Upcoming
November 14
A Christmas Tale
B.O.H.I.C.A.
House of the Sleeping Beauties
How About You
November 21
The Betrayal
November 30
Road to Claremont
Both Variety's Robert Koehler and CHUD's Devin Faraci have recently driven out to Claremont to see Religulous, and have today posted poz reviews, Koehler calling it "brilliant" and "incendiary" and Faraci saying that anti-religion barbs aside, it "stacks up really well" as a film.
On top of which The Envelope's Tom O'Neil, who caught the Bill Maher-Larry Charles doc at a New York screening in Tuesday, is saying it's clearly "in the derby" due to this week's Oscar-qualifying bookings, the rave responses and the fact that savvy big-time publicists Michele Robertson and Jeff Hill have been hired to push an awards campaign.
"The only recent comparable example of entertainers venturing into such serious cultural-political territory is Penn & Teller's Showtime series Bullshit!, which skewers sacred cows from a skeptical-libertarian perspective," Koehler notes. "Charles' previous smash, Borat, used funnyman Sacha Baron Cohen to make satirical/political points, but the particular intensity and seriousness of Maher's project are nearly unprecedented.
"Indeed, its arrival shortly after the death of George Carlin -- a profound influence on Maher's standup act and politics -- suggests the kind of film Carlin might have made in his prime.
"Considering he was once a minor comic on the circuit and a supporting thesp in generally awful film comedies, Maher's transformation into one of America's sharpest social critics is remarkable. He takes no script credit, but his periodic monologues to the camera are undeniably written, and written well.
"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."
Laemmle's Claremont during construction phase prior to opening last year.
Faraci notes that "the basic concept has Maher traveling around the world talking to believers about what they believe, and most importantly why (or how they can believe it, for that matter). From the Holy Land to the Holy Land Experience theme park in Florida, Maher goes where the believers are and engages them on their home turf. That makes a huge difference in how the film feels, as does the fact that he actually confronts them.
"Religulous is directed by comic genius and Borat helmer Larry Charles, and it would have been easy to do this movie in a similar vein to that one -- letting these people dig themselves a ridiculous hole with their own words -- but Maher isn't interested in that. He wants to interact with these people, to confront them with the logic-hating aspects of their faiths and see what they come back with.
"That's where I think the movie succeeds the most, but also one of the main places where detractors will come after it. They'll say that Maher is looking just to clown these people, but that isn't the case. He's more than slightly exasperated with the cop-out answers that people give him (to the point where he actually gets kind of excited when a Jesus impersonater explains the paradoxical Holy Trinity by comparing it to the three states of water -- it's bullshit, Maher says, but it's interesting and new bullshit to him).
"This film is supposed to be funny so he's being funny, but he's also being fair. He's asking these people straight, direct questions. In return he's getting garbage like 'What if you die and find out you're wrong?'"
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 21, 2008 at 8:40 AM
comment #1
Bocephus says ...
I hope he doesn't constantly break to laugh at his own jokes like he does on his TV show and his stand-up act. I really like Maher and I agree with him most of the time, but that smarmy smug thing he does really turns me off.
Posted by Bocephus at August 21, 2008 9:19 AM
comment #2
gruver1 says ...
Wells to Bocephus: From the beginning of time, everyone who has been extraordinarily smart and/or talented has always to some degree radiated "smug," which is to say an awareness that they're very good (if not supremely good) at what they do. Frank Lloyd Wright was like this, Errol Morris is like this, etc. Most gifted people, however, play the little mock-humble/self-effacing game that guys like you require of people in the spotlight, lest you and yours get upset and resentful. It is a mark of a true plebian to say about someone talented, accomplished and/or exceptional, "Hey, they're not folksy and self-effacing!!" Obama suffers from this to some extent. Harvard Law School? Articulate phrasings? Not fleshy or overweight? Alien! Not my kind of guy!
Posted by gruver1 at August 21, 2008 9:31 AM
comment #3
PerfectTommy says ...
"Faraci saying that anti-religion barbs aside"
Isn't that like saying "Partisian and anti-Bush remarks aside, Fahrenheit 9/11..."?
Posted by PerfectTommy at August 21, 2008 9:41 AM
comment #4
PerfectTommy says ...
"Faraci saying that anti-religion barbs aside..."
Isn't that like saying "Partisan and anti-Bush remarks aside, Fahrenheit 9/11..."?
Posted by PerfectTommy at August 21, 2008 9:42 AM
comment #5
broadstreetbully says ...
Oh Wells, this whole act of yours is so tired. Everyone knows you're an insecure, self-hating nobody who lashes out at others by pretending he's one of the "smart", one of the "elite", when no one who went to Harvard Law School could give a damn about you. What school did you go to again?
Stop sucking up to your superiors so damn much. It's pathetic.
Posted by broadstreetbully at August 21, 2008 9:42 AM
comment #6
JohnCope says ...
Wow. Wells, you really think Maher is "extraordinarily smart" or "exceptional"? Are you sure you want to advocate that?
Posted by JohnCope at August 21, 2008 9:47 AM
comment #7
Movie Watcher says ...
Can't wait to see it. It will, of course, piss people off, but isn't that somehow the point? Maybe they will think about their beliefs? I can already hear the talk radio/fox news/usual suspects bitch and moan. Isn't there a right-wing movie coming out on the same day? I know O'Reilly(O'Really) is in it, can't think of the name right now.
Posted by Movie Watcher at August 21, 2008 9:54 AM
comment #8
George Prager says ...
WHen someone calls someone smug, what they are really saying is "I am jealous of that person."
Posted by George Prager at August 21, 2008 9:56 AM
comment #9
Rich S. says ...
"In return he's getting garbage like 'What if you die and find out you're wrong?'"
Actually, people a whole lot smarter than Bill Maher have asked that same question. Google Pascal's Gambit (or Pascal's Wager). It acknowledges that there is no logical way to prove or disprove the existence of God. So it sets forth the belief in God as a wager. There are basically four outcomes. If you believe, and there is a God, jackpot- heaven. If you believe and there is no God, you have not lost anything.
If you don't believe and there is no God, again, you have not lost anything. If you don't believe and there is a God, however, then you end up in hell or purgatory.
Thus, if you believe, your two possible outcomes are neutral or strongly positive. If you don't believe, your two possible outcomes are neutral or strongly negative. Strictly from the point of view of games theory (with no theological implications whatsoever), you're better off believing.
Is that covered in the movie?
Posted by Rich S. at August 21, 2008 10:00 AM
comment #10
Yves says ...
I'm in the Howard Stern camp re:Bill Maher-- he's an arrogant prick. Would love to see Penn & Teller skewer him. This isn't "serious cultural-political territory" as much as it is Maher's spin on the athiesm vs. religion debates that are a tiring trend today. As for folksy and self-effacing, you don't have to be a doormat to not be an asshole. Sometimes a simple thank you, followed by focusing on the other person is enough. Jon Stewart is extraordinarily smart and talented, and yet he doesn't come off as smug to me, nor is he folksy and self-effacing.
Posted by Yves at August 21, 2008 10:01 AM
comment #11
Teacher's Pets says ...
Will Wells not get to sit at the cool kids table if he thinks Maher is smart? You know, it's OK to think someone is intelligent even if you think they're wrong. Buckley was a genius, and also fundamentally wrong...
Posted by Teacher's Pets at August 21, 2008 10:01 AM
comment #12
Richardson says ...
"From the beginning of time, everyone who has been extraordinarily smart and/or talented has always to some degree radiated "smug," which is to say an awareness that they're very good (if not supremely good) at what they do. Frank Lloyd Wright was like this, Errol Morris is like this, etc."
I think this is a good and true point. However, I think you should think twice about using it as a defense against Bill Maher's smugness, which, at this point, is approaching critical mass. Bill Maher is *not* the pundit equivalent of Frank Lloyd Wright.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 10:04 AM
comment #13
Geoff says ...
Some of you guys are insane.
Posted by Geoff at August 21, 2008 10:05 AM
comment #14
Teacher's Pets says ...
Re: Pascal...what if your belief alters your real-world behavior in ways that are irrational and detrimental to yourself and others, and it turns out there is no God? Strongly negative result, and one we all experience daily....
Posted by Teacher's Pets at August 21, 2008 10:05 AM
comment #15
gruver1 says ...
Wells to broadstreetbully: You're one of those talent-resenting plebes also, I see. I've never pretended, intimated or even faintly hinted that I'm one of the exceptional gifted elite. There are many out there, however, who provide daily indications and proof that they're not as alert, active, interested or inquisitive as myself regarding this or that, so excuse me for daring to observe this. Your conclusion makes you seem, no offense, rather small, possibly stupid, certainly misdirected. And I don't feel insecure either. Not in terms of what I can do and who I am. Financially, yes, but that's been a constant all my life. Why don't we just agree that you're pretty much a drag to listen to and debate with and leave it at that? Life is not an equal proposition, you fucking baby -- some people are given better genes and have more hunger or gumption than others. I know how distressing it can be to consider this.
Wells to JohnCope: Wow, thanks for correcting me. You're right -- Maher is nothing special, just average, certainly not brilliant, way overpaid, doesn't quite have it so let's cut him down to size. Whew...that was close. Thanks again. If it weren't for guys pointing out when I've gone over the line, I don't know what I'd do.
Posted by gruver1 at August 21, 2008 10:09 AM
comment #16
Walter Sobchak says ...
It's hard to think that he won't spend 85% of the film going after Christians, since it will best allow him to rant about W. and the religious Republicans he loathes so much. (Let me know if I'm wrong)
I'm not terribly religious myself (actually not at all) but I do find the Christian bashing tiresome, especially when it comes from people who cut yards of slack to fundamentalist Islam, (since it usually involves poor, third-world people, i.e. underdogs). If the subject is religion at least be consistent. (See Chris Hitchens)
And yes, Maher is smug, but I'm probably just saying that because I'm jealous of his smartness.
Posted by Walter Sobchak at August 21, 2008 10:14 AM
comment #17
Richardson says ...
"especially when it comes from people who cut yards of slack to fundamentalist Islam"
Just for the record, it should be pointed out that Bill Maher holds up fundamentalist Islam as a backwards religion even by religious standards and has ranted, at length, about how the idea of "tolerance" among liberals leads people to be reluctant to criticize what is, to him, a clearly inferior culture. He has gone out of his way to emphasize that, as much as he hates fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Islam is worse.
I believe he focuses on Christians because, day-to-day, they have more impact on the lives of Americans.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 10:17 AM
comment #18
bluefugue says ...
>WHen someone calls someone smug, what they are really saying is "I am jealous of that person."
No, they're saying that person is smug. It's a specific attitude that some people give off.
Genuine humility is usually a desirable mannerism. If one is going to act smug, it's certainly better to actually have something to be smug about. But a humbler or plainer manner is not incompatible with actual talent or intellect, and smugness is not merely in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by bluefugue at August 21, 2008 10:19 AM
comment #19
Markku says ...
Pascal's wager is intellectually lazy rubbish: it presupposes that there is only one potential god, when of course there are thousands of them. If there is only one true god, which one is it? Problem number one is that iIt's not a question of choosing between two alternatives, but choosing the right god from a multitude of gods. Remember, some of these gods don't pay kindly to worshipping false idols. Suppose you choose to worship Shiva and instead you're met by a seething Zeus at the pearly gates? Wouldn't you be better off worshipping no gods at all that the wrong one?
Furthermore, Pascal's Wager also presupposes that you can force yourself to believe something, that belief is a matter of choice. Nix: you either believe or you don't believe, you can't pretend. A man can shout that he's a believer from the rooftops and still doubt the existence of god. Surely he would be thrown to the fiery pit in the afterlife for false piety?
No, no, no, Pascal's wager makes for a snappy one-liner (What if you're wrong?), but does not withstand even a moment's scrutiny.
Posted by Markku at August 21, 2008 10:22 AM
comment #20
Richardson says ...
Rich S - people a lot smarter than Maher have dismissed it as, at best, sophistry, too.
Pascal's Wager is based on a false version of religion in which belief in God is enough to guarantee entrance to heaven, and where there is no further cost other than belief -- it doesn't cost you any money, it doesn't cost you any time, and you don't have to alter your behavior in any way with respect to God. That's too hypothetical to be worth discussion.
Beyond that, it dismisses any inherent value to truth -- believing something which is true and living your life "correctly" is a positive, not a neutral. [This applies to both sides -- but "belief in God' is already defined as positive.] But of course it dismisses truth -- the entire point of the wager is, "Well, truth is fine, but do you want to stake your future on it?"
"If you believe, and there is a God, jackpot- heaven."
Unless you believe in the wrong God, and get sent to Hell. Considering the vast numbers of religions and sects in the world, speaking strictly mathematically, a person is far more likely to choose the wrong religion than the right one.
"If you believe and there is no God, you have not lost anything."
Except for the gay son you had to disown, the Sunday mornings you could've been sleeping, and the money you gave because the church really, really needed air conditioning; God sure made a mistake when he created hot summers!
"If you don't believe and there is a God, however, then you end up in hell or purgatory."
the other thing this brings up is that Pascal's Wager is inherent set up towards a specific God, because there are plenty of Gods defined by religion who judge people by their actual behavior, not which box they check ("Do you believe in me? Check yes or no"). Fine, unless you believe in a Christian God, and eat pork, and it turns out, whoops, God's a Jew!
If you're defining it strictly by trying to lose the most, shouldn't you believe in the strictest God possible and curb your behavior towards what He wants, just in case? After all, if you're wrong, you haven't lost anything... except, of course, the one life you've got on this earth and the freedom to live that life by your own standard.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 10:28 AM
comment #21
DarthCorleone says ...
Rich S.>> Pascal's Wager is morally bankrupt. I have no interest in a "just" deity who would grant eternal reward based on belief that is *ONLY* rooted in self-interest. If I'm wrong about it, so be it. That just means God is an unjust asshole.
Posted by DarthCorleone at August 21, 2008 10:34 AM
comment #22
DarthCorleone says ...
I posted my quick response before reading the rest of them.
Richardson, you skewered Pascal's Wager beautifully. :- )
Posted by DarthCorleone at August 21, 2008 10:39 AM
comment #23
Rich S. says ...
I didn't say I believed in Pascal's Gambit (or God, for that matter). I just threw it out there for discussion.
I just imagine that there was a lot more discussion of the possibility in this thread than there will be in the movie.
As an aside, I think you guys would enjoy Robert Heinlein's Job, A Comedy of Justice.
Posted by Rich S. at August 21, 2008 10:39 AM
comment #24
DarthCorleone says ...
As did you, Markku.
Posted by DarthCorleone at August 21, 2008 10:40 AM
comment #25
DarthCorleone says ...
Rich S.>> It is an interesting discussion in that Pascal was a pretty intelligent mathematician. When I first heard about Pascal's Wager in high school, I didn't pay it much mind but thought it was an interesting idea. Later in college when I became a math major and read Pascal's Pensees (a collection of essays he wrote geared toward Christian apologetics) for some liberal arts class I took, I gave it more scrutiny.
Not that Pascal had a flawless thought process - there are certainly plenty of the great brains of that period who gave us some of our best ideas but also had some rather irrational beliefs - but it almost leads me to wonder if perhaps his wager was something he just threw against the wall as one idea amidst many and not something upon which he thought we should hang our souls. If nothing else, it was an early, effectively illustrative idea for probability theory.
Posted by DarthCorleone at August 21, 2008 10:49 AM
comment #26
Josh Massey says ...
The most smug thing of all is that anybody - believer or non-believer - can honestly claim to know what happens to us after our heart takes its final thump.
I'm not a believer, an athiest, or an agnostic - I just (finally) feel comfortable saying I have no f'in idea about any of it. I'll find out when I find out.
Posted by Josh Massey at August 21, 2008 10:52 AM
comment #27
Richardson says ...
"As an aside, I think you guys would enjoy Robert Heinlein's Job, A Comedy of Justice."
Honestly, I don't remember which one that is specifically, but I do have a soft-spot for all those later Heinlein books. I rarely agree with him politically, and I always laugh when he creates a straw man that he can skewer via Lazarus Long or the numerous Lazarus Long knock-offs that he created... and his sexual beliefs are so awkward and ham-fisted -- yet so simple, and straightforward, and presented as straight common sense. And, even when he gets uber-meta (which is generally a bad idea), he makes it interesting.
I dig Heinlein, but I have no idea why. Which one is 'Job', anyway? It's been a few years since I picked up a Heinlein, because I read 'em all within a year or two of reading 'Starship Troopers'.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 10:57 AM
comment #28
Richardson says ...
"The most smug thing of all is that anybody - believer or non-believer - can honestly claim to know what happens to us after our heart takes its final thump."
I disagree with both you and Jeff; no belief is inherently "smug". It's how you present the belief. I have known religious people who were wonderful and not smug despite their beliefs, and I've known people who, though technically correct, were so smug about confronting people about how agnosticism is the only sensible way that they were smug despite not believing anything.
(er, to be clear, I'm not trying a sneaky back-handed knock on you.)
No belief, no matter how certain, is inherently smug. Smugness is strictly in how you present it.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 11:01 AM
comment #29
Rich S. says ...
Job is the novel with the fundamentalist guy who goes on a cruise of the South Pacific, coincidentally at the end of the world. While on the cruise, he meets and falls in love with a woman, who turns out to be a believer in the Norse gods. When the end comes, she goes to Valhalla and he ends up in heaven, which turns out be be really, really boring.
Hilarity ensues.
Posted by Rich S. at August 21, 2008 11:08 AM
comment #30
Richardson says ...
Yes! that was a good one. I think the thing I like about later Heinlein is that he starts to be funny.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 11:16 AM
comment #31
George Prager says ...
I never said anything about smart.
Fuck humility. Humility is the rich dumb country singer who gets onstage at the CMA's and says "gosh, shucks, I'm just a country boy, thank you Jesus..." and then leaves and gets back into his limo to drive him back to his mansion.
Posted by George Prager at August 21, 2008 11:25 AM
comment #32
SaveFarris says ...
God didn't create hot summers. Al Gore did.
Posted by SaveFarris at August 21, 2008 11:48 AM
comment #33
Bocephus says ...
I actually do think Maher is a very smart guy; I did say I liked him and agree with him most of the time. Hell I watched his show every week when I could afford HBO. I just get annoyed when he smugly pauses after every joke to laugh at himself, massaging his hands. It's a tic that annoys me, and I hope he doesn't do it in the documentary where there's not an audience to mug to.
I would not call Errol Morris smug. The guy always comes off as very down-to-earth and relatively humble. There's a big difference between subtle confidence in your own talent and outright smarminess.
Posted by Bocephus at August 21, 2008 11:49 AM
comment #34
George Prager says ...
That's why I love listening to Lou Reed's music. He is so humble. Mozart too.
Posted by George Prager at August 21, 2008 11:55 AM
comment #35
televisiontears says ...
Well said, Richardson. Smugness and confidence are two separate traits. Smugness is a superiority complex, directed towards others. Confidence is internal, an affirmation of oneself. I do think Maher (and maybe Wells) fall into the latter category.
Maher's smugness is partly why the "interviews" on Real Time are so goddamn painful to watch. His formula for a "good question" is usually a lengthy applause-baiting statement of his views on whichever issue, followed by "What do you think of that?". That's what smug is - acting like some revolutionary thinker when you don't have an original thought in your head. You can tell he regurgitates whatever his intelligent friends say at parties, and it comes out jarbled and sounding like O'Reilly talking points. It's confusing when someone says something you agree with, and you still want to punch them in the spleen.
Posted by televisiontears at August 21, 2008 12:00 PM
comment #36
Joe Leydon says ...
Mere belief is never enough. I mean, I'm sure Satan believes in God. So what? He's still freakin' Satan.
Posted by Joe Leydon at August 21, 2008 12:11 PM
comment #37
Ghost072 says ...
"If you don't believe and there is no God, again, you have not lost anything. If you don't believe and there is a God, however, then you end up in hell or purgatory."
What kind of god would punish a creature he (ostensibily) created for using the reason it had developed to make up its own mind? If, based on the evidence I see before me and using the intelligence and reason that god (again, ostensibly) blessed me with, I determine there is no god, why would god punish me for that? I mean, if the stakes are that high, wouldn't it only be fair for god to throw us a bone once and while and perform an actual wide-scale miracle, rather than leave his sales pitch to a bunch of snake-oil salesman and ancient manuscripts that have been edited and rewritten by more people than a typical Hollywood blockbuster? Frankly, any god who is that petulant and cruel is no god I want to be associated with.
Posted by Ghost072 at August 21, 2008 12:27 PM
comment #38
Richardson says ...
"It's confusing when someone says something you agree with, and you still want to punch them in the spleen."
Well-put. I don't dismiss Maher's intelligence quite as much as you... but his smugness doesn't come from when he says something intelligent (which he does sometimes). it's when he repeats one of his three key phrases (slightly re-worded) which he knows will spur his audience to applaud, and then they applaud, and then he looks around with that smug smile that makes you want to kick all of his teeth down his throat while turning to the camera and saying, "This should not be interpreted as me disagreeing with his position in any way."
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 12:56 PM
comment #39
George Prager says ...
"It's confusing when someone says something you agree with, and you still want to punch them in the spleen."
Reminds me of the line from MANHATTAN: "I finally had an orgasm, and my doctor said it was the wrong kind."
Posted by George Prager at August 21, 2008 1:11 PM
comment #40
dp4m says ...
I'm also on the "Maher as smug" bandwagon a lot of the time, however I tend to like much of his newer material (since his post-9/11 snafu) and his HBO show on a much more recent scale.
The problem I mostly have with him is not that he's not intelligent (I think he is at least above-average) or not-talented (I believe he also has some of that too) but that the smugness occurs because he is (or seems to be) dismissive or "smug" about people who disagree with him on something that he views as an axiom. Much like when he opened his mouth post-9/11 -- on statements which you can't really disagree with on the face of it -- and thought it was silly that such a big deal was made about his comments to where he ultimately lost his ABC gig. It wasn't about censorship -- it was about business; the American people complained and it hurt the bottom-line, same as with the Dixie Chicks. As much as liberals love to defend free speech (and I should know, I'm one of them), they don't like it when it leads to censorship via the exercise of one's wallet. Free speech means being able to say it, not having it be well-received. As I was reminded of last night when popping in The American President between Olympic events "With all due respect, sir, the American people have a funny way of deciding on their own what is and what is not their business."
Posted by dp4m at August 21, 2008 1:12 PM
comment #41
Richardson says ...
"and thought it was silly that such a big deal was made about his comments to where he ultimately lost his ABC gig"
As much as I think to myself, "You idiot, of course you got fired for that!" ... I also do kind of love his oft-repeated line, "Why is it that the only person who lost his job after 9/11 was me?" He always busts that out when they're talking about various screw-ups by the administration that built up to 9/11 [or, when Katrina happened, they were comparing these screw-ups to those screw-ups... etc., they bring it up a lot]. And then he pauses, and everybody applauds for their martyr, and then he gets that smile, waits a minute, and then acts as if he hates the very idea of people applauding him for saying self-evident truths.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 1:18 PM
comment #42
dp4m says ...
And Richardson it's exactly correct and I totally agree with him -- but the answer is completely obvious to even him -- which is probably why he's got to be smarmy and martyrish about it which is that HE is beholden to a bottom-line and Bush (and everyone else) was not. Furthermore, the American people complained enough and got him fired and reelected George Bush on their own. It's stupid, but so was Sigourney Weaver repeating a computer voice in Galaxy Quest but she's got ONE job on that ship -- it's stupid, but she's gonna do it!
Posted by dp4m at August 21, 2008 1:23 PM
comment #43
last_child says ...
I agree that Bill Maher is smug, and that's part of why I'm a fan. Liberals tend to be more open minded, and in my general day to day political or religious discussions, I try to be reasonable and to reach conservatives through logic. Bill Maher fills a smugness void on the left. The right is absolutely overflowing with condescension and smugness. They have Rush, they have Sean Hannity, they have Ann Coulter, and hundreds more. We need some smugness, too. There's a catharsis to hearing that kind of self-assuredness.
Posted by last_child at August 21, 2008 1:32 PM
comment #44
bents75 says ...
"I just get annoyed when he smugly pauses after every joke to laugh at himself, massaging his hands."
I don't get how this is smug. What's wrong with someone laughing at their own jokes?
Personally I trust the comedian who thinks what he says is funny and laughs accordingly rather than the one that doesn't. You call that smug, I call that being genuine.
And in either case, the definition of smug isn't necessarily negative as everyone here seems to imply. There shouldn't be anything wrong with someone being "confident", and suggesting otherwise is just as idiotic as suggesting "elite" is a bad word too.
Posted by bents75 at August 21, 2008 1:32 PM
comment #45
storymark says ...
Was his getting the boot from ABC really because "The American People" spoke out, en masse, or just a few really cranky bastards calling in a lot?
Like the $1.3 million fine against Fox for an episode of "Married By America", which received complaints from 3 whole people.
Posted by storymark at August 21, 2008 1:32 PM
comment #46
bents75 says ...
In other words, if you don't think your own jokes are funny, why the hell should I?
Posted by bents75 at August 21, 2008 1:35 PM
comment #47
Mgmax says ...
Jesus reminds me of Beverly Hills Chihuahua.
Posted by Mgmax at August 21, 2008 2:01 PM
comment #48
Rich S. says ...
Don't you mean Je-WOW-sus?
Posted by Rich S. at August 21, 2008 2:31 PM
comment #49
PerfectTommy says ...
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/65035/Matt_Stone_Trey_Parker_On_Nightline.html
Stone and Parker discussing South Park and religion. Paraphrase: We think all religions are ridiculous, but the most ridiculous thing to believe is the universe is exanding and will colapse on itself and we're here just because.
Posted by PerfectTommy at August 21, 2008 2:49 PM
comment #50
Rosebudsthesled says ...
I can tell you now that I won't be seeing RELIGULOUS, and I know that because I've talked with someone close to the film (unnamed) who has seen it, and he says that the problem is this: Bill decided to only interview stupid people who would totally disagree with whatever he says. Now maybe that's been changed, it has, after all, been two months since I heard this, but if such is the case, then there's really no point in going.
Posted by Rosebudsthesled at August 21, 2008 2:55 PM
comment #51
Aris P says ...
This entire film is one big Gotcha!. You want to interview people in truck stops (no offense), and think you're going to get some deep discussion, odds are it aint gonna happen. PASS.
Posted by Aris P at August 21, 2008 3:11 PM
comment #52
Richardson says ...
"Bill decided to only interview stupid people who would totally disagree with whatever he says."
ding-ding-ding.
I'll never forget the episode of 'Real Time' I saw a few years ago. Cornell West was one of the guests. Maher went on one of his usual rants about how only stupid people believe in God (I think this was before "The God Delusion", but possibly that was what sparked it).
I tell you, West hadn't even finished the sentence, "Hold on, Bill, I believe in God" before Maher got scared and leaped to another topic. He's not interested in having an intelligent discussion about the nature of faith. He's not interested in changing people's minds. He's interested in scoring cheap points.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 3:18 PM
comment #53
Richardson says ...
"Stone and Parker discussing South Park and religion."
I would love to see Trey Parker and Bill Maher [both of whom, I should say, I enjoy quite a bit... as entertainers] have a debate about religion, God, and all that. It could be like a smug-off!
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 3:20 PM
comment #54
Richardson says ...
By the way, I keep looking at that main picture and thinking that Bill Maher played a mentor character who died in an '80's movie.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 3:24 PM
comment #55
Mgmax says ...
That's from the Bill Maher remake of Almost An Angel, yeah.
Posted by Mgmax at August 21, 2008 3:36 PM
comment #56
AlexStroup says ...
This entire film is one big Gotcha!. You want to interview people in truck stops (no offense), and think you're going to get some deep discussion, odds are it aint gonna happen. PASS.
And yet, I'd say this is a perfectly valid (and important) thing to present. It is fine to say "but, but, but, Billy Graham and Cornell West have deep intellectual and satisfying explanations for their religious belief." I still think they're wrong but interesting conversation can ensue.
However, those deeply intellectual religious people are a minuscule portion of the population. The ones responsible for the idiotic cultural controls around the world that I have to confront every day are the idiots at truck stops who can't come up with a more cogent defense of their belief than "how can you be a good person if you don't believe in Jesus?!"
And when we're told every day that we need to respect the religious diversity that surrounds us I'd say it is important to know that 98% of those religious beliefs are idiotic tripe that they simply swallowed whole with hardly a moment's thought and can barely put into words what they belief let alone why. And then turn around and tell me the world is going to fall apart if two guys fuck while wearing matching rings.
Posted by AlexStroup at August 21, 2008 3:44 PM
comment #57
Richardson says ...
Alex - the problem is, if you're saying it's a fair representation to show one intelligent atheist interview a bunch of idiotic Christians, the implication is that it's because most atheists are intelligent (and most intelligent people are atheists, if the only intelligent person in the movie is an atheist, and it's a fair representation). That's bullshit. Most *people* are idiots period. Therefore, most Democrats are idiots and most Republicans are idiots and most Chinese people are idiots and most people on the Internet are idiots and most atheists are idiots.
Hell, I could even defend the statement that most geniuses are idiots.
I don't see how Bill Maher interviewing a bunch of idiots and then going "a-HA!" is any less intellectually lazy than when Fox News deliberately invites on idiotic liberals who can't enunciate a clear defense of their position on, just so the Fox crew can "a-HA!" them.
Those can be fun to watch once in a while, but they're hardly helpful to a national dialogue. I don't see how this is supposed to help change the situation it's purporting to depict -- it seems like it's basically just a wank-piece for people who already agree with it. And not even all of them -- I *do* agree with them, and I have a feeling it will be shit just because I can barely stand to watch Maher talking about religion for even one minute, let alone ninety.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 5:35 PM
comment #58
Richardson says ...
"when Fox News deliberately invites on idiotic liberals who can't enunciate a clear defense of their position on"
Jeff - no offense; I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that, just a coincidence.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 5:37 PM
comment #59
televisiontears says ...
Richardson, I honestly don't have anything left to add to the dialogue. You keep stealing the words from my mouth. Thief.
In all seriousness, you're my hero on this post. Keep on keepin' on.
Posted by televisiontears at August 21, 2008 5:53 PM
comment #60
AlexStroup says ...
It may not be a fair representation of atheists, but it is a fair representation of religious people. I suppose you could have an idiot interviewing a bunch of idiots...
But my point is that the idiocy of the average religious belief is NOT something generally recognized and shining a light on that is, in my opinion, a useful thing. Yes, it will likely only be seen by people who already agree with it, but that is generally true of anything that attempts to present a strong point of view in our culture.
And it is important because unlike the millions of idiot atheists (and those would include the ones in a recent poll who identified themselves as atheists but also said the Bible should be the source of government policy) we aren't bombarded every day with the idea that somehow these idiotic beliefs are worthy of special consideration. Nobody ever says "because I don't believe in god stem cell research should not be allowed" or "my non-deity tells me that pre-marital sex is wrong and therefore we won't be giving any money to AIDS prevention efforts in Africa that promote birth control."
These people claim a special weight on their beliefs and it is a useful thing to be reminded that the vast majority of them have no solid grasp on exactly what they believe or why.
That said, I have no intention of watching this movie because Bill Maher annoys me to no end. I may agree with him but he's simply not consistently funny and there is nothing more annoying than failed humor.
Posted by AlexStroup at August 21, 2008 6:05 PM
comment #61
Devin Faraci says ...
Aris has no idea what he's talking about. Maher doesn't go to a truck stop - he goes to a truck stop church, where he talks to a guy in a shirt that says 'Chaplain' on it.
As I said in my review, the overwhelming majority of people Maher talks to are either clergy or people who make their living in religion, like a guy who owns a religious trinkets shop. He's not bumrushing randoms coming out of church on Sunday.
Posted by Devin Faraci at August 21, 2008 6:47 PM
comment #62
astrophore says ...
saw bill maher in a local l.a. bar back in the late 90s. he was really short. sitting by himself at the bar, drinking smugly.
hope the film is entertaining. don't care much about advancing a dialogue. or bestowing critical thinking skills on someone who thinks gals were made from rib bones. or that cavemen rode dinosaurs in big races. nascarasaurus.
the twain are not meeting on this issue. so we'll just keep on pointing fingers and yelling at each other. like some trickster gods who put down the clay and started slinging mud.
won't get to get what i'm after. till the day i die.
Posted by astrophore at August 21, 2008 7:06 PM
comment #63
seymourgrant says ...
How does one drink smugly?
Posted by seymourgrant at August 21, 2008 7:43 PM
comment #64
PastePotPete says ...
"How does one drink smugly?"
It's the only way of drinking an appletini.
Posted by PastePotPete at August 21, 2008 8:11 PM
comment #65
Mgmax says ...
AlexStroup, I'll buy your argument when somebody makes a documentary about how irrational the average person's beliefs about economics are.
This is sort of like my problem with Borat. He set out to make a movie about how hilariously stupid middle America is, and he wound up making a movie about how far middle Americans will bend over to be polite to a visitor, no matter how insane he and his customs appear to be.
Posted by Mgmax at August 21, 2008 8:15 PM
comment #66
astrophore says ...
seymourgrant, apparently bill maher does everything smugly.
so, you know, he had to have been drinking smugly. or maybe it was smirkily. it was a number of years ago, after all.
Posted by astrophore at August 21, 2008 8:49 PM
comment #67
Richardson says ...
"But my point is that the idiocy of the average religious belief is NOT something generally recognized and shining a light on that is, in my opinion, a useful thing."
Being a fan of 'Inherit the Wind', I personally believe that, if the belief itself is stupid, the stupidity gets better demonstrated by a conversation between two smart people discussing the alternate viewpoints. If you interview an idiot, it just proves that the believer is stupid, not neccessarily the belief itself.
Posted by Richardson at August 21, 2008 9:01 PM
comment #68
Chris Willman says ...
A truck stop CHAPLAIN? Ah, well, in that case...! Nothing but intellectual equals for our Bill.
Too bad he didn't interview Obama. That would have been a laugh riot, making him out to be an idiot for believing in God.
Posted by Chris Willman at August 21, 2008 9:20 PM
comment #69
D.Z. says ...
Tommy: "Isn't that like saying "Partisan and anti-Bush remarks aside, Fahrenheit 9/11..."?"
If it's so partisan, why did it make more money than the anti-Moore films?
Yves: "I'm in the Howard Stern camp re:Bill Maher-- he's an arrogant prick."
You mean this Howard Stern?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf5zep5IIh4
"As for folksy and self-effacing, you don't have to be a doormat to not be an asshole. Sometimes a simple thank you, followed by focusing on the other person is enough. Jon Stewart is extraordinarily smart and talented, and yet he doesn't come off as smug to me, nor is he folksy and self-effacing."
Well, how is Maher and more condescending than Limbaugh or O'Reilly?
Walter: "I'm not terribly religious myself (actually not at all) but I do find the Christian bashing tiresome, especially when it comes from people who cut yards of slack to fundamentalist Islam, (since it usually involves poor, third-world people, i.e. underdogs)."
Well, Republicans don't seem to care about poor Christians being ripped off by fundy con artists like Swaggart, so...
tears: "That's what smug is - acting like some revolutionary thinker when you don't have an original thought in your head. "
So I guess Gingrich counts as smug.
dp4m: "Much like when he opened his mouth post-9/11 -- on statements which you can't really disagree with on the face of it -- and thought it was silly that such a big deal was made about his comments to where he ultimately lost his ABC gig. It wasn't about censorship -- it was about business; the American people complained and it hurt the bottom-line, same as with the Dixie Chicks."
The Dixie Chicks still made money, in spite of their comments, while Maher has a new show. If they were really unpopular, they wouldn't get second chances that soon.
"As much as liberals love to defend free speech (and I should know, I'm one of them), they don't like it when it leads to censorship via the exercise of one's wallet."
No, we don't like it when Rush, Dr. Laura, and Savage get to trash black people, gays, and autistic children, and still keep their jobs, while CBS is forced to take an anti-Reagan movie from tv.
Richardson:
"He's not interested in having an intelligent discussion about the nature of faith."
Neither was Fallwell. What's your point?
Posted by D.Z. at August 21, 2008 10:07 PM
comment #70
Walter Sobchak says ...
There goes D.Z. lapsing into self-parody again.
D.Z. Says -
"There goes D.Z. lapsing into self-parody again."
And the U.S. lapses into torturing the babies of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, so what's your point?
Posted by Walter Sobchak at August 22, 2008 12:05 AM
comment #71
storymark says ...
"Alex - the problem is, if you're saying it's a fair representation to show one intelligent atheist interview a bunch of idiotic Christians, the implication is that it's because most atheists are intelligent (and most intelligent people are atheists, if the only intelligent person in the movie is an atheist, and it's a fair representation). That's bullshit. Most *people* are idiots period. Therefore, most Democrats are idiots and most Republicans are idiots and most Chinese people are idiots and most people on the Internet are idiots and most atheists are idiots."
I can't really disagree that most people are idiots. but those who believe in the talking snake score a few extra points.
Posted by storymark at August 22, 2008 7:51 AM
comment #72
Yves says ...
D.Z.-- thanks for posting your notes. What's your point?
If D.Z. made pencils, they'd look like Koosh balls.
Posted by Yves at August 22, 2008 8:08 AM
comment #73
Richardson says ...
"how is Maher and more condescending than Limbaugh or O'Reilly?"
I personally think he could set the bar a little higher than that. I agree with you, he's on par with their condescension, and he argues the same way they argue. What I'm saying is, that's a bad thing, and I don't forgive him for the intellectual laziness just because I happen to agree with him.
"Neither was Fallwell. What's your point?"
Well, nobody mentioned Fallwell. I did mention Cornell West, though, as an example of a person who attempted to engage Maher in an intelligent, friendly conversation/debate about religion, and got quickly rebuffed.
Posted by Richardson at August 22, 2008 8:43 AM
comment #74
D.Z. says ...
Richardson: "What I'm saying is, that's a bad thing, and I don't forgive him for the intellectual laziness just because I happen to agree with him."
He's in the business of comedy, not academic debate.
"I did mention Cornell West, though, as an example of a person who attempted to engage Maher in an intelligent, friendly conversation/debate about religion, and got quickly rebuffed."
Better than being told, "Shut up!"
Posted by D.Z. at August 22, 2008 3:59 PM
comment #75
Richardson says ...
Try and keep up, DZ, the argument is over whether Bill Maher's film is worthy as a documentary, and helpful to the dialogue as some purport.
"Better than being told, "Shut up!""
You only think that because everybody always tells you to shut up and nobody has ever been so scared to debate you that they immediately changed the subject without letting you finish talking. It's the same sort of arguing technique -- make your point and then cut the other guy off. So just shut up.
Posted by Richardson at August 22, 2008 4:35 PM
Post a comment