In political science and economics, the principal–agent problem or agency dilemma treats the difficulties that arise under conditions of incomplete and asymmetric information when a principal hires an agent, such as the problem of potential moral hazard and conflict of interest, because the principal is hiring the agent to pursue the principal's interests.

Various mechanisms may be used to try to align the interests of the agent in solidarity with those of the principal, such as piece rates/commissions, profit sharing, efficiency wages, performance measurement (including financial statements), the agent posting a bond, or fear of firing.

The principal–agent problem is found in most employer/employee relationships. Political science has noted the problems inherent in the delegation of legislative authority to bureaucratic agencies.

As another example, the implementation of legislation (such as laws and executive directives) is open to bureaucratic interpretation, which creates opportunities and incentives for the bureaucrat-as-agent to deviate from the intentions or preferences of the legislators. Variance in the intensity of legislative oversight also serves to increase principal–agent problems in implementing legislative preferences.

Basic idea of Agency Theory (P: Principal, A: Agent)

Overview[link]

In political science and economics, the problem of motivating a party to act on behalf of another is known as ‘the principal–agent problem’. The terms 'principal' and 'agent' originate in law; see Law of agency. The principal–agent problem arises when a principal compensates an agent for performing certain acts that are useful to the principal and costly to the agent, and where there are elements of the performance that are costly to observe. This is the case to some extent for all contracts that are written in a world of information asymmetry, uncertainty and risk.

Here, principals do not know enough about whether (or to what extent) a contract has been satisfied. The solution to this information problem — closely related to the moral hazard problem — is to ensure the provision of appropriate incentives so agents act in the way principals wish.

In terms of game theory, it involves changing the rules of the game so that the self-interested rational choices of the agent coincide with what the principal desires. Even in the limited arena of employment contracts, the difficulty of doing this in practice is reflected in a multitude of compensation mechanisms and supervisory schemes, as well as in critique of such mechanisms as e.g., Deming (1986) expresses in his Seven Deadly Diseases of management.

Employment contract[link]

In the context of the employment contract, individual contracts form a major method of restructuring incentives, by connecting as closely as is optimal the information available about employee performance, and the compensation for that performance. Because of differences in the quantity and quality of information available about the performance of individual employees, the ability of employees to bear risk, and the ability of employees to manipulate evaluation methods, the structural details of individual contracts vary widely, including such mechanisms as “piece rates, [share] options, discretionary bonuses, promotions, profit sharing, efficiency wages, deferred compensation, and so on.”^[1] Typically, these mechanisms are used in the context of different types of employment: salespeople often receive some or all of their remuneration as commission, production workers are usually paid an hourly wage, while office workers are typically paid monthly or semimonthly (and if paid overtime, typically at a higher rate than the hourly rate implied by the salary). The way in which these mechanisms are used is different in the two parts of the economy which Doeringer and Piore called the “primary” and “secondary” sectors (see also dual labour market).

The secondary sector is characterised by short-term employment relationships, little or no prospect of internal promotion, and the determination of wages primarily by market forces. In terms of occupations, it consists primarily of low or unskilled jobs, whether they are blue-collar (manual-labour), white-collar (e.g., filing clerks), or service jobs (e.g., waiters). These jobs are linked by the fact that they are characterized by “low skill levels, low earnings, easy entry, job impermanence, and low returns to education or experience.” In a number of service jobs, such as food service, golf caddying, and valet parking jobs, workers in some countries are paid mostly or entirely with tips.

The use of tipping is a strategy on the part of the owners or managers to align the interests of the service workers with those of the owners or managers; the service workers have an incentive to provide good customer service (thus benefiting the company's business), because this makes it more likely that they will get a good tip. As a solution to the principal–agent problem, though, tipping is not perfect. In the hopes of getting a larger tip, a server, for example, may be inclined to give a customer an extra large glass of wine or a second scoop of ice cream. While these larger servings make the customer happy and increase the likelihood of the server getting a good tip, they cut into the profit margin of the restaurant. In addition, a server may dote on generous tippers while ignoring other customers, and in rare cases harangue bad tippers.

Non-financial compensation[link]

Part of this variation in incentive structures and supervisory mechanisms may be attributable to variation in the level of intrinsic psychological satisfaction to be had from different types of work. Sociologists and psychologists frequently argue that individuals take a certain degree of pride in their work, and that introducing performance-related pay can destroy this “psycho-social compensation”, because the exchange relation between employer and employee becomes much more narrowly economic, destroying most or all of the potential for social exchange. Evidence for this is inconclusive – Deci (1971), and Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973) find support for this argument; Staw (1989) suggests other interpretations of the findings.

Team production[link]

On a related note, Drago and Garvey (1997) use Australian survey data to show that when agents are placed on individual pay-for-performance schemes, they are less likely to help their coworkers. This negative effect is particularly important in those jobs that involve strong elements of ‘team production’ (Alchian and Demsetz 1972), where output reflects the contribution of many individuals, and individual contributions cannot be easily identified, and compensation is therefore based largely on the output of the team. In other words, pay-for-performance increases the incentives to free-ride, as there are large positive externalities to the efforts of an individual team member, and low returns to the individual (Holmstrom 1982, McLaughlin 1994).

The negative incentive effects implied are confirmed by some empirical studies, (e.g., Newhouse, 1973) for shared medical practices; costs rise and doctors work fewer hours as more revenue is shared. Leibowitz and Tollison (1980) find that larger law partnerships typically result in worse cost containment. As a counter, peer pressure can potentially solve the problem (Kandel and Lazear 1992), but this depends on peer monitoring being relatively costless to the individuals doing the monitoring/censuring in any particular instance (unless one brings in social considerations of norms and group identity and so on). Studies suggest that profit-sharing, for example, typically raises productivity by 3-5% (Jones and Kato 1995, Knez and Simester 2001), although there are some selection issues (Prendergast).

Empirical evidence[link]

There is however considerable empirical evidence of a positive effect of compensation on performance (although the studies usually involve “simple” jobs where aggregate measures of performance are available, which is where piece rates should be most effective). In one study, Lazear (1996) saw productivity rising by 44% (and wages by 10%) in a change from salary to piece rates, with a half of the productivity gain due to worker selection effects. Research shows that pay for performance increases performance when the task at hand is more repetitive, and reduces performance when the task at hand requires more creative thinking.^[2]

• Paarsch and Shearer (1996) also find evidence supportive of incentive and productivity effects from piece rates, as do Banker, Lee, and Potter (1996), although the latter do not distinguish between incentive and worker selection effects.

• Fernie and Metcalf (1996) find that top British jockeys perform significantly better when offered percentage of prize money for winning races compared to being on fixed retainers.

• McMillan, Whalley and Zhu (1989) and Groves et al. (1994) look at Chinese agricultural and industrial data respectively and find significant incentive effects.

• Kahn and Sherer (1990) find that better evaluations of white-collar office workers were achieved by those employees who had a steeper relation between evaluations and pay.

• Nikkinen and Sahlström (2004) find empirical evidence that agency theory can be used, at least to some extent, to explain financial audit fees internationally.

• There is very little correlation between performance pay of CEO's and the success of the companies they manage. ^[3]

Contract design[link]

Milgrom and Roberts (1992) identify four principles of contract design: When perfect information is not available, Holmstrom (1979) developed the Informativeness Principle to solve this problem. This essentially states that any measure of performance that (on the margin) reveals information about the effort level chosen by the agent should be included in the compensation contract. This includes, for example, Relative Performance Evaluation – measurement relative to other, similar agents, so as to filter out some common background noise factors, such as fluctuations in demand. By removing some exogenous sources of randomness in the agent’s income, a greater proportion of the fluctuation in the agent’s income falls under his control, increasing his ability to bear risk. If taken advantage of, by greater use of piece rates, this should improve incentives. (In terms of the simple linear model below, this means that increasing x produces an increase in b.)

However, setting incentives as intense as possible is not necessarily optimal from the point of view of the employer. The Incentive-Intensity Principle states that the optimal intensity of incentives depends on four factors: the incremental profits created by additional effort, the precision with which the desired activities are assessed, the agent’s risk tolerance, and the agent’s responsiveness to incentives. According to Prendergast (1999, 8), “the primary constraint on [performance-related pay] is that [its] provision imposes additional risk on workers…” A typical result of the early principal–agent literature was that piece rates tend to 100% (of the compensation package) as the worker becomes more able to handle risk, as this ensures that workers fully internalize the consequences of their costly actions. In incentive terms, where we conceive of workers as self-interested rational individuals who provide costly effort (in the most general sense of the worker’s input to the firm’s production function), the more compensation varies with effort, the better the incentives for the worker to produce.

The third principle – the Monitoring Intensity Principle – is complementary to the second, in that situations in which the optimal intensity of incentives is high corresponds highly to situations in which the optimal level of monitoring is also high. Thus employers effectively choose from a “menu” of monitoring/incentive intensities. This is because monitoring is a costly means of reducing the variance of employee performance, which makes more difference to profits in the kinds of situations where it is also optimal to make incentives intense.

The fourth principle is the Equal Compensation Principle, which essentially states that activities equally valued by the employer should be equally valuable (in terms of compensation, including non-financial aspects such as pleasantness of the workplace) to the employee. This relates to the problem that employees may be engaged in several activities, and if some of these are not monitored or are monitored less heavily, these will be neglected, as activities with higher marginal returns to the employee are favoured. This can be thought of as a kind of “disintermediation” – targeting certain measurable variables may cause others to suffer. For example, teachers being rewarded by test scores of their students are likely to tend more towards teaching ‘for the test’, and de-emphasise less relevant but perhaps equally or more important aspects of education; while AT&T’s practice at one time of paying programmers by the number of lines of code written resulted in programs that were longer than necessary – i.e., program efficiency suffering (Prendergast 1999, 21). Following Holmstom and Milgrom (1990) and Baker (1992), this has become known as “multi-tasking” (where a subset of relevant tasks is rewarded, non-rewarded tasks suffer relative neglect). Because of this, the more difficult it is to completely specify and measure the variables on which reward is to be conditioned, the less likely that performance-related pay will be used: “in essence, complex jobs will typically not be evaluated through explicit contracts.” (Prendergast 1999, 9).

Where explicit measures are used, they are more likely to be some kind of aggregate measure, for example, baseball and American Football players are rarely rewarded on the many specific measures available (e.g., number of home runs), but frequently receive bonuses for aggregate performance measures such as Most Valuable Player. The alternative to objective measures is subjective performance evaluation, typically by supervisors. However, there is here a similar effect to “multi-tasking”, as workers shift effort from that subset of tasks which they consider useful and constructive, to that subset which they think gives the greatest appearance of being useful and constructive, and more generally to try to curry personal favour with supervisors. (One can interpret this as a destruction of organizational social capital – workers identifying with, and actively working for the benefit of, the firm – in favour of the creation of personal social capital – the individual-level social relations which enable workers to get ahead (“networking”).)

Linear model[link]

The four principles can be summarized in terms of the simplest (linear) model of incentive compensation:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): w = a + b(e + x + gy)

where w stands for the wage, e for (unobserved) effort, x for unobserved exogenous effects on outcomes, and y for observed exogenous effects; while g and a represent the weight given to y, and the base salary, respectively. The interpretation of b is as the intensity of incentives provided to the employee.

The above discussion on explicit measures assumed that contracts would create the linear incentive structures summarised in the model above. But while the combination of normal errors and the absence of income effects yields linear contracts, many observed contracts are nonlinear. To some extent this is due to income effects as workers rise up a tournament/hierarchy: “Quite simply, it may take more money to induce effort from the rich than from the less well off.” (Prendergast 1999, 50). Similarly, the threat of being fired creates a nonlinearity in wages earned versus performance. Moreover, many empirical studies illustrate inefficient behaviour arising from nonlinear objective performance measures, or measures over the course of a long period (e.g., a year), which create nonlinearities in time due to discounting behaviour. This inefficient behaviour arises because incentive structures are varying: for example, when a worker has already exceeded a quota or has no hope of reaching it, versus being close to reaching it – e.g., Healy (1985), Oyer (1997), Leventis (1997). Leventis shows that New York surgeons, penalised for exceeding a certain mortality rate, take less risky cases as they approach the threshold. Courty and Marshke (1997) provide evidence on incentive contracts offered to agencies, which receive bonuses on reaching a quota of graduated trainees within a year. This causes them to ‘rush-graduate’ trainees in order to make the quota.

Options framework[link]

In certain cases agency problems may be analysed by applying the techniques developed for financial options, as applied via a real options framework.^[4][5] Stockholders and bondholders have different objective - for instance, stockholders have an incentive to take riskier projects than bondholders do, and to pay more out in dividends than bondholders would like. At the same time, since equity may be seen as a call option on the value of the firm, an increase in the variance in the firm value, other things remaining equal, will lead to an increase in the value of equity, and stockholders may therefore take risky projects with negative net present values, which while making them better off, may make the bondholders worse off. See Option pricing approaches under Business valuation for further discussion.

Performance evaluation[link]

Objective performance evaluation[link]

The major problem in measuring employee performance in cases where it is difficult to draw a straightforward connection between performance and profitability is the setting of a standard by which to judge the performance. One method of setting an absolute objective performance standard—rarely used because it is costly and only appropriate for simple repetitive tasks—is time-and-motion studies, which study in detail how fast it is possible to do a certain task. These have been used constructively in the past, particularly in manufacturing. More generally, however, even within the field of objective performance evaluation, some form of relative performance evaluation must be used. Typically this takes the form of comparing the performance of a worker to that of his peers in the firm or industry, perhaps taking account of different exogenous circumstances affecting that.

The reason that employees are often paid according to hours of work rather than by direct measurement of results is that it is often more efficient to use indirect systems of controlling the quantity and quality of effort, due to a variety of informational and other issues (e.g., turnover costs, which determine the optimal minimum length of relationship between firm and employee). This means that methods such as deferred compensation and structures such as tournaments are often more suitable to create the incentives for employees to contribute what they can to output over longer periods (years rather than hours). These represent “pay-for-performance” systems in a looser, more extended sense, as workers who consistently work harder and better are more likely to be promoted (and usually paid more), compared to the narrow definition of “pay-for-performance”, such as piece rates. This discussion has been conducted almost entirely for self-interested rational individuals. In practice, however, the incentive mechanisms which successful firms use take account of the socio-cultural context they are embedded in (Fukuyama 1995, Granovetter 1985), in order not to destroy the social capital they might more constructively mobilise towards building an organic, social organization, with the attendant benefits from such things as “worker loyalty and pride (...) [which] can be critical to a firm’s success...” (Sappington 1991,63)

Subjective performance evaluation[link]

Subjective performance evaluation allows the use of a subtler, more balanced assessment of employee performance, and is typically used for more complex jobs where comprehensive objective measures are difficult to specify and/or measure. Whilst often the only feasible method, the attendant problems with subjective performance evaluation have resulted in a variety of incentive structures and supervisory schemes. One problem, for example, is that supervisors may under-report performance in order to save on wages, if they are in some way residual claimants, or perhaps rewarded on the basis of cost savings. This tendency is of course to some extent offset by the danger of retaliation and/or demotivation of the employee, if the supervisor is responsible for that employee’s output. As an example, there have been numerous cases where net profits were apparently underreported on successful Guy Ritchie films, where actors or writers had been promised a percentage of net profits – Cheatham, David, and Cheatham (1996).

Another problem relates to what is known as the “compression of ratings”. Two related influences – centrality bias, and leniency bias—have been documented (Landy and Farr 1980, Murphy and Cleveland 1991). The former results from supervisors being reluctant to distinguish critically between workers (perhaps for fear of destroying team spirit), while the latter derives from supervisors being averse to offering poor ratings to subordinates, especially where these ratings are used to determine pay, not least because bad evaluations may be demotivating rather than motivating. However, these biases introduce noise into the relationship between pay and effort, reducing the incentive effect of performance-related pay. Milkovich and Wigdor (1991) suggest that this is the reason for the common separation of evaluations and pay, with evaluations primarily used to allocate training.

Finally, while the problem of compression of ratings originates on the supervisor-side, related effects occur when workers actively attempt to influence the appraisals supervisors give, either by influencing the performance information going to the supervisor: multitasking (focussing on the more visibly productive activities – Paul 1992), or by working “too hard” to signal worker quality or create a good impression (Holmstrom 1982); or by influencing the evaluation of it, e.g., by “currying influence” (Milgrom and Roberts 1988) or by outright bribery (Tirole 1992).

Incentive structures[link]

Tournaments[link]

Much of the discussion here has been in terms of individual pay-for-performance contracts; but many large firms use internal labour markets (Doeringer and Piore 1971, Rosen 1982) as a solution to some of the problems outlined. Here, there is “pay-for-performance” in a looser sense over a longer time period. There is little variation in pay within grades, and pay increases come with changes in job or job title (Gibbs and Hendricks 1996). The incentive effects of this structure are dealt with in what is known as “tournament theory” (Lazear and Rosen 1981, Green and Stokey (1983), see Rosen (1986) for multi-stage tournaments in hierarchies where it is explained why CEOs are paid many times more than other workers in the firm). See the superstar article for more information on the tournament theory.

Workers are motivated to supply effort by the wage increase they would earn if they win a promotion. Some of the extended tournament models predict that relatively weaker agents, be they competing in a sports tournaments (Becker and Huselid 1992, in NASCAR racing) or in the broiler chicken industry (Knoeber and Thurman 1994), would take risky actions instead of increasing their effort supply as a cheap way to improve the prospects of winning. These actions are inefficient as they increase risk taking without increasing the average effort supplied.

A major problem with tournaments is that individuals are rewarded based on how well they do relative to others. Co-workers might become reluctant to help out others and might even sabotage others' effort instead of increasing their own effort (Lazear 1989, Rob and Zemsky 1997). This is supported empirically by Drago and Garvey (1997). Why then are tournaments so popular? Firstly, because – especially given compression rating problems – it is difficult to determine absolutely differences in worker performance. Tournaments merely require rank order evaluation. Secondly, it reduces the danger of rent-seeking, because bonuses paid to favourite workers are tied to increased responsibilities in new jobs, and supervisors will suffer if they do not promote the most qualified person. Thirdly, where prize structures are (relatively) fixed, it reduces the possibility of the firm reneging on paying wages. As Carmichael (1983) notes, a prize structure represents a degree of commitment, both to absolute and to relative wage levels. Lastly when the measurement of workers' productivity is difficult, e.g., say monitoring is costly, or when the tasks the workers have to perform for the job is varied in nature, making it hard to measure effort and/or performance, then running tournaments in a firm would encourage the workers to supply effort whereas workers would have shirked if there are no promotions.

Tournaments also promote risk seeking behavior. In essence, the compensation scheme becomes more like a call option on performance (which increases in value with increased volatility (cf. options pricing). If you are one of ten players competing for the asymmetrically large top prize, you may benefit from reducing the expected value of your overall performance to the firm in order to increase your chance that you have an outstanding performance (and win the prize). In moderation this can offset the greater risk aversion of agents vs principals because their social capital is concentrated in their employer while in the case of public companies the principal typically owns his stake as part of a diversified portfolio. Successful innovation is particularly dependent on employees' willingness to take risks. In cases with extreme incentive intensity, this sort of behavior can create catastrophic organizational failure. If the principal owns the firm as part of a diversified portfolio this may be a price worth paying for the greater chance of success through innovation elsewhere in the portfolio. If however the risks taken are systematic and cannot be diversified e.g., exposure to general housing prices, then such failures will damage the interests of principals and even the economy as a whole. (cf. Kidder Peabody, Barings, Enron, AIG to name a few). Ongoing periodic catastrophic organizational failure is directly incentivized by tournament and other superstar/Winner take all compensation systems. [Holt 1995].

Deferred compensation[link]

Tournaments represent one way of implementing the general principle of “deferred compensation”, which is essentially an agreement between worker and firm to commit to each other. Under schemes of deferred compensation, workers are overpaid when old, at the cost of being underpaid when young. Salop and Salop (1976) argue that this derives from the need to attract workers more likely to stay at the firm for longer periods, since turnover is costly. Alternatively, delays in evaluating the performance of workers may lead to compensation being weighted to later periods, when better and poorer workers have to a greater extent been distinguished. (Workers may even prefer to have wages increasing over time, perhaps as a method of forced saving, or as an indicator of personal development. e.g., Loewenstein and Sicherman 1991, Frank and Hutchens 1993.) For example Akerlof and Katz 1989: if older workers receive efficiency wages, younger workers may be prepared to work for less in order to receive those later. Overall, the evidence suggests the use of deferred compensation (e.g., Freeman and Medoff 1984, and Spilerman 1986 – seniority provisions are often included in pay, promotion and retention decisions, irrespective of productivity.)

Other applications[link]

The "principal–agent problem" has also been discussed in the context of energy consumption by Jaffe and Stavins in 1994. They were attempting to catalog market and non-market barriers to energy efficiency adoption. In efficiency terms, a market failure arises when a technology which is both cost-effective and saves energy is not implemented. Jaffe and Stavins describe the common case of the landlord-tenant problem with energy issues as a principal–agent problem. “[I]f the potential adopter is not the party that pays the energy bill, then good information in the hands of the potential adopter may not be sufficient for optimal diffusion; adoption will only occur if the adopter can recover the investment from the party that enjoys the energy savings. Thus, if it is difficult for the possessor of information to convey it credibly to the party that benefits from reduced energy use, a principal/agent problem arises.” ^[6]

The energy efficiency use of the principal agent terminology is in fact distinct from the usual one in several ways. In landlord/tenant or more generally equipment-purchaser / energy-bill-payer situations, it is often difficult to describe who would be the principal and who the agent. Is the agent the landlord and the principal the tenant, because the landlord is “hired” by the tenant through the payment of rent? As (Murtishaw and Sathaye, 2006) point out, “In the residential sector, the conceptual definition of principal and agent must be stretched beyond a strictly literal definition.”

Another distinction is that the principal agent problem in energy efficiency does not require any information asymmetry: both the landlord and the tenant may be aware of the overall costs and benefits of energy-efficient investments, but as long as the landlord pays for the equipment and the tenant pays the energy bills, the investment in new, energy-efficient appliances will not be made. In this case, there is also little incentive for the tenant to make a capital efficiency investment with a usual payback time of several years, and which in the end will revert to the landlord as property. Since energy consumption is determined both by technology and by behavior, an opposite principal agent problem arises when the energy bills are paid by the landlord, leaving the tenant with no incentive to moderate her energy use. This is often the case for leased office space, for example.

The energy efficiency principal agent problem applies in many cases to rented buildings and apartments, but arises in other circumstances, most often involving relatively high up-front costs for energy-efficient technology. Though it is challenging to assess exactly, the principal agent problem is considered to be a major barrier to the diffusion of efficient technologies. This can be addressed in part by promoting shared-savings performance-based contracts, where both parties benefit from the efficiency savings. The issues of market barriers to energy efficiency, and the principal agent problem in particular, are receiving renewed attention because of the importance of global climate change and rising prices of the finite supply of fossil fuels. The principal–agent problem in energy efficiency is the topic of an International Energy Agency report: ^[7] "Mind the Gap—Quantifying Principal–Agent Problems in Energy Efficiency" (2007).

Flyvbjerg and Cowi (2004) explained systematic and large cost overruns in the provision of major transportation infrastructure in terms of principal–agent problems. The authors further proposed improved incentive structures and better budgeting methods to curb the principal–agent problem. The proposed improvements have been implemented by the UK and Danish governments in practical policy for the provision of transportation infrastructure.^[8] The problem also occurs in the relationship between lenders and borrowers, and in the complex system of derivatives, credit default swaps, and other varieties of financial speculation. The recent admission by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan that he had made a mistake in trusting investment managers to protect the interests of their shareholders, reveals how this problem can become a threat to the public.^[9]

The problem manifests itself in the ways middle managers discriminate against employees who they deem to be "overqualified" in hiring, assignment, and promotion, and repress or terminate "whistleblowers" who want to make senior management aware of fraud or illegal activity. This may be done for the benefit of the middle manager and against the best interest of the shareholders (or members of a non-profit organization). Public officials are agents, and people adopt constitutions and laws to try to manage the relationship, but officials may betray their trust and allow themselves to be unduly influenced by lobby groups or they may abuse their authority and managerial discretion by showing personal favoritism or bad faith by hiring an unqualified friend or by engaging in corruption or patronage, such as selecting the firm of a friend or family member for a no-bid contract. The problem arises in client-attorney, probate executor, bankruptcy trustee, and other such relationships. In some rare cases, attorneys who were entrusted with estate accounts with sizeable balances acted against the interests of the person who hired them to act as their agent by embezzling the funds or "playing the market" with the client's money (with the goal of pocketing any proceeds).

See also[link]

• Agency cost
• Contract theory
• Control fraud
• Cost overrun
• Governance
• Law of agency
• Rent seeking
• Strategic misrepresentation
• Structure and agency
• The Market for Lemons

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review, Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 57-74.
• Flyvbjerg, Bent and Cowi, 2004, Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Transport Planning: Guidance Document (London: UK Department for Transport, June 2004).
• Green, J. R. and N. L. Stokey. 1983. "A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts", Journal of Political Economy, 91, 349-364.
• IEA (2007) Mind the Gap—Quantifying Principal–Agent Problems in Energy Efficiency
• Murtishaw, S. and J. Sathaye, 2006. Quantifying the Effect of the Principal–Agent Problem on US Residential Use, Report LBNL-59773
• Hongxia Li (2011). Capital Structure on Agency Costs in Chinese Listed Firms "International Journal of Governance", 1(2): 26-39.
• Nikkinen, Jussi and Sahlström, Petri (2004): Does agency theory provide a general framework for audit pricing? International Journal of Auditing, 8: November, 253-262.
• Rosen, S. 1986. "Prizes and Incentives in Elimination Tournaments", American Economic Review, 76, 4, 701-715.
• Sappington, David E.M., “Incentives in Principal–Agent Relationships”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 5:2 (Spring 1991), 45-66
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1987). "Principal and agent, The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, pp. 966-71.
• Rees, R., 1985. The Theory of Principal and Agent—Part I. Bulletin of Economic Research, 37(1), 3-26
• Rees, R., 1985. The Theory of Principal and Agent—Part II. Bulletin of Economic Research, 37(2), 75-97
• "Worldbank report Disrupting Corruption". siteresources.worldbank.org. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/DisruptingCorruption.pdf. 

Monty Python (sometimes known as The Pythons)^[2][3] was a British surreal comedy group who created Monty Python's Flying Circus, a British television comedy sketch show that first aired on the BBC on 5 October 1969. Forty-five episodes were made over four series. The Python phenomenon developed from the television series into something larger in scope and impact, spawning touring stage shows, films, numerous albums, several books and a stage musical as well as launching the members to individual stardom. The group's influence on comedy has been compared to The Beatles' influence on music.^[4][5]

The television series, broadcast by the BBC from 1969 to 1974, was conceived, written and performed by members Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. Loosely structured as a sketch show, but with an innovative stream-of-consciousness approach (aided by Gilliam's animation), it pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in style and content.^[6][7] A self-contained comedy team responsible for both writing and performing their work, the Pythons' creative control allowed them to experiment with form and content, discarding rules of television comedy. Their influence on British comedy has been apparent for years, while in North America it has coloured the work of cult performers from the early editions of Saturday Night Live through to more recent absurdist trends in television comedy. "Pythonesque" has entered the English lexicon as a result.

In a 2005 UK poll to find The Comedian's Comedian, three of the six Pythons members were voted by fellow comedians and comedy insiders to be among the top 50 greatest comedians ever: Cleese at #2, Idle at #21, and Palin at #30.^[8]

[edit] Before Flying Circus

Palin and Jones met at Oxford University, where they performed together with the Oxford Revue. Cleese and Chapman met at Cambridge. Idle was also at Cambridge, but started a year after Cleese and Chapman. Cleese met Gilliam in New York while on tour with the Cambridge University Footlights revue Cambridge Circus (originally entitled A Clump of Plinths). Chapman, Cleese and Idle were members of the Footlights, which at that time also included the future Goodies (Tim Brooke-Taylor, Bill Oddie and Graeme Garden), and Jonathan Lynn (co-writer of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister). During Idle's presidency of the Club, feminist writer Germaine Greer and broadcaster Clive James were members. Recordings of Footlights revues (called "Smokers") at Pembroke College include sketches and performances by Idle and Cleese. They are kept in the archives of the Pembroke Players, along with tapes of Idle's performances in some of the college drama society's theatrical productions.

Python members appeared in and/or wrote the following shows before Monty Python's Flying Circus. The Frost Report is credited as first uniting the British Pythons and providing an environment in which they could develop their particular styles:

• I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again (radio) (1964–1973) [Cleese: cast member & writer] – [Idle and Chapman: writers]
• The Frost Report (1966–1967) [Cleese: cast member and writer] – [Idle: writer of Frost's monologues] – [Chapman, Palin and Jones: writers]
• At Last the 1948 Show (1967) [Chapman and Cleese: writers and cast members] – [Idle: writer]
• Twice a Fortnight (1967) [Palin and Jones: cast members and writers]
• Do Not Adjust Your Set (1967–1969) [Idle, Jones, and Palin: cast members & writers] – [Gilliam: animation]
  — Bonzo Dog Band: musical interludes]
• We Have Ways of Making You Laugh (1968) [Idle: cast member & writer] – [Gilliam: animation]
• How to Irritate People (1968) [Cleese and Chapman: cast members & writers] – [Palin: cast member]
• The Complete and Utter History of Britain (1969) [Palin and Jones: cast members & writers]
• Doctor in the House (1969) [Cleese & Chapman: writers]

Several featured other important British comedy writers or performers of the future, including Marty Feldman, Jonathan Lynn, David Jason and David Frost, as well as members of other future comedy teams, Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker (the Two Ronnies), and Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graeme Garden and Bill Oddie (the Goodies).

Following the success of Do Not Adjust Your Set, originally intended to be a children's programme, with adults, ITV offered Palin, Jones, Idle and Gilliam their own series together. At the same time Cleese and Chapman were offered a show by the BBC, which had been impressed by their work on The Frost Report and At Last The 1948 Show. Cleese was reluctant to do a two-man show for various reasons, including Chapman's supposedly difficult personality. Cleese had fond memories of working with Palin and invited him to join the team. With the ITV series still in pre-production, Palin agreed and suggested the involvement of his writing partner Jones and colleague Idle—who in turn suggested that Gilliam could provide animations for the projected series. Much has been made of the fact that the Monty Python troupe is the result of Cleese's desire to work with Palin and the chance circumstances that brought the other four members into the fold.^[9]

[edit] Monty Python's Flying Circus

Development of the series[link]

The Pythons had a definite idea about what they wanted to do with the series. They were admirers of the work of Peter Cook, Alan Bennett, Jonathan Miller and Dudley Moore on Beyond the Fringe, and had worked on Frost, which was similar in style. They enjoyed Cook and Moore's sketch show Not Only... But Also. One problem the Pythons perceived with these programmes was that though the body of the sketch would be strong, the writers would often struggle to then find a punchline funny enough to end on, and this would detract from the overall sketch quality. They decided that they would simply not bother to "cap" their sketches in the traditional manner, and early episodes of the Flying Circus series make great play of this abandonment of the punchline (one scene has Cleese turn to Idle, as the sketch descends into chaos, and remark that "This is the silliest sketch I've ever been in"—they all resolve not to carry on and simply walk off the set). However, as they began assembling material for the show, the Pythons watched one of their collective heroes, Spike Milligan, recording his groundbreaking series Q5 (1969). Not only was the programme more irreverent and anarchic than any previous television comedy, Milligan would often "give up" on sketches halfway through and wander off set (often muttering "Did I write this?"). It was clear that their new series would now seem less original, and Jones in particular became determined the Pythons should innovate.

After much debate, Jones remembered an animation Gilliam had created for Do Not Adjust Your Set called Beware of the Elephants, which had intrigued him with its stream-of-consciousness style. Jones felt it would be a good concept to apply to the series: allowing sketches to blend into one another. Palin had been equally fascinated by another of Gilliam's efforts, entitled Christmas Cards, and agreed that it represented "a way of doing things differently". Since Cleese, Chapman and Idle were less concerned with the overall flow of the programme, it was Jones, Palin and Gilliam who became largely responsible for the presentation style of the Flying Circus series, in which disparate sketches are linked to give each episode the appearance of a single stream-of-consciousness (often using a Gilliam animation to move from the closing image of one sketch to the opening scene of another).

Writing started at 9 am and finished at 5 pm. Typically, Cleese and Chapman worked as one pair isolated from the others, as did Jones and Palin, while Idle wrote alone. After a few days, they would join together with Gilliam, critique their scripts, and exchange ideas. Their approach to writing was democratic. If the majority found an idea humorous, it was included in the show. The casting of roles for the sketches was a similarly unselfish process, since each member viewed himself primarily as a 'writer', rather than an actor desperate for screen time. When the themes for sketches were chosen, Gilliam had carte blanche to decide how to bridge them with animations, using a camera, scissors, and airbrush.

While the show was a collaborative process, different factions within Python were responsible for elements of the team's humour. In general, the work of the Oxford-educated members (Jones and Palin) was more visual, and more fanciful conceptually (e.g., the arrival of the Spanish Inquisition in a suburban front room), while the Cambridge graduates' sketches tended to be more verbal and more aggressive (for example, Cleese and Chapman's many "confrontation" sketches, where one character intimidates or hurls abuse, or Idle's characters with bizarre verbal quirks, such as The Man Who Speaks In Anagrams). Cleese confirmed that "most of the sketches with heavy abuse were Graham's and mine, anything that started with a slow pan across countryside and impressive music was Mike and Terry's, and anything that got utterly involved with words and disappeared up any personal orifice was Eric's".^[10] Gilliam's animations, meanwhile, ranged from the whimsical to the savage (the cartoon format allowing him to create some astonishingly violent scenes without fear of censorship).

Several names for the show were considered before Monty Python's Flying Circus was settled upon. Some were Owl Stretching Time, Toad Elevating Moment, A Bucket, a Horse and a Spoon, Vaseline Review and Bun, Wackett, Buzzard, Stubble and Boot. Flying Circus stuck when the BBC explained it had printed that name in its schedules and was not prepared to amend it. Many variations on the name in front of this title then came and went (popular legend holds that the BBC considered Monty Python's Flying Circus to be a ridiculous name, at which point the group threatened to change their name every week until the BBC relented). "Gwen Dibley's Flying Circus" was named after a woman Palin had read about in the newspaper, thinking it would be amusing if she were to discover she had her own TV show. "Baron Von Took's Flying Circus" was considered as an affectionate tribute to Barry Took, the man who had brought them together. Arthur Megapode's Flying Circus was suggested, then discarded.

There are differing, somewhat confusing accounts of the origins of the Python name although the members agree that its only "significance" was that they thought it sounded funny. In the 1998 documentary Live At Aspen during the US Comedy Arts Festival, where the troupe was awarded the AFI Star Award by the American Film Institute, the group implied that "Monty" was selected (Eric Idle's idea) as a gently-mocking tribute to Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, a legendary British general of World War II; requiring a "slippery-sounding" surname, they settled on "Python". On other occasions Idle has claimed that the name "Monty" was that of a popular and rotund fellow who drank in his local pub; people would often walk in and ask the barman, "Has Monty been in yet?", forcing the name to become stuck in his mind. The name Monty Python was later described by the BBC as being "envisaged by the team as the perfect name for a sleazy entertainment agent".^[11]

Style of the show[link]

Flying Circus popularised innovative formal techniques, such as the cold open, in which an episode began without the traditional opening titles or announcements.^[12] An example of this is the "It's" man: Palin, outfitted in Robinson Crusoe garb, making a tortuous journey across various terrains, before finally approaching the camera to state, "It's...", only to be then cut off by the title sequence and theme music. On several occasions the cold open lasted until mid show, after which the regular opening titles ran. Occasionally the Pythons tricked viewers by rolling the closing credits halfway through the show, usually continuing the joke by fading to the familiar globe logo used for BBC continuity, over which Cleese would parody the clipped tones of a BBC announcer. On one occasion the credits ran directly after the opening titles. Because of their dislike of finishing with punchlines, they experimented with ending the sketches by cutting abruptly to another scene or animation, walking offstage, addressing the camera (breaking the fourth wall), or introducing a totally unrelated event or character. A classic example of this approach was the use of Chapman's "Colonel" character, who walked into several sketches and ordered them to be stopped because things were becoming "far too silly." Another favourite way of ending sketches was to drop a cartoonish "16-ton weight" prop on one of the characters when the sketch seemed to be losing momentum, or a knight in full armour (played by Terry Gilliam) would wander on-set and hit characters over the head with a rubber chicken,^[13] before cutting to the next scene. Yet another way of changing scenes was when John Cleese, usually outfitted in a dinner suit, would come in as a radio commentator and make the formal and determined announcement, "And now for something completely different."

The Python theme music is The Liberty Bell, a march by John Philip Sousa, which was chosen, among other reasons, because the recording was in the public domain.^[12]

The use of Gilliam's surreal, collage stop motion animations was another innovative intertextual element of the Python style. Many of the images Gilliam used were lifted from famous works of art, and from Victorian illustrations and engravings. The giant foot which crushes the show's title at the end of the opening credits is in fact the foot of Cupid, cut from a reproduction of the Renaissance masterpiece Venus, Cupid, Folly, and Time by Bronzino. This foot, and Gilliam's style in general, are visual trademarks of the series.

The Pythons used the British tradition of cross-dressing comedy by donning frocks and makeup and playing female roles themselves while speaking in falsetto. Generally speaking, female roles were played by a woman (usually Carol Cleveland) only when the scene specifically required that the character be sexually attractive (although sometimes they used Idle for this). In some episodes and later in Monty Python's Life of Brian they took the idea one step further by playing women who impersonated men (in the stoning scene).

Many sketches are well-known and widely quoted. "Dead Parrot", "The Lumberjack Song", "Spam", "Nudge Nudge", "The Spanish Inquisition", "Upper Class Twit of the Year", "Cheese Shop" and "The Ministry of Silly Walks" are just a few examples.

Introduction to North America[link]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) added Monty Python’s Flying Circus to its national September 1970 fall lineup.^[14] They aired the 13 episodes of Series 1, which had first run on the BBC the previous fall (October 1969 to January 1970), as well as the first 6 episodes of Series 2 only a few weeks after they first appeared on the BBC (September to November 1970).^[14] The CBC dropped the show when it returned to regular programming after the Christmas 1970 break, choosing to not place the remaining 7 episodes of series 2 on the January 1971 CBC schedule.^[14] Within a week the CBC received hundreds of calls complaining of the cancellation, and more than 100 people staged a demonstration at the CBC’s Montreal studios.^[14]

Time-Life Films had the right to distribute all BBC-TV programs in the United States, however they had decided that British comedy simply would not work in America. Therefore, it was not worth the investment to convert the Python episodes from the European PAL standard to the American NTSC standard.

Sketches from Monty Python’s Flying Circus were introduced to American audiences in August 1972, with the release of the Python movie And Now for Something Completely Different, featuring sketches from series 1 and 2 of the television show. This 1972 release met limited box office success.

In the summer of 1974 Ron Devillier, the program director for non-profit PBS television station KERA in Dallas, Texas, started airing episodes of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Ratings shot through the roof, providing an encouraging sign to the other 100 PBS stations that had signed up to begin airing the show in October 1974—exactly 5 years after their BBC debut. There was also cross-promotion from FM radio stations across the country, whose airing of tracks from the Python LPs had already introduced American audiences to this bizarre brand of comedy. The popularity on PBS resulted in the 1974 re-release of the 1972 "...Completely Different" movie, with much greater box office success.

The ability to show Monty Python’s Flying Circus under the American NTSC standard had been made possible by the commercial actions of American television producer Greg Garrison. Garrison produced the NBC series The Dean Martin Comedy World, which ran during the summer of 1974. The concept was to show clips from comedy shows produced in other countries, including tape of the Python sketches "Bicycle Repairman" and "The Dull Life of a Stockbroker". Payment for use of these two sketches was enough to allow Time-Life Films to convert the entire Python library to NTSC standard, allowing for the sale to the PBS network stations who then brought the entire show to US audiences.

With the popularity of Python throughout the rest of the 1970s and through most of the 1980s, PBS stations looked at other British comedies, leading to UK shows such as Are You Being Served? gaining a US audience, and leading, over time, to many PBS stations having a "British Comedy Night" which airs many popular UK comedies.^[15]

[edit] End of Flying Circus

Having considered the possibility at the end of the second series, Cleese left the Flying Circus at the end of the third. He later explained that he felt he no longer had anything fresh to offer the show, and claimed that only two Cleese-and-Chapman-penned sketches in the third series ("Dennis Moore" and the "Cheese Shop") were truly original, and that the others were bits and pieces from previous work cobbled together in slightly different contexts.^[9] He was also finding Chapman, who was at that point in the full throes of alcoholism, difficult to work with. According to an interview with Idle, "It was on an Air Canada flight on the way to Toronto, when John (Cleese) turned to all of us and said 'I want out.' Why? I don't know. He gets bored more easily than the rest of us. He's a difficult man, not easy to be friendly with. He's so funny because he never wanted to be liked. That gives him a certain fascinating, arrogant freedom."^[16]

The rest of the group carried on for one more "half" series before calling a halt to the programme in 1974. The name Monty Python's Flying Circus appears in the opening animation for series four, but in the end credits the show is listed as simply "Monty Python". Despite his official departure from the group, Cleese supposedly made a (non-speaking) cameo appearance in the fourth series, but never appeared in the credits as a performer. Several episodes credit him as a co-writer since some sketches were recycled from scenes cut from the Holy Grail script. While the first three series contained 13 episodes each, the fourth ended after six.

[edit] Life after the Flying Circus

Filmography[link]

[edit] And Now for Something Completely Different (1971)

The Pythons' first feature film (directed by Ian MacNaughton, reprising his role from the television series). It was composed of sketches from the first two seasons of the Flying Circus, reshot on a low budget (and often slightly edited) for cinema release. Material selected for the film includes: "Dead Parrot", "The Lumberjack Song", "Upper Class Twit of the Year", "Hell's Grannies", "Self-Defence Class", "How Not To Be Seen" and "Nudge Nudge". Financed by Playboy's UK executive Victor Lownes, it was intended as a way of breaking Monty Python into America, and although it was ultimately unsuccessful in this, the film did good business in the UK (this still being in the era before home video would make it much more accessible to view the material again). The group did not consider the film a success.

[edit] Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)

In 1974, between production on the third and fourth seasons, the group decided to embark on their first "proper" feature film, containing entirely new material. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was based on Arthurian Legend and was directed by Jones and Gilliam. Again, the latter also contributed linking animations (and put together the opening credits). Along with the rest of the Pythons, Jones and Gilliam performed several roles in the film, but it was Chapman who took the lead as King Arthur. Cleese returned to the group for the film, feeling that the group were once again breaking new ground. Holy Grail was filmed on location, in picturesque rural areas of Scotland, with a budget of only £229,000; the money was raised in part with investments from rock groups such as Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and Led Zeppelin—and UK music industry entrepreneur Tony Stratton-Smith (founder and owner of the Charisma Records label, for which the Pythons recorded their comedy albums).

The backers of the film wanted to cut the famous Black Knight scene (in which the Black Knight loses his limbs in a duel) but it was eventually kept in the movie.^[17]

[edit] Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)

Following the success of Holy Grail, reporters asked for the title of the next Python film, despite the fact that the team had not even begun to consider a third one. Eventually, Idle flippantly replied "Jesus Christ – Lust for Glory", which became the group's stock answer once they realised that it shut reporters up. However, they soon began to seriously consider a film lampooning the New Testament era in the same way Holy Grail had lampooned Arthurian legend. Despite them all sharing a distrust of organised religion, they agreed not to mock Jesus nor his teachings directly. Instead, they decided to write a satire on credulity and hypocrisy among the followers of someone who had been mistaken for the "Messiah," but who had no desire to be followed as such. Chapman was cast in the lead role of Brian.

The focus therefore shifted to a separate individual born at the same time, in a neighbouring stable. When Jesus appears in the film (first, as a baby in the stable, and then later on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance. ("I think he said, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'")

Directing duties were handled solely by Jones, having amicably agreed with Gilliam that Jones' approach to film-making was better suited for Python's general performing style. Holy Grail's production had often been stilted by their differences behind the camera. Gilliam again contributed two animated sequences (one being the opening credits) and took charge of set design. The film was shot on location in Tunisia, the finances being provided this time by former Beatle George Harrison, who together with Denis O'Brien formed the production company Hand-Made Films for the movie. He had a cameo role as the 'owner of the Mount.'

Despite its subject matter attracting controversy, particularly upon its initial release, it has (together with its predecessor) been ranked among the greatest comedy films. A Channel 4 poll in 2005 ranked Holy Grail in sixth place, with Life of Brian at the top.^[18]

[edit] Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982)

Filmed at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles during preparations for The Meaning of Life, this was a concert film (directed by Terry Hughes) in which the Pythons performed sketches from the television series in front of an audience. The released film also incorporated footage from the German television specials (the inclusion of which gives Ian MacNaughton his first on-screen credit for Python since the end of Flying Circus) and live performances of several songs from the troupe's then-current Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album.

[edit] Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983)

Python's final film returned to something structurally closer to the style of Flying Circus. A series of sketches loosely follows the ages of man from birth to death. Directed again by Jones solo, The Meaning of Life is embellished with some of Python's most bizarre and disturbing moments, as well as various elaborate musical numbers. The film is by far their darkest work, containing a great deal of black humour, garnished by some spectacular violence (including an operation to remove a liver from a living patient without anaesthetic and the morbidly obese Mr. Creosote exploding over several restaurant patrons). At the time of its release, the Pythons confessed their aim was to offend "absolutely everyone."

Besides the opening credits and the fish sequence, Gilliam, by now an established live action director, no longer wanted to produce any linking cartoons, offering instead to direct one sketch—The Crimson Permanent Assurance. Under his helm, though, the segment grew so ambitious and tangential that it was cut from the movie and used as a supporting feature in its own right. (Television screenings also use it as a prologue.) Crucially, this was the last project that all six Pythons would collaborate on, except for the 1989 compilation Parrot Sketch Not Included, where they are all seen sitting in a closet for four seconds. This would be the last time Chapman appeared on-screen with the Pythons.

[edit] Secret Policeman's Ball benefit shows

Members of Python contributed their services to charitable endeavours and causes—sometimes as an ensemble, at other times as individuals. The cause that has been the most frequent and consistent beneficiary has been the human rights work of Amnesty International. Between 1976 and 1981, the troupe or its members appeared in four major fund-raisers for Amnesty—known collectively as the Secret Policeman's Ball shows—which were turned into multiple films, TV shows, videos, record albums and books. These benefit shows and their many spin-offs raised considerable sums of money for Amnesty, raised public and media awareness of the human rights cause and influenced many other members of the entertainment community (especially rock musicians) to become involved in political and social issues.^[19] Among the many musicians who have publicly attributed their activism—and the organisation of their own benefit events—to the inspiration of the work in this field of Monty Python are U2, Bob Geldof, Pete Townshend and Sting.^[19] The shows are credited by Amnesty with helping the organisation develop public awareness in the US where one of the spin-off films was a major success.

Cleese and Jones had an involvement (as performer, writer or director) in all four Amnesty benefit shows, Palin in three, Chapman in two and Gilliam in one. Idle did not participate in the Amnesty shows. Notwithstanding Idle's lack of participation, the other five members (together with "Associate Pythons" Carol Cleveland and Neil Innes) all appeared together in the first Secret Policeman's Ball benefit—the 1976 A Poke In The Eye (With A Sharp Stick)—where they performed several Python sketches. In this first show they were collectively billed as Monty Python. (Peter Cook deputised for the errant Idle in one major sketch The Courtroom.) In the next three shows, the participating Python members performed many Python sketches, but were billed under their individual names rather than under the collective Python banner. After a six-year break, Amnesty resumed producing Secret Policeman's Ball benefit shows in 1987 (sometimes with, and sometimes without variants of the iconic title) and by 2006 had presented a total of twelve such shows. The shows since 1987 have featured newer generations of British comedic performers, including many who have attributed their participation in the show to their desire to emulate the Python's pioneering work for Amnesty. (Cleese and Palin made a brief cameo appearance in the 1989 Amnesty show; apart from that the Pythons have not appeared in shows after the first four.)

Going solo[link]

Each member has pursued various film, television and stage projects since the break-up of the group, but often continued to work with one another. Many of these collaborations were very successful, most notably A Fish Called Wanda (1988), written by Cleese, in which he starred along with Palin. The pair also appeared in Time Bandits (1981), a film directed by Gilliam, who wrote it together with Palin. Gilliam directed Jabberwocky (1977), and also directed and co-wrote Brazil (1985) and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), which featured Palin and Idle respectively. Yellowbeard (1983) was co-written by Chapman and featured Chapman, Cleese and Palin alongside many of their English contemporaries, including Peter Cook, Spike Milligan and Marty Feldman.

Palin and Jones wrote the comedic TV series Ripping Yarns (1976–79), starring Palin. Jones also appeared in the pilot episode and Cleese appeared in a non-speaking part in the episode "Golden Gordon". Jones' film Erik the Viking, also has Cleese playing a small part.

In 1996, Terry Jones wrote and directed an adaption of Kenneth Grahame's novel The Wind in the Willows. It featured four members of Monty Python: Jones as Mr. Toad, Idle as Ratty, Cleese as Mr. Toad's lawyer, and Palin as the Sun. Gilliam was considered for the voice of the river.

In terms of numbers of productions, Cleese has the most prolific solo career, having appeared in 59 theatrical films, 22 TV shows or series (including Cheers, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Q's assistant in the James Bond movies, and Will & Grace), 23 direct-to-video productions, six video games, and a number of commercials.^[20] His BBC sitcom Fawlty Towers (written by and starring Cleese together with his then-wife Connie Booth), is considered the greatest solo work by a Python since the sketch show finished. It is the only comedy series to rank higher than the Flying Circus on the BFI TV 100's list, topping the whole poll.

Idle enjoyed critical success with Rutland Weekend Television in the mid-1970s, out of which came the Beatles parody The Rutles (responsible for the cult mockumentary All You Need Is Cash), and as an actor in Nuns on the Run (1990) with Robbie Coltrane. Idle has had success with Python songs: "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" went to no. 3 in the UK singles chart in 1991. The song had been revived by Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 1, and was consequently released as a single that year. The theatrical phenomenon of the Python musical Spamalot has made Idle the most financially successful of the troupe post-Python. Written by Idle, it has proved an enormous hit on Broadway, London's West End and also Las Vegas.^[21] This was followed by Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy), which repurposes The Life of Brian as an oratorio. For the work's 2007 premiere at the Luminato festival in Toronto (which commissioned the work), Idle himself sang the "baritone-ish" part.

Post-Python reunions[link]

Since The Meaning of Life, their last project as a team, the Pythons have often been the subject of reunion rumours.^[21] The final reunion of all six members occurred during the Parrot Sketch Not Included – 20 Years of Monty Python special. The death of Chapman in 1989 (on the eve of their 20th anniversary) put an end to the speculation of any further reunions. There have been several occasions since 1989 when the surviving five members have gathered together for appearances—albeit not formal reunions.

In 1996, Jones, Idle, Cleese and Palin were featured in a film adaptation of The Wind in the Willows, which was later renamed Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.

In 1998 during the US Comedy Arts Festival, where the troupe was awarded the AFI Star Award by the American Film Institute, the five remaining members along with what was purported to be Chapman's ashes, were reunited on stage for the first time in 18 years.^[22] The occasion was in the form of an interview called Monty Python Live At Aspen, (hosted by Robert Klein, with an appearance by Eddie Izzard) in which the team looked back at some of their work and performed a few new sketches.

On 9 October 1999, to commemorate 30 years since the first Flying Circus television broadcast, BBC2 devoted an evening to Python programmes, including a documentary charting the history of the team, interspersed with new sketches by the Monty Python team filmed especially for the event. The program appears, though omitting a few things, on the DVD The Life of Python. Though Idle's involvement in the special is limited, the final sketch marks the only time since 1989 that all surviving members of the troupe appear in one sketch, albeit not in the same room.

In 2002, four of the surviving members, bar Cleese, performed "The Lumberjack Song" and "Sit on My Face" for George Harrison's memorial concert. The reunion also included regular supporting contributors Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland, with a special appearance from Tom Hanks.

In an interview to publicise the DVD release of The Meaning of Life, Cleese said a further reunion was unlikely. "It is absolutely impossible to get even a majority of us together in a room, and I'm not joking," Cleese said. He said that the problem was one of business rather than one of bad feelings.^[23] A sketch appears on the same DVD spoofing the impossibility of a full reunion, bringing the members “together” in a deliberately unconvincing fashion with modern bluescreen/greenscreen techniques.

Idle has responded to queries about a Python reunion by adapting a line used by George Harrison in response to queries about a possible Beatles reunion. When asked in November 1989 about such a possibility, Harrison responded: "As far as I'm concerned, there won't be a Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead." Idle's version of this was that he expected to see a proper Python reunion, "just as soon as Graham Chapman comes back from the dead", but added, "we're talking to his agent about terms."^[24]

2003's The Pythons Autobiography By The Pythons, compiled from interviews with the surviving members, reveals that a series of disputes in 1998, over a possible sequel to Holy Grail that had been conceived by Idle, may have resulted in the group's permanent fission. Cleese's feeling was that The Meaning of Life had been personally difficult and ultimately mediocre, and did not wish to be involved in another Python project for a variety of reasons (not least amongst them was the absence of Chapman, whose straight man-like central roles in the original Grail and Brian films had been considered to be essential performance anchorage). Apparently Idle was angry with Cleese for refusing to do the film, which most of the remaining Pythons thought reasonably promising (the basic plot would have taken on a self-referential tone, featuring them in their main 'knight' guises from Holy Grail, mulling over the possibilities of reforming their posse). The book also reveals that a secondary option around this point was the possibility of revitalising the Python brand with a new stage tour, perhaps with the promise of new material. This idea had also hit the buffers at Cleese's refusal, this time with the backing of other members.

March 2005 saw a full, if non-performing, reunion of the surviving cast members at the premiere of Idle's musical Spamalot, based on Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It opened in Chicago and has since played in New York on Broadway, London and numerous other major cities across the world. In 2004, it was nominated for 14 Tony Awards and won three: Best Musical, Best Direction of a Musical for Mike Nichols and Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Musical for Sara Ramirez, who played the Lady of the Lake, a character specially added for the musical. Cleese played the voice of God, played in the film by Chapman.

Owing in part to the success of Spamalot, PBS announced on 13 July 2005, that it would begin to re-air the entire run of Monty Python's Flying Circus and new one-hour specials focusing on each member of the group, called Monty Python's Personal Best.^[25] Each episode was written and produced by the individual being honoured, with the five remaining Pythons collaborating on Chapman's programme, the only one of the editions to take on a serious tone with its new material.

Eric Idle and John Cleese appeared on stage together singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" with the rest of the performers for the climax of Prince Charles 60th Birthday Show.

In 2009, to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the first episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus, a six part documentary entitled Monty Python: Almost the Truth (The Lawyer's Cut) was released, featuring interviews with the surviving members of the team as well as archive interviews with Graham Chapman and numerous excerpts from the television series and films.

Also in commemoration of the 40th anniversary Idle, Palin, Jones and Gilliam appeared in a production of Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy) at the Royal Albert Hall. The European premiere was held on 23 October 2009.^[26] An official 40th anniversary Monty Python reunion event took place in New York City on 15 October 2009 where the Team received a Special Award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts.^[27]

In June 2011, it was announced that Monty Python have begun production on their first film project since the Meaning of Life in 1983. Their next film, A Liar's Autobiography, is an animated 3D movie based on the memoir of the late Python member, Graham Chapman, who died in 1989 at the age of 48. A Liar’s Autobiography was published in 1980 and details Chapman's journey through medical school, alcoholism, acknowledgement of his gay identity and the toils of surreal comedy.

Asked what was true in a deliberately fanciful account by Chapman of his life, Terry Jones joked: "Nothing . . . it’s all a downright, absolute, blackguardly lie."

The film will use Chapman's own voice - from a reading of his autobiography shortly before he died of cancer - and entertainment channel EPIX announced that the film will be released in early 2012 in both 2D and 3D formats. Produced and directed by London-based Bill Jones, Ben Timlett and Jeff Simpson, the new film has 15 animation companies working on chapters that will range from three to 12 minutes in length, each in a different style.

John Cleese has recorded new dialogue which will be matched with Chapman’s voice and Michael Palin will voice Chapman’s mother and father. Terry Gilliam plays various roles. Among the original Python group, only Eric Idle has not become involved, though Timlett said the filmmakers are “working on” him.^[28]

Python members[link]

Graham Chapman was originally a medical student, joining the Footlights at Cambridge. He completed his medical training and was legally entitled to practice as a doctor. Chapman is best remembered for the lead roles in Holy Grail, as King Arthur, and Life of Brian, as Brian Cohen. He died of spinal and throat cancer on 4 October 1989. At Chapman's memorial service, Cleese delivered an irreverent eulogy that included all the euphemisms for being dead from the Dead Parrot sketch, which they had written.

John Cleese is the oldest Python. He met his future Python writing partner, Graham Chapman, in Cambridge.

Terry Gilliam, an American, was the only member of the troupe of non-British origin.^[29] He started off as an animator and strip cartoonist for Harvey Kurtzman's Help! magazine, one issue of which featured Cleese. Moving from the USA to England, he animated features for Do Not Adjust Your Set and was then asked by its makers to join them on their next project: Monty Python's Flying Circus. He co-directed Monty Python and the Holy Grail and directed short segments of other Python films (for instance "The Crimson Permanent Assurance", the short film that appears before The Meaning of Life).

When Monty Python was first formed, two writing partnerships were already in place: Cleese and Chapman, Jones and Palin. That left two in their own corners: Gilliam, operating solo due to the nature of his work, and Eric Idle. Regular themes in his contributions were elaborate wordplay and musical numbers. After Flying Circus, he hosted Saturday Night Live four times in the first five seasons. Idle's initially successful solo career faltered in the 1990s with the failures of his 1993 film Splitting Heirs (written, produced by and starring him) and 1998's An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (in which he starred), which was awarded five Razzies, including 'Worst Picture of the Year'. He revived his career by returning to the source of his worldwide fame, adapting Monty Python material for other media. He also wrote the Broadway musical Spamalot, based on the Holy Grail movie. He also wrote Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy), an oratorio derived from the Life of Brian.

Terry Jones has been described by other members of the team as the “heart” of the operation. Jones had a lead role in maintaining the group's unity and creative independence. Python biographer George Perry has commented that should you "speak to him on subjects as diverse as fossil fuels, or Rupert Bear, or mercenaries in the Middle Ages or Modern China... in a moment you will find yourself hopelessly out of your depth, floored by his knowledge." Many others agree that Jones is characterised by his irrepressible, good-natured enthusiasm. However, Jones' passion often led to prolonged arguments with other group members—in particular Cleese—with Jones often unwilling to back down. Since his major contributions were largely behind the scenes (direction, writing), and he often deferred to the other members of the group as an actor, Jones' importance to Python was often underrated. However, he does have the legacy of delivering possibly the most famous line in all of Python, as Brian's mother Mandy in Life of Brian, "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!", a line voted the funniest in film history on two occasions.^[30][31]

Michael Palin attended Oxford, where he met his Python writing partner Jones. The two also wrote the series Ripping Yarns together. Palin and Jones originally wrote face-to-face, but soon found it was more productive to write apart and then come together to review what the other had written. Therefore, Jones and Palin's sketches tended to be more focused than that of the others, taking one bizarre situation, sticking to it, and building on it. After Flying Circus, he hosted Saturday Night Live four times in the first ten seasons. His comedy output began to decrease in amount following the increasing success of his travel documentaries for the BBC. Palin released a book of diaries from the Python years entitled Michael Palin Diaries 1969–1979, published in 2007.

Associate Pythons[link]

Several people have been accorded unofficial "Associate Python" status over the years. Occasionally such people have been referred to as the 7th Python, in a style reminiscent of George Martin (or other associates of The Beatles) being dubbed "the Fifth Beatle." The two collaborators with the most meaningful and plentiful contributions have been Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland. Both were present and presented as Associate Pythons at the official Monty Python 25th anniversary celebrations held in Los Angeles in July 1994.

Neil Innes is the only non-Python besides Douglas Adams to be credited with writing material for the Flying Circus. He appeared in sketches and the Python films, as well as performing some of his songs in Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl. He was also a regular stand-in for absent team members on the rare occasions when they re-created sketches. For example, he took the place of Cleese at the Concert for George. Gilliam once noted that if anyone qualified for the title of the "Seventh Python," it would certainly be Innes. He was one of the creative talents in the off-beat Bonzo Dog Band. He would later portray Ron Nasty of the Rutles and write all of the Rutles' compositions for All You Need is Cash (1978). By 2005, a falling out had occurred between Idle and Innes over additional Rutles projects, the results being Innes' critically acclaimed Rutles "reunion" album The Rutles: Archaeology and Idle's straight-to-DVD The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch, each undertaken without the other's participation. According to an interview with Idle in the Chicago Tribune in May 2005, his attitude is that he and Innes go back "too far. And no further." Innes has remained silent on the dispute.

Carol Cleveland was the most important female performer in the Monty Python ensemble, commonly referred to as the "Python Girl." Originally hired by producer/director John Howard Davies for just the first five episodes of the Flying Circus, she went on to appear in approximately two-thirds of the episodes as well as in all of the Python films, and in most of their stage shows as well. Her common portrayal as the stereotypical "blonde bimbo" eventually earned her the sobriquet "Carol Cleavage" from the other Pythons, but she felt that the variety of her roles should not be described in such a pejorative way.

Other contributors[link]

Cleese's first wife Connie Booth appeared in, amongst others "The Lumberjack Song" and as the "witch" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Cleese and Booth later co-wrote and co-starred in Fawlty Towers.

Douglas Adams was "discovered" by Chapman when a version of the Footlights Revue (a 1974 BBC2 television show featuring some of Adams' early work) was performed live in London's West End. In Cleese's absence from the final TV series, the two formed a brief writing partnership, with Adams earning a writing credit in one episode for a sketch called "Patient Abuse". In the sketch, a man who had been stabbed by a nurse arrives at his doctor's office bleeding profusely from the stomach, when the doctor makes him fill out numerous senseless forms before he can administer treatment. He also had two cameo appearances in this season. Firstly, in the episode The Light Entertainment War, Adams shows up in a surgeon's mask (as Dr. Emile Koning, according to the on-screen captions), pulling on gloves, while Palin narrates a sketch that introduces one person after another, and never actually gets started. Secondly, at the beginning of Mr. Neutron, Adams is dressed in a "pepperpot" outfit and loads a missile onto a cart being driven by Terry Jones, who is calling out for scrap metal ("Any old iron..."). Adams and Chapman also subsequently attempted a few non-Python projects, including Out of the Trees. He also contributed to a sketch on the soundtrack album for Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Stand-up comedian Eddie Izzard, a devoted fan of the group, has occasionally stood in for absent members. When the BBC held a "Python Night" in 1999 to celebrate 30 years of the first broadcast of Flying Circus, the Pythons recorded some new material with Izzard standing in for Idle, who had declined to partake in person (he taped a solo contribution from the US). Izzard hosted a history of the group entitled The Life of Python (1999) that was part of the Python Night and appeared with them at a festival/tribute in Aspen, Colorado, in 1998 (released on DVD as Live at Aspen).

Cultural influence[link]

By the time of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Monty Python in 1994, the point was already being made that "the five surviving members had with the passing years begun to occupy an institutional position in the edifice of British social culture that they had once had so much fun trying to demolish".^[32] A similar point is made in a 2006 book on the relationship between Monty and philosophy: "It is remarkable, after all, not only that the utterly bizarre Monty Python's Flying Circus was sponsored by the BBC in the first place, but that Monty Python itself grew into an institution of enormous cultural influence"^[33] Matt Groening, creator and co-developer of the animated sitcom The Simpsons, names Monty Python as an influence and pays tribute through a couch gag used in seasons five and six.^[34]

Space[link]

In 2010 the commercial space company SpaceX, launched a wheel of cheese into low earth orbit and returned it safely to the earth. Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX, claimed this was done as a tribute to Monty Python.

World records[link]

On St George's Day, 23 April 2007, the cast and creators of Spamalot gathered in Trafalgar Square under the tutelage of the two Terrys (Jones and Gilliam) to set a new record for the world's largest coconut orchestra. They led 5,567 people "clip-clopping" in time to the Python classic "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life" for the Guinness World Records attempt.^[35]

'Pythonesque'[link]

Amongst the more visible cultural influences of Monty Python is the inclusion of terms either directly from, or derived from, Monty Python, into the lexicon of the English language. The most obvious of these is the term 'pythonesque', which has become a byword in surreal humour, and is included in standard dictionaries.^[36] Terry Jones commented on his disappointment at the existence of such a term, claiming the initial aim of Monty Python was to create something new and impossible to categorize and that "the fact that Pythonesque is now a word in the Oxford English Dictionary shows the extent to which we failed".^[37]

The term has been applied to animations similar to those constructed by Gilliam (e.g. the cut-out style of South Park, whose creators have often acknowledged a debt to Python, including contributing material to the aforementioned 30th anniversary theme night).^[38]

Good Eats creator Alton Brown cited Python as one of the influences that shaped how he created the series, as well as how he authors the script for each episode.^[39] Recent episodes even include Gilliam-style animations to illustrate key points.

Things named after Monty Python[link]

Beyond a dictionary definition, Python terms have entered the lexicon in other ways.

• The Python programming language by Guido van Rossum is named after the troupe, and Monty Python references are often found in sample code created for that language. Additionally, a 2001 April Fool's Day joke by van Rossum and Larry Wall involving the merger of Python with Perl was dubbed "Parrot" after the Dead Parrot Sketch. The name "Parrot" was later used for a project to develop a virtual machine for running bytecode for interpreted languages such as Perl and Python. Also, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory wrote some spacecraft navigation software in Python, which they dubbed "Monty". There is also a python refactoring tool called bicyclerepair ( [1] ), named after Bicycle Repair Man sketch.
• In 1985, a fossil of a previously unknown species of gigantic prehistoric snake from the Miocene was discovered in Riversleigh, Queensland, Australia. The Australian palaeontologist who discovered the fossil snake was a Monty Python fan, and he gave the snake the taxonomic name of Montypythonoides riversleighensis in honour of the Monty Python team.^[40] (Transliterated from Greek Μοντυπυθωνοειδής back to English, Montypythonoides means "like Monty Python".)
• In 2006, Ben & Jerry's, known for their "celebrity flavours", introduced to the lineup "Vermonty Python", a coffee liqueur ice cream with a chocolate cookie crumb swirl and fudge cows. The name "Minty Python" had been suggested before in 1996 in a contest to select the quintessential British ice cream flavor.^[41][42]
• In 1999, Black Sheep Brewery released an ale named "Monty Python's Holy Grail Ale."^[43]
• The band Toad the Wet Sprocket drew its name from the Eric Idle monologue "Rock Notes" on Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album from 1980.
• The band Boxhamsters, which is the German translation of Brook-Hamster, the winner of the Upper Class Twit of the Year.^[44]
• A philosophy lecture series entitled Themes in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy as Reflected in the Work of Monty Python.^[45][46]
• The term "spam" in reference to bulk, unsolicited email is derived from the programme's 1970 "Spam" sketch.^[47]
• In the book The Reptile Room by "Lemony Snicket", the character Uncle Monty was named after Monty Python, in a joke referring to his obsession with snakes.
• Seven asteroids are named after Monty Python: 9617 Grahamchapman, 9618 Johncleese, 9619 Terrygilliam, 9620 Ericidle, 9621 Michaelpalin, 9622 Terryjones, and 13681 Monty Python .
• The endangered Bemaraha woolly lemur (Avahi cleesei) is named after John Cleese.

• Dead Parrot Society is the title of a comedy CD released in 1993 featuring sketches from Monty Python's Flying Circus as well as Graham Chapman, Peter Cook, John Cleese, Dudley Moore, and The Portsmouth Sinfonia The title is also a play on the 1989 film Dead Poets Society.

Media[link]

Television[link]

• Monty Python's Flying Circus (1969–74)

The show that started the Python phenomenon. See also List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes

• Monty Python's Fliegender Zirkus (1972)

Two 45-minute specials made by WDR for West German television. The first was recorded in German, while the second was in English with German dubbing.

• Monty Python's Personal Best (2006)

Six one-hour specials, each episode presenting the best of one member's work.

Films[link]

There were five Monty Python productions released as theatrical films:

• And Now for Something Completely Different (1971)

A collection of sketches from the first and second TV series of Monty Python's Flying Circus purposely re-enacted and shot for film.

• Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)

King Arthur and his knights embark on a low-budget search for the Holy Grail, encountering humorous obstacles along the way. Some of these turned into standalone sketches.

• Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)

Brian is born on the first Christmas, in the stable next to Jesus'. He spends his life being mistaken for a messiah.

• Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982)

A videotape recording directed by Ian MacNaughton of a live performance of sketches. Originally intended for a TV/video special. Transferred to 35mm and given a limited theatrical release in the US.

• Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983)

An examination of the meaning of life in a series of sketches from conception to death and beyond.

• Monty Python: Almost the Truth (The Lawyer's Cut) (2009)

This film features interviews with all the surviving Python members, along with archive representation for the late Graham Chapman.

• A Liar's Autobiography: Volume IV (2012)

This is an animated film which is based on the memoir of the late Monty Python member, Graham Chapman.

Albums[link]

• Monty Python's Flying Circus (1970)
• Another Monty Python Record (1971)
• Monty Python's Previous Record (1972)
• The Monty Python Matching Tie and Handkerchief (1973)
• Monty Python Live at Drury Lane (1974)
• The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
• Monty Python Live at City Center (1976)
• The Monty Python Instant Record Collection (1977)
• Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
• Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album (1980)
• Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983)
• The Final Rip Off (1988)
• Monty Python Sings (1989)
• The Monty Python Instant Record Collection, Volume 2 (1991)
• The Ultimate Monty Python Rip Off (1994)
• The Instant Monty Python CD Collection (1994)
• Spamalot (Broadway version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail with Tim Curry as King Arthur) (2005)
• The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album (unreleased)

Theatre[link]

• Monty Python's Flying Circus – Between 1974 and 1980 (Live at the Hollywood Bowl was released in 1982, but was performed in 1980) the Pythons made three sketch-based stage shows, comprising mainly material from the original television series.
• Monty Python's Spamalot – Written by Idle directed by Mike Nichols, with music and lyrics by John Du Prez and Idle, and starring Hank Azaria, Tim Curry, and David Hyde Pierce, Spamalot is a musical adaptation of the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It ran in Chicago from 21 December 2004 to 23 January 2005, and began performances on Broadway on 17 March 2005. It won three Tonys.
• Not the Messiah (He's a Very Naughty Boy) – The Toronto Symphony Orchestra commissioned Idle and John Du Prez to write the music and lyrics of an oratorio based on Monty Python's Life of Brian. Entitled Not the Messiah, it had its world premiere as part of Luminato, a "festival of arts and creativity" taking place 1–10 June 2007 in Toronto. Not the Messiah was conducted by Peter Oundjian, Music Director of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, who is Idle’s cousin. It was performed by a narrator, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, with guest soloists and choir. According to Idle, "It will be funnier than Handel, though not as good".

Books[link]

• Monty Python's Big Red Book (1971) ISBN 0-413-29520-6.
• The Brand New Monty Python Bok (1973) ISBN 0-7493-1170-3.
• Monty Python and The Holy Grail (book) – Mønti Pythøn ik den Hølie Gräilen (Bøk) (1977) ISBN 0-413-38520-5.
• MONTYPYTHONSCRAPBOOK/ The Life of Brian (1979) ISBN 0-413-46550-0.
• Monty Python's Flying Circus – Just The Words Volume 1 (1989) ISBN 0-413-62540-0.
• Monty Python's Flying Circus – Just The Words Volume 2 (1989) ISBN 0-413-62550-8.
• The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus Volumes 1 & 2
• The Fairly Incomplete & Rather Badly Illustrated Monty Python Song Book (1994) ISBN 0-413-69000-8
• Michael Palin Diaries 1969–1979
• The Pythons: Autobiography by the Pythons
• The Life of Brian/Jesus (2011) ISBN 978-1-84876-628-0.

Games[link]

• Monty Python's Flying Circus (1990) a computer game released by Virgin Games for 8-bit systems such as the Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum^[48]
• Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time (1994) released by 7th Level for PC / DOS
• Monty Python & the Quest for the Holy Grail (1996), official game released by 7th Level. It used footage and imagery from the film, as well as audio clips (some new) and featured an animated version of a scene never filmed entitled "King Brian The Wild".
• Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1997), also released by 7th Level. According to the jewel case description, it's based on the film by the same name, but it's really something completely similar yet entirely different.
• Python-opoly (2007), a Monty Python-themed property game released by Toy Vault Inc.^[49]
• Monty Python Fluxx (2008), a card game released by Looney Labs^[50]
• Blazing Dragons

See also[link]

• Beyond the Fringe
• List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes
• List of recurring characters in Monty Python's Flying Circus
• Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time
• Python (Monty) Pictures
• Spamalot
• The Goodies
• The Goon Show

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Graham Chapman; Jim Yoakum (1997). Graham Crackers: Fuzzy Memories, Silly Bits, and Outright Lies. Career Press. ISBN 978-1-56414-334-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=8xGcAAAACAAJ. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• Marcia Landy (2005). Monty Python's flying circus. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8143-3103-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=J1CxIuG-_NkC. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• Darl Larsen (2003). Monty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-1504-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=qVa1Hfh11V0C. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• David Morgan (1999). Monty Python speaks!. Fourth Estate. ISBN 978-1-84115-168-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=aTYcAQAAIAAJ. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• Alan Parker; Mick O'Shea (2006). And Now For Something Completely Digital: The Complete Illustrated Guide to Monty Python CDs and DVDs. The Disinformation Company. ISBN 978-1-932857-31-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=G49bRxbeH1kC. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• George Perry (2007). The Life of Python. Pavilion. ISBN 978-1-86205-762-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=J_Zg-9u4yLAC. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• Roger Wilmut (1980). From fringe to flying circus: celebrating a unique generation of comedy, 1960–1980. Eyre Methuen. ISBN 978-0-413-46950-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=PzxaAAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 1 October 2010. 
• The Secret Policeman's Balls, 3-DVD set (2009)
  • "The Secret Policeman's Balls DVD Release". Music For Human Rights. 27 January 2009. http://www.musicforhumanrights.org/news/secret-policemans-balls-dvd-release. Retrieved 19 August 2009. 
• Monty Python: 40 Years of Insanity
  • "Monty Python: 40 Years of Insanity". Life.com. 5 October 2009. http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/34232/monty-python-40-years-of-insanity. Retrieved 6 October 2009. 
• The Life of Python – 20 Greatest Monty Python Sketches (40th Anniversary)
  • "The Life of Python – 20 Greatest Monty Python Sketches". Gnews.com. 5 October 2009. http://gnews.com/entertainment/The-Life-of-Python-20-Greatest-Monty-Python-Sketches-110424014489.html. Retrieved 6 October 2009. 

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Monty Python

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Monty Python

• Pythonline.com – Monty Python's sort-of official site, actively maintained by Eric Idle
• Monty Python – Official YouTube page
• Monty Python Videos – Monty Python's best videos and movies
• 2012 interview with Carol Cleveland, covering Flying Circus and Holy Grail
• Python at ifilm.com
• Pythonisms: Python quotes as figures of speech
• Release of the 3-DVD Secret Policeman's Balls
• 40 Years of Monty Python – photo essay by TIME magazine
• Monty Python Reunion event, New York, 15 October 2009

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Born	(1986-12-22) December 22, 1986 (age 25) Lagos, Nigeria
Alias(es)	Omar Farooq al-Nigeri
Charge(s)	Pleaded guilty to the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, the attempted murder of 300 people, the attempted destruction of a civilian aircraft, placing a destructive device on an aircraft, and possession of explosives[1]
Status	Incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Florence ADX, Colorado.
Occupation	Engineering, MBA, and Arabic language student
Parents	Alhaji Umaru Mutallab (father) and Aisha (mother)

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Arabic عمر فاروق عبد المطلب) (also referred to as Umar Abdul Mutallab and Omar Farooq al-Nigeri; born in Lagos, Nigeria on December 22, 1986),^[2][3] popularly referred to as the "Underwear Bomber", is a Nigerian Islamist. He confessed to and was convicted of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan, on December 25, 2009.^[1][3]

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed to have organized the attack with Adbulmutallab claiming that they supplied him with the bomb and trained him.

He was convicted of eight criminal counts, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 289 people. On February 16, 2012 he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole by a U.S. federal court.^[4]

Background[link]

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the youngest of 16 children^[5] to Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, a Nigerian businessman who was described by The Times in 2009 as being "one of the richest men in Africa",^[6] and a former Chairman of First Bank of Nigeria and former Nigerian Federal Commissioner for Economic Development.^[5][7][8] His mother, Aisha, is the second of his father's two wives.^[9]

The family comes from Funtua in Katsina State. Abdulmutallab was raised initially in an affluent neighborhood of Kaduna,^[10] in Nigeria's north,^[5] and at the family home in Nairobi, Kenya.^[11] As a young boy he attended the Essence International School in Kaduna, as well as classes at the Rabiatu Mutallib Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies.^[12] As a child he enjoyed playing PlayStation and basketball .^[10] According to one of his cousins, Abdulmutallab condemned his father's banking profession as "immoral" and "un-Islamic" for charging interest, urging him to quit.

Togo: High school years[link]

He attended high school at the British International School in Lomé, the capital of Togo,^[8] a popular private school in West Africa. Abdulmutallab was known as a devout Muslim and for preaching about Islam to his schoolmates.^[13] While at school, he was nicknamed "Alfa," which is a term for Muslim clerics,^[14] and "Pope"^[11] – both due to his piety. A teacher, John McGuinness, described Abdulmutallab as "incredibly polite and very hard-working" during this time, while also noting his devotion to the Muslim faith.

He was described as a "dream student" by his history teacher, Michael Rimmer.^[15] The Telegraph interviewed Rimmer, who said that Abdulmutallab had defended the Taliban during classroom discussions of their social policies, and their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Rimmer described Abdulmutallab's family as "wonderful", and said he had been fond of Abdulmutallab. He also said he thought Abdulmutallab had been playing "devil's advocate" during the classroom discussions, and that he had really understood Abdulmutallab, but concluded he had not understood him after all.^[16]

Abdulmutallab visited the U.S. for the first time in 2004.^[17]

Yemen: 2004–05[link]

For the 2004–05 academic year, Abdulmutallab studied at the San'a Institute for the Arabic Language in Sana'a, Yemen, and attended lectures at Iman University.^{[18][19][20][21]}

Web postings[link]

CNN reported that in regard to the Internet username "Farouk1986," "the many detailed biographical points made by the poster match what has been reported about Mutallab's life."^[22] On December 28, 2009, a U.S. government official said the government was reviewing the online postings, and has not yet independently confirmed the authenticity of the posts.^[23]

CNN reported that, by 2005, "Farouk1986"'s postings "had a serious view of his religion."^[22] Tracey D. Samuelson of the Christian Science Monitor said that the posts "suggest a student preoccupied by university admissions and English soccer clubs, but who was also apparently lonely and conflicted."^[24] The Washington Post reviewed 300 online postings by "Farouk1986"; Philip Rucker and Julie Tate of the Washington Post said: "Taken together, the writings demonstrate an acute awareness of Western customs and a worldliness befitting Mutallab's privileged upbringing as a wealthy Nigerian banker's son."^[23] The user name posted on Facebook and on Islamic Forum (gawaher.com).^{[21][24][25][26][27][28]}

Farouk1986 discussed loneliness and marriage in his postings between 2005 and 2007, writing on January 28, 2005:

As i get lonely, the natural sexual drive awakens and i struggle to control it, sometimes leading to minor sinful activities like not lowering the gaze [in the presence of unveiled women]. And this problem makes me want to get married to avoid getting aroused.

And:

The hair of a woman can easily arouse a man. The Prophet (SAW) advised young men to fast if they can't get married but it has not been helping me much and I seriously don't want to wait for years before I get married. But i am only 18 ... It would be difficult for me to get married due to social norms of getting to the late 20's when one has a degree, a job, a house, etc before getting married. So usually my fa[n]tasies are about islamic stuff. The bad part of it is sometimes the fantasies are a bit worldly rather than concentrating in the hereafter.^[29]

In a posting on February 20, 2005, he wrote:

Alright, i wont go into too much details about me fantasy, but basically they are jihad fantisies [sic]. I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the muslims will win insha Allah and rule the whole world, and establish the greatest empire once again!!!^[30]

And in a May 2005 posting, he referred to radical Jamaican-born Muslim cleric Abdullah el-Faisal, who had been imprisoned in the UK for urging his followers to murder Jews, Hindus, and Americans, writing:

“i thought once they are arrested, no one hears about them for life and the keys to their prison wards are thrown away. That’s what I heard sheikh faisal of UK say (he has also been arrested i heard).”^[31]

In January 2006 he chastised female users for not wearing the hijab, adding:

I don’t think it is allowed to be just friends with someone from the opposite sex. Except when thinking of marriage or when you have to work together.^[32]

London: September 2005 – June 2008[link]

The University College London Main Building

Abdulmutallab began his studies at University College London in September 2005, where he studied Engineering and Business Finance,^[33] and earned a degree in mechanical engineering in June 2008.^{[5][13][34][35][36]}

He was president of the school's Islamic Society, which some sources have described as a vehicle for peaceful protest against the actions of the United States and the United Kingdom^[37] in the War on Terrorism.^[14][21][38] During his tenure as president, along with political discussions, the club participated in activities such as martial arts training and paintballing; at least one of the Society's paintballing trips involved a preacher who reportedly said: “Dying while fighting jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise.”^[21] He is the fourth president of a London student Islamic society to face terrorist charges in three years.^[39] He devoted more time while at school to the group's activities than to his studies, graduating with a 2:2, the second-lowest in the class according to a friend. He organized a conference in January 2007 under the banner “War on Terror Week”, and advertised speakers including political figures, human rights lawyers, speakers from Cageprisoners, and former Guantánamo Bay detainees.^[40] One lecture, Jihad v Terrorism, was billed as “a lecture on the Islamic position with respect to jihad”.^[40]

During those years he “crossed the radar screen” of MI5, the UK's domestic counter-intelligence and security agency, for radical links and “multiple communications” with Islamic extremists.^[41][42]

At the age of 21, Abdulmutallab told his parents that he wanted to get married; they refused to allow him to do so on the grounds that he had not earned a master's degree.^[10]

On June 12, 2008, Abdulmutallab applied for and received from the U.S. consulate in London a U.S. multiple-entry visa, valid to June 12, 2010, with which he visited Houston, Texas, from August 1–17, 2008.^[43][44] After graduating from university, Abdulmutallab made regular visits to Kaduna.^[45]

Dubai: January–July 2009[link]

From January until July 2009, he attended a master's of international business degree program at University of Wollongong in Dubai.^[46][47][48]

In May 2009, Abdulmutallab tried to return to Britain, ostensibly for a six-month "life coaching" program at what the British authorities concluded was a fictitious school; accordingly, his visa application was denied by the United Kingdom Border Agency.^[13] His name was placed on a UK Home Office security watch list, which according to BBC News means he could not enter the UK, though passing through the country in transit was permissible and he was not permanently banned; the UK did not share the information with other countries.^[49][50] This is because the application was rejected to prevent immigration fraud rather than for a national security purpose.^[11]

Yemen: August–December 2009[link]

Intelligence officials suspect that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula member, Anwar al-Awlaki, may have directed Abdulmutallab to Yemen for al-Qaeda training.^[51] Abdulmutallab's father agreed in July 2009 to his request to return to the San'a Institute for the Arabic Language in Yemen to study Arabic from August to September 2009.^[5][21] He arrived in the country in August.

Abdulmutallab was the only African student in the school of 70 students.^[52] A fellow student at the Institute said Abdulmutallab would start his day by going to the mosque for dawn prayers, and then would spend hours in his room reading the Quran. Ahmed Mohammed, one of his teachers, said Abdulmutallab spent the last 10 days of Ramadan sequestered in a mosque.^[53] He apparently left the Institute after a month, while remaining in-country.^[5][21][54]

His family became concerned in August 2009 when he called them to say he had dropped the course, but was remaining there.^[5] By September he routinely skipped his classes at the Institute and attended lectures at Iman University, notorious for suspected links to terrorism.^[21] “He told me his greatest wish was for sharia and Islam to be the rule of law across the world,” said one of his classmates at the Institute.^[21]

The Institute obtained an exit visa for him at his request, and on September 21 arranged for a car that took him to the airport. But the school's director said: "After that, we never saw him again, and apparently he did not leave Yemen".^[55] In October, Abdulmutallab sent his father a text message saying that he was no longer interested in pursuing an MBA in Dubai, and wanted instead to study sharia and Arabic in a seven-year course in Yemen.^[21] His father threatened to cut off his funding, whereupon Abdulmutallab said he was “already getting everything for free”.^[21] When his father asked who would sponsor him, Abdulmutallab replied "That's none of your business."^[56] Among the other text messages he sent to his father were: "I've found a new religion, the real Islam"; "You should just forget about me, I'm never coming back"; "Please forgive me. I will no longer be in touch with you"; and "Forgive me for any wrongdoing, I am no longer your child."^[5][21][57] The family last had contact with Abdulmutallab in October 2009.^[58]

Yemeni officials said that he was in Yemen from early August 2009, overstayed his student visa (which was valid through September 21), and left Yemen on December 7 (flying to Ethiopia, and then two days later to Ghana).^[59][60] Yemeni officials have said that Abdulmutallab traveled to the mountainous Shabwah Province to meet with "al-Qaeda elements" before leaving Yemen.^[10] A video of Abdulmutallab and others training in a desert camp, firing weapons at targets including the Jewish star, the British Union Jack, and the letters "UN", was produced by al-Qaeda in Yemen (whose logo is in a corner of the screen).^[61] The tape also includes an apparent martyrdom statement from him, justifying his actions against "the Jews and the Christians and their agents."^[61] Ghanaian officials say he was there from December 9 until December 24, when he flew to Lagos.^[62]

In February 2010, a Yemeni security official said that 43 people were being interrogated for links to the Christmas Day attempt, including foreigners, some of them studying Arabic and others married to Yemeni women. Abdulmutallab was thought to have used Arabic studies as a pretext for entering the country.^[63]

Awareness by US Intelligence[link]

On November 11, 2009, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named "Umar Farouk" had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad, but the cable did not reflect Abdulmutallab's last name.^[64] Abdulmutallab's father made a report to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19 regarding his son's "extreme religious views",^[5][65] and told the embassy that Abdulmutallab might be in Yemen.^{[8][21][35][66]} Acting on the report, the suspect's name was added in November 2009 to the U.S.'s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. It was not added, however, to the FBI's 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.'s 4,000-name No Fly List,^[67] nor was his U.S. visa revoked.^[21]

U.S. State Department officials said in Congressional testimony that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab's visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested that his visa not be revoked. The intelligence officials' stated reason was that revoking Abdulmutallab's visa could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda.^[68]

Abdulmutallab's name had come to the attention of intelligence officials many months before that,^[69] but no "derogatory information" was recorded about him.^[44] A Congressional official said that Abdulmutallab's name appeared in U.S. reports reflecting that he had connections to both al-Qaeda and Yemen.^[70] The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab's American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab's visa application earlier in 2009.^[11] The British did not inform the Americans because the visa application was denied to prevent immigration fraud and not for a national security purpose.^[11]

Contact with Islamic extremists[link]

The New York Times reported that "officials said the suspect told them he had obtained plastic explosives that were sewn into his underwear and a syringe from a bomb expert in Yemen associated with Al Qaeda."^[71][72]

Abdulmutallab had been a devout Muslim throughout his youth, but it is unclear when he became "radicalized." During his time in London, he reportedly visited the London Muslim Centre three times; the Centre is expected to be a focus of future investigations.^[14]

In April 2009, Abdulmutallab had applied to attend an Islamic seminar in Houston, Texas. He obtained a multiple-entry visa in the U.S. Consulate in June 2008 that would be valid until June 2010. He attended the Islamic seminar from August 1–17 at AlMaghrib Institute.^[73]

When Abdulmutallab returned to Yemen, purportedly to study Arabic again, he appeared to have undergone a personality change: he was more religious and "a loner", and wore traditional Islamic clothing.^[74] He rarely attended class, and sometimes he left class midway to go pray at a mosque.^[10]

Ties to Anwar al-Awlaki[link]

Anwar al-Awlaki, who reportedly had ties to Abdulmutallab

A number of sources reported contacts between Abdulmutallab and Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim lecturer and spiritual leader who had been accused of being a senior al-Qaeda talent recruiter and motivator. Al-Awlaki, who was killed by an unmanned drone in Yemen in September of 2011, was previously an imam in the U.S. and had links to three of the 9/11 hijackers, the 2005 London subway bombers, a 2006 Toronto terror cell, a 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and the 2009 Fort Hood shooter.^{[75][76][77][78]}

With a blog and a Facebook page, Anwar al-Awlaki had been described as the "bin Laden of the internet."^[79]

Despite being banned from entering the UK in 2006, al-Awlaki spoke on at least seven occasions at five different venues around Britain via video-link in 2007–09.^[80] He gave a number of video-link lectures at the East London Mosque during this period. In one instance, the mosque provoked the outrage of The Daily Telegraph by hosting a video-teleconference by al-Awlaki in 2008, and former Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve expressed concern over al-Awlaki's involvement.^[81] On New Year's Day 2009 the mosque played a pre-recorded video lecture by al-Awlaki, with a poster depicting New York in flames.^[82][83] He also gave video-link talks in England to an Islamic student society at the University of Westminster in September 2008, an arts center in East London in April 2009 (after the Tower Hamlets council gave its approval), worshipers at the Al Huda Mosque in Bradford, and a dinner of the Cageprisoners organization in September 2008 at the Wandsworth Civic Centre in South London (at which he said "We should make jihad for our brothers and an angel will make the same jihad for you").^[80][84][85] On August 23, 2009, al-Awlaki was banned by local authorities in Kensington and Chelsea, London, from speaking at Kensington Town Hall via videolink to a fundraiser dinner for Guantanamo detainees promoted by Cageprisoners.^[86][87] His videos, which discuss his Islamist theories, have also circulated in England.^[88][89][90]

Pete Hoekstra, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said on the day of the attack that Obama administration officials and officials with access to law enforcement information told him "there are reports [the suspect] had contact [with al-Awlaki].... The question we'll have to raise is was this imam in Yemen influential enough to get some people to attack the U.S. again."^[91][92][93] He added: "The suspicion is ... that [the suspect] had contact with al-Awlaki. The belief is this is a stronger connection with al-Awlaki" than Hasan had.^[94] Hoekstra later said credible sources told him Abdulmutallab "most likely" has ties with al-Awlaki.^[95][96]

The Sunday Times established that Abdulmutallab first met and attended lectures by al-Awlaki in 2005, when he was in Yemen to study Arabic.^[21][97] The two are also "thought to have met" in London, according to The Daily Mail.^[98] Fox News reported that evidence collected during searches of "flats or apartments of interest" connected to Abdulmutallab in London showed that he was a "big fan" of al-Awlaki, as web traffic showed he followed Awlaki's blog and website.^[99]

However, there is no clear evidence that the two men met in London. NPR reported that according to unnamed intelligence officials Abdulmutallab attended a sermon by al-Awlaki at the Finsbury Park Mosque "in the fall of 2006 or 2007",^[51] but al-Awlaki was in fact in prison in Yemen during that period. The Finsbury Park Mosque has stated: "neither Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nor Anwar al-Awlaki has ever been invited to attend NLCM since we took charge of the mosque in February 2005. We can be certain that neither man has been given a platform at the mosque in any form".^[100] CBS News and The Sunday Telegraph reported that Abdulmutallab attended a talk by al-Awlaki at the East London Mosque (which al-Awlaki may have participated in by video teleconference).^[80][101] However, The Sunday Telegraph has since removed the report from its website following a complaint by the East London Mosque, who stated that "Anwar Al Awlaki did not deliver any talks at the ELM between 2005 and 2008, which is when the newspaper had falsely alleged that Abdullmutallab had attended such talks".^[102]

University of Oxford historian, and professor of international relations, Mark Almond wrote that the suspect was "on American security watch-lists because of his links with ... Al-Awlaki".^[103]

CBS News said that the two were communicating in the months before the bombing attempt, and sources say that at a minimum al-Awlaki was providing spiritual support.^[104] According to federal sources, over the year prior to the attack, Abdulmutallab intensified electronic communications with al-Awlaki.^[105]

Intelligence officials suspect al-Awlaki may have directed Abdulmutallab to Yemen for al-Qaeda training.^[51] One government source described intercepted "voice-to-voice communication" between the two during the fall of 2009, saying that al-Awlaki "was in some way involved in facilitating [Abdulmutallab]'s transportation or trip through Yemen. It could be training, a host of things."^[106]

Abdulmutallab reportedly told the FBI that al-Awlaki was one of his trainers when he underwent al-Qaeda training in remote camps in Yemen, and there were "informed reports" that Abdulmutallab met al-Awlaki during his final weeks of training and indoctrination prior to the attack.^[107][108] According to a U.S. intelligence official, intercepts and other information point to connections between the two:

Some of the information ... comes from Abdulmutallab, who ... said that he met with al-Awlaki and senior al-Qaeda members during an extended trip to Yemen this year, and that the cleric was involved in some elements of planning or preparing the attack and in providing religious justification for it. Other intelligence linking the two became apparent after the attempted bombing, including communications intercepted by the National Security Agency indicating that the cleric was meeting with "a Nigerian" in preparation for some kind of operation.^[109]

Yemen's Deputy Prime Minister for Defense and Security Affairs, Rashad Mohammed al-Alimi, said Yemeni investigators believe the suspect traveled in October to Shabwa, where he met with suspected al-Qaeda members in a house built by al-Awlaki and used by al-Awlaki to hold theological sessions, and that Abdulmutallab was trained and equipped there with his explosives.^[110] "If he went to Shabwa, for sure he would have met Anwar al-Awlaki," al-Alimi said. Al-Alimi also said he believed al-Awlaki is alive.^[111] A top Yemen government official said the two met with each other.^[112] And Abdul Elah al-Shaya, a Yemeni journalist, said a healthy al-Awlaki called him on December 28 and said that the Yemeni government's claims as to his death were "lies". Shaya declined to comment as to whether al-Awlaki had told him about any contacts he may have had with Abdulmutallab. According to Gregory Johnsen, a Yemeni expert at Princeton University, Shaya is generally reliable.^[113]

At the end of January 2010, a Yemeni journalist, Abdulelah Hider Sha’ea, said he met with al-Awlaki, who said he had met and spoken with Abdulmutallab in Yemen in the fall of 2009. Al-Awlaki also reportedly said Abdulmutallab was one of his students, that he supported what Abdulmutallab did but did not tell him to do it, and that he was proud of Abdulmutallab. A New York Times journalist listened to a digital recording of the meeting, and said that while the tape's authenticity could not be independently verified, the voice resembled that on other recordings of al-Awlaki.^[114]

Al-Awlaki released a tape in March 2010, in which he said, in part:

To the American people ... nine years after 9/11, nine years of spending, and nine years of beefing up security you are still unsafe even in the holiest and most sacred of days to you, Christmas Day....

Our brother Umar Farouk has succeeded in breaking through the security systems that have cost the U.S. government alone over 40 billion dollars since 9/11.^[115]

On April 6, 2010, The New York Times reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki^[116] and he was killed in a drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.^[117]

Attack[link]

An Airbus A330 similar to the one involved in the Flight 253 incident.

On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab traveled from Ghana to Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16.^[118] Eyewitnesses Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell told the Detroit News that prior to boarding the plane they witnessed a "smartly dressed man" possibly of Indian descent, around 50 years old, and who spoke "in an American accent similar to my own." helping Abdulmutallab onto the plane.^[119][120] They also testify that the ticket agent refused to allow Abdulmutallab on the plane because he did not have his own passport.^[121] These circumstances underlie some of the passengers' speculations that the U.S. government supplied a defective device to the perpetrator and a man in a tan suit with an American accent intervened, the matter was referred to a manager, and Abdulmutallab was then able to board the plane, presumably still without a passport.^[122]

Abdulmutallab spent about 20 minutes in the bathroom as the flight approached Detroit, and then covered himself with a blanket after returning to his seat. Other passengers then heard popping noises, smelled a foul odor, and some saw Abdulmutallab’s trouser leg and the wall of the plane on fire. Fellow passenger Jasper Schuringa, a Dutch film director, jumped on Abdulmutallab and subdued him as flight attendants used fire extinguishers to douse the flames.^[123] Abdulmutallab was taken toward the front of the airplane cabin, was seen to have lost his trousers due to the fire, and had burns on his legs.^[124] When asked by a flight attendant what he had in his pocket, he replied: “Explosive device.” The device consisted of a six-inch (15-cm) packet which was sewn into his underwear^{[1][125][126]} containing the explosive powder PETN, which became a plastic explosive when mixed^[127] with the high explosive triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (the same two explosives that were used by Richard Reid in 2001^[128][129]), and a syringe containing liquid acid.^[130] Abdulmutallab created the explosive by mixing PETN with TATP and other ingredients.^[130]

After being taken into custody, Abdulmutallab told authorities he had been directed by al-Qaeda, and that he had obtained the device in Yemen.^[131] Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the organization's affiliate in Yemen, subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack, describing it as revenge for the United States' role in a Yemeni military offensive against al-Qaeda in that country.^[132]

Aftermath[link]

The exterior of Federal Correctional Institution, Milan (Michigan), where Abdulmutallab was incarcerated

Two days after the attack, Abdulmutallab was released from a hospital where he had been treated for first and second degree burns to his hands, and second degree burns to his right inner thigh and genitalia, sustained during the attempted bombing.^[133]He was subsequently held at the Federal Correctional Institution, Milan, a federal prison in Michigan, where he remained during court proceedings.^[134] New restrictions were imposed on U.S. travelers, but the government did not publicize many of them because security officials reportedly "wanted the security experience to be 'unpredictable'".^[135] One day after she said that the system had "worked", Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano acknowledged that the aviation security system had indeed failed.^[136] President Barack Obama vowed that the U.S. government would track down all those responsible for the attack, and any attack being planned against the U.S.^[136] He also ordered a review of detection and watch list procedures. Saying that "totally unacceptable" systemic and human failures had occurred, Obama told reporters he was insisting on "accountability at every level," but did not give any details.^[137] Criticism of the system's failure to prevent Abdulmutallab from boarding the aircraft in the first place has been widespread; one critic, former FBI counterterrorism agent Ali Soufan, has said that it "should have been lighting up like a Christmas tree."^[11]

United States Senator Joe Lieberman called for the Obama administration to pre-emptively curb terrorism in Yemen and halt plans to repatriate Guantanamo detainees to Yemen.^[138] Peter Hoekstra and Congressional Representative Peter T. King^[139] also called for a halt to the repatriation of Guantanamo detainees from Yemen.^[140] Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for a halt to all current plans with regard to Yemen in light of Abdulmutallab's ties there.^[141]

Immediately after the attack, Lateef Adegbite, Secretary General of Nigeria's Supreme Council for Islamic Affair, condemned the attack and said: "We are embarrassed by this incident and we strongly condemn the alleged action by this young man. We do not think that there is any organised Islamic group in Nigeria that is inclined to such a criminal and violent act. We condemn such an extreme viewpoint and action."^[15]

On December 27, The Wall Street Journal reported that Abdulmutallab's suspected ties to jihadists from Yemen could potentially complicate the Obama administration's plans to release Yemeni detainees held in Guantanamo to Yemen.^[142]

On January 27, 2010 the House Committee on Homeland Security continued a series of hearings across Capitol Hill that started prior to January 27, 2010, all looking into the events leading up to and after the attempted bombing of Flight 253 over Detroit.^[143] Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa was not taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.^[144]

Reactions in the Muslim and Arabic-speaking media were mixed, from suspicion that it was a "set-up to lure the media and expand the scope and depth of a new chapter in the war on terror",^[145][146] to concerns that Nigerians would now be "unduly stigmatized."^[147]

Abdumutallab is now held at United States Penitentiary, Florence ADX.^[148]

Interrogation and court proceedings[link]

On December 26, 2009, Abdulmutallab appeared in front of Judge Paul D. Borman of Federal District Court in Detroit and was formally charged with attempting to blow up and placing a destructive device on a U.S. civil aircraft. The hearing took place at University Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he was receiving treatment for the burns he suffered when he attempted to detonate the device.^[3] Additional charges were added in a grand jury indictment on January 6, 2010, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 289 people.^{[1][149][150]}

Abdulmutallab initially cooperated with investigators, then stopped talking. The decision to read him his Miranda rights, advising him of his right to remain silent, generated criticism from a number of mostly Republican politicians.^[151] After the FBI brought two of Abdulmutallab's relatives from Nigeria to the U.S. to speak with him, he once again began to cooperate.^{[152][153][154][125]}

On September 14, 2010, the Associated Press reported Abdulmutallab had dismissed his court-appointed defense team in order to defend himself. The court subsequently appointed Anthony Chambers to act as standby counsel.^[155]

On October 12, 2011, Abdulmutallab, against the advice of Chambers, pleaded guilty to the eight charges against him, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and the attempted murder the 289 people on the plane. Both charges carry a mandatory life sentence.^[156]

"The Quran allows every Muslim to undertake jihad," Abdulmutallab told the court after changing his plea. "I carried the device to avenge the killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters... Unfortunately, my actions make me guilty of a crime." Abdulmutallab called the failed explosives he had hidden in his underwear a "blessed weapon" and said he attempted to use it "because of the tyranny of the United States." Abdulmutallab had originally pleaded not guilty to the charges, but reportedly changed his mind after the prosecution completed its opening arguments.^[156]

Sentencing was initially scheduled for January 12, 2012, but was subsequently postponed to February 16, 2012 in order to give Abdulmutallab more time to review the presentence investigation report completed by the United States Probation Service.^[157] On February 13, 2012, Chambers filed a motion arguing that sentencing his client to life in prison would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because no one other than his client suffered physical harm during the attempted attack.^[158] The motion was rejected.

On February 16, 2012, Judge Nancy Edmunds of Federal District Court in Detroit sentenced Abdulmutallab to four consecutive life sentences plus 50 years.^[159][160] He shouted, “Allahu akbar” five times during his sentencing, and said that Muslims were “proud to kill in the name of God, and that is what God told us to do in the Quran.”^[161]

In a statement after the sentencing, Abdulmutallab's family said, "We are grateful to God that the unfortunate incident of that date did not result in any injury or death,".^[162]

Alleged subsequent incident[link]

On 7 May 2012, American officials claimed that they had thwarted another Al Qaeda plot that would have been carried out in a manner similar to the 2009 Christmas Day bombing effort.^[163] American officials stated that the attack would have involved a more sophisticated bomb, also planted in undergarments and used to attack a civilian aircraft, near the anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Officials did not state whether any persons had been arrested or charged in their operation.^[163]

See also[link]

• Naser Jason Abdo
• Michael Finton, American convert to Islam, attempted 2009 bombing of U.S. target with FBI agent he thought was al-Qaeda member
• Fort Hood shooting
• Hasan Akbar case American Muslim convert convicted of the double-murder of two US Army officers
• Islamic extremism in the United States
• Jihobbyist
• Sharif Mobley, American suspected al-Qaeda member, arrested in Yemen in 2010 and suspected of killing guard in escape attempt
• Operation Arabian Knight, 2010 arrest of two Muslim men from New Jersey on terrorism charges
• Aafia Siddiqui, female alleged al-Qaeda member, former U.S. resident, convicted in 2010 of attempting to kill U.S. personnel
• Bryant Neal Vinas, American convert to Islam, convicted in 2009 of participating in/supporting al-Qaeda plots in Afghanistan and the U.S.
• Najibullah Zazi, al-Qaeda member, U.S. resident, pleaded guilty in 2010 of planning suicide bombings on New York City subway system
• Christophe Naudin, Sûreté aérienne, la grande illusion, Edition de la Table Ronde, Paris 2006

References[link]

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (February 2012)