RSS Feed
Silly Stereotypes are not Sharp Satire
In light of the new Mike Myer's film that mocks religion (in this case Hinduism), there are four obvious things to say and one sad truth.
First, filmmakers have the right to make such films. We should do all we can to protect that right. Religious groups wanting to use the power of law to silence critics are wrong. Such a position has been tried by both secularists (in places like the Soviet Union) and Christians (with public blasphemy laws) and it leads to bad governance and bad for religion.
Second, some people are offended too easily. We all know people who, in the words of a West Virginia sage, are "so straight they lean a little." They are uptight and cannot laugh at themselves or anything they think important. The followers of Obama who sputter over blaspheming of the great man on Saturday Night Live or the Christian who takes Ned Flanders personally need to take a pill.
Third, most normal people have persons or things they love so much that they are very sensitive to attacks on them. One should not, given what I have seen for years on television, mock football player's mothers and expect them to get the joke. Having some sacred things (three worthy candidates: motherhood, apple pie, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is good for people. Too much cynicism is, after all, not very attractive.
The right to defend the things you love from attacks you perceive as harsh or unfair is also basic, normal, and part of a free society. Some humorists or filmmakers act as if not attending their film, because a person finds it distasteful is to attack the Bill of Rights. It is only when the protest turns violent that it is wrong. People have the right to make grossly offensive films, but not the right to expect us to go to them.
Fourth, there is a weird form of extreme secularism that simply hates any mention of formal religious systems, though it might give vague spirituality a pass. It cannot respect it and goes out of its way to denigrate it in the most hateful manners. Sadly, this form of secularism is overly represented amongst filmmakers. There are many complicated reasons for this, but it does mean that (on the whole) religious people (the vast majority of Americans) have had more than their share of Hollywood mockery.
The "bad religion" idea has been so overdone at this point, that my family expects any modern character who is very religious in a film (like a huge percentage of the American public) to turn out to be bad in some stereotypical ways. We have the "Bible rule" where any character reading or found near a Bible will generally be about to kill someone. Along with leaders of major corporations, the religious seem a favorite group from which to develop bad guys disproportionate to their actual danger.
Especially in "minority religions" who lack the clout to force the occasional positive film through the system (as Christians did with the Narnia films), the constant mockery is hard to take. I am sick of stereotypes of Hindu ideas and hope for more films that portray them in an intelligent and sympathetic manner.
Studies show such stereotyping does negatively impact public perception of groups (such as Evangelicals and Hindus) who are subject to frequent, unbalanced social ridicule and stereotyping, so it is not as if there is "no harm done" in all the mockery. Hollywood has the right to do it, but as human beings perhaps they should consider a brief moratorium on such stereotypes. They should also question whether they are really as balanced as they might think. One Narnia film every two years does not make up for the near absence of favorable views of traditional religions or ethical views in mainstream films.
Richard Dawkins and the pronouncements of the "new atheism," harsh to the point of becoming self-parody, are long over due for some Swift-like needling in a major film from a mainstream studio. When it is made, I will defend the new atheists right to be offended by it, probably not go myself in solidarity with them (unless it is too witty to miss), and also hope they lighten up in the near future.
One good example of "equal opportunity" ego-deflating has been The Simpsons. Here is hoping for more such shows and movies in the future.
The sad truth is that long ago Mike Myers stopped being funny. There is a feeling of sad duty in many of us in going to a Myers' film. We go to reward the comic for what once was. Once, so long ago, his films were clever, a bit naughty, and deflating of social pretentions. Like dreams of Camelot, they draw us to look again for the satire and wit that like a dream hovers at the edge of our film going imaginations. Instead, we get weak comic sketches with barely a nod to our intellects that threaten to drawn out memories of better work.
The most offensive thing about Myers' recent movies is that they are called movies. "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and "Stalker" are movies. Early Mel Brooks wrote satire and made movies out of it. Like charm-free offerings starring pandas, martial arts, and stereotypes, his films are marketing ideas in search of a story and good writing. Meyers has become a stale-popcorn delivery system for dying theater chains.
By
John Mark Reynolds
|
June 19, 2008; 3:07 PM ET
| Category:
Personal Religion
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: How to Approach Religion: Laugh and Laugh Again |
Next: When a Line is Crossed
Posted by: Mr Mark | June 23, 2008 1:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reynolds' post is not principally about the movie per se. Nor is his post about the flatulent comedy of Mike Myers. I doubt that he has even seen the film.
Rather, Reynolds is merely shedding a little light on how stereotypes almost always exploit the most pejorative characteristics of a group.
I am pretty sure Reynolds "gets it" regarding this movie whereas Daniel might not escape the lion's den with his argument. One could surely say that Seinfeld represented atheists pushing back. The Love Guru is pushing stale humor for the ignorant and and a trash-talking typecast to judge the next Indian person you meet.
Posted by: Prospero | June 21, 2008 4:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There's yet another (subtle) form of making fun of religion. Here in Morocco, for example, people can pick up Christian radio broadcasts in Classical Arabic, but also in all varieties of Berber. The radio presenters are all from North Africa and they all have Muslim names. But they preach Christianity, not Islam. The radio station itself is in (Christian) Spain. But the radio phone contact can only work in Morocco!
Posted by: Visitor | June 20, 2008 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I guess you don't get it. Relgious people, espeically Christians, espeically Conservative Christians, have a sense of entitlement, and they are very hard on people of other relgions, espeically atheists. So, why would you wonder if atheisits push back? Why be offended and bent out of shape, merely to be dished up what you would serve to otheres?
And Hollywood produces movies for profit. It is not forcing any world view on anyone; it is producing the movies that people are paying to see. There are alot of standard and orthodox relgious people in America, but they are not the only ones who can claim the title, American.
I think you seem very racially and culturally sheltered, with a very WASP-centered vision of things.
Posted by: Daniel in the Lion's Den | June 20, 2008 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A. O. Scott's NYT review of "The Love Guru" is funnier than the movie itself. An excerpt:
"[One of the movie's recurring jokes is] somehow less amusing than it should be.
"Which might sum up 'The Love Guru' in its entirety but only at the risk of grievously understating the movie’s awfulness. A whole new vocabulary seems to be required. To say that the movie is not funny is merely to affirm the obvious. The word 'unfunny' surely applies to Mr. Myers’s obnoxious attempts to find mirth in physical and cultural differences but does not quite capture the strenuous unpleasantness of his performance. No, 'The Love Guru' is downright antifunny, an experience that makes you wonder if you will ever laugh again."
Ouch!
If Scott's opinion is shared by the masses (as seems likely from other reviews I've read), then the minor "controversy" over Hinduism surrounding this film all but disappears since few will actually see the silly stereotypes.
Posted by: Queen | June 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Re Movie Love Guru on further exploration of the movie website:
I get the impression that the movie is not about a Hindu guru or Hinduism at all, but indirectly about Dr Deepak Chopra and his collection of wisdom from different religious/non-religious sources, and his unique blend of them, being portrayed as fictional comedy! TM is introduced in the movie guru's teachings at a subliminal level. Dr Deepak Chopra seems to have lent his voice to Guru Pikta!
For more visit the website below and enjoy the movie if you get a chance to see it
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | June 19, 2008 11:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I saw a promo of the "Love Guru" on American Idol (without knowing that it was Mike Myers or even that it was from an upcoming movie), and I found it offensive. I did like Myers's "So I Married An Ax Murderer" and the first Austin Powers movie, but I found the sequels repulsive.
I believe Myers should have the right to make such movies, and also that offended people have a right to express their feelings as well.
Posted by: Laurel Yves | June 19, 2008 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, not to worry. My kids don't find Mike Myers' Austin Powers movie series funny at all. They love "Whale Rider" and "The Story of the Weeping Camel" better and watch them several times. And of course they love Mr. Bean and will outgrow it as they get older and their taste changes.
My idea of great movie satires is "Dr. Strangelove" and "Wag the Dog", "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" and such like.
It seems that Mike Myers targetted market for his movies are teenage boys whose taste in humour are for movies such as "The Waterboy", "Dumb and Dumber", the "Scary Movie" series.....
Should we worry? Perhaps only if those over 30 years old really enjoyed his movies.
Cheers
"J"
Posted by: Jihadist | June 19, 2008 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
This column is JM Reynold's best to date. At least one can take something positive away from it.
Let's all agree that it's hard to parody genocide, which the OT is full of. That film makers choose to take their shots at the human foibles of religious belief should be counted as a blessing. Were they to train their sights on The Big Guy, the religious would really be up in arms.