list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Borat on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Borat/277816/default.aspx Title: Borat
Year: 2006
Director: Larry Charles
Plot: Master of disguise Sacha Baron Cohen hits the road to explore America as the crude Kazakstani reporter Borat in a feature mockumentary that brings one of the Da Ali G Show star's most popular characters to life on the big screen. Sent by the Kazakh Ministry of Information to gain a better understanding of American culture and bring his findings back home, Borat and faithful producer Azamat (Ken Davitian) set their sights in New York City. When the citizens and interview subjects of the Big Apple seem less than receptive to Borat's distinctively unrestrained approach and the curious Kazakh television personality stumbles across an episode of Baywatch while channel-surfing in his hotel room, he becomes instantly smitten with screen siren Pamela Anderson. Now confident that the only way to discover the true essence of America is to travel to California and make the bikini-clad beauty his bride, Borat purchases a ramshackle ice-cream truck in which he and Azamat will make their way across the Great Plains and on to the sunny West Coast -- all the while coming into contact with a wide variety of "typical" Americans. Within this loose, scripted framework, Borat engages in his usual misbehavior with unsuspecting strangers, from accidentally releasing a chicken from his suitcase on a New York subway ride to a formal interview with Alan Keyes. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 124
Number of Lists: 66
Number of blog posts: 36
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:26:07 GMTBorat2006Larry CharlesMaster of disguise <a href="/players/P___330033/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sacha Baron Cohen</a> hits the road to explore America as the crude Kazakstani reporter Borat in a feature mockumentary that brings one of the <a href=/films/224776/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Da Ali G Show</a> star's most popular characters to life on the big screen. Sent by the Kazakh Ministry of Information to gain a better understanding of American culture and bring his findings back home, Borat and faithful producer Azamat (<a href="/players/P____17461/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ken Davitian</a>) set their sights in New York City. When the citizens and interview subjects of the Big Apple seem less than receptive to Borat's distinctively unrestrained approach and the curious Kazakh television personality stumbles across an episode of <a href=/films/291955/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Baywatch</a> while channel-surfing in his hotel room, he becomes instantly smitten with screen siren <a href="/players/P_____1595/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Pamela Anderson</a>. Now confident that the only way to discover the true essence of America is to travel to California and make the bikini-clad beauty his bride, Borat purchases a ramshackle ice-cream truck in which he and Azamat will make their way across the Great Plains and on to the sunny West Coast -- all the while coming into contact with a wide variety of "typical" Americans. Within this loose, scripted framework, Borat engages in his usual misbehavior with unsuspecting strangers, from accidentally releasing a chicken from his suitcase on a New York subway ride to a formal interview with Alan Keyes. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide124Tag Target (>10)663623http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s277816.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Borat/277816/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/8/19/43642.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 8/19/2009 4:26:07 PM
Body: Brüno The last of the three Sacha Baron Cohen characters from Da Ali G Show to get it's own feature film. Comparisons to the previous film Borat are unavoidable as the filmmakers practically encouraged it. With pretty much the same filmmaking team, Brüno is clearly an attempt to recreate the success fo Borat by sticking to the same structure. Both films are a documentary style with a mix of staged and improvised scenes about a foreigner coming to America with a quest. He travels around the country to different venues with his comrade who he gets angry at and abandons before being reunited at the end. So there are no chances taken on the structure. If it worked for you last time, hopefully it will work for you again. Just don't expect any surprises there. Now about the actual character and the meat of the scenes. Here is where Brüno in the movie is different from the movie Borat, and most of the time it doesn't work as well. If you could describe Borat with one word, one thing he is about and that Cohen is trying to convey to the people he meets, it is "foreign". To many Americans "foreign" means strange. And people seem to be delusional about how "strange" a foreign person could or should be. For people who are extremely concerned about being polite and PC, Borat gets away with taking a shit at a table and not getting as harsh of a reaction as fellow America. He plays catch with a football and can't seem to figure out how to catch it from two feet away, or throw it more than a foot. He can't even figure out how to hold it. But people aren't as bemused as they should be. Can being foreign sometimes mean that you don't even know how to hold a ball (when there is apparently nothing physically wrong with you)? No, it basically means you are retarded. For people who are themselves a bit immoral in their racism or sexism, they have found a friend in Borat who provides many of the same predilections. Of course sometimes Borat finds himself on the harsh end of the racism himself. Now Brüno is also foreign, but if there was one word to describe him, this would not be it. His word is clearly "gay". And while Cohen can make up whatever kind of strange behavior he would like to come off as "foreign", being "gay" already has all of it's own established stereotypes. And in this movie Brüno pushes them so hard that I think even most gay people and gay rights activists would be antagonized. I never thought I'd say this until I saw the movie, but the Brüno in the Da Ali G Show TV show actually now seems like it had some subtlety and restraint. Thus in the movie we don't get that portion of reactions like in Borat where people seem to be sympathetic to him despite crossing lines. Most people who go along with him are people who are almost more depraved then him. The most memorable of these is probably also the most memorable scene in the movie for me: the interview with the parents of toddlers auditioning to be in a music video who will subject their children to no limits of unspeakable danger and humiliation just to get them work in show business. I'm not kidding. There are no limits. It is shocking and disgusting, but unlike some other portions of this movie, in an important way that needs to be exposed. I might sound like I didn't like the movie more than I did though. I did enjoy it, I just think there was potential for it to have been better. Or maybe I'm just getting a little worn out of a good thing. Bradolf Pittler Rating: 8/10
]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:26:07 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog8/19/2009 4:26:07 PMBr&uuml;no The last of the three Sacha Baron Cohen characters from Da Ali G Show to get it's own feature film. Comparisons to the previous film Borat are unavoidable as the filmmakers practically encouraged it. With pretty much the same filmmaking team, Br&uuml;no is clearly an attempt to recreate the success fo Borat by sticking to the same structure. Both films are a documentary style with a mix of staged and improvised scenes about a foreigner coming to America with a quest. He travels around the country to different venues with his comrade who he gets angry at and abandons before being reunited at the end. So there are no chances taken on the structure. If it worked for you last time, hopefully it will work for you again. Just don't expect any surprises there. Now about the actual character and the meat of the scenes. Here is where Br&uuml;no in the movie is different from the movie Borat, and most of the time it doesn't work as well. If you could describe Borat with one word, one thing he is about and that Cohen is trying to convey to the people he meets, it is "foreign". To many Americans "foreign" means strange. And people seem to be delusional about how "strange" a foreign person could or should be. For people who are extremely concerned about being polite and PC, Borat gets away with taking a shit at a table and not getting as harsh of a reaction as fellow America. He plays catch with a football and can't seem to figure out how to catch it from two feet away, or throw it more than a foot. He can't even figure out how to hold it. But people aren't as bemused as they should be. Can being foreign sometimes mean that you don't even know how to hold a ball (when there is apparently nothing physically wrong with you)? No, it basically means you are retarded. For people who are themselves a bit immoral in their racism or sexism, they have found a friend in Borat who provides many of the same predilections. Of course sometimes Borat finds himself on the harsh end of the racism himself. Now Br&uuml;no is also foreign, but if there was one word to describe him, this would not be it. His word is clearly "gay". And while Cohen can make up whatever kind of strange behavior he would like to come off as "foreign", being "gay" already has all of it's own established stereotypes. And in this movie Br&uuml;no pushes them so hard that I think even most gay people and gay rights activists would be antagonized. I never thought I'd say this until I saw the movie, but the Br&uuml;no in the Da Ali G Show TV show actually now seems like it had some subtlety and restraint. Thus in the movie we don't get that portion of reactions like in Borat where people seem to be sympathetic to him despite crossing lines. Most people who go along with him are people who are almost more depraved then him. The most memorable of these is probably also the most memorable scene in the movie for me: the interview with the parents of toddlers auditioning to be in a music video who will subject their children to no limits of unspeakable danger and humiliation just to get them work in show business. I'm not kidding. There are no limits. It is shocking and disgusting, but unlike some other portions of this movie, in an important way that needs to be exposed. I might sound like I didn't like the movie more than I did though. I did enjoy it, I just think there was potential for it to have been better. Or maybe I'm just getting a little worn out of a good thing. Bradolf Pittler Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/18/38568.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/18/2008 5:00:50 PM
Body: Don’t you just hate when the movies make you care about a bigot? Sure, racists are technically humans, but that doesn’t mean we need to sympathize with them, right? No matter how great the film, it should be very difficult to accept the softening of intolerant people. Yet the lovable racist is not uncommon in cinema. In fact, out in theaters right now are two films dealing with this type of character. The Reader presents a cold Concentration Camp guard (Kate Winslet) for whom we’re meant to shed a tear, and Gran Torino focuses on a War Veteran stereotype (Clint Eastwood) who may evoke from the audience as much amusement as disgust. Maybe it’s like picking a scab, watching these kinds of movies. Some great films, such as Downfall, may only welcome an understanding of someone so heinous as Adolph Hitler, but other films have allowed us to totally enjoy racist protagonists of lesser offense. Check out the following examples to see some of the many intolerant heroes we’ve easily tolerated. Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) in The Searchers (1956) Compared to many classic westerns, John Ford’s The Searchers is not necessarily racist towards Native Americans. Yet it does feature one of the most unapologetically racist characters in film history, one who influenced many subsequent intolerants like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver and Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones. Ethan is such a badass bigot that he’d even kill his own niece for mating with a Commanche. Despite all his racism, though, audiences can’t help but like Ethan throughout much of The Searchers, because although Ford clearly looks down upon his hatred, the film also treats the character as a heroic man of his time. It’s a love him and hate him at the same time sort of thing. Pino (John Turturro) in Do the Right Thing (1989) In a way, almost everyone in Spike Lee’s classic is at least a little bit racist, evident in the famous slur montage. But it’s Pino who is the most ignorant, calling black people “the N word” on a regular basis. Yet we may forgive him, just as Mookie (Lee) does, because his bigotry is brought about through a combo of stupidity and culture. After all, if he’s a fan of Magic Johnson and Eddie Murphy, he can’t be a true racist. Right? Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) in As Good as It Gets (1997) He’s portrayed as mostly hateful towards gays and women, but Melvin is also plenty racist. He tells Frank (Cuba Gooding Jr.) to “think white” and earlier, when yelling for police, he shouts, “Assault and battery! And you’re black!” But who can resist Jack? He may be a total bigot, but it’s okay, because he’s got OCD and he’s ultimately good to a sick little boy and his mother (Helen Hunt). He even reluctantly bonds with the gay neighbor (Greg Kinnear). What’s not to love about this Oscar-winning character? Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) Whether you’re Rob Corddry in Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay or Billy Bob Thornton in any number of films, it’s okay to be a bigot if you’re hilariously extreme in your intolerance. Sacha Baron Cohen takes the cake with his Borat character, though, when it comes to loveable racists. Hey, it’s satire! He holds up a mirror to explore our own racism, displayed best in a pre-film scene from Da Ali G Show, in which an audience of rednecks joins him in singing, “Throw the Jew Down the Well.” In the movie, he similarly gets applause at a rodeo for suggesting America kills all Iraqi men, women and children. Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) in This Is England (2006) He’s the most adorable little skinhead ever, so how can we stop loving Shaun when he ignorantly joins up with the Nationalist ex-con Combo (Stephen Graham)? Isn’t it cute when Shaun is being racist towards the Pakistani shopkeeper? It’s not like he’s the real bigot; that’s Combo. Shaun is just too young to understand at age 12 that losing his father to the Falkland War is not an excuse for racism. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/18/2008 5:00:50 PMDon’t you just hate when the movies make you care about a bigot? Sure, racists are technically humans, but that doesn’t mean we need to sympathize with them, right? No matter how great the film, it should be very difficult to accept the softening of intolerant people. Yet the lovable racist is not uncommon in cinema. In fact, out in theaters right now are two films dealing with this type of character. The Reader presents a cold Concentration Camp guard (Kate Winslet) for whom we’re meant to shed a tear, and Gran Torino focuses on a War Veteran stereotype (Clint Eastwood) who may evoke from the audience as much amusement as disgust. Maybe it’s like picking a scab, watching these kinds of movies. Some great films, such as Downfall, may only welcome an understanding of someone so heinous as Adolph Hitler, but other films have allowed us to totally enjoy racist protagonists of lesser offense. Check out the following examples to see some of the many intolerant heroes we’ve easily tolerated. Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) in The Searchers (1956) Compared to many classic westerns, John Ford’s The Searchers is not necessarily racist towards Native Americans. Yet it does feature one of the most unapologetically racist characters in film history, one who influenced many subsequent intolerants like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver and Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones. Ethan is such a badass bigot that he’d even kill his own niece for mating with a Commanche. Despite all his racism, though, audiences can’t help but like Ethan throughout much of The Searchers, because although Ford clearly looks down upon his hatred, the film also treats the character as a heroic man of his time. It’s a love him and hate him at the same time sort of thing. Pino (John Turturro) in Do the Right Thing (1989) In a way, almost everyone in Spike Lee’s classic is at least a little bit racist, evident in the famous slur montage. But it’s Pino who is the most ignorant, calling black people “the N word” on a regular basis. Yet we may forgive him, just as Mookie (Lee) does, because his bigotry is brought about through a combo of stupidity and culture. After all, if he’s a fan of Magic Johnson and Eddie Murphy, he can’t be a true racist. Right? Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) in As Good as It Gets (1997) He’s portrayed as mostly hateful towards gays and women, but Melvin is also plenty racist. He tells Frank (Cuba Gooding Jr.) to “think white” and earlier, when yelling for police, he shouts, “Assault and battery! And you’re black!” But who can resist Jack? He may be a total bigot, but it’s okay, because he’s got OCD and he’s ultimately good to a sick little boy and his mother (Helen Hunt). He even reluctantly bonds with the gay neighbor (Greg Kinnear). What’s not to love about this Oscar-winning character? Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) Whether you’re Rob Corddry in Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay or Billy Bob Thornton in any number of films, it’s okay to be a bigot if you’re hilariously extreme in your intolerance. Sacha Baron Cohen takes the cake with his Borat character, though, when it comes to loveable racists. Hey, it’s satire! He holds up a mirror to explore our own racism, displayed best in a pre-film scene from Da Ali G Show, in which an audience of rednecks joins him in singing, “Throw the Jew Down the Well.” In the movie, he similarly gets applause at a rodeo for suggesting America kills all Iraqi men, women and children. Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) in This Is England (2006) He’s the most adorable little skinhead ever, so how can we stop loving Shaun when he ignorantly joins up with the Nationalist ex-con Combo (Stephen Graham)? Isn’t it cute when Shaun is being racist towards the Pakistani shopkeeper? It’s not like he’s the real bigot; that’s Combo. Shaun is just too young to understand at age 12 that losing his father to the Falkland War is not an excuse for racism. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/10/6/35960.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 10/6/2008 11:29:36 PM
Body: “The Christian God can easily be pictured as the same god as the many gods of ancient civilizations.” “Question with boldness the existence of God." “My mind is my own church.” “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religions.” “I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue.” These all may seem like the inflammatory ramblings of the Right Wing's favorite whipping boy Bill Maher, and not quotes from our Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington and Ben Franklin, respectively. Look it up.). But they serve sort of the thesis statements for Maher's documentary “Religulous.” Now whether you wish to take theological advice from a former actor whose previous cinematic body of work includes the Mr. T opus “D.C. Cab” and “Cannibal Women and the Avocado Jungle of Death” is your own call. The topic of religion has been a frequent target for Maher's “Real Time” talk show, and he makes no attempts to conceal his disdain for organized religion of any kind and the harm done to humanity in its name. In “Religulous,” he sets out on a global nomadic quest in an attempt to understand why his belief in non-belief is so marginalized. He has hired “Borat” director Larry Charles to accompany him on this religious crusade...( hmm, maybe “crusade” may be the wrong word when talking about Christianity... how about “deity safari?”). Maher overturns stones of such fringe-dwelling pit-stops of faith as a Trucker's Chapel, The Creationism Museum and a “gay conversion” center as well as attempting to tackle the big boys such as the Mormon Tabernacle and the Vatican. Maher's past as a comedian comes in handy throughout, as his wit certainly cuts through some of the deeper discussions. But his trademarked snark is exactly what may cause the film to fail to convert anyone who does not already worship at Maher's altar. He is not aided much by Charles, who edits the film that often leaves it open to criticism that he is stacking the deck in his star's favor. Granted, many of the subjects are far out of Maher's comedic league, and it is doubtful that he needed any help decimating certain guests who willfully jam their own feet in their mouth. The results are frequently hilarious, make no mistake. But by choosing this filmmaking method, Charles leaves Maher wide open to the oft-cited criticism of Maher's smug, self-satisfied delivery is too off-putting to welcome new members to his congregation, which is obviously the film's intent. And if that does not seal the deal, Maher's strangely serious polemic rant at the film's conclusion certainly will. As Maher himself begins the film, he admits that he “does not know” the answers, but preaches to the masses just like so many of the religious charlatans he spent the past 90 minutes railing against, with absolution and certainty. “Religulous” does open doors to conversation, which is always healthy. But when you preach with condescension that your view is the only valid one on the table, you sound exactly like those you mock.
]]>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:29:36 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog10/6/2008 11:29:36 PM&ldquo;The Christian God can easily be pictured as the same god as the many gods of ancient civilizations.&rdquo; &ldquo;Question with boldness the existence of God." &ldquo;My mind is my own church.&rdquo; &ldquo;Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religions.&rdquo; &ldquo;I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue.&rdquo; These all may seem like the inflammatory ramblings of the Right Wing's favorite whipping boy Bill Maher, and not quotes from our Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington and Ben Franklin, respectively. Look it up.). But they serve sort of the thesis statements for Maher's documentary &ldquo;Religulous.&rdquo; Now whether you wish to take theological advice from a former actor whose previous cinematic body of work includes the Mr. T opus &ldquo;D.C. Cab&rdquo; and &ldquo;Cannibal Women and the Avocado Jungle of Death&rdquo; is your own call. The topic of religion has been a frequent target for Maher's &ldquo;Real Time&rdquo; talk show, and he makes no attempts to conceal his disdain for organized religion of any kind and the harm done to humanity in its name. In &ldquo;Religulous,&rdquo; he sets out on a global nomadic quest in an attempt to understand why his belief in non-belief is so marginalized. He has hired &ldquo;Borat&rdquo; director Larry Charles to accompany him on this religious crusade...( hmm, maybe &ldquo;crusade&rdquo; may be the wrong word when talking about Christianity... how about &ldquo;deity safari?&rdquo;). Maher overturns stones of such fringe-dwelling pit-stops of faith as a Trucker's Chapel, The Creationism Museum and a &ldquo;gay conversion&rdquo; center as well as attempting to tackle the big boys such as the Mormon Tabernacle and the Vatican. Maher's past as a comedian comes in handy throughout, as his wit certainly cuts through some of the deeper discussions. But his trademarked snark is exactly what may cause the film to fail to convert anyone who does not already worship at Maher's altar. He is not aided much by Charles, who edits the film that often leaves it open to criticism that he is stacking the deck in his star's favor. Granted, many of the subjects are far out of Maher's comedic league, and it is doubtful that he needed any help decimating certain guests who willfully jam their own feet in their mouth. The results are frequently hilarious, make no mistake. But by choosing this filmmaking method, Charles leaves Maher wide open to the oft-cited criticism of Maher's smug, self-satisfied delivery is too off-putting to welcome new members to his congregation, which is obviously the film's intent. And if that does not seal the deal, Maher's strangely serious polemic rant at the film's conclusion certainly will. As Maher himself begins the film, he admits that he &ldquo;does not know&rdquo; the answers, but preaches to the masses just like so many of the religious charlatans he spent the past 90 minutes railing against, with absolution and certainty. &ldquo;Religulous&rdquo; does open doors to conversation, which is always healthy. But when you preach with condescension that your view is the only valid one on the table, you sound exactly like those you mock. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/10/1/35759.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 10/1/2008 10:00:57 AM
Body: This review originally appeared during the Toronto Film Festival. We’re re-running it because Religulous opens in theaters today. “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:00:57 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog10/1/2008 10:00:57 AM This review originally appeared during the Toronto Film Festival. We’re re-running it because Religulous opens in theaters today. “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/1/35758.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/1/2008 10:00:43 AM
Body: This review originally appeared during the Toronto Film Festival. We’re re-running it because Religulous opens in theaters today. “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/1/2008 10:00:43 AM This review originally appeared during the Toronto Film Festival. We’re re-running it because Religulous opens in theaters today. “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/9/6/34838.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 9/6/2008 2:01:28 PM
Body: “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:01:28 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog9/6/2008 2:01:28 PM“I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/6/34837.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/6/2008 2:01:17 PM
Body: “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/6/2008 2:01:17 PM“I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame. Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains. Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse. It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained. In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/8/19/34111.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 8/19/2008 8:40:19 AM
Body: At one point in "Tropic Thunder," the new comedy from writer/director/star Ben Stiller, co-star Robert Downey Jr. plays and Australian Method actor portraying a black southern soldier pretending to be a humble Asian rice farmer. And what's Ms. Greatest Living Actor Today, Meryl Streep, doing in the next theater? Oh, that's right. She's working on her tan, kicking it in the Greek Isles and singing ABBA tunes. Come Oscar time, if there is any justice, Downey would at least make the "For Your Consideration" rounds for his role as the uber-intense Kirk Lazarus. Downey Jr. treats his high-wire performance with such dignity and devotion that he spends almost the entire film in blackface without once seeming condescending or racist. But let us back up a bit, shall we? "Thunder" is not only a scathing little indictment on the film industry, but, minute for minute, one of the funniest films released this year, overcoming the third-act slump that befalls so many big-budget comedies released today (I'm looking at you square in your bloodshot eyes, "Pineapple Express."). The film, centering around a bunch of whiny actors who sign on for an epic war movie, begins with a wonderfully ingenious way to give us all the back story we need about its leads. Whatever you do, don't arrive late to this movie. Three previews begin the film, one featuring past-his-prime action doll Tugg Speedman (Stiller) who's milking his once-popular franchise, "Scorcher," for its very last drops of testosterone. It's a well that Speedman has reluctantly returned to after an ill-advised attempt for acting legitimacy while playing a mentally challenged man in "Simple Jack." It's followed by "The Fatties," a comedy in which its chubby trainwreck star, Jeff Portney (played by Jack Black), dons various fat suits for a number of roles as a flatulent family. Rounding out the trio of trailers is a phony "prestige" picture, "Satan's Alley," starring five-time Academy Award-winning Lazurus as a monk who longs to taste the forbidden fruit of a fellow man of the cloth. In that brief setup, we know all that is needed about the three main actors of "Tropic Thunder," the name of a Vietnam opus in which each of the actors will share the screen for various career-enhancing reasons. After a series of prissy meltdowns delays production, first-time director Damien Cockburn (played by Steve Coogan) is threatened by a maniacal producer who plans to abort the film altogether. In a last-ditch effort he drops off the leads -- with co-stars Alpa Chino (played by newcomer Brandon T. Jackson) and Kevin Sandusky (played by Jay Baruchel) -- deep in the jungle leaving them to their own Blackberry-less, Tivo-less devices. It's a comedic plot that harkens back to "To Be or Not to Be," with a lot of "Three Amigos" thrown in for good measure, but Stiller takes the time along the way to slaughter cow after sacred cinematic cow. "Thunder" has countless throwaway gags, none wearing out their welcome like the director sometimes did in his previous effort "Zoolander." And when it's not chucking those at the screen, a number of big-named actors whoop it up in secondary and cameo roles. And while Stiller deserves credit for both crafting and capturing the film, it's Downey Jr. who brings "Tropic's" thunder. It is a role that could have sunk the film faster than a "Soul Man" sequel, and required the utmost respect in its execution to avoid any hint of racist intent. But in an industry that celebrates the mere weight loss or gain actors undergo for a role just as much as performance itself, he captures the pomposity and disillusionment that some actors embrace for the sake of their "art" with equal amounts wit and warmth. There are other surprise pop-up performances that, if you have not heard about yet, you should try to witness firsthand before receiving lame line-readings from friends. There is no doubt "Thunder" steps over the line from time to time, but, like "Borat," it's still refreshing to witness a big studio comedy that is willing to stick it's neck out once and a while for a funny, rather than resort to the toothless "yuks" from the wretched parodoic parasites like "Meet the Spartans" and its hell-spawn ilk. Not since 1999's "Bowfinger" has Hollywood taken such an intelligently staged skewering, and Stiller has returned to the same biting satiric edge he once sp gloriously displayed in his short-lived television show. After seeing "Thunder," it will be hard to hear the about the heavily supervised "hell" actors claim they undergo when prepping for a role without being reminded of one of Downey Jr.'s blisteringly amusing monologues of what it takes to earn one of those prestigious little statuettes Hollywood likes to hand out to one another at year's end.
]]>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:40:19 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog8/19/2008 8:40:19 AM At one point in "Tropic Thunder," the new comedy from writer/director/star Ben Stiller, co-star Robert Downey Jr. plays and Australian Method actor portraying a black southern soldier pretending to be a humble Asian rice farmer. And what's Ms. Greatest Living Actor Today, Meryl Streep, doing in the next theater? Oh, that's right. She's working on her tan, kicking it in the Greek Isles and singing ABBA tunes. Come Oscar time, if there is any justice, Downey would at least make the "For Your Consideration" rounds for his role as the uber-intense Kirk Lazarus. Downey Jr. treats his high-wire performance with such dignity and devotion that he spends almost the entire film in blackface without once seeming condescending or racist. But let us back up a bit, shall we? "Thunder" is not only a scathing little indictment on the film industry, but, minute for minute, one of the funniest films released this year, overcoming the third-act slump that befalls so many big-budget comedies released today (I'm looking at you square in your bloodshot eyes, "Pineapple Express."). The film, centering around a bunch of whiny actors who sign on for an epic war movie, begins with a wonderfully ingenious way to give us all the back story we need about its leads. Whatever you do, don't arrive late to this movie. Three previews begin the film, one featuring past-his-prime action doll Tugg Speedman (Stiller) who's milking his once-popular franchise, "Scorcher," for its very last drops of testosterone. It's a well that Speedman has reluctantly returned to after an ill-advised attempt for acting legitimacy while playing a mentally challenged man in "Simple Jack." It's followed by "The Fatties," a comedy in which its chubby trainwreck star, Jeff Portney (played by Jack Black), dons various fat suits for a number of roles as a flatulent family. Rounding out the trio of trailers is a phony "prestige" picture, "Satan's Alley," starring five-time Academy Award-winning Lazurus as a monk who longs to taste the forbidden fruit of a fellow man of the cloth. In that brief setup, we know all that is needed about the three main actors of "Tropic Thunder," the name of a Vietnam opus in which each of the actors will share the screen for various career-enhancing reasons. After a series of prissy meltdowns delays production, first-time director Damien Cockburn (played by Steve Coogan) is threatened by a maniacal producer who plans to abort the film altogether. In a last-ditch effort he drops off the leads -- with co-stars Alpa Chino (played by newcomer Brandon T. Jackson) and Kevin Sandusky (played by Jay Baruchel) -- deep in the jungle leaving them to their own Blackberry-less, Tivo-less devices. It's a comedic plot that harkens back to "To Be or Not to Be," with a lot of "Three Amigos" thrown in for good measure, but Stiller takes the time along the way to slaughter cow after sacred cinematic cow. "Thunder" has countless throwaway gags, none wearing out their welcome like the director sometimes did in his previous effort "Zoolander." And when it's not chucking those at the screen, a number of big-named actors whoop it up in secondary and cameo roles. And while Stiller deserves credit for both crafting and capturing the film, it's Downey Jr. who brings "Tropic's" thunder. It is a role that could have sunk the film faster than a "Soul Man" sequel, and required the utmost respect in its execution to avoid any hint of racist intent. But in an industry that celebrates the mere weight loss or gain actors undergo for a role just as much as performance itself, he captures the pomposity and disillusionment that some actors embrace for the sake of their "art" with equal amounts wit and warmth. There are other surprise pop-up performances that, if you have not heard about yet, you should try to witness firsthand before receiving lame line-readings from friends. There is no doubt "Thunder" steps over the line from time to time, but, like "Borat," it's still refreshing to witness a big studio comedy that is willing to stick it's neck out once and a while for a funny, rather than resort to the toothless "yuks" from the wretched parodoic parasites like "Meet the Spartans" and its hell-spawn ilk. Not since 1999's "Bowfinger" has Hollywood taken such an intelligently staged skewering, and Stiller has returned to the same biting satiric edge he once sp gloriously displayed in his short-lived television show. After seeing "Thunder," it will be hard to hear the about the heavily supervised "hell" actors claim they undergo when prepping for a role without being reminded of one of Downey Jr.'s blisteringly amusing monologues of what it takes to earn one of those prestigious little statuettes Hollywood likes to hand out to one another at year's end. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_21_Road_Trip/625/33147/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/27/2008 7:45:03 PM
Body: Sorry I've been really under the weather and preoccupied so I've gotten behind on a lot of these threads. I just opened this one up however and was suprised at how few of the movies that immediately came to mind for me (other than my favorite, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) had not been mentioned yet at all! Although not one of my favorite movies, the quintessential road movie for me is Two-Lane Blacktop. I can really appreciate the purity of it I think, and the kind of people you'd really find living on the road. Jim Jarmuch's first film Stranger than Paradise is a favorite of mine that I think would qualify. And I think his most recent film Broken Flowers does as well. Many people mentioned Natural Born Killers which is really a more specific genre of a crime spree on the road type movie. There area couple movies that I think far surpass this film in this genre. Specifically at the top are Badlands and Bonnie and Clyde. For my favorite comedies that feature road trip elements, I'd mention Dumb & Dumber, and Borat. And also The Wizard when I'm feeling nostalgic.
]]>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:45:03 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme7/27/2008 7:45:03 PMSorry I've been really under the weather and preoccupied so I've gotten behind on a lot of these threads. I just opened this one up however and was suprised at how few of the movies that immediately came to mind for me (other than my favorite, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) had not been mentioned yet at all! Although not one of my favorite movies, the quintessential road movie for me is Two-Lane Blacktop. I can really appreciate the purity of it I think, and the kind of people you'd really find living on the road. Jim Jarmuch's first film Stranger than Paradise is a favorite of mine that I think would qualify. And I think his most recent film Broken Flowers does as well. Many people mentioned Natural Born Killers which is really a more specific genre of a crime spree on the road type movie. There area couple movies that I think far surpass this film in this genre. Specifically at the top are Badlands and Bonnie and Clyde. For my favorite comedies that feature road trip elements, I'd mention Dumb &amp; Dumber, and Borat. And also The Wizard when I'm feeling nostalgic. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/7/16/32623.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 7/16/2008 11:41:51 AM
Body: Who knew this film existed? Alan Arkin as Clouseau is a prospective treat beyond imagination; a concept simultaneously ridiculous and brilliant. The DVD cover alone is enough to induce uncontrollable laughter, and the film likewise delivers. That's not to say that the plot is brilliant or that the writing is exceptional, but Arkin's interpretation of Clouseau is wholly his own. Comparisons to Peter Sellers' characterization are unavoidable and there are certain similarities that are inescapable, but they are the very ones that give the overall Clouseau such charm. What Arkin adds to the role is pure creativity: an American actor playing Franglish. The most interesting element of Arkin's version is his vocal inflection. Brooklyn + Clouseau = 1968 Borat. That's right! Listen to Arkin speak: the way he seems to be reaching for the next English word; the verbal pauses; the slightly nasal delivery. It's a clear precursor for Borat! So, when watching this film, don't go in looking for Sellers. That' no fun. There is plenty of joy to be found in seeing what Arkin can do with such a marvelous character. It's an original Clouseau, and one that should be given ample respect.
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:41:51 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog7/16/2008 11:41:51 AMWho knew this film existed? Alan Arkin as Clouseau is a prospective treat beyond imagination; a concept simultaneously ridiculous and brilliant. The DVD cover alone is enough to induce uncontrollable laughter, and the film likewise delivers. That's not to say that the plot is brilliant or that the writing is exceptional, but Arkin's interpretation of Clouseau is wholly his own. Comparisons to Peter Sellers' characterization are unavoidable and there are certain similarities that are inescapable, but they are the very ones that give the overall Clouseau such charm. What Arkin adds to the role is pure creativity: an American actor playing Franglish. The most interesting element of Arkin's version is his vocal inflection. Brooklyn + Clouseau = 1968 Borat. That's right! Listen to Arkin speak: the way he seems to be reaching for the next English word; the verbal pauses; the slightly nasal delivery. It's a clear precursor for Borat! So, when watching this film, don't go in looking for Sellers. That' no fun. There is plenty of joy to be found in seeing what Arkin can do with such a marvelous character. It's an original Clouseau, and one that should be given ample respect. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/racism/MemberTagFilms.aspxracism
Number of films tagged: 801

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 137

]]>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:19:24 GMT80169137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/satire/MemberTagFilms.aspxsatire
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 120

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:25 GMT17055120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bizarre/MemberTagFilms.aspxbizarre
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 113

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT22853113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/college/MemberTagFilms.aspxcollege
Number of films tagged: 854

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 188

]]>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:19:23 GMT85448188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awkward/MemberTagFilms.aspxawkward
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 72

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT494772Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/humor/MemberTagFilms.aspxhumor
Number of films tagged: 207

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 55

]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:22:49 GMT2073455Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/new/MemberTagFilms.aspxnew
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 32

]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:51:54 GMT313232Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nudity/MemberTagFilms.aspxnudity
Number of films tagged: 297

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 99

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:36:31 GMT2973199Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/foreign/MemberTagFilms.aspxforeign
Number of films tagged: 491

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 421

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:41:30 GMT49130421Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/smart/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmart
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:46:30 GMT342840Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Changed-My-Life/MemberTagFilms.aspxChanged-My-Life
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:35 GMT462760Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/america/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerica
Number of films tagged: 1215

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:42 GMT12152687Tag