Story Project: 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'

The consequences of great man-made death and destruction throughout the 20th century began a period of new ideas and ways of thinking about the world, particularly in the most developed and industrial regions. The influence that various world wars had on the population of writers and artists of the time was dramatic, turning their perhaps initially playful thoughts of absurdity and meaninglessness into genuine expressions of a pessimistic reality. The traditionally upheld value of individualistically achieved moral virtue in heroes and central characters collapsed under the perversely unchallengeable ability of state power to dominate all conflicts among its ruled masses. This new, gloomy situation caused a re-evaluation of traditions, including conventionally accepted forms of art, perhaps more rapidly the branch of writing and storytelling, due to its inherently quick speed of production. Even the once moral-filled and ideal world of kingdoms, castles, lords, peasants, knights, enchanters and distressed maidens, often associated with very formal, traditional stories reflect these altered attitudes. The tale of the grail knights from King Arthur’s court in Camelot is seen as one of the most popular and retold of these sorts of classic stories.

The 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which presents a comedic take on the Holy Grail legend, manages to contain elements of the psychologically-seated hero's journey and archetypes; loosely retaining an Aristotelian sense of story but, ultimately, not have a strong relation to either traditional narrative or storytelling due to the plot’s uniquely modern characteristics.

​

Despite the film’s occasional foray into absurdity and meaningless tedium, most of the events in the film project the template of the hero’s journey. The hero’s journey is a story structure that is molded from the natural stages of human existence; from birth to death. The journey that the heroes in the film go on is similar to several of the thirteen stages of the traditional hero’s journey.

The first stage is described as an introduction to the heroes’ ordinary world. This is shown by King Arthur’s travel to the first castle and surrounding peasant villages. In this first stage, King Arthur’s world is introduced as filled with constant quarrelling and an inability to have his status as the king of the Britons properly recognized. Furthermore, the second stage typically introduces the call to adventure. In the film, a call to adventure is given by God, as he appears in the clouds, and speaks to the gathered Knights of Camelot, sending them on a quest to find the Holy Grail. Throughout the film, the heroes meet with various mentors and guides that help them on their quest, such as God, The Old Man from Scene 24 and Tim the Enchanter. This is similar to the fourth stage of the hero’s journey in which the hero will usually meet with the mentor; often only one. The rest of the film can be seen as a combination of the sixth (tests, allies and enemies), seventh (approach to the inmost cave) and eighth (the ordeal) stages of the hero’s journey because all of the events leading up to the end of the film offer a variety of unique challenges that do no necessarily advance the position of the heroes toward achieving a final resolution.

​

Like the hero’s journey, the appearance of archetypical story figures also seem to have basis in a collective unconscious among human culture. Archetypes are universal characters or personalities that frequently appear in stories and serve a particular function to the story.

The most key archetype in a story is the hero, or central protagonist whose journey the reader follows. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the hero comes in the form of a band of knights, the Knights of Camelot.

The mentor figure, or guide, is another archetypal figure. A variety of mentors guide the heroes in the film, including Tim the Enchanter, God, and the Old Man from Scene 24; all of them offering wisdom and guidance to aid in the quest’s completion. In addition, the herald is another archetype which serves the heroes by issuing challenges and announcing significant changes. In the film, although God serves as the mentor, he may also be considered a herald because he issues the primary challenge to the Knights of Camelot - to find the Holy Grail.

One of the malevolent archetypes is the shapeshifter, who tends to mislead the hero through the changing of physical form and allegiance. This archetype can be seen in the character of the Knights Who Say Nee after King Arthur has given them the first shrubbery only to discover that they have changed their name and the form of their agreement; only allowing the Knights of Camelot to pass through the forest if they satisfy two more challenges.

But the darkest, most fearful of the archetypes is the shadow, which is often fully determined to destroy the hero and stop him from reaching the finale of his quest. King Arthur runs into a shadow-like figure in the form of the Black Knight who guards a foot-bridge very early on in the story. The Black Knight is so adamant about stopping King Arthur that he continues to taunt and threaten him even after he has been defeated and ridiculously dismembered during their brief skirmish.

And finally, the trickster is an archetype that will attempt to disrupt the established status quo as well as laugh and ridicule the hero on his quest, perhaps forcing a change. This archetype is very effectively illustrated by the French guards, which the Knights of Camelot encounter twice in their journey, and serve to extensively mock and disregard the hero’s objectives as they search for the cup of Christ.

​

This tale of the Knights of Camelot is perhaps the last place to go looking for similarities with Aristotle’s ideal treatment of story but the film does follow some of the basic rules that the old Greek philosopher laid down in his famous work Poetics. According to Aristotle, the plot of Monty Python and the Holy Grail is considered a simple plot because the story is driven by a probable and necessary sequence of events and the main characters rarely encounter any major reversals of fortune or dramatic revelations. Since the film follows a group of characters individually, intercutting between their separate journeys, time limitations prevent any more in-depth exploration into the change and development of any particular character or situation.

Another attribute which Artistotle finds in a well-constructed story is the introduction of a central dramatic question. In this film’s case, the central dramatic question occurs when God issues his challenge to the Knights of Camelot. The viewer is faced with the question of whether or not the band of knights will succeed in achieving the story’s prime mission.

Another aspect of a good story, according to Aristotle, is the way in which the film mimes reality. For instance, when presenting dialogue or conversation in a story, it is important to balance the logic and necessity of statements with an economy that will help move the story forward. The film slightly breaks this rule by having some of the characters occasionally speak in logical but mundane arguments that do not move the story forward, creating a meaningless tedium. This is witnessed in King Arthur’s encounter with the castle guards that tend the first castle on his journey; Sir Robin’s run-in with the Three-Headed Knight; when the King of the Swamp instructs his guards to watch his son, Prince Herbert; and lastly, when the Knights of Camelot meet with Tim the Enchanter. However, this approach to the dialogue works for the comedic intent of the film.

​

With respect to the very broad form of traditional storytelling, Monty Python and the Holy Grail deviates from the conventions. For instance, as many stories have a beginning, middle and end, the film lacks a clear set-up or introduction to characters and does not contain any sort of satisfying finale or conclusion in which it is determined whether the main characters have succeeded or failed in their primary pursuit. Despite this major deviation in the overall shape of the story, a syntagmatic analysis according to the catalogued functions provided by Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale, shows that there are still some similarities between the function of events in the film and the function of events in the plethora of stories that have been examined by Propp.

These following story functions are seen in the film: the initial situation, or when the hero is introduced, occurs in the film when King Arthur encounters the first castle and addresses his identity and status; trickery, or when the villain tries to deceive the victim, is illustrated when the Knights of Camelot attempt to answer the Bridge-Keeper’s (or the Old Man from Scene 24’s) questions; receipt of agent, or when the hero acquires use of a magical agent, is clearly demonstrated when the Knights of Camelot use the Holy Hand Grenade to defeat a beast at the mouth of a cave; spatial change, or when the hero is lead to an object of search, is shown when God appears before King Arthur and the Knights of Camelot and presents his mission for them; and lastly, the struggle, or when the hero and villain join in direct combat, this occurs very early on when King Arthur encounters the Black Knight, who defends the foot-bridge.

Although a syntagmatic analysis of the story reveals connections between these story functions and the film’s events, a paradigmatic analysis that focuses on the polarities between the hero and a supposed villain in the story reveals that the film does not have strong opposing forces, typically a defining characteristic of traditional narratives. This is true for the film because the heroes, the Knights of Camelot, are not consistently challenged by any particular villain or foe throughout the story. For the most part, the heroes' challenges usually revolve around a number of stubborn characters that don’t seem to have any genuinely malicious intent with the exception of a few characters, such as the Black Knight at the near start of the film and the farm animal-launching French castle guards.

​

The most significant and unusual aspect of Monty Python and the Holy Grail is its classification as both a miniplot and an antiplot, both of which have their origins in more modern revolutions of story structure. As Robert McKee describes, a miniplot involves an ending that is usually undecided and inconclusive, leaving things up in the air. This can be seen at the finale of the film when the rampaging army of Britons are stopped by an arriving police car and truck at which point King Arthur and Sir Bedevere are suddenly arrested. Another characteristic of miniplot in the film are the use of multiple protagonists. In the film, the viewer follows the journeys of about four different Knights of Camelot on separate adventures.

Moreover, the film could be said to incorporate the unusual nature of antiplots, which involves emphasis on coincidental or non-causal connections, an episodic structure of time and inconsistent realities. The episodic structure is clearly evident as we are introduced to heroes in small vignettes and follow their individual journeys in a similar manner. Some examples of inconsistent realities within the film are the first castle’s guards' argument about using coconuts to imitate the sound of a horse; the appearance of a famous film historian and his murder by King Arthur; and most perplexingly, the arrival of modern-day law enforcement which halts the charge of the English army against the final castle where the Holy Grail supposedly rests.

​

Although Monty Python and the Holy Grail occasionally departs from tried-and-true conventions of very traditional storytelling and narrative, it still exhibits ties to other very popularly used story structures, such as the hero’s journey and those established in Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale, studies by Levi-Strauss, and Aristotle’s Poetics.