Larry Charles: Religulous (2008)

[Chris Knipp]

Larry Charles: Religulous (2008)

We forgive you, Bill Maher, for you know not what you do

Review by Chris Knipp

Presented in Larry (Borat) Charles' slapdash ADD-edited film, Bill Maher's critique of religion ruins its many valid points by choosing easy targets and continually adopting a manner so arrogant, condescending and preening it makes you sympathize with his victims.

The film follows Maher around in quick hiccups of brain-damaged editing from the real Holy Land to televangelists, hucksters, quacks, a truckers' chapel, Holy Land and anti-evolution theme parks, and rude interviews with offbeat Jews. There's little discernible logic to this jerky progress, except that at the end a visually loud and bombastic sequence seems to suggest that apocalypse is now, and is what fundamentalists want. Sadly this is largely true but should be the subject of another, not at all funny film.

Maher is the heir of the nightclub comic provocateurs of the 60's, Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce, with the late George Carlin as his mentor and intermediary. These are humorists whose focus is intellectual and whose targets are the conventional assumptions of mainstream American society. Maher has a difference, in that he comes from a Catholic father and Jewish mother and was raised as a Catholic till he was in his mid-teens, when his father lost interest. He therefore begins with Christianity and pokes fun at such irrational assumptions as the virgin birth.

Maher, who's unquestionably quick-witted and smart, seeks here to critique some of the major tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as well as some of the most reprehensible aspects of these religions' institutional behavior. His method is more relentless than systematic. The contents of Religulous are parceled out in sound-bites. Even when the film follows Maher's dialogue with, say, the truckers in their chapel, hardly a sentence is allowed to go by without cutting to Maher commenting further while driving along in a car. One thing that is not permitted is for an argument to play out or speaker to finish his point. Since Maher's agnostic approach to religion is all about argumentation, the dislocated style sets a poor example.

At one point Maher teases a man who has his own religion, worshiping cannabis, playing on his paranoia while they smoke a joint together. The friend I watched the film with suggested that the filmmakers themselves had smoked too much dope. In fact the trajectory of this movie reveals zero attention span, and though Maher purports to be selling doubt, he never questions his own smug rationalism.

There are only a few intelligent or convincing or arguably sane persons engaged in conversation with the smirking, self-satisfied Maher. One of these is the Holy Land theme park Jesus, who, rather surprisingly, is very quick on his feet in defending and illustrating a religion of love and a holy spirit that is as omnipresent as the wind. There are two ex-Mormons who cooperate in listing the beliefs of their former church, and say nothing foolish. Still another is Rev. Reginald Foster, said to be the Pope's unofficial Latinist. Interviewed outside St. Peter's in Rome, he readily agrees that hell and heaven and the virgin birth, December 25 as Jesus' birthday, are all things that are outdated or unknown; he doesn't get a chance to explain how he still nonetheless remains a firmly ensconced part of the Vatican.

Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has said that he was filmed in a lengthy discussion with Maher in which he made "the case that acceptance of evolution is entirely consistent with belief in God," but we only get to see Collins for a few minutes being interrupted by Maher.

Other expert spokesmen are similarly misrepresented.* The Rev. George Coyne, the former director of the Vatican observatory, gets talked to to rebut assertions made by Ken Ham, a proponent of Intelligent Design and curator of the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Coyne gets left a line about how "the Bible is not a book of science," but his argument about how evolution can be interpreted as not contradicting a belief in God as a creator is cut out. Dr. Andrew Newberg, a research neurologist who's done a study on brain activity associated with religion, is cut in walking through Grand Central Station and talking with Maher, but Maher's attitude that religious thought is some kind of nuttiness isn't Newberg's, though from the movie you wouldn't know that.

Clearly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have perpetrated atrocities and some of the ideas they have taught their flocks are patently absurd as well. But an argument that concedes no points to the opposition has little value; anyone concerned about religiions' wrongdoing and falsehoods must admit that they've also been responsible for doing a lot of good. These major monotheistic religions are too central to human culture to be simply dismissed as a form of crackpot thinking or oppression. What about St. Augustine, the gnostics, the Sistine Chapel, the beautiful English of the King James Bible and the Arabic of the Qur'an?. Perhaps Bernini's columns aren't exemplars of Christian humility but they're magnificent architecture. Moslems come in as believers in absurd claptrap or terrorists. Visually Moslem prayer is even made fun of by being run at high speed. Even a serious adolescent wouldn't be long satisfied by the level of criticism here. And though some peculiar sects come in for mention--Maher recites Scientology concepts dressed as a nut case at London's Hyde Park Corner-- Buddhism, Hindoism, or other major world religions are not even mentioned.

Though Bill Maher substitutes shouting down and interrupting for polite debating, Larry Charles is to blame for the film's trashy look, its visible mike booms and grainy video, its preponderance of clips from bad "Greatest Story Ever Told" flicks, it's brain-damaged cutting and lack of logical structure. I am not one of the many fans of Charles' tasteless Borat. Notably, that is another film whose subjects protested they were crudely misrepresented. This time, Charles is cutting up arguments that involve central aspects of human culture. It's fine to poke fun at religion. I'm all for it. But if you're going to take on Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in a single film you need to show a little more class than this.

*Pointed out on Crosswalk.com.

[Johann]

I finally saw this on DVD and I learned a few things.

I agree with you Chris that Bill Maher is a smirking self-satisfied guy here, out to challenge easy targets indeed.
He doesn't interview anyone with the chops to debate him with anything of substance. I mean, a truckers chapel in Raleigh, N.C.???
Was he hoping for illuminated and highly intelligent reasoning from truckers who get their dose of Jesus while making a fuel stop?

The most interesting thing to me was the point Bill makes about the story of Jesus being un-original.
1. Krishna:
1,000 years before Christ. A carpenter. Born of a virgin. Baptised in a river.

2. Mithra:
Persian God born on Dec. 25th who performed miracles, resurrected on the 3rd day, known as "the Lamb", "the Way", "the Truth"
and "the Messiah".

3. The Egyptian Book of the Dead:
writen in 1280 BC, it describes a God, Horus...Horus is the son of the God Osiris..born to a virgin mother...baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer (who was later beheaded). And like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert...healed the sick...cast out demons...healed the blind...and WALKED ON WATER. He raised Asar from the dead. "Asar" translates to "Lazarus". Oh yeah, and he had 12 DISCIPLES.
And yes, Horus was crucified. and after 3 days....two women announced that Horus, the Saviour of humanity, was RESURRECTED.


Kinda makes you wonder, huh?


Bill realises through these "interviews" that these religious people will not admit anything is wrong with their religion to an Outsider.

Did you know that there are over a Billion Muslims on the planet and only 14 million Jews?
Or how about the fact that 16% of the US population do not believe in ANY religion whatsoever?
That's a huge percentage! Bill says that this is the great untapped minority, because 16% is more than the percentage of blacks, jews, gays and NRA members--all groups who lobby, all groups who are IN THE DEBATE.

Bill makes a great point about how taking something on faith is dangerous:

Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about.
Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers THINK THAT THEY DO.
That arrogant certitude of religion...Doubt is humble. That's what man has to be. Because throughout history there is a litany of examples of man getting shit DEAD WRONG. These people are selling certainty. I'm not. My product is doubt. I'm on the corner with doubt.

What do you think?
Lots to say about this movie and it's subject.

[Chris Knipp]

You did cull out some good material. Don't be misled by the small number of Jews. Their influence has always been far beyond their numbers. Christian myths grow out of earlier ones and out of Judaism, yes. We do have to take some things on faith, lots actually, to be able to function in the world, ya know. But when it comes down to it, RELIGULOUS is a lazy piece of work and a complete disappointment. There have been some good documentaries about religion, but this isn't one of them. I can appreciate your wanting to have a look at it, though.

[Johann]

It is a movie that was "thrown together", on the fly, with no forethought about the consequences. Very lazy. I agree. Weed was smoked on the whole shoot, I gather.

Bill at one point says in the car after the Holy Land park visit with that guy playing Jesus that he said something that threw Bill totally off:
that bit about the Holy Trinity being like water, steam or ice: different forms for different aims..

Maher is fearless, but he does not expect some responses from his subjects that he gets, and to see him turn it into something hilarious or to stun them with a one-liner, it's kinda worth it for that. Easy targets, yes. Totally.

The film will definitely anger some people.

[Howard Schumann]

RELIGULOUS

Directed by Larry Charles (200), 101 minutes

Ridicule can be an effective tool whether it is used in a political campaign or a film that promotes a particular point of view. In Religulous, a documentary directed by Larry Charles and written by comedian Bill Maher, the ridicule and put-downs are used to convey the message that religion is an irrational and dangerous force in the world. Much of what happens in the film is quite funny, especially the interweaving of film clips from overblown religious extravaganzas that underline the absurdity of the theme. Unfortunately, however, the film’s snarky humor and willingness to tackle sacred cows are negated by its use of straw men as fodder for its attacks, its selective and arbitrary editing, and a tone that is arrogant and condescending.

Maher begins Religulous by telling us about his upbringing. We learn that he is half-Jewish and half-Catholic and was raised as a Catholic until the age of thirteen. He interviews his elderly mother who confesses that she does not know what the family believed and never discussed with her husband the reason why he stopped attending services. From this relatively sane beginning, Maher deposits us in various fun houses such as the Truckers Chapel in Raleigh, North Carolina, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the Holy Land Experience in Orlando, Florida, and the Growing in Grace Ministry in Miami where we meet mostly fringe elements. The people Maher interviews are not individuals who can articulate a coherent theology or speak from their experience in a convincing manner.

They are TV evangelists, threatening rednecks, a Jew who is in denial about the Holocaust, a Democratic Senator from Arkansas, ex-gays and ex-Mormons, and Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, a preacher with 100,000 followers who believes that he is the second coming of Christ. Maher even impersonates a Scientologist at the Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park in London, but has no room for Hindus or Buddhists, two of the world’s biggest religions. Interviews are edited to produce the biggest laughs not the most thought. Captions are inserted on the screen that contradict what an individual is saying while the interview is still going on and derogatory comments are later made about what was said later.

Other sequences offer just as little food for the mind: an actor in a theme park reenacts the Passion and is duly whipped and beaten to the applause of the spectators, Maher debates Muslims on whether the Koran calls for the death of infidels, and talks to an Israeli entrepreneur who has devised the technology to subvert the laws of the Sabbath. He makes some good points about the absurdity of a literal interpretation of bible stories such as Jonah and the Whale and the lack of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, yet for someone who proudly proclaims that he is an agnostic who does not know, Maher is not looking for answers – he believes he already has them. Nowhere in this film is there a hint of a serious search for knowledge or an understanding of the essence of the religious experience.

While a strong case can be made about the excesses of religion and the wrongs conducted in its name throughout history, Religulous does not develop a case based on historical events but demonizes a few eccentrics as an example of how “dangerous” it is. The spiritual experience is more than organized religion or an ancient scripture. It is a very personal experience that tells us that reality is not a vantage point we can perceive through our sense perception, but is “a dream for which there exists nothing outside of it.”, a much vaster experience that allows the ineffable beauty of the universe to sear into our soul.

GRADE: C-

[Chris Knipp]

There's not much to add. You've covered the subject quite thoroughly. The film is a disappointment.

[Johann]

Thanks for adding your review Howard. You definitely understand/understood what Charles & Maher were up to.
The last part (spiritual experience being personal) is particularly great.

Bill Maher doesn't acknowledge the personal aspect of spirituality, aside from making the comment:
"You go to prison, and an inmate says 'You know what Buddy? I ain't got nothin' BUT Jesus in here'...I get that. You're in a foxhole.... you probably have a lot of faith"

Spirituality is deeply personal, and it is offensive to mock people's beliefs, but sometimes the absurd takes over, rears it's head in wierd ways, and I like Maher for commenting on the utter absurdity that comes with religions.
The film could be light years better. A disappointment? Yes. But there's food for thought in it...

[Howard Schumann]

Thanks for your comment on my review. I think the religious experience has been with mankind from the very beginning and there is nothing absurd about religion per se. Unfortunately, it has been hijacked by those who have turned it from a deeply personal experience to a belief system as a means of attaining power and control. I'm encouraged by the number of people today who are rejecting the dogmas of fundamental religions and turning to spirituality and their experience of the God that dwells within.

[Johann]

Beautiful comment. "The God that dwells within"...Great!
So much is made of external Gods and so little of the divine within. Very true.

Speaking for myself, God (or what I would label as such) is quite a mystery to me.
In the Book of Job in the Bible there's that whole thing about "making a case" for God and in it it says that God is silent yet he thunders from his pavillion. Some nice writing in Job about the things God is capable of: making a horse gallop & charge, turning water into ice (hard as stone), clouds full of water that don't burst under the weight, the sun rising in the east every morning, etc etc

But I have no clue what God is or how it operates. I get little clues and hints that I process internally, that I acknowledge as a higher power communicating with me but I really don't know. Bill Maher doesn't know and neither do I.
But life is wonderful.
And horrible.
Equally nasty and amazing.

[Howard Schumann]

both the light and the darkness, the joy and the tears, the sun and the storm. God is all there is.

As Kevin Williams has said:

"Air is to the physical world as God is to the spirit world. God is life, light, time and space, the pattern for all life, the energy of all matter, the heart of all that matters, the very essence of all being, the source behind every sun, the source of all light and love, the core of all things, the single point of infinite light and absolute love, and the very life force of the universe."

As expressed in the Hindu religion:

"Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and is the only thing that exists. It is defined as unknowable and Satchitananda ("Truth-Consciousness-Bliss"). Since it is eternal and infinite, it comprises the only truth. The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman."

In other words Brahman - Atman, God = soul. If the purpose of life is to grow, then we are co-creators of our experience to achieve the growth of our soul.