Concerns have been expressed on this site that Larry Charles’ and Bill Maher’s “Religulous” would emerge as an exercise in left-leaning smugness, taking potshots at easy, cherry-picked targets to equate faith with absurd naivete. Certainly, the jokey, swiftly-edited trailer didn’t do much to shift this feeling.
But Variety’s review of the film paints a decidedly different picture. Going so far as to call it “brilliant (and) incendiary,” they describe the film as a study that, while not neglecting its obvious comic angles, tackles its subject with appropriate profundity and inquisitiveness:
To the film’s credit, Maher never engages in Michael Moore-style gotcha tactics, but rather asks questions that raise more questions, in the form of a Socratic dialogue. To believers expecting a blind hatchet job, this will prove both thought-provoking and a bit disarming; skeptics may be surprised (as Maher is) by the occasionally smart replies to his queries.
Though the review does make reference to Maher’s occasionally flip comic tactics (contradictory subtitles accompanying interviews, and the like), the critic seems a little taken aback by a solemn conclusion to the film:
Ending minutes, though, will catch auds up short: Suddenly, the laughs die down, and as in his closing monologues on “Real Time,” Maher turns deadly serious with a final statement that will stir raging arguments in theater lobbies.
Well, that’s never a bad thing. I personally support any project that aims to provoke thought and self-evaluation within the viewer, even if I sometimes dislike the artistic methods used. However fashionable it may have become lately to dismiss Michael Moore, I tend to think he’s doing more social good than harm, however clumsily on occasion. If “Religulous” turns out to be a hit of Moore-film proportions – and it looks to be – then more power to its makers.
Whether the Academy will lap up “Religulous” is another question. Tom O’Neil seems to think it’s almost a dead cert, though there is a precedent for the Academy ignoring popular and/or influential titles in this category. (Those snubs for “Hoop Dreams” and “The Thin Blue Line” won’t ever stop smarting.) However, the voters have shown more populist taste of late, opting for the likes of “Bowling For Columbine,” “March of the Penguins” and “An Inconvenient Truth,” which could bode well for a nomination for the film.
My gut feeling, however, is that “Religulous” won’t be the title emerging from the envelope come February.
Comments
3 responses to “‘Religulous’: Variety is a believer”
You know, I’m glad to hear this, very glad. I think there is so much to criticize with religion in today’s world but sometimes am schocked and downright offended at the methods used by people like Richard Dawkins who try to argue that any kind of faith without proof is inherently stupid. I usually like Maher’s take on the whole thing, because I think he appreciates the individaul approach to God/faith/spirituality without the ceding of power to select individuals in organized religion. This review certainly gives me hope.
Anything short of Maher converting to Orthodox judaism and burning Richard Dawkins at the stake will automatically be deemed “biased” and “preaching to the converted” anyway, so he might as well have fun with the subject, but I’m glad if he’s found a way to approach the subject somewhat moderately.
I’m glad the film is doing well with the critics.
great to hear
so far only 3 reviews on RT…2 positive & 1 negative
being a fan of Real Time i cant wait to see this.