Python's unique brand of humor that uses satire and absurdity to critique societal norms and beliefs. Through their sketches and performances, Monty Python questioned authority, poked fun at human foibles, and challenged societal taboos. Their wit and innovative humor have ensured their enduring popularity and influence in the world of comedy..
Reviews for "Monty Python's "Burn the Witch": A Satirical Take on Fear and Mass Hysteria"
1. John - 2 stars - I had high expectations for "Burn the witchh montt pythoon" as a fan of Monty Python, but I was thoroughly disappointed. The humor felt forced and repetitive, relying too heavily on crude jokes and shock value. The plot was convoluted and difficult to follow, and the characters lacked depth and development. Overall, I found the film to be a letdown and not up to the standard of Monty Python's previous works.
2. Sarah - 1 star - "Burn the witchh montt pythoon" was an absolute disaster. The attempts at humor were cringe-worthy and fell flat, with jokes that seemed outdated and out of touch. The film lacked a cohesive storyline, jumping from one random scene to another without any clear direction. The acting was subpar, and the characters were unlikable and unrelatable. I was extremely disappointed with this film and would not recommend it to anyone.
3. Mike - 2 stars - "Burn the witchh montt pythoon" tried too hard to be controversial and edgy, and it ended up being a mess. The overuse of shock value humor and excessive vulgarity overshadowed any potential comedic moments. The film felt disjointed and lacked a coherent plot. The performances were lackluster, and I struggled to connect with any of the characters. Overall, I found this film to be a disappointing and tasteless attempt at comedy.
4. Emily - 3 stars - While I appreciated some aspects of "Burn the witchh montt pythoon", such as the visually stunning cinematography and unique set designs, the humor missed the mark for me. The jokes often felt forced and fell flat, relying heavily on crude and juvenile humor. The film lacked the clever wit and sharp satire that Monty Python is known for. Although it had its moments, overall, I found the film to be disappointing and not up to the standard I expected from Monty Python.