Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule

If a ‘picture’ is more effective than a thousand words, then a satirical-documentary is more effective than a thousand ‘pictures’—whether they are comedies or documentaries. Satirical-Documentaries are a new genre in the art of moviemaking and enjoy much success at the box-office in recent years. These movies combine comedy and documentary to promote a particular social or political message. The recently released satirical documentary Religulous, produced by Bill Maher and Larry Charles has, however, proved to be neither artistically effective nor commercially successful. The reasons for this “missed opportunity� are manifold.

Satirical documentaries are becoming an effective cultural tool in the battle for the ‘heart and mind’ of people. The most famous of these movies was Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911�. With its wry humour and biting satire on Republican politics it became the trend setter for social and political satire in this medium. Using a similar approach, Michael Moore also produced other movies of social activism such as ‘Sicko’ (on healthcare) and “Bowling of Columbine� (on gun culture). Following this trend, well known comedian and host of ABC’s ‘Comedy Central’, Bill Maher, produced the satirical documentary Religulous. The movie was released in theatres early October 2008 after its debut at the Toronto Film Festival.

Coining a phoneme from religion and ridiculous, Maher claims that he is just producing an innocent comedy about the follies of religion. All he intends is to promote the need of doubt in all matters of religion. In his words, “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.� Yet, watching the movie, one neither gets the comedy nor the satire, nor a simple message of doubt. One leaves the theatre with a strong sense that Maher is rallying the atheists in a battle cry. It may be good to challenge what is ridiculous in religion. Only by a thorough and unrelenting threshing can all chaff be separated from traditional religious thinking. On the other hand, the trickery he and his team use for this venture renders Religulous ineffective and a distasteful production. By pronouncing war against religion, Maher may do a greater disservice to the cause of atheism. Atheism becomes its own antithesis, the worst form of which is no less than religious fundamentalism. In a chart near the beginning of the movie Maher shows that sixteen percent of the US population are atheist—more than other groups such as gay and lesbians, Muslims, Jews, and Blacks. Clearly the atheist voice must be heard.

The movie begins with Maher standing atop historical ruins at Meggido, an ancient place in Northern Israel. Today not much more than a pile of rubble, Meggido is believed to play a major role in the apocalyptic “end of the world�. There Maher pronounces, “When Revelations was written, only God had the power to destroy the world...� The next clip implies that destruction now is in our own hands. From there on, as he travels from place to place talking to religious people of his choosing—mostly from the fringes of different faiths in various countries—he continuously wears his contemptuous smile and displays his air of ‘holier than thou’ attitude. Focusing mostly on religious weirdos, Maher plays on them to support his one-sided view. If he talks to someone who appears more rational, he uses his filmmaking devices such as inserting flashes to give the impression that these people are either cherry picking or are in denial. In the words of Bruce Weinstein of Business Week, “It doesn't take long, however, to see that Maher's real goal is to make fun of just about everyone he interviews, and to use the formal elements of filmmaking, especially editing and music, to show himself to be a morally superior human being. What a missed opportunity.�

Granted, Maher tried hard to appear unbiased towards the religions or their denominations he chose to ridicule. (It may be noted that he totally missed or omitted the great religions of Native Americans, India, and the Far East.) In his attempt to appear unbiased he shows a short clip of George Bush’s statement, ‘God likes to see all people free, and so is my foreign policy.’ Maher is a known liberal and anti-Republican. Therefore, this clip does not surprise the viewer. What surprises though is the fact that, unlike on other occasions, no flashback reinforces the idea. On other occasions many techniques are used to ridicule or satirize the notions expressed by an interviewee or a character.

It is true that the viewpoint of various religious denominations he chose for exposure—either of Christianity, (Mormons, and Scientology for example) or of Jewish and Islamic traditions—may be ridiculous. He must be commended for his brutally honest and plain questioning along with the funny commentaries that expose the ridiculousness of some views. However, “his interview subjects can best be described as fringe-dwellers: an anti-Zionist rabbi, an Orthodox Jew who invents contraptions to get around the prohibition against working on the Sabbath, a Dutch fellow whose religion is based on the virtues of marijuana, and a Miami man who claims to be Jesus Christ.� The list also must include a gay Muslim couple in the Netherlands and a Muslim rap artist in the UK. All along, Maher tells only partial truths. And that is where both the ethical and the artistic integrity of the producers become doubtful.

By ignoring the rich and varied traditions of various religions, and by focusing on the fringe elements, Maher paints religion in a false light. According to Business Week, “By taking cheap shots in the name of philosophical inquiry, Maher abuses his privilege as a documentary filmmaker and reveals himself to be more petty, smug, and self-righteous than those he thinks he is exposing.� Other reports too have cast a huge shadow on the artistic integrity of the producers. An excerpt from the Los Angeles Times is revealing.

“So how did Maher manage to get all these people to actually talk to him? Since "Religulous" was directed by Larry Charles, who also did "Borat," I suspected that subterfuge and trickery were involved. I was not far wrong. Here's how Maher pulled it off:

On how he got people to talk to him: "It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.' It didn't work everywhere. We went to Salk Lake City, but no one would let us film there at all."

All this is distasteful; however, the most disagreeable aspect seems to be the approach he adopts in this so called ‘inquiry’. The approach is one of looking at religion only as a creed. He ignores religion’s cultural and ontological aspects. He discounts the infinite variations of religious practice. Based on this narrow and partial approach, he sounds a trumpet of doom and gloom and calls to rally against the forces of religion.

The movie began by ridiculing tenets of Christianity such as the talking snake and the Virgin Mary. Then it mocked some frivolous Jewish practices. None of this presents a danger to world peace. However, in the last quarter when Religulous focuses on Islam, the theme of doom becomes disproportionately intense. The climax is Bin Laden’s statement that ‘it is a must for Al Quaida to obtain the nuclear bomb.’ This contrasts dismally with the mere second lasting clip of Bush that lacks emphasis on how the Christian fundamentalism of the Bush presidency has fed the religious fundamentalism of Bin Laden. Such duplicity is not just delusional and misleading, it also distracts from the real causes of the present strife. The viewer cannot help wondering if it is justified to make religion solely responsible for this apocalyptical scenario. The viewer also cannot help questioning whether the religious creeds addressed in this movie really represent the mainstream of each faith.

Maher said, “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.� Watching this movie, the viewer is left with massive doubt about the producers’ ethical and artistic integrity. To once again quote Bruce Weinstein: “What a missed opportunity!�