Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one of my dad's favorite movies, so I had seen it a few times before watching it for this class. Like many others, I did not understand the codes that went into what it took to be an Arthurian knight: the true concept of chivalry was foreign to me, and I lacked knowledge about feudalism and how it worked. One thing this movie did well was criticize chivalry through the use of humor. There are countless examples of this, like the Castle Anthrax scene. Another scene that stood out to me is the scene with the Black Knight. One of the "requirements" of chivalry is that the most chivalric knight will suffer the most. This scene is proof of the medieval qualification for perfect chivalry, because even though he was mortally injured, the Black Knight continued to fight, furthering his suffering though he knew he stood no chance. This is humorous to the audience because we think it's a crazy and far-fetched; however, the most chivalric knight stood their ground, even when they were suffering. Monty Python's criticism of chivalry reminded me a lot about The Buried Giant. Both pieces show the dangers or poke fun at chivalry by showing the extremes. Whereas one deals with the concept of memory and trauma, the other uses comedy. Similarly, a reason both the book and this film could have been set in medieval times, though they did not come about until years later, is because people are familiar with the basis of the legends of King Arthur (Lancelot, Guinevere, the quest for the Holy Grail, the round table, etc...). These works both attempt to explain more about the period by criticizing the code of that time.
I agree, watching Monty Python with knowledge of chivalric code is interesting! I appreciate your language of “qualification for perfect chivalry” concerning the scene with the Black Knight because it sheds light on how unattainable and ridiculous all of the measures are. How feasible is/was it to actually suffer the most (whatever that might mean)? Your post made me think about the possible parallels between the medieval chivalric code and our modern world. The criticizing that comes from both the film and The Buried Giant allows us to reflect on the harmful ways in which we continue to view trauma and suffering.
One thing that I think is particularly interesting about your post is your comparison of the movie with The Buried Giant. As you stated, both of these pieces of media have chosen a medieval setting for their story. However, I also think that they do this to remove any detailed knowledge the public might have about a specific time period, placing their stories in a setting where their general audience goes "eh, it's medieval" without scrutinizing any of the finer historical details. It's a clean slate for critiquing any sort of theme, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail chooses the King Arthur mythos.
Agreed with Eliza and Catherine here that your comparison of the work of both Monty Python and Ishiguro in critiquing the "suffer the most" aspect of chivalry is really fruitful, and I'd be really interested to hear more about it. As you point out, one does this work through thinking about memory and trauma and the other through satirical comedy: what effect do you think these generic differences have on the conversation about suffering? What does a comedic look at suffering offer us that the more brutalist reflection on trauma doesn't? Or how might they work fruitfully together?