Knowing full well that I am going to be assailed for giving a good review to the Bill Maher-Larry Charles comedy/documentary Religulous a mere week after I gave a blisteringly bad review to the faith-based Fireproof, I’m honor bound to do it anyway. Does this irreverent—sometimes scathing—look at religion better fit my personal worldview than Fireproof? Is the Pope infallible when he speaks ex cathedra? Is that why I’m giving the film high marks? Since what it’s saying appeals to me—at least in part—increases its chances, but it’s not the reason. The reason really comes down to this: Religulous is a cleverly constructed piece of work that by turns amused me, made me think, alarmed me and occasionally offended me. In the case of a film of this sort and with this agenda I don’t think the fact that it sometimes offended me is necessarily a negative.
In broadly simplistic terms, the film is being taken as Maher’s attack on religion for what he perceives as religion’s preposterousness, its ability to divide rather than unite us and its basic irrationality. True enough as far as it goes, but Maher isn’t selling a replacement dogma per se. He’s selling the idea that there’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know.” He compounds this by insisting—and this will be a problem for a lot of people—that neither does anyone else. But since the movie’s intent is to be confrontational and provoke controversy, is that a failing? That’s a call you’ll have to make for yourself. If a movie that functions on such a basis is going to offend you, it’s simple enough to stay away. Though the fact that Religulous was the surprise hit of the weekend—coming in at number 10 despite its showing in a mere 502 theaters, with an estimated average gross of $6,972 per theater, making it the second most popular film in the country on a per theater basis—indicates a lot of folks aren’t staying away.
I’m personally not all that fond of Bill Maher. I find him just a little too pleased with being Bill Maher to take to him. Even when I’m in agreement with him, I’m not wholly comfortable with the fact. He’s witty, quick on his feet and a terrific raconteur. The problem is that he’s all too often more interested in being a provocateur—to the point that I often find him unnecessarily mean-spirited. Indeed, it’s this very quality that made Religulous topple over into the offensive on occasion.
I had no problem with him scoring points off a Christ portrayer at a Holy Land Theme Park (ye gods) in Orlando by pointing out to the self-satisfied man that all the basics of the Christ story are part of several earlier mythologies. Nor did I have a quibble when an ex-gay minister who specializes in “converting” gays to straights opined that there’s no such thing as a homosexual and Maher responded, “Have you met Little Richard?” (The minister himself took the whole interview with grace and good humor.) But there were other times when Maher was obviously mocking his subjects rather than debating with them. Some of them probably deserved it, but it left a sour taste.
Similarly, while I found both of the Vatican priests that Maher interviewed to be fascinating, lucid and well-spoken—as apparently did Maher—I found it odd and a little disingenuous that he didn’t factor their obvious non-glassy-eyed, non-fanatical take on the subject into more account as concerns his views. In other words, not everybody’s like the guy building the creationist theme park where dinosaurs and children are in the same displays, and I think that needed addressing.
Perhaps the footage is simply meant to speak for itself. Most of the more bizarre events and responses are allowed to speak for themselves. Maher even makes no comment on the alarming image of people at that Holy Land theme park applauding every time the Christ portrayer got knocked down by a Roman guard impersonator. Now, that’s something I’d love to have explained to me.
Bottom line is simple. The film is well made, funny, pointed and very, very irreverent. But really, in terms of content, it’s the flip side of the faith-based movie, because it’s ultimately preaching the religion of doubt to people who already have doubts. (Then again, if Bill Maher can undermine your faith, your faith was already in trouble.) In that regard, its primary value lies in how funny you find it—and in being the first outright movie aimed at the cited 16 percent of the population who admit to being agnostic or atheistic. Rated R for some language and sexual material.
I wanted to go see this, but the EPIC theater in Hendersonville is not showing it. They DO offer showings of “An American Carol” and “Fireproof” but if I want to see this movie I will have to drive to the Fine Arts in Asheville. That’s life in Henderson County, I guess.
He’s selling the idea that there’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know.”
It’s indicative of the binary quality of American thought that the film has been announced as an “atheist” documentary, when, in actuality, it presents a more agnostic worldview.
I found it odd and a little disingenuous that he didn’t factor their obvious non-glassy-eyed, non-fanatical take on the subject into more account as concerns his views.
One must wonder why Maher kept those clips in the film at all if he wasn’t going to address them directly. The fact that he did keep them indicates a greater intellectual honesty than, say, Expelled. All the same, they deserved a more complete treatment.
One must wonder why Maher kept those clips in the film at all if he wasn’t going to address them directly. The fact that he did keep them indicates a greater intellectual honesty than, say, Expelled.
Beverly Hills Chihuahua has greater intellectual honesty than Expelled, but besides all that, it should be noted that Maher is a more convincing performer than Ben Stein.
All the same, they deserved a more complete treatment.
I tend to agree, but I also think it’s simply that I wanted more of them, especially the guy from the Vatican observatory, who, as a friend of mine noted, was “way cool.” (That may be why there isn’t more of him — he’s cooler than Bill Maher.)
Beverly Hills Chihuahua has greater intellectual honesty than Expelled
One must wonder how Intelligent Design would account for the existence of a C.G.I. iguana voiced by Cheech Marin….
I tend to agree, but I also think it’s simply that I wanted more of them, especially the guy from the Vatican observatory, who, as a friend of mine noted, was “way cool.”
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you find Catholicism more appealing that other religions? It seems rather too conservative for your tastes.
(That may be why there isn’t more of him—he’s cooler than Bill Maher.)
There’s an unwritten rule of cinematography that documentarians must be so irritating as to totally overpower their subject matter.
One must wonder how Intelligent Design would account for the existence of a C.G.I. iguana voiced by Cheech Marin….
Oh, I do wish someone would pass this question on to Ben Stein.
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you find Catholicism more appealing that other religions? It seems rather too conservative for your tastes.
I think it has a lot to do with having dealt with Jesuits and liberal-minded priests (none of whom tend to have a lot in common with hardline Church dogma, I grant you), the lack of a literal reading of the Bible, and — perhaps most of all — the fact that it proves that art and religion are not incompatible and that “Christian art” need not be interchangeable with “mediocrity.” Overall, I simply find it a more intellectual approach to religion than most. At the same time, I freely concede that the Episcopal/Anglican faith is awfully close (kinda Catholic-sans-Pope) and the Methodist Church I was quasi-raised in seemed pretty much like the same stuff set to music (and minus the call-and-response business).
This isn’t to say that I don’t ultimately find all of it pretty preposterous. I can just comprehend a more intellectual approach better than one that wants me to believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are some kind of trap laid down by Satan and the prospect of Rapturization, etc.
Overall, I simply find it a more intellectual approach to religion than most.
Many Catholic converts cite this intellectual appeal. It’s true that Catholicism has a richer artistic culture than most Evangelical denominations, the majority of which are fixated on the hereafter at the expense of the present. I don’t understand that attitude, since the hereafter is founded on the present.
Myself, I figure there are fanatics in every denomination, so I’ve never felt beholden to the standards of my fellow churchgoers. (God is my shepherd, and I don’t need sheepdogs nipping at my heels!) I seek out churches with ethical paradigms similar to my own; that way, I can at least support my congregation’s spiritual priorities.
I don’t really identify myself as a member of a particular denomination, but I’ve been comfortable in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church because of its emphasis on female equality and the separation of church and state. (When I was a preteen, I “read myself” into the denomination while researching theology. It’s a testament to my parents’ tolerance that they let me choose my own religion — especially a little-known splinter group widely regarded as a cult!)
I completely agree.
I believe in God, I’m not atheist but I don’t believe in relgion. Religion, as you worded it quite nicely, “divides” rather than “unites”.
And it’s quite true.
From the time we were children we were expected to believe in whatever religion we happened to be apart of. That in itself can’t be religion, not in my opinion. I think religion should be something that you gradually build faith towards, not something that is thrown full force at you and is expected to be welcomed.
On more than one occassion, I’ve asked people, “Why can’t you just believe in both?” Sounds totally naive, I know. But really, why not? If this is something that is supposed to unite us, what’s wrong with believing in all relgions? After all, it all leads up to the one thing we ALL agree to believe: God.
What difference would it make if I celebrated Christmas and Eid? People look at me funny when I ask that question and usually reply with, “That’s not the way it works.” No, that’s the way we’ve MADE it work.
Religion is the reason people are suffering, why most of us disagree and cannot live peacefully.
I ESPECIALLY disagree with the fact that all of thr writers of these sacred books (Bible, Tora, etc.) are meant to be men who were spoken to by God and such. Humans are humans. No such human is more divine than God Himself. Well, that’s my belief anyways.
That’s why I don’t believe that God “wants” us to do this or that, what the Bible, the Tora, the Qu-ran, tells us to do. Those were written by men; God simply wanted us to live, Procreate. Love. Live in harmony.
Religion has done nothing but destroy that concept.
I agree. Completely. Religion is not a practice. It’s a mandate society demands upon us. We’re called atheist if we don’t believe, we’re called anti-simmetic if we beg to differ with certain beleifs.
Religin does nothing but seperate us into distinct groups that, as of the day they were created, will never, ever, be split. Well no. Perhaps ONE day things may change. But no time soon.
the guy from the Vatican observatory…was “way cool.”
The Vatican Astronomer was really awesome! I’m at risk of just saying ‘me too, me too, me too,’ to everything in your review, but I also wanted more of the astronomer, who could have been the subject of an entire documentary on his own, and I wanted less of the personal attacks. It’s ridiculous anyway to think that you’re going to reach a legitimate conclusion when you pit a professional against an unprepared interviewee.
(And Maher’s mum was pretty cool too.)
So, I had the fortune of having to do the DVD release of this for the web…
Depending on what scale you’re measuring on–a C+ for stimulating any meaningful degree of theological discourse & and an A+ for shooting deluded half-wit and ego-maniac fish in a barrel.
You don’t have to be an Atheist to recognize a well dressed, well prepared, well spoken guy with an angle, not unlike J.C. himself. It could just as easily have been a fill-in-the-blank “expose” on used care salesmen, infomercial pitchmen, or self-help gurus.
It’s all about how the consumer measures peace of mind–for them, not you. Whether it’s an “invisible product” or not has no relevance whatsoever.