Religulous

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 8:00 am

The most important moment in Bill Maher’s new documentary about the dangers and hypocrisy of religion is at the conclusion of his visit to a tiny trucker’s chapel. As he does throughout the movie Maher challenges the very notion of faith. One of the worshipers is so offended he walks out. But another explains he had once worshiped Satan and lived a life of carnal pleasures until he found Jesus. Maher of course shakes his head in disbelief that anyone would find that an improvement. But they pray together, or at least Maher stands in a prayer circle and listens as the others pray, thanking God for Maher’s visit, for allowing them to hear the voices of others. And then, as they say goodbye, Maher says, “Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.”

Maher, the trenchant, provocative, sometimes outrageous stand-up comic turned political commentator, believes weapons of mass destruction have made humanity more powerful than we are wise (no argument there) and that religion, specifically the aspect of religion that relies on faith rather than reason, is more likely to catapult us into destroying ourselves than it is to inspiring us to listen to what Maher would probably not refer to as our better angels. Maher and his sister were raised Catholic by a Catholic father and a Jewish mother, going to church every Sunday until it abruptly stopped when he was a young teenager. He continued to believe somewhat half-heartedly, even bargaining with God in a dire circumstance at age 40. But now he is not only a non-believer, he is an evangelical one. He advocates non-belief. One of the most unintentionally amusing elements of the film is how much in structure it resembles Christian testimony. In his own way, he is saying, “I was blind, but now I see.”

Despite his deep commitment to logic and reason (one might say he has a lot of faith in it), Maher never really makes his case. Instead of doing serious and thoughtful research, instead of presenting us with (admittedly less entertaining) data about the influence of particular religious beliefs or institutions, instead of investigating the good works of people inspired by religion or the benefits of faith-based programs, instead of trying to understand the appeal of religious faith, he seeks out the people on the fringes and pretty much makes fun of them. There is certainly plenty to expose in the hypocrisy and virulent influence of various religious groups and practitioners, but he stays away from that for the admittedly more entertaining selection of fringe people and groups. At least he is even-handed. He goes after Christians, Catholics, Scientologists, Mormons, Muslims, and Jews. And he is wide-ranging. He visits (and is escorted off the premises of) the Vatican, the Dome of the Rock, the Wailing Wall, and the Holy Land Experience (that’s the theme park in Orlando, Florida, not the Mid-East).

And so the movie works far better as anthropology than argument, just because some of the people and places are fascinating and exotic. But it is filled with cheap shots and low blows. It is easy to make an obvious charlatan who sells himself to his followers as the literal messiah look like a con man. It is easy to make a couple of Orthodox Jews look silly for trying to create inventions to help people comply with the strict limits of Shabbat. And it is easy to try to trap believers with the Bible’s inconsistencies (especially when you have the final edit) about the differences between coincidences and miracles or the relevance of some Biblical references more than 5000 years later. Maher finds a scientist who (unlike 93% of his colleagues) believes in God and another one who says he can prove that religious belief is a neurological disorder.

Of course, Maher is preaching to his choir. Even if he was able to put together a very linear and thoroughly documented argument he would not persuade anyone because faith is not about persuasion. It is always worthwhile to consider challenges to belief because by helping define what we don’t believe we better define what we do believe. The strength and value of our faith is best proved when it is unafraid of heresy.

The film’s message is most that on a sign one character holds: “Don’t believe anyone. Including me.” And Maher is like the assimilated atheistic Jew in a story I heard recently from a rabbi. It seems the Jew sent his son to a school called Trinity because it had an excellent reputation and a secular curriculum. But the son came home and said, “Do you know what Trinity means, Dad? It means the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The father was furious. “Now listen to me, because I want you to remember this. There is just ONE God! And we don’t believe in Him!”

Related Tags:

Not specified

‘Gabriel Over the White House’ — The President Finds God

Posted on September 24, 2008 at 8:00 am

A little-seen 1933 film called “Gabriel Over the White House” has some themes that are particularly resonant in this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty and this historic Presidential campaign. Walter Houston (father of director John Huston and grandfather of actress Anjelica Houston — three generations of Oscar winners) plays the newly elected President of the United States, a cynical and apathetic man who has an affair with his private secretary and refuses to meet with the leader of the homeless. But then he has an automobile accident and is seriously injured. When he comes out of his coma, he is transformed. As he becomes an outspoken advocate of integrity and economic justice, he makes some powerful enemies. But it becomes clear that he has been inspired by a visit from the angel Gabriel.

This has been a controversial film since it was made for its frank acknowledgment of political policies based on scripture and for its association of policies some people consider “liberal” with religious beliefs some people consider “conservative.” Audiences have argued about whether the President is a visionary or a dictator. But it seems astonishingly prescient in its portrayal of the failures of Wall Street and government and its sincere commitment to Biblical principles is still fresh and appealing.

Bruce Almighty

Posted on May 21, 2003 at 5:28 am

You could not ask for a better showcase for what Jim Carrey does best than this comedy about a man who is given all of God’s powers and has no compunction about using them for cheap thrills and petty payback. Director Tom Shadyac, who worked with Carrey on his biggest hits, “Ace Ventura” and “Liar, Liar,” once again gives us Carrey in a role designed to get the most out of his talent for wildly elastic physical comedy.

There’s a strong sense of art imitating life here, at least the life of Carrey the performer, if not Carrey the person. Carrey the performer has not had the success he hoped for in more serious roles, particularly in “The Majestic” and “The Man in the Moon.” So when his character is told throughout this movie that there is nothing wrong with being funny (and when God, played by Morgan Freeman, says “All-righty then!” Ace Ventura’s favorite catch phrase), and when he plays a character with God’s powers (which must feel pretty close to the omnipotent power our society gives to celebrities) and yet he ends up being satisfied with what makes people laugh, it is hard not to think that there is something more than resonance here for Carrey. It is almost as though he is saying “All-righty then! If this is what you want to see, here it is!” to the audience.

Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a television news reporter who resents being assigned to silly stories like the world’s biggest cookie and the anniversary of the Niagara Falls boat tour. He wants to do serious stories and he thinks he should be the anchor. He lives with his girlfriend, Grace (Jennifer Aniston), whose name is an indication of the script’s idea of a theological reference.

Despite his love for Grace, Bruce is shallow and self-centered. When he loses the anchor job to a rival (Comedy Central “Daily Report’s” Steve Carell), he furiously explodes on the air and is fired. He tries to help a homeless man, and is beat up by thugs. Bruce thinks that life is very unfair, so he complains to God. God challenges him to try out His powers, as long as he does not tell anyone or interfere with free will.

Bruce spends the first week using the powers for cheap thrills. He parts the red soup instead of the Red Sea and makes the cars blocking him in a traffic jam move out of the way. And he enjoys petty payback. This part of the movie is fun — who would not like to be able to do anything without any guilt or accountability — and it is very funny, especially when Bruce makes his rival mess up on camera. The best physical comedians, like Carrey, perfectly enact the id out of control, the mean little imp that lives in each of our hot little hearts. That is ideal for embodying Bruce’s juvenile uses of his new power.

But then Bruce has to realize that power and responsibility go together and that he cannot be happy until he understands that other people’s happiness has to come first. That part of the movie does not work because it is pretty clear that Bruce never cares about anyone but himself. There is a hollow, hypocritical, and faintly creepy sense that the people behind the movie don’t really understand the message themselves.

Bruce’s carelessness in lassoing the moon (a reference to “It’s a Wonderful Life” that is hammered home later on when we get a glimpse of that scene on television), unleashing an asteroid, and making hundreds of lottery winners, is portrayed as humorous. Even though we get glimpses of the disasters he causes, Bruce never does and never has to clean up the mess.

When Bruce tells God that he wants to solve the problems of world hunger and peace, God tells him that is a “Miss America answer” and His goal seems to be to get Bruce to think about what would make him happy with no regard for anyone but himself and the woman he loves. And life and art come together as it becomes clear that Carrey the performer is no more generous than Bruce the anchorman; Bruce’s failure to appreciate the sweet and ever-forgiving Grace is less of a, well, sin, than Carrey’s failure to make use of the considerable comic talents of the woman who plays her. It’s a shame to see Aniston in essentially an arm candy role. The result is a movie that, despite some very funny moments, makes the same mistake as its main character without learning any lessons about maturity or responsibility. It teeters between deranged comedy and sentimental fable, and is unsatisfying in both categories. What Bruce should have used his powers for was a better script.

Parents should know that the movie has very mature material for a PG-13, including very strong language and crude humor after a thug makes a rhetorical reference to a monkey coming out of his butt. Bruce gives “pleasure” to Grace as they prepare for a sexual encounter. There is an extended joke about a dog who is not house-trained. Characters drink alcohol and Bruce uses his powers to plant bags of marijuana on rival broadcasters.

Families who see this movie should talk about what they would do if they had God’s powers. How would they decide the best way to respond to prayers? Most of the prayers in this movie are “petitionary,” meaning that they are asking for something, usually love, money, or status-related. What other kinds of prayers are there? Some families will want to discuss their own ideas about God and prayer.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Oh God,” with George Burns and John Denver. They might like to see a different portrayal of God that also discusses the importance of free will in the wonderfully imaginative “Time Bandits.” And every family should watch and discuss “It’s a Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed.

Related Tags:

Comedy Fantasy Romance