It’s everywhere: God, the Bible, sinners, commandments, the fires of judgement. The whole theological lot is currently centre-stage in pop culture, news media and university lecture halls across the nation. You can’t even escape religious discussion at the two-star-review end of the cinema.

And that (possibly lower down) is exactly where you find the new Jack Black comedy, The Year One. I haven’t endured such a dense smog of sexual stereotypes, fart jokes and poo-eating since Year 8 sailing camp.

But the film’s real subject matter is religion, ancient and modern and your need to be set free from it. Religion is not only ridiculous but also corrupt, and you must pursue your own destiny, whatever you think that might be.

Jack Black is Zed, a primitive slacker who gets mistaken for the Chosen One via a series of unlikely coincidences and fabrications.

He is booted out of his village for eating the forbidden fruit (“it has a kind of knowledge-y taste”) and, with his sidekick Oh (a nerdy ancient brainiac), encounters the brothers Cain and Abel and the patriarch Abraham before heading to the biblical city of Sodom.

The plot doesn’t really matter; it’s the film’s view on religion and human freedom that makes it worth talking about.

The film makes a few assumptions that I question.

First, it assumes you know the stories recorded in the book of Genesis. You need to know that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not on; you need to know who Cain and Abel; you need to know that Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac; and you need to know that Sodom was a city full of wickedness.

How did you go? Since I have recently taught postgraduate students who were surprised to find the story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis, I’m not convinced that Australian audiences necessarily have even this degree of biblical literacy.

I even recall Jewish friends asking me where they could find the story of Noah.

Furthermore, the film only works if you don’t know too much of the actual Bible account, because it mangles every character and story in order to get the joke. It’s a playground parody of truly Abrahamic faith: Judaism, Christianity or, in fact, Islam.

The film’s second assumption is that you will find its ridiculing of religion funny.

Some of it worked for me (being partial to a circumcision joke), but I would be supportive of the Jewish person who found the film’s treatment of Abraham insulting, degrading and belittling. It is hard to imagine a defence of this film in court: “Your Honour, the bit of the Bible about the foreskins, we all know that’s kind of stupid, don’t we? Besides, we cut out a lot of the bestiality jokes”.

There’s a lot to laugh about in religion. Christopher Hitchens does it in a more witty manner in his book God Is Not Great, but the method is the same: find a culturally weird element of a religion; talk about it without any explanation of context, history, meaning, cultural development or ethical dimension; get an easy laugh at the God-fearers and their ludicrous practices. It’s easy to crack jokes at circumcision, but much harder to work out what this practice was actually about.

One more assumption made in The Year One deserves a closer look. The main characters are assumed to be on a journey of discovery—discovery of themselves, yes, in true individualistic fashion, but also discovery of true values and the spiritual reality behind the façade of organised religion.

All the authority figures in the film are also figures of fun, and that is a standard contemporary stance. We never trust authority, whether it is religious or political. But being anti-authority still doesn’t equate, even at this popular level, with being anti-God.

Both Zed and Oh are still interested in the reality of God; they are by no means hardened atheists but ‘soft humanists’. They question God’s existence, but they pray nevertheless. This suggests to me that there’s still some real spiritual questing going on in the midst of the crude stupidity; in fact, I speculate that some of the crude stupidity is a kind of anxious reaction in those behind the film (and the audience they represent) to the very seriousness of the God question.

The whole approach to religion in The Year One really is vulgar and unfair, but this is comedy so we don’t mind. And, because, we live in a society that is conditioned by the largely Christian-ish attitudes of tolerance, generosity, and the pursuit of peace, no-one gets a fatwa put on them. Just the awful condemnation of … two stars.

5 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Chris says:

      08:57am | 26/06/09

      Here’s what I think happened Greg - when The Almighty found out about the script for Year One, he took a rare break from his usual stand-offish omnipotence policy of not directly appearing in front of the mortals any more because it “sure does freak the hell out of them”, and in the deepest God fearing voice he could muster, cried aloft:

      THOU SHALT NOT MAKE THIS MOVIE. THINE CAN SEE WHAT THY ARE DOING, AND THINE CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT IT’S COMPLETE SHIT. AND I SHOULD BLOODY KNOW, I’M GOD FOR GOD’S SAKE”

      And the film-makers upon hearing this defied God’s will, and sure enough the worst, lamest, most boring and un-funny movie ever was created. And lo, the people saw it, and saw that it was BAD.

      I’m not 100%, but it seems to me that you’re ever so slightly defending the movie on the grounds that “if you don’t know the bible, the humour will be lost on you”. Firstly, it’s a long bow to draw to suggest that there was any humour injected into the film. Secondly, the film-makers knowledge of biblical times seemed so thin, that having the crib notes on Cain offing his brother is hardly going to help the audience down that particular path of guffawing enlightenment. I mean it’s hardly the Life of Brian now is it.

      There was no satire or commentary on theology or religious history, to me the “ye olde bible times” was just another backdrop on which to ply a raft of lame dick and fart jokes, with all the intellectual and comedic depth of a Benny Hill episode.

      I feel like we are roughly on the same page here, but where as you are nobly looking at the glass half full in an attempt to extract some sliver of merit from this ordeal of a film, I’m looking at the glass hoping for a plague of locusts to emerge and wreak vengeful havoc apon all those involved in its creation. Bit harsh? Possibly. But it would probably do the poor locusts a bit of good to get back in the game and stretch their wings a bit. It has after all, been a fair while.

    • BenP says:

      08:58am | 26/06/09

      “And, because, we live in a society that is conditioned by the largely Christian-ish attitudes of tolerance, generosity, and the pursuit of peace”

      Now THAT’s funny! Four stars!

    • Ben Payne says:

      04:58pm | 26/06/09

      -  “find a culturally weird element of a religion; talk about it without any explanation of context, history, meaning, cultural development or ethical dimension”

      Um, Greg, look, I hate to be the one to bring this to your attention, seeing as though you’re the one with the PhD in literature and theology, but I’ve read the bible a couple of times, and I don’t recall any of it that wasn’t “culturally weird”.

      And as for context and history, etc, the only context that *can* be taken is that of the authors: ignorant nomadic desert dwellers.  And please don’t bother with “the bible is the word of god” routine - if your god really is as stupid as this book would imply, then the universe would have fallen apart long before we got here.

      I could point you to a couple of hundred “ethical dimensions” in the “good book” that would turn your stomach when put into the context of present day “cultural development”, but of course we need to take these “figuratively”, don’t we?

      And I’m still looking for the “attitudes of tolerance, generosity, and the pursuit of peace” that you mention – they must be hidden in amongst the slavery, misogyny, and genocidal incitements to “kill the mothers, and the boys, but keep the young girls for yourselves”.

      Maybe I’m looking in the wrong book…

    • stephen says:

      06:11pm | 26/06/09

      I actually like the Old Testament for what it does NOT say. (Is this a definition of metaphor?) And as for Abraham, well, he’s got to be a fictional character !
      Otherwise, I think there’s value in the Old “girl” yet.

      P.S. ‘look forward to the film.

    • Steven says:

      09:21pm | 26/06/09

      I agree Greg.
      As a product of the Catholic education system, I have a fair understanding of biblical stories (some would say that is a stretch). However, the movie mashes the crap out of them and they were hard to plot and understand. I was looking at my iPhone halfway through so I could get a little context.
      And the message about religion was average; it went around in circles. By the end I got the feeling they had a message but I couldn’t pinpoint what it was.
      Maybe that was the message; religion can’t be pigeonholed….it’s truly up to the individual.

      Even though, a star and a half.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@diversionary#wading

Paul Colgan

Tip for young journos. Have a short CV. A page, two max.

Malcolm Farr

@cjjosh Only communications satellites please (Limited field).

Malcolm Farr

@DarrenFerrari @andrewcatsaras And so he should be. He might be the chap humming in the background to the end of the recording.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

New speaker’s slack clobber, old speaker clobbers slackers

New speaker’s slack clobber, old speaker clobbers slackers

Peter Slipper, draped in black in a manner most young voters will not see outside Hogwarts, has dramatically…

Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper

Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper

Life is far from dull in the Northern Territory. Or if it is, we’ll never know. And that’s…

There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend

There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend

Fifteen years ago when one of your girlfriends had a few too many Illusion shots standard practice was…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter