How does the old saying go? Don't talk about religion and politics in public?If that saying seems like its from another time, it's probably because a) it is, and b) it's not really relevant anymore, or at least practiced by the masses. Try as I might to avoid the topics in my workplace (mostly because my beliefs don't really mesh with the general public's), they invariably come up - the latter (politics) even more so this time of year.
More than anything else, the feeling I got while watching Religulous was joy. In an era where one's religious beliefs are not only talked about constantly nationwide but globally (I'd bet most of us know what Sarah Palin believes, but not what FDR did), it's refreshing to know that the dissenting opinions of Bill Maher and director Larry Charles (Borat, Seinfeld) are being aired on a big screen near you. Well, near you if you're in a near a big city, at least. The two real mavericks have set about to question the thoughts and belief systems of spiritual leaders and common folks the world 'round, and the results are, if not shocking, at least hilarious.
It surprises me somewhat that Charles chose Religulous to be his feature follow-up to Borat, since the two are structured so similarly, and will likely please and anger the same sets of folks, more or less. Via man-on-the-street interviews, video clips, subtitles, and more, Maher roams around the world and back, with the same simple question over and over for his subjects - "Why?" Why do they believe what they believe? Why do they not question their holy books and spiritual leaders? Why don't they - pardon the offense - use common sense when called for, such as when he goes to the Creation Museum, a place where dino-babies and children are shown to be playing near the same babbling brook, intimating that humans and dinosaurs not only roamed the earth simultaneously, but coexisted peacefully?
As much as some of Maher's targets are easy pickings, I am sad to say that, because of that, he and his film will most likely be easy targets as well. By and large, I can't possibly think that the subjects of his interviews are not the best representation of believers worldwide - he starts at a Trucker's Chapel (just like it sounds), hits the aforementioned Creation Museum, and even hits the Holy Land Experience in Orlando and talks to "Jesus" - er, the guy that plays Jesus daily. It's not all this way, though (he speaks with a U.S. Senator, after all, and a Democrat at that), and it's not for a lack of trying. In a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, Charles had this to say when asked about the easy targets: "Believe me, we tried to get an audience with the Pope. We tried to get the head of the Church of Scientology. There are so many layers of bureaucracy, you can't get to them. So you move down the line until you find somebody willing to talk."
Whether or not Religulous will be any more successful at conversion or "outing" (other pre-existing non-believers, another chief goal for Maher) than Borat was at pointing a mirror to America remains to be seen. Maher's unrelenting smirk and attitude will be hard for true believers to stomach, with them most likely walking away feeling mocked (and rightfully so, at times). But at the very least, it's safe to say that he is fair and balanced, questioning and mocking those of all walks of life and most all creeds spoken about in the Western world (Hinduism and Buddhism are spared, but considering the "press" they're given locally, that's understandable). And besides, it's success as a "documentary" takes a backseat to its success as entertainment - it's an uproariously good time, and I'll get down on my knees and pray for that any day of the week.
Fletch's Film Rating:
"It's in the hole!"
