PDA

View Full Version : Religulous Assignment



anonymity
10-19-2009, 12:36 PM
Warning: Material in this thread may or may not (but will most likely) be controversial. If you don't have something truly constructive to say please leave that useless nonsense out. This is a no troll zone. I know that what some people have to say will be controversial, and there is a difference between expressing opinions and just trying to make someone mad.

It is what it sounds like....
I had to watch the movie Religulous (by Bill Maher) during class and later write a quick report on the movie. We had to describe two events/themes that were significant/interesting. Also we had analyze the video and provide our opinion about it.
I was hoping to get some insight and see what you guys thought. I would prefer you only comment if you have seen this particular documentary, not just read/heard about it.

Religulous Assignment
Religulous, written by Bill Maher, is an openly blunt documentary, bordering between hilarious and offensive. As with virtually any person to ever watch this particular documentary I assume, I find it difficult to pinpoint just two events or themes that could be classified as interesting and/or significant. To no end, this obtrusive infotainment could be picked apart and scrutinized by any single minded person ready to discredit the comedian Bill Maher. When given information of such acclaimed magnitude, be that fact, fiction, or something in between , it should be met with learned regards of care and respect.
In particular, one event that stuck with me was the meeting of Jesus Miranda. While this so called meeting progressed, I was continually taken aback, completely baffled, and I could only ponder what the [colourful interjection goes here] was going on. It took me a while to figure out what was happening, why one man would be made digital and sent far and wide to the fans of Maher. This part of the video, I thought was likely the most obscure. I couldn’t tell right off the reason Bill Maher wanted to have such a ludicrous assertation in his documentary. Although it took me a little while to figure it out, I believe I understand his reasoning. Mr. Miranda did a magnificent job at solidifying Bill’s argument. Bill Maher was pointing out how ridiculous Mr. Miranda’s claim was, and in this way he indirectly was able to assert the claims of the Bible. If what one man is claiming right now can seem so outrageous, what makes the claims of any one man and/or group of people in the past any different? It is my opinion that Jesus Miranda, if anything, would have been the turning point of the viewers’ experience. At this point in the film, Bill Maher is finally able to push his reoccurring theme in such a way that viewers will be either “enlightened” or enraged.
Approaching the complete opposite end of the relative spectrum, I was slightly stalled as to why Bill Maher included but just ran straight through the meeting with the “Hollywood Jesus,” at the theme park. I was interested as to the nature behind including this particular section of the film. What caught my attention were two things in this chapter of the documentary. First was the including of this particular scene as a whole; why would Bill Maher include footage of him being answered by anyone with smooth dignity, calmness, and for all other purposes an answer at all? Around this time I figure out, if the only footage in this video is of Bill Maher verbally trolling his way through religion without including what could be called an intelligent response, he would be more likely to be looked over and disregarded. By including the “Hollywood Jesus” scene and intellectual response in his documentary, Bill Maher is able show that he is not out just to get people, he wants to include all persons and responses in his film. The second part to this intriguing chapter of Religulous was more as to why Bill Maher would allow a brilliant answer on his documentary. When I truly delved into this scene more, I realized that he also included the snippet of the Hollywood director lady being uptight and chafed at having Bill Maher on the set and talking with “Hollywood Jesus.” She was crucial to discrediting this scene; with her indecorous act of frustration, she closed the gate at peaceful conversation and opened the door to close minded intercourse. Essentially, the director lady brought the scene right into Bill Maher’s alley, right where he is more comfortable, being able to shrug off (profile) Christians once again as the self righteous, hypocritical, liars that he knows.
On a more personal level, it would be correct and incorrect to say I found Bill Maher’s effort insulting. As some might say, he had an agenda, this cannot be disputed. What that agenda was is the real question. I believe this film may have been as much of a journey for Bill Maher as it could be for those watching it. In many ways, this documentary was a self discovery session for the writer. He started out with a singular mindset (bias) and he wanted to explore the world and prove that he was correct. Some people may say that Bill Maher had a home field advantage, but shouldn’t an acclaimed believer/follower of any religion be able to answer questions on the spot; “Hollywood Jesus” must have thought so. As to what statement he was trying to make, I believe Bill Maher did the best job at conveying this in his concluding statements. He said that ironically religion has, “the influential power to procreate the end,” that it keeps talking about. Now, is that not crazy; yes it’s crazy true. The point is, radicals devoted to any (I emphasize “any”) cause, belief, and/or way of life are potentially harmful to humanity and can easily be isolated and dissected to portray any such goal of a documentary.

bullzeye95
10-19-2009, 08:49 PM
You say that the movie is offensive, but do not (as far as I can see) state what exactly is offensive and why exactly it is offensive. Nor do you (again, as far as I can see -- I read it quickly) touch on the legitimacy/truthfulness of it (ex. was anything he said actually false? I personally didn't notice any blatantly wrong claims when I watched it, but you may have?).

anonymity
10-22-2009, 05:57 AM
I say that it is offensive, however, I tried to imply that it is mostly offensive to someone who has an abrasive object lodged somewere unpleasant (single minded persons)... I wasn't trying to point out incorrect claims in this particular essay; I was going for more of analyzing how he was able to manipulate hit documentaries to best serve his purpose (infotainment). - of course editing had to be done to make this documentary... some items shortened, some removed completely....

@ bullzeye95 :-: thanks a bunch for the input. I will take that into account when next writing, and editing this one.