10/08/2014
Religulous
Bill Maher's Religulous to me was very similar to The Unbelievers, albeit much more difficult to sit through. In The Unbelievers, there was at least a semblance of scientific fact and rational argument used to refute opposing arguments. While The Unbelievers was certainly laced with contempt for religion and religious people, at least its arguments were based in science. Religulous focuses almost entirely on what would be considered "common sense" (which in truth is not so common), and furthermore, Bill Maher is simply an asshole. He ridicules, laughs at, makes fun of, and even verbally abuses people simply for the things they believe. These people are not doing anything to hurt anyone else (except for maybe the guy who's profession is to turn gay people straight again). They seem to be perfectly decent people, yet Maher seems entitled to belittle them simply because they believe something different. The "relig" portion should be removed from Religulous and the title simply replaced with the word originally implied. Maher's documentary was indeed Ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Casey, I agree with you, and found Bill Maher's documentary "ridiculous". It is so interesting that Maher himself was religious up until at least the age of forty, before turning his beliefs around completely. He should have used more tact when creating his documentary.
ReplyDeleteI agree Casey. I was bothered by the fact that most of Maher's information was based off of common knowledge and he stayed away from Scientific truths. He didn't seem to care for anyone's emotions and just wanted to prove himself right, no matter the cost. I felt uncomfortable most of the movie and only laughed when they showed Jonah Hill.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with you, Casey. You forget that Bill Maher is a comedian and not an evolutionary biologist. The purpose of this documentary is not to provide a objective account as to why people should not believe in religion: Maher's explicit purpose is to make religion look silly and he does a very good job of that. If he presented the documentary as a scientific analysis of religion then you would be completely correct, but this documentary is supposed to be entertaining and slightly thought-provoking, not rich with information from the hard sciences. If someone were to blame a jazz arrangement for not being a country song, I would tell them that they are looking for the country song in the wrong place. Similarly, I would urge you to remember that Maher's documentary is not intended to be scientific and/or objective.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't stating that Maher's subject matter was off-center. I was saying that the way in which he went about his argument was completely inappropriate, rude, and insensitive to people who at the very least seem to be decent human beings.
ReplyDeleteI never stated that Maher's documentary was intended to be objective, however, it is true that it lacks credibility. There are certainly ways in which he could have made an actual argument based in fact while still maintaining the comedic and sarcastic tone of the film. However, he does not do this, and as a result, his argument that he "simply does not know" carries very little weight. Maher doesn't actually argue anything, he intentionally asks questions he knows he will get ridiculous answers to, and makes fun of decent people.
I don't think your analogy about music fits in this context. Jazz vs. Country is extremely black and white. However, a documentary (which is defined as "a movie...using pictures, or interviews with people involved in real events TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL RECORD OR REPORT") is much more of a grey area. Maher provides little factual evidence for any of his arguments leaving almost everything to "common sense," that in this case is only common to the people who agree with his malicious tirade against decent people. I would agree that your analogy fits in that Maher's "documentary" is much more of a country arrangement presented as jazz.
Surely as a model citizen you have sympathy for these poor people, even despite your opinions about religion. I don't believe it is right to be so cruel to people as Maher does in any circumstance.
I just wanted to interject how I agree with your response to Alex. You were able to articulate most of what I also believe very eloquently. I could not have written it the way you had. Maher did lack credibility and was insensitive when he intentionally asked questions he knew about just to get ridiculous answers and to poke fun at people.
ReplyDelete