Religulous

[Russ]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/trailer_medium.html)

[Sven]

Larry Charles should stick to perplexing Bob Dylan pseudo-biopics. He does it better than anyone else, as well as being the best thing he does.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Larry Charles should stick to perplexing Bob Dylan pseudo-biopics. He does it better than anyone else, as well as being the best thing he does.

Masked and Anonymous is soooo good. :cool:

[Sven]

Masked and Anonymous is soooo good. :cool:

High five. Love it.

[ledfloyd]

i thought i was alone in loving Masked and Anonymous.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I can't stand Bill Maher, so I won't be wasting my time with this one. His smugness literally turns my stomach at times. I can't take an entire film of him.

[Spinal]

Awesome. Can't wait.

[megladon8]

I like BIll Maher in scripted stuff, but when he is just being himself, he's a big prick.

This looks interesting, though I'd be ticked off if the whole thing is just "look how crazy religious people are!"

[Ezee E]

I like BIll Maher in scripted stuff, but when he is just being himself, he's a big prick.

This looks interesting, though I'd be ticked off if the whole thing is just "look how crazy religious people are!"

What else are you expecting out of this?

[megladon8]

What else are you expecting out of this?


Well I guess I'm just hoping against hope that it will have a little more balance.

Maybe that's too much to ask from Bill Maher.

[Qrazy]

Well I guess I'm just hoping against hope that it will have a little more balance.

Maybe that's too much to ask from Bill Maher.

Just take it as the cross section of religious people who are genuinely crazy then, because they're certainly out there and there's a lot of them (Jesus Camp folk and friends).

[Spinal]

Well I guess I'm just hoping against hope that it will have a little more balance.

Maybe that's too much to ask from Bill Maher.

Why do you want balance from this film? I don't understand. It's clearly a comic film essay.

[monolith94]

This looks, at the very least, more entertaining/interesting/enticing than Expelled, which I guess this comes closest to in terms of concept.

[number8]

Just take it as the cross section of religious people who are genuinely crazy then, because they're certainly out there and there's a lot of them (Jesus Camp folk and friends).

But that's not the thesis of the film. It's not about how crazy religious people are, it's about how crazy religion is.

[Kurosawa Fan]

But that's not the thesis of the film. It's not about how crazy religious people are, it's about how crazy religion is.

How many of these films do we need? The concept is tired.

[number8]

How many of these films do we need? The concept is tired.

I don't know. I haven't seen or plan to see even one.

[Spinal]

How many of these films do we need?

A lot. Religion has had a head start of several thousand years. :)

[Qrazy]

But that's not the thesis of the film. It's not about how crazy religious people are, it's about how crazy religion is.

Ah... well... peanuts.

[Qrazy]

How many of these films do we need? The concept is tired.

As long as there's still large groups of people taking religious texts literally and using them as a platform for hate, violence and the perpetuation of ignorance then there can never be enough. It's the nature of rhetoric to be fairly one sided but rhetoric does have it's purpose and it's place.

[Kurosawa Fan]

As long as there's still large groups of people taking religious texts literally and using them as a platform for hate, violence and the perpetuation of ignorance then there can never be enough. It's the nature of rhetoric to be fairly one sided but rhetoric does have it's purpose and it's place.

I guess I just don't see the purpose. This isn't constructive and certainly isn't progressive, it's condescending and smarmy. What does that achieve? How does that change those people who use religious text to justify their hate and ignorance? Doesn't it just breed more hate?

I don't have a problem with the beliefs of atheists, I guess I just question why they need to go about their business with the same attitudes (though with opposite outlooks) that they despise in certain Christians. And I apologize for the blanket statement, and I realize this doesn't apply to all atheists, but it seems to apply to many of those in the spotlight at the moment.

[ledfloyd]

I guess I just don't see the purpose. This isn't constructive and certainly isn't progressive, it's condescending and smarmy. What does that achieve? How does that change those people who use religious text to justify their hate and ignorance? Doesn't it just breed more hate?

I don't have a problem with the beliefs of atheists, I guess I just question why they need to go about their business with the same attitudes (though with opposite outlooks) that they despise in certain Christians. And I apologize for the blanket statement, and I realize this doesn't apply to all atheists, but it seems to apply to many of those in the spotlight at the moment.
i agree 100%. it's like michael moore, making a snarky doc is just going to make the people that agree with you enjoy it and turn off the people you're trying to sway even more.

and there are good athiests and good christians. the fanatics of both beliefs anger me equally.

[Spinal]

Considering the methods that have been used over the years to drive home religious dogma, I think that ridicule and snark are comparatively benign.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Considering the methods that have been used over the years to drive home religious dogma, I think that ridicule and snark are comparatively benign.

But again, isn't it just stooping to a low level as some sort of revenge? I just don't see much value in making fun of people to feel better about yourself. I'm not pointing you out personally Spinal, I want to make that absolutely clear. But this type of entertainment is mean-spirited and spiteful, and I can't find a purpose for it other than your basic "na-na-na-na-na, how do you like it" satisfaction.

[Spinal]

But again, isn't it just stooping to a low level as some sort of revenge? I just don't see much value in making fun of people to feel better about yourself. I'm not pointing you out personally Spinal, I want to make that absolutely clear. But this type of entertainment is mean-spirited and spiteful, and I can't find a purpose for it other than your basic "na-na-na-na-na, how do you like it" satisfaction.

I don't think the purpose of it is simply making fun of people. I think the purpose is call into question why the separation of church and state is not more fully enforced in the United States and also why candidates for the highest political offices must proclaim belief in some sort of supernatural deity. This stuff matters because religion and politics are so intermingled in this country and major policy decisions on stem cell research, gay marriage, sex education, birth control, etc. are made based on reasons that have nothing to do with our shared reality on planet Earth. They are made based on the morality and metaphysical musings of people who lived in a time before the flush toilet. Despite the dearth of scientific evidence supporting an all-knowing God, there is still a taboo against being an open non-believer in most social situations in this country. Atheists are often dismissed as angry or condescending simply for uttering what they feel to be a simple truth. We are living in a country where our reality is shaped by an ancient code of beliefs that is filled with dubious morality and a scientific understanding of the world that has been surpassed by most modern-day grade schoolers. There is comfort in knowing that there are others out there who see the same madness that we do and are willing to draw attention to it.

Think of it this way. I see from Netflix that you 'really liked' Borat. Aren't the two films goals very similar? Isn't Maher at least being up front with his intentions?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Those are all very valid points, and I agree with you on all of them even though we disagree on the existence of a creator. I suppose if I felt that Maher was actually going to address any of those topics in a meaningful way rather than doing a religious version of Jay Leno's Jay-Walking, I'd be okay with it. Unfortunately that trailer doesn't give that feeling at all, nor does Maher's past performances.

And I'd argue that Borat does the exact opposite of what Maher is doing. Borat is seemingly making fun of a culture outside of our own, but in reality our own culture ends up.. well.. making fun of and degrading itself. I highly doubt any of Maher's views will be looked upon in any way other than factual.

[Watashi]

There's a difference between mocking religion and mocking religious people. Maher does the former while Sacha did the latter.

[Winston*]

I don't have a problem with the making fun of the absurdities of religion, I just don't think this looks very funny.

[Ezee E]

There's a difference between mocking religion and mocking religious people. Maher does the former while Sacha did the latter.
Bingo.

[Kurosawa Fan]

There's a difference between mocking religion and mocking religious people. Maher does the former while Sacha did the latter.

I've seen Maher mock many a religious person before, so this isn't true. Not only that but Sascha doesn't push an agenda like Maher appears to be doing in this film. He shows up and lets the people do the talking rather than asking them all loaded questions and then hitting them with smart-ass remarks. But this conversation is pointless since we're all going by a trailer. Maybe the film will take a different approach. Maybe Maher will surprise me. And for the record, my disdain for Maher has nothing to do with religion. He approaches every topic in this fashion, by belittling those he doesn't agree with.

For me, I guess I'm just looking forward to the person who steps forward and, instead of making fun of religion, engages religious people in civil discourse on a person-by-person basis. And maybe show that religion isn't the evil monster it's made out to be, that it does a lot of people good. "Religion is evil" is as novel a concept as "government is bad", and while horrible things are done in the name of religion still to this day, most of the people who practice religion are rational, understanding people.

[Sven]

Not only that but Sascha doesn't push an agenda like Maher appears to be doing in this film. He shows up and lets the people do the talking rather than asking them all loaded questions and then hitting them with smart-ass remarks.

I think this is apologism, because Cohen's agenda is obvious ("exposing" the conservative ethos of the American pleb), as well as most of the time forcing his subjects into ridiculous positions where there's no way out but to look silly.

And to address Wats's comment, isn't it a little backwards that you are (I assume) forgiving of Cohen because he attacks PEOPLE, and condemning (I assume) of Maher because he attacks an INSTITUTION? Why is the attack on an idea more damnable than the attack on humans? Plus, isn't mocking religious people just a proxy for attacking religion at large?

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, I don't see KF's objections. A pro-religious piece likeExpelled: No Intelligence Allowed had every right to exist, and may have even been interesting if (and I'm just going on reviews here, as I haven't seen it) it had had stronger science behind its thesis. But the point is, it was trying to confront the atheists about their "belief" - but apparently, turn it around, question people about their relgion, and it is "smug" and all "loaded questions". I don't buy it.

Of course, documentaries have the ability to edit out information that doesn't fit the thesis, and thus this film has every chance of being one-sided. But until we see it, I'm very dubious of people trying to dismiss the very idea of it out of defensiveness.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think this is apologism, because Cohen's agenda is obvious ("exposing" the conservative ethos of the American pleb), as well as most of the time forcing his subjects into ridiculous positions where there's no way out but to look silly.

Sure he ventures into that territory, but much of the time there isn't any coaxing needed on his part. He just shows up with his appearance and his camera and people bring out the worst in themselves. To me, his intentions feel much different than Maher mugging for the camera making base and predictable comparisons between God and Santa Claus.

[transmogrifier]

I think this is apologism, because Cohen's agenda is obvious ("exposing" the conservative ethos of the American pleb), as well as most of the time forcing his subjects into ridiculous positions where there's no way out but to look silly.

And to address Wats's comment, isn't it a little backwards that you are (I assume) forgiving of Cohen because he attacks PEOPLE, and condemning (I assume) of Maher because he attacks an INSTITUTION? Why is the attack on an idea more damnable than the attack on humans? Plus, isn't mocking religious people just a proxy for attacking religion at large?

Eh, I took Borat as more of an expose of how finely tuned our sense of public decorum is in our individual cultures and how dependent we are on it in order to maintain simple relationships. And it was pretty hilarious in doing so.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah, I don't see KF's objections. A pro-religious piece likeExpelled: No Intelligence Allowed had every right to exist, and may have even been interesting if (and I'm just going on reviews here, as I haven't seen it) it had had stronger science behind its thesis. But the point is, it was trying to confront the atheists about their "belief" - but apparently, turn it around, question people about their relgion, and it is "smug" and all "loaded questions". I don't buy it.

Of course, documentaries have the ability to edit out information that doesn't fit the thesis, and thus this film has every chance of being one-sided. But until we see it, I'm very dubious of people trying to dismiss the very idea of it out of defensiveness.

I've never heard of Expelled, I've never commented on Expelled, and if it attacks Atheists for their beliefs, than it's just as condemnable as Religulous appears to be.

[transmogrifier]

To me, his intentions feel much different than Maher mugging for the camera making base and predictable comparisons between God and Santa Claus.

Predictable, sure, but only because it is a stark way of illustrating the difficulty many people have of contemplating the idea of some benevolent force keeping accounts of all our actions from another dimension. Again, can't be dismissed out of hand.

[transmogrifier]

I've never heard of Expelled, I've never commented on Expelled, and if it attacks Atheists for their beliefs, than it's just as condemnable as Religulous appears to be.


I mentioned it because earlier you complained that there are too many movies that paint religion in a negative light, when in fact I'm arguing that they all have a right to exist (positive - hence the Expelled - and negative together), and it comes across as defensive to be so upset with this particular one.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Predictable, sure, but only because it is a stark way of illustrating the difficulty many people have of contemplating the idea of some benevolent force keeping accounts of all our actions from another dimension. Again, can't be dismissed out of hand.

I didn't say it should be dismissed, but it's cliche at this point. Completely unoriginal, and for a comic like Maher, just flat out unfunny (though that didn't stop him from laughing at his own joke). If you're making a film about a comedian interviewing people and then laughing at their ridiculous answers, the least you can do is be funny. I know it's the second time I've used the comparison, but this seems on par with Leno's Jay Walking.

[transmogrifier]

Leno's Jay Walking.

I've never seen this, but the very title screams: "DON'T!"

PS So does the title of this Maher movie. Religulous is the worst title since Australia.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I mentioned it because earlier you complained that there are too many movies that paint religion in a negative light, when in fact I'm arguing that they all have a right to exist (positive - hence the Expelled - and negative together), and it comes across as defensive to be so upset with this particular one.

Who said they didn't have a right to exist? Don't twist my words for your argument. Of course they have a right to exist, I just don't care for them and I expressed that.

I've also expressed that I'm not upset about this particular film, but this attitude. It gets us nowhere. We haven't had a trailer posted on the site for a religious film that defames Atheists to the best of my knowledge, and if we did I'd express my displeasure with that too. It all just breeds more intolerance and ignorance. It makes the problem worse. This is as much a fault of religious filmmakers and citizens as it is atheistic filmmakers and citizens.

[Mysterious Dude]

Sure he ventures into that territory, but much of the time there isn't any coaxing needed on his part. He just shows up with his appearance and his camera and people bring out the worst in themselves. To me, his intentions feel much different than Maher mugging for the camera making base and predictable comparisons between God and Santa Claus.
Do you really think Cohen doesn't deliberately provoke people? Do you think trying to kiss people on the New York City subway is just "showing up with his appearance"? Is singing an altered version of the national anthem at a rodeo just "showing up"? Is bringing a bag of shit and a prostitute to a nice dinner just "showing up"? Is running around naked through a hotel just "showing up"?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Also, I want to make it clear that I'm not upset in the slightest. Religion is a topic that doesn't upset me in the slightest because in truth, I haven't got a clue either way. I believe that there was a creator. That's all I got. I don't know about the Bible, or Jesus, or anything else. I'm not even sure that creator cares one speck about us. I hope it does. I just like seeing different points of view, and hearing good arguments. I don't like seeing petty bickering and condescending confrontation.

[transmogrifier]

Who said they didn't have a right to exist? Don't twist my words for your argument. Of course they have a right to exist, I just don't care for them and I expressed that.

I've also expressed that I'm not upset about this particular film, but this attitude. It gets us nowhere. We haven't had a trailer posted on the site for a religious film that defames Atheists to the best of my knowledge, and if we did I'd express my displeasure with that too. It all just breeds more intolerance and ignorance. It makes the problem worse. This is as much a fault of religious filmmakers and citizens as it is atheistic filmmakers and citizens.

I don't know how you could go about "defaming" atheists as a group seeing as, well, we ain't one, really. Merely a collection of individuals. Sexy, sexy individuals.

Still, I tend to be more tolerant of a flippant approach towards religion because I find the tiptoing around it that happens whenever it gets broached in real life (as opposed to MC life) as a lot more damaging in the long run. That's not to say, make fun of the churchgoer, but I'd like to see more frank, open discussions, rather than people running and hiding behind the "It's personal" wall and then demanding that an entire country be devoted to it.

[Sven]

Sure he ventures into that territory, but much of the time there isn't any coaxing needed on his part. He just shows up with his appearance and his camera and people bring out the worst in themselves.
Eh, I took Borat as more of an expose of how finely tuned our sense of public decorum is in our individual cultures and how dependent we are on it in order to maintain simple relationships. And it was pretty hilarious in doing so.

I guess it boils down to the idea that, whether it be an attempt to comment on "decorum" or whether it is documentary in effect (letting people speak for themselves, which I contest happens much less than you suggest), Borat exists to make people look stupid. Fundamentally, the only difference I see is that Maher is taking a less disingenuous approach, which is probably more commendable, actually.

[transmogrifier]

Also, I want to make it clear that I'm not upset in the slightest. Religion is a topic that doesn't upset me in the slightest because in truth, I haven't got a clue either way. I believe that there was a creator. That's all I got. I don't know about the Bible, or Jesus, or anything else. I'm not even sure that creator cares one speck about us. I hope it does. I just like seeing different points of view, and hearing good arguments. I don't like seeing petty bickering and condescending confrontation.

I hope it doesn't, Because if it does, it sure has a funny way of showing it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Do you really think Cohen doesn't deliberately provoke people? Do you think trying to kiss people on the New York City subway is just "showing up with his appearance"? Is singing an altered version of the national anthem at a rodeo just "showing up"? Is bringing a bag of shit and a prostitute to a nice dinner just "showing up"? Is running around naked through a hotel just "showing up"?

What do any of those have to do with religion. I said he ventures into that territory. That's obvious. But those are performances. When interviewing someone, he may ask them awkward questions to see how they handle themselves, but he doesn't purposely poke at a belief system to get a reaction and to belittle the interviewee.

[transmogrifier]

I guess it boils down to the idea that, whether it be an attempt to comment on "decorum" or whether it is documentary in effect (letting people speak for themselves, which I contest happens much less than you suggest), Borat exists to make people look stupid. Fundamentally, the only difference I see is that Maher is taking a less disingenuous approach, which is probably more commendable, actually.

And the quark has been beaten out of the "Most Simplified Object in the Universe" title by the sentence in bold!!

*crowd goes wild*

[Sven]

When interviewing someone, he may ask them awkward questions to see how they handle themselves, but he doesn't purposely poke at a belief system to get a reaction and to belittle the interviewee.

Her purposely pokes at their sense of "decorum", as trans puts it, and it all amounts to the same thing--the same style of provocative approach. It may not be about a "system" (although I could probably argue that much of the time it is), but I guess I don't understand why you're all upset about someone going after a "system" as opposed to someone going after someone else's sense of what's proper.

[Sven]

And the quark has been beaten out of the "Most Simplified Object in the Universe" title by the sentence in bold!!

*crowd goes wild*
*takes a bow*

Is it not true, though? Has there ever been a Borat joke that has not relied on a) the primitive nature of his customs b) the way he botches the language c) his interview stammering and looking confused and saying silly things d) our knowing that Borat is completely fabricated and that his subjects don't know that?

[Mysterious Dude]

What do any of those have to do with religion.Nothing, but so what? They're examples of ways that Cohen chooses to interact with people, and they're not passive at all. They're deliberately provocative, far from, as you claim, just showing up and letting people make the worst of themselves.

[transmogrifier]

*takes a bow*

Is it not true, though? Has there ever been a Borat joke that has not relied on a) the primitive nature of his customs b) the way he botches the language c) his interview stammering and looking confused and saying silly things d) our knowing that Borat is completely fabricated and that his subjects don't know that?

Me: Zhang Ziyi is gorgeous.
You: Phh, she's a collection of quarks and leptons that only concern themselves with negativity and spin.
Me: Um.....

[Russ]

We haven't had a trailer posted on the site for a religious film that defames Atheists to the best of my knowledge, and if we did I'd express my displeasure with that too.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://expelledthemovie.com/home.php).

Just to keep it fair and balanced.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think the bigger issue for me, and what separates Borat from Maher is that I don't feel like Cohen wants me to take him seriously. He's playing a character for laughs. Maher wants me to take him seriously. He wants me to laugh too, but he wants me to take what he says to heart. Much like Lewis Black (who I love). Politically Incorrect, Real Time, no matter what Maher's doing, I feel like he wants me to take him seriously and agree with him. And the thing is, for the most part, I do agree with him. I agree with most of his opinions, but not his approach.

[Sven]

Me: Zhang Ziyi is gorgeous.
You: Phh, she's a collection of quarks and leptons that only concern themselves with negativity and spin.
Me: Um.....

I don't get it.

[number8]

I think the bigger issue for me, and what separates Borat from Maher is that I don't feel like Cohen wants me to take him seriously. He's playing a character for laughs. Maher wants me to take him seriously. He wants me to laugh too, but he wants me to take what he says to heart. Much like Lewis Black (who I love). Politically Incorrect, Real Time, no matter what Maher's doing, I feel like he wants me to take him seriously and agree with him. And the thing is, for the most part, I do agree with him. I agree with most of his opinions, but not his approach.

THat's the problem with Maher, really. He's got no charm. If we put him and Jon Stewart in a high school classroom, Stewart is the class clown who wants people to laugh at him because he loves entertaining and would embarrass himself to do so, while Maher is the rich preppie who gets people to laugh at him just by telling them what they want to hear because he wants a bigger posse. I don't find it the least bit funny, especially when he maintains that he's spreading gospel. It's like a "If you don't find my snark funny, obviously you're a redneck retard" vibe with him.

[Barty]

I think the movie looks interesting.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'd be more interested in this documentary if it didn't involve Bill Maher. He's a smug jackass, and his presence dilutes the potential even-handedness of the picture. He instantly turns it into a dismissible op-ed.

[transmogrifier]

I don't get it.

You're holding the underlying construction of the movie as its primary worth, while blatantly ignoring the fact that the abcd that you state above actually produce something a lot richer and more complex than you've ever been willing to give it credit for.

[Spinal]

Documentary films do not need to be balanced and objective. They do not even need to attempt to do so. This seems to comes up with every new doc that gets released and it confuses me why this idea persists.

[Qrazy]

Documentary films do not need to be balanced and objective. They do not even need to attempt to do so. This seems to comes up with every new doc that gets released and it confuses me why this idea persists.

I would argue that if it wants to be labeled as a documentary then yes, it does, or at least it must attempt to... true objectivity is hard if not impossible but there are gradations. Otherwise it is a) A cinematic essay or b) A propaganda piece.

[Spinal]

I would argue that if it wants to be labeled as a documentary then yes, it does, or at least it must attempt to... true objectivity is hard if not impossible but there are gradations. Otherwise it is a) A cinematic essay or b) A propaganda piece.

You can argue that, but it is not true. Here is how the Academy defines it:

An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

Nothing in there about objectivity or balance.

[Qrazy]

You can argue that, but it is not true. Here is how the Academy defines it:

An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

Nothing in there about objectivity or balance.

Lucky for me the Academy doesn't have the final say on my vernacular. If they replaced documentary with non-fiction film then I could embrace the definition. As it is now I think documentary is a loaded term just as something like ebonics (now referred to as African American vernacular english) is a loaded term, and I believe for the purpose of clarity in these sorts of conversations, a better approximation of meaning is the three groupings I provided... cinematic essay, propaganda or documentary. Many films purposely blur the line between fact and fiction and I do not feel comfortable labeling something like Triumph of the Will a documentary.

Either way I think a semantics debate will cloud the issue so we'll go with your definition... you stated that you wonder why "This seems to comes up with every new doc that gets released and it confuses me why this idea persists." The reason it comes up is when the filmmakers in question seem to be passing off a rhetoric-based film as truth. Even using the Academy definition of the term, if the viewer feels that what they are being shown distorts truth and therefore has it's emphasis on fiction, despite it's claims to the contrary, then it's no longer a documentary in the eyes of the viewer. Clearly this is a large epistemological can of words but I think it's reasonable to claim that if a work is not attempting a fair and balanced portrayal, then it's factual emphasis becomes blurred.

The larger issue of course being what is fair and balanced? I'm sure there are intelligent design folks that feel every evolution doc ought to provide some screen-time for their beliefs or it's not an 'objective' portrayal... something with which I'd most certainly disagree.

[Spinal]

Bottom line: it is silly to skip a film because it does not fit your genre definition. Frequently, I see people who seem to have some kind of Platonic ideal of a documentary in their heads and then fret because they are unsure whether or not the film has presented objective truth. Personally, when I see a documentary (or any work of art), I assume going in that the creator has a personal bias and that they have made the film because they want me to be exposed to it.

[Qrazy]

Bottom line: it is silly to skip a film because it does not fit your genre definition. Frequently, I see people who seem to have some kind of Platonic ideal of a documentary in their heads and then fret because they are unsure whether or not the film has presented objective truth. Personally, when I see a documentary (or any work of art), I assume going in that the creator has a personal bias and that they have made the film because they want me to be exposed to it.

Yeah, some bias is inevitable and even propaganda cinema has it's place. But there is manipulatively pushing an agenda versus letting the content speak for itself (portraying people as human beings versus demonizing for instance). As a side note for example, I do not want to see any more Michael Moore films because although I usually agree with his politics I don't feel he approaches his subject matter with any integrity. He strikes me as a hypocrite. And I think that's what's at issue for many people, not personal bias in a work, but the explicit manipulation of facts to support that bias.

[Wryan]

"manipulatively pushing an agenda versus letting the content speak for itself"

I think a good doc does both. Hearts and Minds does both. Good docs are polemics. That's really all I see in their intentions. For that reason, they all succeed, regardless of balance/bias/bullocks.

I can't watch the trailer cause I got no Quicktime on this pc. I like Maher ok and I'm a garden-variety atheist, but I admit he's a smug thug at times.

Docs aren't meant to settle anything, they're meant to kick the dust up even further. Maybe that's the only way we change at all.

[Qrazy]

"manipulatively pushing an agenda versus letting the content speak for itself"

I think a good doc does both. Hearts and Minds does both. Good docs are polemics. That's really all I see in their intentions. For that reason, they all succeed, regardless of balance/bias/bullocks.

I can't watch the trailer cause I got no Quicktime on this pc. I like Maher ok and I'm a garden-variety atheist, but I admit he's a smug thug at times.

Docs aren't meant to settle anything, they're meant to kick the dust up even further. Maybe that's the only way we change at all.

I wrote something in response but then the internets deleted it so I'm just writing this instead. Yay.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think it's interesting that this movie has generated almost no controversy. I feel like, during the Bush years, the right has learned to simply ignore the things they find offensive, rather than protest or complain, and thus they don't inadvertently draw attention to such things.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, some bias is inevitable and even propaganda cinema has it's place. But there is manipulatively pushing an agenda versus letting the content speak for itself (portraying people as human beings versus demonizing for instance). As a side note for example, I do not want to see any more Michael Moore films because although I usually agree with his politics I don't feel he approaches his subject matter with any integrity. He strikes me as a hypocrite. And I think that's what's at issue for many people, not personal bias in a work, but the explicit manipulation of facts to support that bias.

This is where I'm at. Certainly every movie is made from the creator's perspective, and, if that's the case, then Moore's perspective is often somewhat dishonest. In that his perspective colors his facts, and not the other way around.

[eternity]

Yeah, some bias is inevitable and even propaganda cinema has it's place. But there is manipulatively pushing an agenda versus letting the content speak for itself (portraying people as human beings versus demonizing for instance). As a side note for example, I do not want to see any more Michael Moore films because although I usually agree with his politics I don't feel he approaches his subject matter with any integrity. He strikes me as a hypocrite. And I think that's what's at issue for many people, not personal bias in a work, but the explicit manipulation of facts to support that bias.
Just for clarification, have you seen Roger and Me or to a lesser extent, Sicko? If Michael Moore didn't approach the subject matter of the former with any integrity, I'm afraid I don't know the meaning of the word.

[SirNewt]

I think it's interesting that this movie has generated almost no controversy. I feel like, during the Bush years, the right has learned to simply ignore the things they find offensive, rather than protest or complain, and thus they don't inadvertently draw attention to such things.

I think that maybe it's more that the film is so obvious that no one cares.

Maher approaches his victims with no intention of communicating. He baits his target until he can ridicule them. On the one side it's funny and on the other it's degrading. It is similar to when, in school, something goes down between the jock and the nerdy kid. Are you one of the random people in the hall who laughs or feels angry?

[Izzy Black]

Lucky for me the Academy doesn't have the final say on my vernacular. If they replaced documentary with non-fiction film then I could embrace the definition. As it is now I think documentary is a loaded term just as something like ebonics (now referred to as African American vernacular english) is a loaded term, and I believe for the purpose of clarity in these sorts of conversations, a better approximation of meaning is the three groupings I provided... cinematic essay, propaganda or documentary. Many films purposely blur the line between fact and fiction and I do not feel comfortable labeling something like Triumph of the Will a documentary.

Either way I think a semantics debate will cloud the issue so we'll go with your definition... you stated that you wonder why "This seems to comes up with every new doc that gets released and it confuses me why this idea persists." The reason it comes up is when the filmmakers in question seem to be passing off a rhetoric-based film as truth. Even using the Academy definition of the term, if the viewer feels that what they are being shown distorts truth and therefore has it's emphasis on fiction, despite it's claims to the contrary, then it's no longer a documentary in the eyes of the viewer. Clearly this is a large epistemological can of words but I think it's reasonable to claim that if a work is not attempting a fair and balanced portrayal, then it's factual emphasis becomes blurred.

The larger issue of course being what is fair and balanced? I'm sure there are intelligent design folks that feel every evolution doc ought to provide some screen-time for their beliefs or it's not an 'objective' portrayal... something with which I'd most certainly disagree.

I think terms like "objective and balanced" (which invariably only reminds one of an ironic network news channel's slogan) is really an awkward and ambiguous phrasing to begin with. Non-fiction is typically the aim. If you begin to distort non-fiction, you are moving into the realm of fiction. You can use, however, non-fiction (recreations a la Errol Morris) to emphasize fact. This is much in the way Herodotus as a historian used speeches to emphasize an anthropological understanding of Athenian, Persian, and Spartan mindsets.

As for the film, I am not sure it is quite accurate to lunge into the same category as the Ben Stein film. The Ben Stein film disingenuously ignored and muddled facts. I would say both films are guilty of reductionism, but one at least realizes it is part comedy, so it can get away with more than the other.

[Ezee E]

I understand why this has created little to no controversy now. Bill Maher to the religious folk is what the religious folk are to Bill Maher.

Bill Maher can make all the jokes he wants, put people in impossible to answer situations, but in the end, there's really not much substance here then what you could simply get from watching his television show.

The Borat approach works much better because you simply see how serious everyone is. Borat in that Florida "Jesusland" place would've been amazing to see. Instead, the funniest part is seeing a jet fly over the recreation of the Crucifixion.

[Derek]

Instead, the funniest part is seeing a jet fly over the recreation of the Crucifixion.

They cut out the part where the "Jesusland" employee explained that. Jets were around in Jesus's time and actually taught the dinosaurs how to fly.

I dunno about your complaint about the film's complete lack of substance. A better film could certainly have come from Maher actually taking on some more intellectual or thoughtful subjects. However, it was fairly effective in exposing a lot of the contradictions of religion (and I, for one, didn't know about the nearly identical Jesus story) and the extreme extent to which it drives many followers, not only in blindly accepting absurd stories as undeniable truths but using them to form their moral codes and world views that lead to disastrous consequences on a social and political level. It's not earth-shattering and probably comes down to how much you enjoy or can tolerate Maher, but I learned a few things and it was pretty funny...enough for a pass, at least.

[Qrazy]

Just for clarification, have you seen Roger and Me or to a lesser extent, Sicko? If Michael Moore didn't approach the subject matter of the former with any integrity, I'm afraid I don't know the meaning of the word.

Roger and Me was certainly less manipulative than the two films that followed (haven't seen Sicko) but he still engages in his usual reductionistic and self-promoting antics.

[Ezee E]

They cut out the part where the "Jesusland" employee explained that. Jets were around in Jesus's time and actually taught the dinosaurs how to fly.

I dunno about your complaint about the film's complete lack of substance. A better film could certainly have come from Maher actually taking on some more intellectual or thoughtful subjects. However, it was fairly effective in exposing a lot of the contradictions of religion (and I, for one, didn't know about the nearly identical Jesus story) and the extreme extent to which it drives many followers, not only in blindly accepting absurd stories as undeniable truths but using them to form their moral codes and world views that lead to disastrous consequences on a social and political level. It's not earth-shattering and probably comes down to how much you enjoy or can tolerate Maher, but I learned a few things and it was pretty funny...enough for a pass, at least.
That would've awesome to see a guy explain jets and dinosaurs existing together.

[Pop Trash]

I realize that, with me being an agnostic, the film is preaching to the converted, but this was actually better than I expected. Bill Maher humanizes his smugness to an extent by going into his childhood experience with Catholicism and interviewing his mom and sister, who seem like nice folks. It also brought to light facts I didn't know (like the amount of non-believers being higher than Jews, blacks, gays, and NRA members who all have incredibly powerful lobbies working for them and all the parallels of the Jesus story to previous gods or prophets before him)

I actually like this subjectively more than I'm willing to give it objective credit for. Sure its made in the Michael Moore/Morgan Spurlock/etc. documentary style du jour but I'll be damned if it didn't drive it's point home. Also, on the DVD commentary Maher and Larry Charles mention how mainstream the people were who they interviewed and made it into the film and how they cut out most of the people who could be considered religious "nuts."

I initially didn't even want to see this due to Maher's massive douchiness during the Academy Awards but I'm glad I did. I'd give it about a 7.5/10.

[B-side]

I realize that, with me being an agnostic, the film is preaching to the converted, but this was actually better than I expected. Bill Maher humanizes his smugness to an extent by going into his childhood experience with Catholicism and interviewing his mom and sister, who seem like nice folks. It also brought to light facts I didn't know (like the amount of non-believers being higher than Jews, blacks, gays, and NRA members who all have incredibly powerful lobbies working for them and all the parallels of the Jesus story to previous gods or prophets before him)

I actually like this subjectively more than I'm willing to give it objective credit for. Sure its made in the Michael Moore/Morgan Spurlock/etc. documentary style du jour but I'll be damned if it didn't drive it's point home. Also, on the DVD commentary Maher and Larry Charles mention how mainstream the people were who they interviewed and made it into the film and how they cut out most of the people who could be considered religious "nuts."

I initially didn't even want to see this due to Maher's massive douchiness during the Academy Awards but I'm glad I did. I'd give it about a 7.5/10.

I'm with you. I don't think people wanna look beyond Maher's sarcasm and the jokey exterior to see the real issue at hand. Yes, Maher condescends to most of the people he interviews, but really, it's kinda hard not to at certain points. I'm Buddhist, and I'm open to all possibilities when it comes to creation, though I'm certainly leaning to the side of "no creator". Yes, the film was preaching to the converted, but I hope the central issue raised hits home where it should. Maher's not indicting religion as a whole, even if it seems so at times. The central issue of righteous religious indignation is a very important one, and sadly, one that may not lend itself perfectly to Maher's approach.

[Sycophant]

Hey! I saw this when it was in theaters!

I think the film's biggest failing is that there are too many "Well, obviously this guy's crazy and I'm gonna tell you and him that" kind of interviews, like the holocaust denier and Mr. Jews for Jesus. The most compelling segments were the trucker's church, Maher's own family, and the relatively straightforward presentation of the Sabbath-dodger.

Oh, and the awesome Catholics at the Vatican.

Can't help but think a stronger crop of interview subjects could've really elevated the film.

Remember the segment with the ex-Mormons? That was weaksauce, and seemed to be there simply because they went all the way to Salt Lake, they could've done something. I know a number of prominent excommunicated Mormons (I work for one of the September Six!) and any one of them would've made a much better interview subject than those ill-informed jack-Mormons. Or, hell, most of my Mormon friends. Or, hell, me.

And that's kind of what the film was like. Some really strong segments where Maher actually got to rail against uncertainty, which is by far a stronger point than the kicking-religion-when-it's-down that the other segments were made of.