Scariness: 7/10
Good Questions: 5/10
Arrogance in Manner of Asking Good Questions: 9/10
Argument Construction: Worth maybe a 'C' in Philosophy 101
[Let's get this on the table before I say anything else about this movie: It's about an issue (namely, religion), and my feelings on that issue are going to color my impressions of this movie, just like yours are for you. That said, I'll do my best to focus my critique on how the film deals with the issue, rather than the opinions of the filmmakers.]
In a word, I find Larry Charles' and Bill Maher's treatment of the issue of religion frustrating. And not because it's one-sided. That I don't mind. There is no such thing as an "objective" movie, and the best documentaries are usually the ones that have a point to make and the guts to go through with it. I'm frustrated because they present their point so sophomorically.
Religulous makes its point by flying comedian Bill Maher around the world, having him ask people valid questions about their religious beliefs, and then chuckling at the ridiculous answers most of them give. He also makes a few historical claims that are just flagrantly false, but so has every Western ever made. Now, in discussing this film with people, I've heard some make the point the it's just poking fun and isn't meant to be taken seriously. I could almost buy this until the last few minutes, in which Mr. Maher tells us (over some very dramatic music...with Latin singing of course) that religion is evil and will lead to the annihilation of mankind if not stopped in its tracks.
So, just so we're clear on this, Religulous spends 100 minutes telling people there are questions they don't have the answers to, and then says that if we don't accept its answers, we'll all burn. Hmm...where have I heard that before? But I digress.
What I'm getting at is that the end of this film absolutely suggests that we're supposed to take it seriously. And as such, its thesis needs to be held to the standards of genuine academic discussion. Which brings me to my next point:
That's a straw man. People who study rhetoric and debate sometimes use the term 'straw man argument.' A straw man argument is when you present a half-assed version of the position you want to refute, and then knock it down with ease. This is usually frowned upon in serious debate. It's like if I were to argue in favor of communism by saying that capitalism boils down to "gimme gimme gimme!" Yes, there are some people who interpret and practice capitalism this way. But that just shows that those guys are jerks. Not that capitalism generally is dumb.
What I'm getting at is that, if an atheist wants to present his claim effectively, s/he needs to be able to refute religion's most competent defenders. So who does Mr. Maher interview? Alvin Plantinga and the rest of the philosophy faculty at Notre Dame? Steven Jay Gould, the Jewish-agnostic, world-renowned evolutionary biologist who has written papers defending Christianity? No. He talks to Bible Belt truckers. He talks to the actor who plays Jesus at a fundamentalist amusement park. You know, real illuminati types.
There is a very refreshing section in the middle of the film in which Mr. Maher speaks with two Vatican priests, one of whom is emphatic that religion should not be taught as science and the other of whom is dismayed at how far modern Christianity has gotten from the teachings of Jesus. But, as far as I can tell, these men have not renounced their faith or their vows. It would be very interesting to hear Mr. Maher ask them how they reconcile the frustrations they expressed with their belief in God, but we never get to hear that.
All that said, this is a film. This is Mr. Charles' film and he has every right to be as one-sided as he likes. But here's the problem. One of the main critiques of religion presented in Religulous is that it purports to give definite answers to questions about which we can never be certain; in some matters, certitude is dangerous and doubt is healthy. Accordingly, Mr. Maher repeatedly insists that he is "just asking questions." But he isn't. He's asking uneducated people difficult questions and then wringing his hands with mischievous glee when they can't answer them. The few times that he encounters someone who might actually be equipped to argue with him, he either talks over them, doesn't ask the right questions, or else Mr. Charles has his editor get rid of them. And this is done in the same breath with which the filmmakers pat themselves on the back for their own humility.
So, my parting shot for Mr. Charles comes from a Bright Eyes song that I liked very much as a teenager: "And if you swear that there's no truth, and "who cares?", why do you say it like you're right?"
P.S. Now that I'm done being a responsible movie critic, I'd like to take a moment to point out that one of the points this movie makes is an outright lie. The movie claims that it's silly to hold on to religion because we don't cling to any other ideas from the Bronze Age.
So here's my question, Misters Charles and Maher. If I showed you a right triangle in which the side adjacent to the hypotenuse measured 4 inches and the side opposite the hypotenuse measured 3 inches, could you tell me the length of the hypotenuse without having to measure it? If you can, congratulations. You're clinging to an idea from the Bronze Age.
 |
| Pictured: Old-Timey, Superstitious B.S. |
In the interest of self-effacing humor, this seemed apropos:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.xkcd.com/774/