Karina,

I’m with you - I *really* don’t like that sort of thing. People jumped all over the guy who appeared in Borat and sued, but I don’t blame him one bit.

The scene where Borat was invited to dinner at someone’s home in the film was particularly disturbing.

Vic

This seems like something that falls under the category of Tacky But Legal.

Hopefully it’s something that the transparency of the internet and threats of lawsuits will keep in check.

I think in this case the end justifies the means. This movie is going to be hilarious.

so he got the interview under false pretense, but not the content.

not exactly the same as borat or expelled, in which the interviewee was not aware of the real intent of the interview until it hit the big screen

Borat not funny? Just thinking about it makes me laugh out loud.

I have no problem with Maher or SBC’s tactics in a society where people simply refuse to be honest and open about what they really think.

We are so used to having these perfectly manicured statements about everything we think and believe. It is nearly impossible to get any sort of candor from anyone. When we do, we crush, criticize and soundbite them to death.

Journalists have been doing ambush interview for decades to catch people off guard and maybe get some “real” info.

I think both perspectives are correct. It is shady to interview people under false pretenses, but that doesn’t mean it is not funny, effective, or necessary depending on the topic and interviewer. Ultimately, how the material is edited and presented will decide how fair or unscrupulous the interviewer/director/producer/studio is.

This film couldn’t exist by any other approach. For the few people that might have agreed to be interviewed by Bill Maher they would be prepared for a much different discussion and it wouldn’t have been as candid as it was.
That candid aspect is what makes these movies great. To confront someone when they know what’s coming doesn’t make for nearly as entertaining an experience.

So, once the interview subjects saw that it was Bill Maher, they were physically incapable of saying, “On second thought, there will be no interview”? How did he do that — did he use his atheist magical powers?
No, the interview subjects knew that cancelling the interview at that point would have revealed their cowardice. No “ethical lapse” here.
I guess you just didn’t think it through, Ms. Longworth. Next time, try using your brain!

I’m going to just have to say that I agree. I didn’t make much of the tactics of “Expelled” since I don’t expect much honesty from that faction anyhow. But I didn’t think well of them either.

And although I don’t consider myself an atheist (I don’t believe in god, but it’s more complex than that), I do think those speaking up for secular society ought to demonstrate from their own actions that it is honesty that leads them away from dogma. This isn’t a movie that I would praise–due to its deceptive tactics.

Nevertheless, since title for most successful documentary of 08 is between two deceptive films, I wouldn’t deny that I look forward to next weekend when Religulous will (almost certainly) surpass Expelled’s total. It’s like the election, you want the less bad one to win.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Maher or Charles did edit out and added in words that made some of the interviews funny and the subjects look stupid. The whole fims was deceitful and the law suits are coming. Even voice over mchines were used in some spots.

Amazing MOVIE loved it

March 10, 2009
Tuesday

Mr. William Maher –

You have an awesome wit. You are also great in espousing your philosophy of the meaning of our existence. Your film “Religulous” demonstrates the truth of this statement. Please consider the following:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

You are familiar with “Religulous” your production. I watched it – well done.

Minimax (sometimes minmax) is a decision rule used in decision theory, game theory, statistics and philosophy for minimizing the maximum possible loss. Alternatively, it can be thought of as maximizing the minimum gain (maximin). It has been extended to more complex games and to general decision making in the presence of uncertainty.

“The minimax approach to designing experiments applies to the Weibull and lognormal regression models used in accelerated life testing (ALT).” In other words, minimize your maximum potential loss. Cover your bases as best you can.

Around 93 AD., Josephus published “Jewish Antiquities,” a history of the Jews in twenty books. Though not a prominent subject of his writing, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus’ brother James are all mentioned in “Jewish Antiquities.” This represents the earliest historical record of Jesus from a historian.

“There are numerous things that we know of now that we did not know of before. There are many new phenomena that we have either discovered, or can now be accurately described.” Josephus gives us a starting point to avoid circular reasoning, i.e., the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.

A challenge – get outside of your comfort zone. Read: “Understanding the New Testament” by Howard Clark Kee and/or “Understanding the Old Testament” by Bernhard Anderson. Both works are introductory yet scholarly.

If you want to put the energy into study that you put into producing “Religulous” then move on to “An Introduction to the New Testament” by Raymond Brown and/or “Introduction to the Old Testament” by R.K. Harrison. After watching your production I am confident that you would relate to these works. But study is work.

With Respect,
Hal Niebel
ontrd1@verizon.net