January 8, 2009: Religulous
Bill Maher is a stand-up comedian who has mixed his passion for politics with his gift for sarcastic comedy and made quite the career for himself after what he probably considered a very slow start (he’s come a long way since D.C. Cab back in 1983). His Politically Incorrect panel/talk show spent several years on the air, first on cable and later on ABC. He still does big HBO comedy specials, and currently hosts Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, a return to his evidently preferred talk show format. Following in the vein of Michael Moore (Roger and Me; Bowling for Columbine), or perhaps more accurately Morgan Spurlock (Super-Size Me; Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?), Maher gives us Religulous, a documentary of questionable intent and presented with a heavy bias. Michael Moore’s hounding interview style (example:Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine) is in evidence, and while Spurlock’s Super-Size Me was a wacky and informative documentary with an original spin, Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? strikes me (I’ve only seen the trailer) as being inflammatory for no purpose. Inflammatory for no purpose. That’s exactly how I would describe Religulous.
I wanted to like this movie. I’ve often rooted for Maher in the past, even when his method was abrasive, because his message has always been one with which I agree: that “accepted” societal norms often end up completely drowning out or stigmatizing the counterpoint to an argument, even if that other side of the argument has potential merit and is well presented. Politics provide an obvious and entertaining fountain of such polarizing arguments to work through (hence the panel-based talk shows), and religion is arguably the granddaddy of them all. In the movie, Maher interviews religious and non-religious people including celebrities and community leaders, and more or less tries to make the point that religion is ridiculous. My problem with the approach is that it doesn’t serve any purpose. Religious people are not going to be swayed or converted in any way by these leading questions. Non-religious people might get a few guffaws out of watching devoutly religious folks come up short trying to rationally explain why they believe, even though an accepted fact of religion is that rational explanation isn’t necessary or even possible. Viewers of either persuasion, or those on the fence, aren’t going to be entertained if they have any sensitivity at all to the fact that people who make different choices are completely entitled to make those choices and live their lives as they wish.
Maher’s technique is manipulative like Michael Moore, but more heavy-handed. He cuts off interview segments once he’s made the point he wants to make, without finishing the interview arc for a more balanced view. Interviews are intercut with inflammatory clips from other films and stock footage, which damages the credibility of the interviewer and destroys any sense of balance. The first 1/3 of the film was interesting, but it spun out of control and didn’t really make sense in the end. I only paid about 75% attention to the second half of the movie, because I had seen enough and written it off in my mind. Note that I attribute these creative decisions to Maher despite the film having been directed by Larry Charles (known for being among the original team behind the Seinfeld TV show and also having directed Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan). I don’t believe (get it?) that Charles was the man with the vision for this production.
I watched Religulous because I like Bill Maher, and I also figured an Oscar nomination might be coming up. In the end, there was no nomination, and with good reason. Bill Maher made much more reasoned and compelling arguments in his recent HBO stand-up comedy show The Decider, and I’d happily watch that again a few times before returning to Religulous.
Post a Comment