I just watched an extremely annoying movie called Religulous. Yeah, I know, the title might already give a hint of what kind of movie this is. A stand-up comedian & TV personality, Bill Maher, travels around the world, trying to demonstrate for the viewers that all religious people are belligerant, fundamentalist morons. All the usual ingredients of the contemporary atheist "movement" (or whatever) are present in the film. Maher presents himself as the humble sceptic who "simply asks questions"/"asks simple questions". Two or three minutes into the film, it is painfully obvious that what he actually does has nothing to do with humble inquiry.
Maher seems to know exactly what those people with whom he conducts interviews are going to say. He has intentionally chosen to speak with what is depicted as seriously looney religious people. He talks to a Christian man who converts "gay people" into hererodom. The only question he presses the man with is: "but don't you realize that gay people are BORN that way?" The man says no and that's that. In another scene, Maher visits a Christan-themed amusement park. He interviews a guy who acts as Jesus. Maher asks him some question about the devil and the guy serves him a long, confused reply.
The questions he throws into their faces are always the same. "Do you really believe Mary was a virgin? How can you believe that Jonah could survive in a fish for three days?" And, sure, the guy's mission is achieved. The film is packed with religious (ahem) people who say nutty things. His point about religion is that religious people hold faulty beliefs and that the sceptic's primary task is to question these beliefs. In that sense, he defends old n' ragged rationalism.
If somebody says anything close to smart, they are not allowed to talk. One man is ridiculed for saying that the Bible "did not mean to say" that gay people are bad. Another person tries to explain to Maher that the Bible should not be read as a scientific document. A seeminly sympathetic catholic priest laughs at some of the dogmas of Catholicism. That makes no impression on him whatsoever. Nobody really gets to explain anything in the documentary. The interviews shown in the film comprise a few words, brutally interrupted by loud music and funny archieve pictures or animations (Michael Moore has had an influence here, for sure).
Sure, there's a shitload of religious stupidity in this movie and in the world. But what was intended to be "political comedy" elicited a quite different feeling in me. I felt weary. This guy Maher explicitly challenges the viewer to reject religion - the other alternative being insanity. His entire approach is extremely self-righteous and banal. He is not interested in talking to people. He is interested in collecting material that shows that HE is this fantastic, funny guy who refuses to believe in silly fairytales. His dissection of religion does not appear to be a dissection at all, because he lacks honesty, he lacks self-awareness, and he lacks capacity for serious conversation or even serious reflection. You might retort that Maher did not intend to accomplish a philosophical tract on religion. But what I would say is that even at the level of humor this was rarely a good film - for just the reasons I've mentioned.
Maher is almost never present in the film in a personal way. The most interesting scenes revolve around his family. But these are short moments. In another interesting scene there is an encounter with a jewish rabbi and Maher. The rabbi supports Palestine and does not accept the state of Israel as legitimate. Maher is extremely annoyed with him and interrupts him all the time. The rabbi talks and talks, "please, let me finish!!!". Maher is fed up with the situation and walks out. This is almost the only moment when he shows any personal reaction that is not rhetorical, "I deliver the message of scientific Truth".
I discussed the film with a few people afterwards. A common reaction was that Maher's approach was maybe a bit simplistic and that he was wrong to attack religion as such. But, after all, we know that religion is different in the US and that there is a huge group of fundamentalists who need to see this movie. I'm not sure if this makes sense. When a person claims that somebody "else" would benefit from seeing the movie, there is always a hint of patronizing contempt in that statement. "The fundamentalists are stupid people, they need a simple message". I think this is really wrong-headed. And this is the problem with Maher's movie. He does not address religious people, it seems to me - because to him it is completely unclear what it means to address anybody. Maher's film nurses the confidence of a certain group. WE are the self-conscious, scientific people who know better than believing in virgin birth. A second problem is that "we" have a lot of conceptions about who fundamentalist people are. They live in the US and they are crazy and they need to be educated by films such as Maher's. But who are we to talk for these people that we have very little knowledge about? Who are we to say anything about "what is effective"? And what does this perspective of "efficient movies" bring with it anyway? (what idea of persuasion does it presuppose)
According to Wikipedia, the reception of Religious leaned towards the positive. One critic wrote: "I report faithfully that I laughed frequently. You may very well hate it, but at least you've been informed. Perhaps you could enjoy the material about other religions, and tune out when yours is being discussed. That's only human nature." That's idiocy.
Maher's movie will certainly not enrich the present intellectual state of criticism of religion. I would instead say that he, unknowingly, impoverishes it with lazy laughs about stupidity and hysterical apocalyptic images. What is rarely acknowledged is that critical capacities require more than some sort of intellectual steadfastness. Sure, some people will be provoked by Maher's movie: the images of people praying like crazy, his ridiculing questions, the choices of topics. And, sure, of course there are these cultural phenomena. It just that Maher's preoccupation with them does not go deeper than the surface.
(Among contemporary films dealing with crazy religion, I felt that Jesus camp was a far more interesting way of presenting issues. What that film had, in distinction from this one, was focus. Jesus camp did not stop at ridiculing a few religious statements. It dealt with a way of life.)
2 comments:
"Maher's film nurses the confidence of a certain group. WE are the self-conscious, scientific people who know better than believing in virgin birth." Well, of course. The movie wasn't called Embracing Religion, and the guy is a comedian not a theologist. What I find really funny is that you accuse Maher of patronizing and berating believers. But Doesn't every believer, holds his/her belief to be better and more righteous than other Dogmas. What are the opinions of Christians towards the core of Muslim belief. What do Protestants think of Catholics? That a humanist jester makes a film that attacks and makes fun of religious people is only natural. This film wasn't meant to bring a serious discussion about religious beliefs but to annoy those who are seriously uptight about superstition. Good thing that nowadays all you can do is write an angry post and NOT burn people at the stake.
I, like Maher, think that believing in a virgin birth or that man lived in a fish is really ridiculous and if it upsets you learn something from Christ and FORGIVE.
Yes, I know Maher is a comedian. But I think comedy can be taken seriously, too. (After all, Maher himself would perhaps not like his film to be called *mere* comedy.)
"But Doesn't every believer, holds his/her belief to be better and more righteous than other Dogmas. What are the opinions of Christians towards the core of Muslim belief. What do Protestants think of Catholics?"
I simply don't agree with you on this. To put it crudely: some Christians don't necessarily understand themselves as subscribing to beliefs that clash with other systems of beliefs.
"I, like Maher, think that believing in a virgin birth or that man lived in a fish is really ridiculous and if it upsets you learn something from Christ and FORGIVE."
My point was NOT to defend Christians who say that they do believe in these things. My aim was rather to look at a certain form of attack on religion that I think is a dead end because it reduces religion to crazy truth-claims. If that is what people like Maher wants to talk about, then I would say that he will not really be able to concern himself with the ways forms of religiosity CAN be destructive. If you want to say anything about that, you have to look deeper.
That there are forms of religiosity that are destructive, that I don't dispute. I simply think there are better ways of coming to grips with it. Or: coming to grips with it is a quite complicated affair.
Post a Comment