Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Religulous

The main idea of Religulous seems to be pretty well encapsulated in its title's portmanteau : Religion is ridiculous. But a film that seems like it might just be a lighthearted—if slightly mean—romp through a cascade of religious idiosyncrasies takes a left turn down a dark path in its final five minutes.

In a lot of ways, this isn’t so much a documentary about religion as it is about Bill Maher, or, rather, about Bill Maher’s views of religion. And, to Maher’s credit, he does not zero in exclusively on one religion. The film has him talking to (to name just a few) Christian truckers, Jewish scientists, a Muslim singer, and ex-Mormons. He takes shots at Scientology, at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, and at the religion of Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda—a man with followers in about 35 countries who calls himself both the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and the Antichrist.

Of course, this scattershot approach means Maher really can’t go any more than ankle deep in any of these discussions. But that’s really his point: You don’t need to go beyond ankle deep. To Maher, religion is just that shallow.

This helps explain why he doesn’t spend more than a minute or so with genome researcher (and Christian) Francis Collins: It’s not as easy to make him look ridiculous (though Maher and director Larry Charles—who also directed Borat—do their best). Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory and another proponent of the compatibility of science and religion, comes off significantly better; Maher’s purpose with Coyne is simply to undercut the creationist Ken Ham.

In the end, two things really bothered me about Religulous. The first was pretty predictable: The interviews were somewhat akin to bullying—just intellectual rather than physical. While Maher was certainly able to mine some comedic moments, my response as an audience member was caught in that uncomfortable place between wanting to laugh and wanting to shout “Hey! Pick on someone your own size!”

The other troublesome aspect was the film’s jarring—and somewhat unexpected—final moment. Bill Maher delivers a rousing monologue—intercut with images of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks—that essentially boils down to this: Religion has been used to violent ends in the past, and it will be again, only now we have nuclear weapons. He calls upon his allies—atheists, agnostics, even the religiously uncommitted—to come out of hiding, to break the polite code that we don’t talk about religion, and to challenge religious people’s beliefs.

Certainly, certainly, certainly, Maher means well. His intentions, by all means, seem completely pacifistic and idealistic. The problem is this: We’ve seen calls to convert the unconverted in this way before, and—even when they’re delivered by the most well-intentioned, non-violent messengers imaginable—they frequently do devolve into hatred, resentment, and violence against those not in the group with the “truth.” He’s not really speaking to religious believers in this film (as the R rating will ensure); he’s rallying his base.

In the end, one of the most prescient lines in the film comes from the unlikely source of Tal Bachman (the musician famous for his 1999 hit “She’s So High,” but interviewed by Maher because of his credentials as an ex-Mormon). Bachman, answering a question from Maher about why more people don’t leave Mormonism, explains that once you call into question the teachings of founder Joseph Smith, you’ve severed a bond with your family and friends.

Unfortunately, the moment passes with no follow-up comment. Which makes sense: There’s no reason for Maher to explore the idea of religion as a social adhesive. His goal in this film was to splash around in the puddles of religion, not to plunge into the ocean.

11 comments:

Stormy Pinkness said...

I am so tired of everyone thinking that people who are religious are just some kind of nuts that follow everything blindly. If you're gonna try to make fun of someone's beliefs then understand them first. If Maher is going to poke fun at religion then fine, there is plenty to make fun of, but you can't just do a cursory glance you actually need to look.

I don't even know if this makes sense but there you have it.

Mike said...

This is disappointing to read, but echoes other review I've read of the film. I feared that it would be basically preaching to the converted, and other reviews have pointed to a lack of depth, and unanswered questions. This also disappoints me because I really agree with Maher in that I think organized religion has caused a lot of problems in the past, and I see even more severe problems coming for America very soon, though this election seems to be bringing back race as a major issue, and that will be even more so if Barack Obama makes it to the White House.

Wicked Little Critta said...

You know, I'm still surprised at how much I disagreed with the Dr. on this one. So I think I'll throw in my cent or two.
I think his review is pretty accurate, except that I felt the film was much more effective and positive than he did. SP, I'd like to make the point that there are many religious people who are nuts and who do follow their religion blindly.
Maher actually was raised in the Catholic church, and actually has a pretty good understanding of many religions. His knowledge in the film about a lot of religions exceeds most people's, I'll say that much.
The point that Maher is making is that the cursory glance, or the "splashing around in the puddles or religion" is what is taken for granted. He was asking people the most basic questions about religion, the questions that SHOULD be the easiest to answer, and yet he didn't get anything. Questions like, "Why is faith good?" and "Why should I love a god who wipes people out on a whim?" and "Why should I believe? Where's the evidence?" are all excellent questions, but he doesn't get a lot of good answers. Once you get into religion, you have to assume these things, and then all of a sudden everything makes sense.
I also think that he does make an important point about what organized religion has done negatively in the world, and what it continues to do.
And I had no problem with Maher picking on the people he talked to. If you're going to make definitive claims and try to convert people to those claims, you'd better have a leg to stand on.
I will agree, however, it would have been interesting to have an actual theologian on, or a lengthy discussion with a scientist who is religious.

Stormy Pinkness said...

I don't deny that there are many religious people who are nuts and follow their religion blindly. But there are some who are perfectly sane. I feel it's unfair to those who think about their religion and live it in a practical way, because the stigma is attached to them and they have to try even harder to distance themselves from it.

Moshe Reuveni said...

First I will add a disclaimer: Unlike SP, I do think religious people are nuts.
Nuts, in the sense that they go for a system of values that has absolutely no evidence to support it. Nuts, in the sense that their belief system actually contradicts facts.
Nuts is probably too harsh a word and definitely inaccurate in this context; delusional would be a more suitable phrase.

Which brings me to what I really want to say.
I’m don't like comedies that prey on the weak. In the above case, the weak are religious people who are almost certainly victims of the indoctrination forced upon them by their parents. This is not a way to make a statement.
Someone that does do a good job at confronting the crème de la crème that religion can pit against him (e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England) is Richard Dawkins. If you want a proper atheist oriented discussion on religion that does not try to demean and doesn’t stop at turning every stone there is out there, then head to the library and get Dawkins’ The God Delusion.
If you want something to watch, download his two episode TV documentary, Root of All Evil (note: the title was forced on Dawkins by the BBC). Lately Dawkins has added another documentary of similar themes into his arsenal with the three episode long The Genius of Charles Darwin, which is also a download away.

Wicked Little Critta said...

I still don't understand how asking questions is preying on the weak. I mean, he's not the most humble person in the world, and there are parts where the ideas are mocked, but...c'mon, really? How am I the one not bothered by this??

Dr. Worm said...

"WLC: How am I the one not bothered by this??"

I have to admit, that baffles me as well. WLC is hands down the most empathetic person I know, so I'm stymied as to why her empathy circuits are malfunctioning here.

Is asking questions preying on the weak? No. Is asking questions, editing the answers for comedic effect, plastering semi-demeaning subtitles beneath the speakers, and intercutting the conversation with footage of yourself waxing sarcastic about the same issues preying on the weak? Yeah, I kinda think so.

And it should be mentioned: Preying on the weak is not all Maher does here. Several of his interviews in fact are with people who should know better (the aforementioned Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda and Ken Ham, as well as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Rev. Jeremiah Cummings). But several are with people way, way further down the religious totem pole.

But I could even buy these lower-tier interviews if Maher's purpose was, in fact, to engage religious people. But it's not. He's preaching to the converted. He's saying, "You already thought religious people were stupid; here are a few more examples to solidify that belief."

And as I've mentioned to WLC in person, I've seen the other end of that as well -- religious pastors/ministers saying things like, "Oh, those atheists believe we're all descended from monkeys. What morons!"

This sort of agitprop is perfectly natural if you want to harden battle lines before a war. But if we want to promote real understanding, shouldn't we be humanizing the people we disagree with, rather than demonizing them?

Moshe Reuveni said...

Having not seen Religulgous I cannot really answer you; my statement on being tired etc was of a more generic nature and was made in light of DW's comments.
I just think that if you really want to have an effect on the way someone thinks, mocking them or utilizing a shallow approach is unlikely to achieve that. A more constructive methodology is due, and I suspect Dawkins does a much better job there.

That said, research indicates that our brains do have a way of clinging to the first thing we hear about a new subject (a trait widely abused by spin); that being skeptic tends to activate the same circuits in the brain that disgust does; and that stuff pushed to our brains at a really young age tends to stay there for good. Religion will therefore not disappear any time soon.

Mike said...

"Nuts is probably too harsh a word and definitely inaccurate in this context; delusional would be a more suitable phrase."

Delusional works in some cases. I think the most relevant words here are "indoctrinated", "conditioned", and "programmed".

"I still don't understand how asking questions is preying on the weak. I mean, he's not the most humble person in the world, and there are parts where the ideas are mocked, but...c'mon, really? How am I the one not bothered by this??"

There's Bullying, and there's bullying. It sounds to me like what Maher is doing is little "B" bullying.

"This sort of agitprop is perfectly natural if you want to harden battle lines before a war. But if we want to promote real understanding, shouldn't we be humanizing the people we disagree with, rather than demonizing them?"

Not so much, I think. I will say that the type of zealotry I witnessed/heard in college and have seen in films like Jesus Camp concerns me, and doesn't exactly indicate open ears and hearts.

Moshe Reuveni said...

We're staying here from discussing a film to discussing the shaping of the future's society but I will still drop my 2 cents:
In my opinion, battles and war would not help. Education would, especially at younger ages. And by education I don't mean telling kids "our god is bigger than theirs" or "there's no god"; I just mean providing them with the tools to learn how to search for evidence and then interpret the evidence to make their minds up for themselves.

Moshe Reuveni said...

YRF: "indoctrinated", "conditioned" and "programmed" are words describing what it took to make someone religious. "Delusional", on the other hand, describes the symptoms of their illness.
And to complete the record, the vast majority of my family and friends are religious to one extent or another and even I will admit that they seem to be able to live life as decent members of society.