Change Your Image
cbrylla
Reviews
The God Who Wasn't There (2005)
This is a documentary for children
In terms of its content, this film really discredits serious atheists. Several "facts" are simply wrong and manipulated to serve the main argument. Educated people who see through these fallacies are bound to lose any trust and respect for the narrator/filmmaker. For instance, at the very beginning Flemming asserts that the Christians got the geocentric astronomical model wrong. Actually, this model originates in ancient Greece, so it is not a Christian invention (even if they persecuted heretics who proclaimed the heliocentric model).
The hyped and sensationalist way in which arguments and "facts" are presented is detrimental to any serious point the director is trying to make. I have no problem with the collage-like and playful tone and visual style of this documentary, which is inspired by "Bowling for Columbine" and "Supersize Me". However, unlike Moore and Spurlock, the way this style is used to represent the topic and themes is infantile. The animations and graphics in combination with his voice-over is highly patronising and seems to address either uneducated people or children. It is also highly exploitative to do vox-pops with devoted Christians and ask them intellectual questions about historical facts or apologetics and get ridiculous responses. This pseudo-Socratic approach is expected to create tension and cheap TV, NOT to make people think (whether the audience or the interviewee). In "Religilous" Bill Maher uses a much less Socratic approach in which he doesn't just question people's views, but also expresses his opinions. This is much more self-reflexive and honest, which makes Maher a much more respectable narrator and presenter, and we are more likely to trust him.
What is the focus of this documentary? Is it to debunk Jesus's existence? Flemming doesn't offer any argument against the actual existence of Jesus. The arguments about the mythical character Jesus do not deny that someone of this name might have really existed (for which there are historical clues, even if not strong evidence). Most of the film, though, is not about Jesus's existence but about debunking Christian doctrines.
Is the focus to promote atheism (which I was hoping)? It is certainly not, because the few atheist arguments Flemming uses are ridiculous and not even used by serious atheist apologists. For instance, the institutional aspect of faith (such as Christianity) is not a valid argument against a super-natural being, simply because most atheists and good theologians agree that religions are human constructs. In TGWWT Sam Harris offers an excellent argument paralleling pathological conditions (such as delusion and psychopathy) with religious belief. However, instead of developing this argument further (like Bill Maher does in Religilous) Flemming cannot wait to go back to his infantile MO, playing a frustrated anti-Christian and neurotic crusader who wants to overcome a childhood trauma of religious indoctrination.
Flemming's declaration in an interview that he is a "Christian Atheist" shows that he doesn't really know what he is talking about, plus, he is more interested in media hype than a serious documentary (with "serious" I mean a documentary that connects to an audience and actually makes people think, not "serious" in tone. "Religilous" is a comedy but still a serious documentary). If he would look at the etymology of "Christianity" and "Christ", he would understand that it implies exactly what an atheist is not. So, instead of labelling himself with an oxymoron just for shock-value, he should rather do some reading and not pretend that ignorance is a virtue.
Would I recommend this film? Yes, for film students who want to learn of how not to make a documentary (in every aspect). No, to people who want to get some insight into atheism, apologetics or history.