Religulous: Review
I'm going to try to look at this movie on a more unbiased level. Yes, I believe in God and think the Bible has a great message (that's misinterpreted by many), but I'm going to try to look at this as a work of documentary filmmaking, not as an attack on my personal beliefs. I had actually intended to see Rachel Getting Married, but ended up in the wrong theater. I decided to stay because I thought it'd be interesting to watch a documentary whose point of view was at odds with my own; with the election coming up I've been trying to seek out point of views that differ from mine, instead of just coddling myself with people who agree with me. I'd be more than happy to watch a thoughtful documentary from an atheist point of view. Unfortunately, Religulous is not that movie.
Maher claims at the outset that his goal is to find out more about the nature of religion and why people believe in it, but none of the interviews accomplish this. Does Maher have discussions with religious scholars? Does he talk to figures like Desmond Tutu? No. Instead, he grills the guy who plays Jesus at a theme park in Florida, and the congregants of a truck stop chapel. I fail to understand how these tactics are enlightening. Anyone can make religion look bad if their subjects include the leader of a marijuana Church in Amsterdam, especially if the interviewees' comments are mocked by on-screen captions and vintage film clips, few of which are relevant to what's actually being said on screen. A lot of people dislike Michael Moore, but at least his films give the subjects the rope to hang themselves; Religulous is more like Bill Maher ambushing people and strangling them with his bare hands. Watching him make fun of his subjects in the safety of his van, where they can't possibly defend themselves, left a sour taste in my mouth.
Another one of the film's problems is that, for someone who cares this much about religion, Bill Maher is remarkably uninformed. His reading of the Bible is as selective as that of the most unintelligent member of a Baptist church in Alabama. Many contemporary religious scholars reached some of Maher's conclusions long ago, but he ignores this fact; to suggest that theologians are aware of some of the inconsistencies of the Bible but value their faith anyway is to make complex an idea that Maher is dedicated to simplifying. I was baffled to see Maher claiming that the Bible is illegitimate because the gospels were written decades after the events; is this not true of all history books?
I think Maher's trying to make a comment about the dangerous intersection of politics and faith (a worthy subject that will hopefully be explored in better documentaries in the future), but he ignores this idea until the last five minutes of the film. I was gonna give the movie a pass, as much as I could, but then Maher started to rant. Over footage of nuclear explosions and war, Maher declares that for society to progress, all religion must end. He stereotypes all devout believers as deluded, and moderate believers as irresponsible. Yes, in a film about how religion is arrogant and close-minded, Bill Maher's final statement is, you guessed it, arrogant and close-minded. Maher claims that he's promoting doubt, but what can I say? That's bullshit. There's no doubt in this film. There's not a single moment suggesting that a spiritual life is anything other than a waste. Maher is as confident in his beliefs as his subjects, and in this sense he is one of them, a mad preacher for the non-believers. His refusal to acknowledge this irony robs the film of any lingering credibility it may have had. This is an ugly, despicable motion picture.
Maher claims at the outset that his goal is to find out more about the nature of religion and why people believe in it, but none of the interviews accomplish this. Does Maher have discussions with religious scholars? Does he talk to figures like Desmond Tutu? No. Instead, he grills the guy who plays Jesus at a theme park in Florida, and the congregants of a truck stop chapel. I fail to understand how these tactics are enlightening. Anyone can make religion look bad if their subjects include the leader of a marijuana Church in Amsterdam, especially if the interviewees' comments are mocked by on-screen captions and vintage film clips, few of which are relevant to what's actually being said on screen. A lot of people dislike Michael Moore, but at least his films give the subjects the rope to hang themselves; Religulous is more like Bill Maher ambushing people and strangling them with his bare hands. Watching him make fun of his subjects in the safety of his van, where they can't possibly defend themselves, left a sour taste in my mouth.
Another one of the film's problems is that, for someone who cares this much about religion, Bill Maher is remarkably uninformed. His reading of the Bible is as selective as that of the most unintelligent member of a Baptist church in Alabama. Many contemporary religious scholars reached some of Maher's conclusions long ago, but he ignores this fact; to suggest that theologians are aware of some of the inconsistencies of the Bible but value their faith anyway is to make complex an idea that Maher is dedicated to simplifying. I was baffled to see Maher claiming that the Bible is illegitimate because the gospels were written decades after the events; is this not true of all history books?
I think Maher's trying to make a comment about the dangerous intersection of politics and faith (a worthy subject that will hopefully be explored in better documentaries in the future), but he ignores this idea until the last five minutes of the film. I was gonna give the movie a pass, as much as I could, but then Maher started to rant. Over footage of nuclear explosions and war, Maher declares that for society to progress, all religion must end. He stereotypes all devout believers as deluded, and moderate believers as irresponsible. Yes, in a film about how religion is arrogant and close-minded, Bill Maher's final statement is, you guessed it, arrogant and close-minded. Maher claims that he's promoting doubt, but what can I say? That's bullshit. There's no doubt in this film. There's not a single moment suggesting that a spiritual life is anything other than a waste. Maher is as confident in his beliefs as his subjects, and in this sense he is one of them, a mad preacher for the non-believers. His refusal to acknowledge this irony robs the film of any lingering credibility it may have had. This is an ugly, despicable motion picture.