The only real blasphemies in Bill Maher's anti-religion documentary, "Religulous," are that it's not terribly smart and only sporadically funny. Three or four big laughs, a lot of snide, pompous misfires and innumerable fish-in-a-barrel potshots do not make for much of a movie, or a coherent case against the incoherence of faith or organized religion. Maher's line is that he is pro-doubt, that he really "doesn't know," that he's "just asking questions." That's a load of crap (he's not really promoting doubt any more than anti-abortionists are "pro-life"), but what makes it offensive is that Maher's smart-ass tone sounds as dead-certain, smug, smarmy and self-righteous as Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggerty.
But I kid.
No, I don't.
If you're going to preach to the converted you need to be smarter. If you're going to try to appeal to a larger crowd, you need to be funnier.
When a movie that haughtily inveighs against End Times fervor concludes with an apocalyptic montage of blood, violence and mushroom clouds, that's plain, old-fashioned hypocrisy on an epic scale. Yeah, it's supposed to be frightening -- to really make you think, you know. But it doesn't because it's just another portentous scare tactic of the sort you might hear from any angry-hysterical preacher. (Much of his material is lifted, and watered down, from Sam Harris's "The End of Faith.") There's Maher, shot from below against the sun (if there's irony here, I don't think the filmmakers know it), laying down his own commandments, delivering his climactic fire-and-brimstone sermon by railing sanctimoniously against the evils of intolerance, and the evils of tolerance of intolerance, and... he's tripping out on his own dire visions of Revelation as much as any wacko cleric.
"Religulous" (a neologism of "religious" and "credulous" that maybe sounds like "ridiculous," I think) is Maher at his worst, condescending and self-aggrandizing. Directed by Larry Charles, it adopts roughly the same format as "Borat" (staged "conversations" and ambush interviews, pieced together with travel footage of Maher talking and driving). And it's guilty of almost all the sins "Borat" was accused of but did not commit. Some of the interviewees clearly know who Maher is, so he's not putting anything over on them in that sense. But he doesn't let them talk, either. Instead of drawing them out, he cuts them off. At least Borat was genuinely interested in what people had to say, giving them plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. Maher can't resist interjecting his snide little zingers and then glancing at the camera for approval.
Take, for example, the anti-Zionist Hassid who was one of several Orthodox Jews (of the small Neturei Karta sect) to attend the Iranian "Holocaust denial" conference. I really wanted to hear this guy try to justify his point of view, but Maher keeps deflecting and interrupting him, so that mostly he just splutters, "Let me finish! Let me finish!" What he does say is that he doesn't think the Holocaust justifies the formation of Israel, and he does not believe that God gave the Jews this land for all eternity. Why? We don't know. Maher (who was raised Catholic although his mother is Jewish) gets in a few Jew-killing jokes and then walks out on his own interview in a theatrical huff. It doesn't play. Maher's stunt is merely a calculated piece of phony drama, delivered with a sly wink to the audience.
Other interviews are peppered with mocking subtitles or aren't-we-clever cutaways to zany old biblical epics. Which is not to say that there isn't some solid research and information on display here, just that most of it isn't well displayed. Still, I'm intrigued that, even in perhaps the most religious nation in the modern world, 16 percent of Americans are non-religious -- a larger minority than Jews, African-Americans or many other politically influential segments of the population. And yet, in this country founded on the principle of keeping religion and government independent, how many of our elected officials are openly atheist or agnostic?
In a too-brief interview, a cleric from the Vatican observatory explains, with considerable wit, that science and religion are two very different things and that one cannot be used to justify the other. How can scripture be said to have been based on science (the Adam and Eve chronology of history, for example) when the scientific method would not be invented for hundreds of years?
That's the good stuff. "Religulous" is guilty of the same kind of distorting selectivity that Maher (rightly) accuses religion of promoting. He criticizes a controversy-courting British Muslim rapper, Propa-Gandhi (Aki Nawaz), for hypocritically advocating "dissent" while refusing to condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. The movie shows some of Propa-Gandhi's incendiary videos extolling the virtues of suicide bombing, but doesn't quote even a line from Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" to give the audience any idea of what that was all about. There's a double standard here, and in the movie's sanitized portrayal of murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's more outrageous, even anti-Semitic, views -- while, at the same time, criticizing the Dutch for being too tolerant and Islam for being too intolerant. My point is that if you're going to make a case for dissent and free speech, you can't pick and choose. Nobody should be subjected to death threats or assassination for anything they say or write or film -- but their views shouldn't be bowdlerized or censored, either. It's not free speech if it only protects speech that we feel comfortable with.
(Unfortunately for us all, Maher seems to view himself as a First Amendment Martyr, after his post-9/11 comment about how President Bush's term "cowards" was not appropriate or sufficient to describe murderous suicidal religious fanatics who flew planes into buildings. His network TV show, "Politically Incorrect," was canceled not long thereafter, and he makes sure that we never forget that. He spoke a self-evident truth in a scary, difficult time and was crucified for it -- along with Susan Sontag and many others -- but the holier-than-thou act has gone really stale and sour over the last seven years.)
I think the best moment in the movie comes when Maher interviews a non-collar-wearing priest just outside Vatican square. What can you say to get people to see the truth? Nothing, the priest says, they'll just have to live and die with their dumb beliefs.
Amen. For a movie that strikes out at dumbness and narrow-mindedness, "Religulous" too often stoops so low that it practices what it preaches against.
Good review, Jim. Your description was pretty much what I'd thought from seeing the trailer. It's a shame though, since it's really a good topic for a documentary, and I though Charles might have guided Maher away from his self-satisfied tendencies. It's starting to seem more and more though that the intelligence in Borat is solely due to Sascha Baron Cohen and his writers.
I agree that Maher's definitely gone downhill since the Politically Incorrect days. It's hard to even watch his shown anymore without cringing at his smugness, particularly during the written comedy segments, for which Maher keeps his panel out for though their segment has ended so that he can glance smugly over to his guests and soak in their laughter. It's important to remember that Maher once dated a "human female" with the initals A.C.
Thanks for the review, Jim. I'm really looking forward to this movie although I'm pretty sure that it won't be screened in Mexico (where I currently live).
I am a big Bill Maher fan and even a bigger fan of the so-called New Atheists movement (I'm out of the closet now, thanks to Dr Dawkins).
I agree with your comment: "If you're going to preach to the converted you need to be smarter. If you're going to try to appeal to a larger crowd, you need to be funnier." I remember Chuck Jones saying that all the cartoons he made had an audience in mind: himself. If you make a movie for someone else (say teenagers from Pittsburgh) you might end up with something nobody wants to see.
At least Stephen Colbert knows when he is engaged in self-parody, sounds like Maher has slipped into that mode without realizing it.
Great review, Jim. I agree with Nick that you seem to capture what I find most intriguing (and frustrating) about Maher. Even though I have problems with the majority of his beliefs and feelings towards religion I still Tivo his show every week. I think Maher can be funny, but that smugness gets in the way too often. You're right, this is a good idea for a documentary, but Maher is not the man to deliver it. I wonder what Maher would say if he were to see documentary like Into Great Silence? Maybe his views wouldn't be so cynical? Or maybe he would just chastise the monks and make some smug comment about how they all just need to get laid?
You perfectly capture what is so frustrating about Maher when you say:
"But, I kid.
No, I don't"
Maher does that ALL THE TIME on his show and it really unermines his humor; his ability to make funny objective observations about politics has turned into nothing more than easy pot shots at the politcal right and conservative christians.
I have pretty strong beliefs, I am in no way a conservative Christian, but I feel like there is always something to learn from others; even when those opinons and people make your blood boil and contradict everything you think is more important. Do I wish people like Bill Maher could see that all Christians aren't bad people and there are those of us who put more emphasis on social justice and compassion than the end times? Sure I do. But I don't disregard other peoples opinions when they disagree with me.
Your review of this film and especially the scene where you talk about Maher walking out of the interview is exactly what's wrong with extremists on either side of the Religion argument; they simply don't understand what tolerance and understanding is all about; which is the very thing they are railing against. They want to be understood and tolerated, but only if it fits into their interpretation of what that means. Either way you look at it, Maher and Falwell are no different -- neither one has shown the ability to listen to others and that maybe there's room for interpretation.
Someone needs to make a documentary where we get people like Kathleen Norris, Annie Dillard, Marcus Borg, and Elaine Pagels have a conversation with four people like Maher and Falwell. I just want to see what these two (one pro Religion, the other anti) would do when they listen to four of the most brilliant minds on the topic of Christianity and Religion. They would most likely find that these authors don't fall into either persons prototype of who a person with beliefs is (because lets face it Maher would be saying the same thing were he living in a Muslim country or a Hindu country, he only talks about Christianity because he lives in America, his real issue is Religion) or why they believe what they believe.
As a fan Maher's HBO show (yeah, he can come off as smug at times, but I still often agree with a lot of what he says), this is pretty disappointing. I was hoping "Religulous" would avoid, well... everything you report it doesn't. There's no quicker way to undo your own argument than to represent those you're arguing against in a condescending and embarrassing way (or at least that's how it works in everything except politics, apparently). As Borat so gloriously showed, you can often leave the job of embarrassing your opponents to your opponents themselves.
I still kind of want to see Religulous for myself, but alas, I thought Maher would be smarter than this.
(By the by, what does it matter if he dated A___ C______? Yes, while that is disgusting and... frankly hard to believe is something the human body is physically capable of doing, I think there are plenty of better reasons to hate this guy.)
Based on your review (and a few others floating around the internet) this movie perfectly reflects the current discourse on religion today. Instead of actively listening and logically breaking down each other's comments in a witty way both sides would rather mock and state half truths about the other. Pat Robertson does it when he reflexively calls abortionists immoral when they simply subscribe to a different morality. Richard Dawkins does the same thing when he tries to call religion is the main cause of most war when in reality it's resources (gold, water, oil, spices).
I wonder why we can't get past this and engage in real discussions. Even at colleges we mock others viewpoints instead of listen and discuss. Maybe both sides of the argument could come to and understanding if they just listened and respected the other side. Sadly, it seems Bill isn't helping.
I haven't seen Maher's film, but I did read your review. What catches my eye is this: In any discussion of anything (religion, science, politics, movies,...you name it), you can find the crazed corners of that subject and harp on it. You can bait people into saying things they don't really mean, and you can always feel like you're smarter than the next person because you know how things really are while they don't.
Christians can, and do act like what you describe Maher as acting like. I used to be one of those Christians. After my first few years of believing, I began to see that everyone believes that whatever they believe is the truth. And being pro doubt assumes that we should doubt everything at least a little. Everyone who holds religious beliefs, myself included, needs to be open to the fact that proving God's existence, or the supremacy of your particular belief system, is virtually impossible. You can talk about proofs or logical patterns that make you believe. But none of that matters, because whatever you believe can't be proven with the naked eye (or senses). I doubt I will ever renounce belief in God. My two primary reasons are 1. music, and 2. women. The rest of the world be damned, but as long as these two things are around, you'll have a hard time convincing me that there is no God. But I know that I'll have a hard time convincing you that there is.
I'd also like to second Kevins suggestion about making a film with conversations between those minds. Especially Annie Dillard.
I think the fact that Maher has a show at all shows just how tolerant and accepting a country the United States is. For the most part his opinions are in line with MAYBE 10% of Americans.
And a lot of what he says is deeply offensive to at least half of Americans. However, his life is not in danger. He need not fear walking the streets. Most of the people that disagree with him would probably pray for him if it occured to them at all (though he would hate that and think it incredibly condescending).
I also find it interesting that while the United States is the most religious country in the western world we have more economic and personal freedom than any major nation. We don't have religious civil wars. We don't have significant religious persecution. If anything the persecution is by those without religion.
People like Maher love to hate the religious right in this country because of its significant influence in our political system but the fact is that influence is imaginary. Sure it's a big voting block, but there has been only one major politician in the last three decades to have significant ties to the religious right. That's our current president and reguardless of how much he may have wanted to over the last eight years there has not been any major legislation or accomplishment by him or the republicans that was meant to appeal primarily to the R.R.
They're loud, but they are far less politically capable than those that hold them in contempt.
Jim I trust you on this more than any other reviewer as you are an athiest/agnostic. I seem to remember you having a post on here one time about trying to think of movies to put in an athiest film festival and coming up short (Bergman is an agnostic and Allen is an atheist but none of his movies revolve around this primarily except maybe Hannah and Her Sisters where in the end he settles for a tepid agnosticism). It sounds like you could add "Religulous" to the list but you would obviously not be very enthusiastic about it.
I would like to clarify Bill Maher's beliefs though. I know this probably did not come across at all the in the movie but Bill Maher allows for the fact that there may be a higher power that set the whole universe in motion and then did not interfere thereafter. This is the clockwork view of God mostly commonly described as "Deist." But he also thinks that there is no way that any of the religions currently have it right as they all involve God interfering in the world at one point or another and/or the Devil.
I disagreed with you quite a bit on "The Dark Knight", excepting the fact that some of the shots should have been longer; ( and I would like to say that I am not one of those people who are so looking forward to a movie that they will build it up and love it no matter what a piece of shit it was as I could talk your ear off about what a terrible waste of celluloid "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" is) so I'm hoping that I disagree with you about this movie too.
Also if you think Borat committed none of those sins that you say "Religulous" does then I would love to watch Borat with you sometime scene by scene.
TJF: True, Maher takes a position against dogma, and seems to describe himself as more of an agnostic than an atheist. And that would be fine if the movie left out the interviews and just let Maher do his stand-up. But why put those other people in the movie if you're not going to let them say what they have to say before you rip them apart? Borat doesn't do that. He baits people, or elicits outrageous things from them (by agreeing with them, encouraging them, or nodding uncomprehendingly), but he doesn't cut them off or shut them down. He asks questions and lets them answer... at their own peril. It's because they think he's an ignorant foreigner that many of his subjects are so, uh, "candid" with him.
That whole First Amendment Martyr stuff is crap. I'm pretty sure, if I remember it correctly, that he was just agreeing with someone else who was making the point about "coward" being an inappropriate word. Was there a conservative outcry against the person who actually made the statement, Dinesh D'Souza? Why did Maher get hit with the outrage--and then, opportunistically, claim responsibility for the offense?
Re. Maher's post-9/11 comments, the controversy that cost him his job stemmed from his claim that the use of long-range missiles by the U.S. military to knock out its targets was an example of cowardice (suggesting that an honorable way of waging war should follow the conventions of duelling)
Maher is a reasonably intelligent man. He is also a man in love with his own voice, which often precludes him from realizing how inane and downright idiotic some of his comments really are.
What irks me most about him, however, is his self-appointed Martyr label that he has been wearing around his neck since the incident. This is one of countless other instances of a "liberal" claiming to stand against censorship and in favor of free speech, oblivious to the fact that he has no clear grasp of either concept.
If Maher's comments were the cause behind his dismissal from the show, it was an exercise of free speech, not censorship: ABC chose to end its association with a person whose expressed opinions it found tasteless and insulting. Maher was not jailed, fined or in any way prevented from expressing his views elsewhere. It was ABC's prerogative to assert that they would not be forced to support or provide a platform for the expression of views it found offensive.
It would seem like I'm spelling out the obvious here. Sadly, the staggering level of ignorance among the general population regarding the First Amendment makes it seem necessary.
(See popular views on the "Fairness Doctrine" or Canada's own "human rights tribunals")
To everyone here:
While I respect your rights to indulge in whatever flights of fancy you wish, you're oblivious to the truth and you're missing the bottom line:
Every single one of you is going to Hell.
Every. Single. One.
The disturbing thing about this blog entry is that most everyone here appears to be agreeing with Jim without having SEEN the damn film! I think Jim is a superb writer and I read his stuff faithfully, but please see the film and make up your own minds before posting things based on the "trailer" or "other reviews floating around the internet". I wonder how differently many of the posters here would have felt about "No Country For Old Men" or "Funny Games" had they seen them before reading Jim's numerous and in-depth entries. (I love 'em both, but saw them before reading about them much - heck, I hadn't even heard of "Funny Games" before I accidently caught it on IFC one afternoon). I love film, love film discussion, and read tons of critic's stuff, but in recent years I've made it a point to ignore all the outside analysis until I've seen the film!
Generally I like Maher (although he can be at tad smarmy and dismissive at times), and he's one of the few visible people out there willing to say the things that no one else wants to. And the more comments I read like the one posted by Onword Christian Solder (no, I'm not misspelling that) about us all being eternally burned alive by Someone who's supposed to love us, the happier I am that Bill's still out there shooting off his mouth.
I'm a huge fan of Maher's. I love his show, think he's terrific at what he does and agree with almost everything he says. He hits the nail on the head- he says what *everyone* is thinking but what is somehow never said by anyone in the press.
I haven't seen the movie but I can see how Bill Maher would be a bad fit for a Michael Moore-meets-Borat type documentary.
He's very funny, quick as a bolt of lightning and sharp as a knife on his own show but when you see him performing stand-up or appearing on other people's shows, he sometimes comes off as just bitterly ranting.
Frankly, I'm unable to see the film now or, possibly, even in the future due to Theocratic influence in my state.
I'm looking forward to seeing it - even if I have to order it through the mail - and laughing at the absurdities in my own beliefs. I admire Bill for having the fortitude to stand up and say what he thinks in a country where freedom of expression can also equate to assassination by crazies.
It seems there was a time in Europe when unusual religious thought could get one quartered, burned, boiled, and beheaded. In early America it could get one the stockade, prison, or hanging as a witch. We still aren't tolerant enough to live up to our Bill Of Rights, very recently deciding a black person was a whole person that could vote. And that after a genocide against the natives followed by parking them out of the way. Religion was used to justify both.
In my state people disappeared into the desert for questioning religious authority little nore than a century ago. I think we owe people like Maher gratitude for taking the risk and using humor to push organized religion further out of governance.
The use of humor will have no changing effect on the dogmatic. It will help those who think for themselves but fear being in the minority to rise above petty insult, dare to think, and speak about religious absurdities. As a religious figure reportedly said, "May those who have Eyes, See; and those who have Ears, Hear"
That figure didn't expect everyone to get the message, just the(10% ??) who wanted it.
This review is the most sensible I have read yet.
I saw the movie yeterday and was somewhat disapointed by Maher and Charles treatment of a really important an relevent subject.
I agree that the film suffers from Maher's self-aggrandizing posturing (and the very partial and very annoying editing of the interviews).
But what is really inexcusable to me is the double-standard in the choice of subjects. At one point Maher says there is ALSO Jewish nutjobs, and proceeds to speak to the anti-zionist Hasid and stomp him as described in this review, by associating him with Holocaust denying and Ahmadinejad brown-nosing (without bothering going into more details).
Not only does Maher not bother let the man make his point, he then plays victim (the Rabbi refuses to be interrupted, which is completely justifiable) and storms out of the room in a somewhat puerile fashion.
The editing of this interview is very crass, and the Rabbi ends up looking like a crazy, but in the end we dont know what is rationale is because Maher and Charles didn't think it was important enough.
And then, they go to Israel and do not bother set up interviews with those other Jewish nutjobs: the Zionist ultras who literally think God promised them the land, and are therefore engaged in holy war with the Palestinians.
There is no shortage of such crazies in the so-called holy land, but Maher and Charles choose to trash the Muslims for various reasons, and ignore the Zionist ultras.
This is really annoying and questions the film makers' integrity and impartiality.
This was a very obvious flaw to my partner and I, I was wondering if others picked up on this apparent double-standard?