The main offender here is Charles, as he clearly pushes the envelope when it comes to manipulative editing. Not only does he use wacky cutaways to punctuate Maher’s exchanges with the many dimwitted and eccentric representatives of their religions, (mostly cheesy old movie clips - many from embarrassing old biblical films, but also everything from “Clash of the Titans” to “Scarface” show up in one or two second intervals.) but he clearly is shuffling his own footage for overly-manipulative effect. For example, sharp-eyed viewers will be able to see that many of the glassy-eyed reaction shots of Maher’s interviewees are out of place, placed in the timeline to make the individual come off as more perplexed and stupid than they perhaps were. But it doesn’t take a professional editor (that would be me) to call Charles on his occasionally below-the-belt usage of stock-footage inserts and on-screen text. (Particularly one instance involving a Muslim who sends a text message during the interview. On screen we see Charles’ irreverent presupposition of what the text might say: “Death to the Jew Maher”, or some such thing.) Granted, a lot of the inserts are funny, but all to often, the technique is abused.

Maher himself is actually slightly more open-minded and tolerant than one might expect in this context. Not one to hold his tongue when it comes to pointing out what he sees as inconsistencies and incongruities, he early on shows his good nature when he thanks a group of Christian truckers for “being Christ-like, and not just Christian”. Establishing him in this light is important to his own credibility throughout, since he presents himself not so much as an atheist or humanist, but as a seeker (complete with the Who’s song of the same name starting things off), and a preacher of the gospel of “I Don’t Know”. For the most part, though, Maher is upfront about who he is, and where he’s coming from.

Looking back on Charles’ most notable film for comparison, it’s tempting to say that “Religulous” is fairer to its real life, human subjects than “Borat” was. Tempting, but inaccurate, due primarily to the fact that “Borat” was more of a performance art/practical joke, whereas this film presents itself as a straight-up quest for spiritual truths, but in the end, all subjects end up mocked, both to their face by Maher (more fair and square than not) and by Charles via post-production tinkering. (Not so fair.) Like “Borat”, this film leans heavily on the gutsiness of its star, and the filmmakers’ abilities/luck to find subjects (people) ripe for mocking. In both films, some of the best moments come from the reactions of ordinary passersby.

Maher begins his journey with a little personal history (he’s of half Catholic, half Jewish descent), then immediately begins to rip into Christianity. This portion culminates with a trip to an Orlando-based “Holy Land” theme park, a place complete with plaster sets and re-enactors in biblical garb. In one of the most cringe-inducing sequences, the actor playing Jesus does an interview in character. Maher also hones in on Catholicism specifically before switching gears to Islam, and eventually even taking a few swipes at the Jewish faith. (Note the absence of Buddhism and the more passive Eastern faiths in the film.) Along the way, he also goes after Scientology, Mormonism, and even a Cannabis-based religion based in Amsterdam (of course). In this writer’s opinion, the various swipes and digs are not as worrisome as the tendency to discredit all of these religions at once by blending them together on screen. If one is educated and secure in ones faith, then one should be able to effectively refute most of Maher’s digs and questions directed at that faith. But for the skeptics and uninitiated, the film’s ultimate reduction and dismissal of all these prominent faiths can only lead to further barriers with the millions of people who do sincerely and intelligently put their beliefs in a higher power.

This leads me back to my opening observation that Maher and Charles wanted a freak show more than actual discourse. Using their handling of Christianity as an example, look at how they go after truck-stop worshippers (in a mobile-home church-on-wheels, no less), a senator, and a costumed Jesus, but never any full-fledged Christian apologists (such as J.P. Moreland or Rick Warren, both of whom could probably make short work of Maher’s line of reasoning). If it seems I’m showing my own allegiance here, you’re right. It is through my lifelong pursuit of Christianity that I can see what these guys are up to when they’re dealing with my own beliefs, and from there, I can only assume that the same shady techniques are in play when it comes to all the other religions represented here as well.

The bottom line of “Religulous” is all about Bill Maher looking good via making everyone else look bad. Is it funny? Absolutely. Is it entertaining? Oh yes. Should it be considered a serious discourse on world religion? Don’t be ridiculous.

- Jim Tudor