Diaries 1969-1979_ The Python Years - Michael Palin [171]
The hearing began with the entry of the judge behind a clerk of the court, who was not the old and wrinkled be-robed gent I had expected, but a young, casually-dressed, Brooklyn-accented, probably Jewish, 20-25-year-old girl. She looked like the archetypal Python fan, and it’s some indication of how surprisingly and pleasantly informal it all was, that I very nearly corpsed when she stood and made some odd opening ritual about ‘Hear ye … Hear ye … Yeah verily …’ and other strange nonsense. I was reminded perversely of The Exorcist, in which another perfectly ordinary all-American girl is made to say strange things and speak with strange voices.
The judge, Morris Lasker, was not robed either. I wondered whether or not he had seen the Python show which went out in New York on PBS last night, which contained a sketch about a judges’ beauty contest!
Nancy testified first – speaking softly and looking composed, but endearingly vulnerable. The judge was correspondingly gentle with her. He was a honey-voiced, sensible, straightforward sort of fellow, anxious it seemed to avoid long legal discussions. As he said, he had read and studied the legal side of the case – today he wanted to hear witnesses. After Nancy, there was a short break for no apparent reason, then I gave testimony.
It was quite comfortable in the witness box – there was a chair, which I hadn’t expected, and I was on the same level as the judge, which helped to put me at ease. As with Nancy, he was kindly throughout my evidence and cross-examination, repeatedly overruling ABC lawyer Clarence Fried’s objections. I was not grilled particularly hard by Mr Fried. He had a face like an old, wrinkled prune, and kept pursing his lips in a sort of twitch. He wasn’t anywhere near as aggressive or sardonic or incredulous as I had anticipated from the cross-questioning rehearsal last night.
The most difficult bit was having to describe sketches to the court which had been cut and make them sound funny.
One of the ABC-mutilated sketches which I had to describe to the court actually involved a fictional courtroom, in which an army deserter is being tried before a judge who is constantly interrupting with highly detailed queries. At one point the judge is particularly persistent about a pair of’special’ gaiters worn by the deserter.
What made the gaiters ‘special’ asks the judge?
‘They were given him as a token of thanks by the regiment,’ replies the prosecutor.
The judge asks why.
‘Because, m’lud, he made them happy. In little ways.’
‘In which little ways did he make them happy?’ persists the judge.
At this point a bizarre situation became truly surreal as the prosecutor in the real court interrupted me and addressed the judge, in the real court. The following exchange is from the official transcripts:
‘Mr Fried:Your honor, this is very amusing and interesting, but I think it is off the track.
‘The Court [Judge Lasker]: Mr Palin is trying to tell me what the original was like so he can tell me what the effect of the excision will be. Overruled. Go ahead. I am not sitting here just because I am amused, although I am amused.’
Terry Gilliam testified after me. From where I was he sounded very straight, honest and direct. A real all-American boy.
Then, despite attempts from ABC’s lawyer to put it off, the really damning evidence was produced. A colour TV was wheeled in and the judge, and as many as could squeeze in around him, took their places in the jury box to watch two tapes. The first was Show 3 of the fourth series of Monty Python – as it was shown on the BBC. A good show, with the ‘Court Martial’, ‘Gorn’ and ‘RAF Banter’ sketches in it. It went down well. The court recorder chuckled a great deal, as did the judge and the people operating the TV recorder. Definitely a success. Then was shown the ABC version of the same show.