I finally saw “Borat” the other day, and there was something about it that bugged me about it for quite some time afterward. It took me a while to figure out what it was.
It made me wonder because throughout much of the film I simply wasn’t laughing. I winced a few times (particularly during the scene where the naked Borat is wrestling with his equally naked, staggeringly obese producer). I loved the sequence where a TV weatherman desperately tries not to break down laughing when Borat, after participating in an achingly embarrassing on-camera interview elsewhere in the studio, keeps wandering into the middle of the weather report while searching for an exit.
Most of the time I just watched it. Others around me were howling, but I felt disconnected from it, as if I was missing something. And I didn’t know what.
After giving it some thought, now I think I do. And it stems from the following realization:
Andy Kaufman did this first, and better.
Although the film has a nominal narrative through-line (Borat trying to get to California to wed his spontaneous dream girl, Pamela Anderson), most of the film’s humor derives from ambush humor. That is to say, people have Borat sprung on them, and their filmed reactions provide the film’s humorous core.
There’s nothing new in this. Alan Funt was doing it with “Candid Camera” and “Candid Microphone” before that. Ashton Kutcher does it on “Punk’d.”
The aspect of it being a foreigner who puts people ill at ease made me think of Kaufman, and how right he got the same basic concept. Think of his quintessential “foreign man” routine, in which he stood before a crowd who, in his pre-“Taxi” days, didn’t know him from a hole in the wall. In his odd little voice and bizarre accent, he would do a series of impressions, one worse than the next, and all with little-to-no difference, one from the other. The humor came from the audience not knowing how to react: To laugh or cry or just feel embarrassment because this foreign guy’s act was just so ghastly. The longer it would go, the more convinced people became that this wasn’t a put-on, but instead just the worst comedy act ever. After each terrible impression the foreign man would say, “T’ank you veddy much.” His closer would be, “the Mister Elvis Presley.” The audience’s moan would be gargantuan as they braced themselves for this hideous performer’s butchering of the King. Whereupon Kaufman would launch into the best impression of Elvis, ever, blow the audience away, snap back into the foreign man and say, “T’ank you veddy much.”
The payoff wasn’t simply the Elvis impression. It was the self-realizing laughter that the audience had been “had” by a master comic mind. The pay off was the subjects of the hosing coming to understand how they’d been messed with, and also laughing at how uncomfortable they’d felt when, in fact, they’d been played.
There’s no payoff in “Borat.” Not to any of the sequences. Because Sasha Baron Cohen and his people didn’t play fair, as Kaufman did, as Funt did. There’s no “Smile! You’re on Candid Camera!”, no “T’ank you veddy much.” No one who was victimized on “Candid Camera” ever wound up on TV against their will. They had to sign releases after the fact. Everything was above board. Here, the producers cheated. Most participants were told that this was being done for a documentary that was being shown only in Kazihkstan (however it is you spell it) and would never be seen in the US. To all intents and purposes, they believed they were “off the record.” They signed the releases under fradulent circumstances and only discovered long after the fact that they were unwilling stars in an American comedy. There’s never a moment when Baron Cohen drops character and people find out they were fooled, and laugh at their own credulousness. We laugh at their foolishness, but they never get to, and consequently we, or at least I, wind up feeling sorry for them.
Much has been made of the gun store owner who, when asked by Borat “What would be the best weapon to kill a Jew?” gives recommendations without batting an eye. But when I watched the sequence, Borat’s accent was so thick that he could have been saying, “the best weapon to kill you,” i.e., the general “you” meaning a person. That may not have been the case, but still, it’s a possibility.
I probably wouldn’t have these concerns if I’d gone into the film without knowing its history or the reactions of the people involved (a suckered Romanian village, for instance, wherein various citizens were characterized without their knowledge as rapists or violent). I don’t mind people being held up for ridicule, as in “Candid Camera.” But I mind it when they’re being lied to about it, and set up for someone else’s benefit and aggrandizement. The only ones I have no sympathy for is the aforementioned news broadcast where they had Borat on as a genuine Kazahk journalist, and thus looked like idiots for doing so. They’re a dámņ news program; why was their research department asleep in checking Borat’s credentials? They deserved to be ridiculed, with or without their knowledge and consent.
But most of the people in the film didn’t.
Which just makes the film a ninety minute exercise in cruelty.
Sasha Cohen’s reported excuse/rationale is that he wanted to expose the dark underbelly of anti-Semitism in the United States because such attitudes could lead to the Holocaust. Well, y’know what? Considering the massive and intense anti-Semitism that’s rife in France, in Germany, in the Middle East (where they hold Holocaust cartoon competitions and Holocaust denial conventions) and even in Baron Cohen’s own England, I somehow have to believe that if the world faces the prospect of another Holocaust, the US isn’t going to be at the forefront of it. He didn’t really pick the US because he thought the Holocaust might happen here, in this country, one of the only consistent allies that Israel has ever had. He did it because we’re a big target and an easy target. Which is fine. But he shouldn’t be claiming there’s anything to his choice of targets other than just that we’re an easy one.
Just as his subjects were. Easy targets.
It’s easy to make people look stupid…especially when their single greatest mistake is trusting someone and trying to react to them with the best hospitality they can muster.
I’ll take trust over deception any day.
PAD
• 
My understanding is that there is no evidence of sentient life inhabiting any of the planets surrounding Betelgeuse, two-headed or otherwise. The idea Betelgeuse even has planets was pure speculation.
From the way you phrased your complaint, what you don’t like about Borat also applies to Hitchhiker’s.
At least one Kazakh newspaper doesn’t see it that way:
Hummm…ok, you convinced me. European liberal left is composed of anti semites because they disagree with Israel, even tho they respect, admire and enjoy the work of jews. We live in a cesspool of intolerance. When I read Will Eisner work I only enjoy the pretty pictures, because my bigotry prevents me from understanding the message.
Geeze, switch to decaff. Nobody here, least of all me, is accusing ALL European liberals (actually, I don’t see the word “liberals” in my post at all) of being anti-semites. Come to think of it, I never mentioned Israel either. You are being very very touchy, for reasons we can only guess at.
That is of course much more logical than admitting that we have a valid oppinion about the issue. We are bigots and our views are not to be taken into consideration.
Since we weren’t talking about Israel–only the possibility that one can be bigotted against a group of people even while finding enjoyment in the works of some of those same people. Since you do not address that issue, prefering to set up an easily knocked down strawman, I guess you have little to say about the actual point.
In your example about nazi germany you imply all those germans vouching for their jew friends were just bigots who hated the whole while loving the few. You oversee the fact that for those “bigots”, backing their friends could lead to their own dead or incarceration, and refuse to take into consideration that, maybe, some were not at all bigots.
I was quoting Eichman, take it up with him. But again, the point was that even in as pathologically anti-semetic a place as Nazi Germany, normally anti-semetic Germans had affection for individuals.
Oh, btw, here’s the quote (It was Himmler, by the way, not Eichman. Eh, they all look alike to me):
“I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It’s one of those things it is easy to talk about, “the Jewish race is being exterminated”, says one party member, “that’s quite clear, it’s in our program, elimination of the Jews, and we’re doing it, exterminating them”. And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Not one of those who talk this way has watched it, not one of them has gone through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500, or 1,000. To have stuck it out and at the same time – apart from exceptions caused by human weakness – to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written.”
Re: George Takei on the Daily Show
He is now a regular on Howard Stern’s show, and often gets pranks pulled on him. He is also wonderfully gracious about it and shows good humor about it, knowing it is part of the show. I think it’s amazing how the audience has really taken him to heart and send TONS of positive e-mails to the Stern show about him. I knew little about him other than his acting before he started on the show, and now I am a HUGE fan.
So, how you take a prank is more important than the prank itself, and if you take it the right way, you can make the people pulling it look bad.
Micha:
The examples of antisemitism you mention are the kind of fringe hate groups you can find any place in the world and that is exactly my point.
Ive seen european liberal oposition to Israel policies (not to the state of Israel) labeled as antisemitism in either american and european conservative media way too often, and in this thread it was suggested that Borat/Cohen should have directed his efforts to Europe rather than America, beign the staunch ally the later is to Israel.
I am sure you agree with me that “anti-semite” is a label too freely and unjustly distributed lately, and that its never a bad idea to reserve it for the real deal.
“Saying that someone is not antisemitic because he likes Gershwin is like saying that some of my best friends are Jews. It is rather silly. If someone is an antisemite should be judged by his words and actions.”
I gave three examples when I could have given 50 or a hundred, but none was needed. The idea I was trying to express is that liberal-left in europe cultural universe is not only full of modern and old jewish references but actually accept them as something of their own, not some exotic novelty. As much as a few eccentric nazis could have enjoyed any number of jewish cultural manifestations, they were still nazis by conviction or convenience. The comparisons with them should be reserved to real racist/hatemongers, not to those who simply dissent.
And you never accused me of beign an antisemite, even tho some suggest it every now and then, but I felt it was needed to point out that neither western european societies are.
About eastern europe… soviet era preserved a lot of ethnic crap on those parts. I dated a hungarian girl and you should see the kind of feuds they still brood. And many extreme nationalist right groups there are direct heirs of those that existed back then. Remember Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia and Bulgary all cooperated with Germany during WWII (althoug their treatment of their own jewish population was diferent in every place)…
Mulligan:
you might not mention european liberals in your comment, but since it was an awnser to one of mine who did, I assumed you were refereing to them. Who were you calling bigots then? I just point out the fact that, even in Europe, there is an inadequate use of the term “antisemite” by the media, the kind of use that devaluate the word until it means nothing. Much like the radical left did with the term “fascist” to such extent it has become just another rock to throw to any political opponent, no matter what part of the political arc.
Anyway, I promise to “switch to decaff”. I know I sometimes sound angry but its just my natural vehemence combined with my weird phrasing. Be patient.
“My understanding is that there is no evidence of sentient life inhabiting any of the planets surrounding Betelgeuse, two-headed or otherwise. The idea Betelgeuse even has planets was pure speculation.
From the way you phrased your complaint, what you don’t like about Borat also applies to Hitchhiker’s.”
Okay, I’ll play along. Adams wasn’t satirizing or mocking Betelgeuse, and no scenes take place on or near Betelgeuse. In order to satirize a place, it kind of needs to have known sentient lifeforms. So, no, what I said doesn’t apply to Hitchhiker’s. Only half of it does (the part about making stuff up about a place).
Are there any other books you’ve read that you want to toss my way as evidence that what Cohen did has been done before? Because I’m not disputing that. Just because someone else has done it, it doesn’t make it funny or even good. So even if you do manage to come up with a book or movie that genuinely does the same thing as Borat, chances are I won’t like that book or movie, either, so I’m really not sure what you’re trying to do here, other than arguing for the sake of arguing.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at December 22, 2006 10:53 PM
…so I’m really not sure what you’re trying to do here, other than arguing for the sake of arguing.
Bingo.
You are complaining Baron Cohen populating Kazakhstan with doofuses is
I responded:
For your part, you
Now your trying to weasel your way out by citing petty distinctions between Borat and Hitchhiker’s. “Well, Zaphod’s heads don’t kiss each other, so Borat isn’t funny and has no meaning.”
This coming from the man who even today can’t stop arguing with the Brit he accused of denying imperfection in his own culture. Pitiful.
I said, “George! It’s THE DAILY SHOW, for God’s sake! How could you have taken what they were saying at face value?!?”
“Yes, I guess I should have known,” he admitted.
LOL, I’d been wondering how he felt about that when he finally found out.
“Hot…wet…bìŧçhëš….”
Heheheh….
Mike, why don’t you actually try to read what I’m writing? In Borat, Cohen is making fun of Kazakhstan and satirizing them as the ultimate bigots and misogynists, or, as you put it, the “destination of bigotry and misogyny.” Okay, fine. But as COMEDY, as SATIRE, it’s meaningless, because it’s not based on anything. Satire has to have a starting point of truth for it to work. A movie set in Ireland that depicts everyone as drunken wife beaters is satire, because it plays on existing cultural stereotypes which, in turn, stem from some degree of truth (i.e. that the Irish like their booze). But taking a country that westerners generally know nothing about (Kazakhstan) and inventing offensive stereotypes for it from whole cloth is not satire.
Adams, on the other hand, was not satirizing a specific culture or segment of the populace. He was satirizing human behavior in general. He was speculating (though not seriously, of course) about other sentient life in the universe and inventing his own culture (based on observations about our own culture); he wasn’t inventing stuff about an actual, existing culture and making fun of the stuff he invented. If you don’t see the difference, then I can’t help you.
And your Dante analogy doesn’t work, simply because Kazakhstan is NOT the destination of bigotry, certainly not in the same way Dante’s hëll is the destination of corruption. I think you’re reaching a bit there.
I understand the deception is more out there with Borat but sorry, I dug it.
The character to me is not mean-spirited per se. Well, he is, but the schick is that he doesn’t know he is being a Anti-semitic, homo-phobic twit – his values is what he was raised with. And to me underlines the message – that sometimes we are what we are brought up to believe.
First, Borat doesn’t work because it’s obviously not Kazakhstan. Then it doesn’t work because he’s impugning a real culture.
If you don’t see your own inconsistency, I can’t help you.
Borat has his good points. If you watch his show (or get on YouTube), it’s amazing what he gets people to say. There was one bit where he had someone teaching him about hunting, and he somehow got the guy to talk about how wonderful Hitler’s Final Solution was. And, of course, there’s the (in)famous “Throw the Jew down the Well” song, to which the audience actually *claps* and sings along.
I mean, he is deceiving those people, but he actually is exposing some of the ugliness in the world and forcing us to confront it. And laugh at it.
But I do agree that the movie wasn’t a very good showcase for such things. There was maybe one instance where he actually got someone else to say something ignorant and hateful–at the rodeo. He didn’t really expose very much about America, unless you’re counting ugly naked man-flesh.
I mean, he is deceiving those people, but he actually is exposing some of the ugliness in the world and forcing us to confront it. And laugh at it.
Hmmm…I feel like playing devil’s advocate for a minute.
If an undercover police officer suspects somebody of illegal activity, such as dealing drugs, and proceeds to pressure that person into doing something illegal again so they can be busted for it (like if the officer pretends to be jonesing and threatens to kick the crap out of the suspect if the suspect doesn’t provide him with an eight-ball of cocaine), the charges won’t hold up in court because it’ll be considered entrapment.
In other words, it is assumed that the suspect would not have engaged in illegal activity if he had not been pressured to do so by the officer.
Now that begs us to ask the question: how many of the people in Borat would have said or done anything anti-Semitic without his prompting? Were some of them perhaps just thinking “Man this guy’s weird…meh, I’ll play along with him even though he’s an idiot,”?
“First, Borat doesn’t work because it’s obviously not Kazakhstan. Then it doesn’t work because he’s impugning a real culture.”
Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
In other words, it is assumed that the suspect would not have engaged in illegal activity if he had not been pressured to do so by the officer.
If there’s one thing this movie taught me, it’s that too many people aren’t brave enough to confront intolerance. Not when it’s a matter of the person standing right in front of you. Sure, we’ll condemn them in the safety of our homes or with the anonymity of the Internet, but we won’t tell someone to their faces that they are intolerant, ignorant stupid-heads. Wouldn’t want to offend them.
I know it’s real devious of Mr. Cohen to put these people on camera and make them too self-conscious to say something about his remarks, (and there’s the additional deviousness of false pretenses about the nature of the “documentary”), but I think it says more about us than it does about him. The camera shouldn’t make a difference. It shouldn’t paralyze the conscience.
How can the actual culture be impugned if the portrayal is obviously not meant to apply?
How are opera singers impugned by Hal Roach presenting Alfalfa as one of them.
If you consider the gun-owner scene as catching someone being anti-Semitic, I think that only brings the anti-Semitic gotchas of the movie to maybe 1.
I think if the gun-owner goes on record as saying he made a mistake and will dedicate himself to selling guns to kill everyone in equal measure, that pretty removes any lingering shame on a national level. He may have done that, and good for him if he did. If he’s an anti-Semite, he probably has nothing to apologize for.
The weatherman didn’t take Borat seriously. The driving teacher did fine. However humorlessly they were, the feminists did fine. The humor coach was, above all, professional. I don’t think anyone blames the hotel clerk for calling the cops on him.
The frat boys could have gone on record admitting they were caught spouting bigotry and misogyny, and they don’t reserve the right to do so in the future. Or they could confirm their beliefs. Instead they have chosen to shelter their chauvanism by filing a lawsuit. They are entitled to their beliefs, but they aren’t entitled to their closets — when they signed away their consent.
The etiquette dinner didn’t blow up when Borat brought šhìŧ to the table, but when he invited the black høøkër. She was caught withholding her etiquette from a black høøkër, and should do whatever she needs to do to preserve her business — which may very well be nothing.
Okay, first of all, “impugn” means “to challenge as false,” so it’s actually me who is impugning Cohen. It’s considered archaic to use it as a synonym for “vilify,” which I assume is what you meant.
Second of all, I never said Borat doesn’t work because it’s vilifying a real culture, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that. What I said, and what I’ve been saying all along, is that it doesn’t work (for me, anyway… it clearly works for other people) because it’s taking a real culture and basing its satire on fraudulent information. But since you mention it, it does vilify the culture, in the same way that a movie about Jewish people that portrays them all as serial killers would vilify them. Just because it has no basis in truth, it doesn’t mean it’s not injurious. That’s kind of what slander and libel laws are all about.
I’m not a Little Rascals fan, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. But it sounds like it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
Then what is your problem?
Borat made up stuff you observe obviously wasn’t true about Kazakhs, and you asked what was funny about populating Kazakhstan with doofuses.
I pointed out Adams made up stuff that obviously isn’t true about extraterestrial life — populating the universe with doofuses — and you admit reading that over and over.
And now you clarify the inferred vilification of the Kazakhs is not an obstacle to making the humor work.
You asked what was funny about it, and I answered your question. Your appropriate reply is “thank you” or, since I didn’t reply for thanks, nothing at all.
Sure, we’ll condemn them in the safety of our homes or with the anonymity of the Internet, but we won’t tell someone to their faces that they are intolerant, ignorant stupid-heads. Wouldn’t want to offend them.
People want to avoid confrontation, is the thing. Even when somebody is really acting like a jerk and needs to know that their behaviour is unacceptable, the average person won’t say that to their face, they will just try to ignore it or walk away.
If you’ve ever seen Fight Club then you know there’s a scene in that movie that illustrates what I’m talking about perfectly; it’s both funny and sad simultaneously.
El Hombre Malo wrote:
1) “The examples of antisemitism you mention are the kind of fringe hate groups you can find any place in the world and that is exactly my point.”
Not exactly. There are two main concerns with regard to antisemitism and anti-Israel attitude in Europe.
a) There is a documented increase in hatred and sometimes violence against Jews, usually by European Muslims, who are affected by ideologies inside the Muslim world that include antisemitism. This is not fringe, unforunatly. I’m not saying that all muslims are antisemites or terrorists. But this is something that is happening right now inside the Muslim world and in Europe, and there is no point in ignoring it.
b) The seem to be an increased in the European attitudes of at best an anti-Israel attitude, and at worst antisemitism, like with the cartoons I described. When a respected Noweigan writer who seems like a normal person like Jostein Gaarder writes a blatantly antisemitic essay for a national newspaper, that’s worrying. Again, I’m not saying that all European left are antisemites. I’m not even saying that most of them are. Most are not. But something worrying is happening when criticism of Israel degenerates into anti-Israeli attitudes or antisemitism, and such attitudes receive legitimacy.
In short, I’m not saying that all Europeans or all the European left is antisemitic. I’m saying we are noticing an increase in antisemitism (and anti-Israeli attititudes) and we are sincerely worried about it.
2) “Ive seen european liberal oposition to Israel policies (not to the state of Israel) labeled as antisemitism in either american and european conservative media way too often,”
I keep hearing about that, but the truth is that I haven’t seen much of it. Perhaps its because I am not familiar enough with European or American media. So I may be wrong. To the best of my knowledge, the Israeli government and mainstream media did not accuse anybody of antisemitism just for criticizing it. It seems to me that some people who criticize Israel unfairly or who have stepped the line from criticizing Israel to being anti-Israeli or antisemite, accuse the Jews who criticize them of claiming they are antisemite. They claim they are being silenced, usually while on sold out book tours.
3) “in this thread it was suggested that Borat/Cohen should have directed his efforts to Europe rather than America, beign the staunch ally the later is to Israel.”
I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if his methods of supposedly uncovering antisemitism among ordinary Americans is legitimate. I take it for granted that racist and antisemitic attitudes can be found not only in people who shave their heads or wear white sheets, or belong to fringe organizations, but in ordinary people. This is true of the US, Europe, Asia, and also in Israel, I’m sorry to say. I suspect that Baron Cohen’s methods would have worked in other countries also (if they work at all).
If PAD feels that since Sasha Baron Cohen lives in Europe, he should have focused on Europe, not the US, that is a legitimate point, althogh there is something to be said for foreigners examining American culture and vice versa. Maybe Americans feel that such criticism of the US by a European comes from an arrogant attitude by Europeans toward the US. I suspect that Europeans feel that the US has an arrogant attitude toward Americans.
If PAD feels that he should have focused on Europe because there is more antisemitism there, than he is right that there is at present more antisemitism in Europe, but antisemitism can also be found in the US if you look for it. It is unfair to say that either Europe as a whole or the US as a whole is antisemitic. But antisemitism exists in both.
I disagree with PAD if what he meant to say is that Europe is more antisemitic than the US because it has not been as staunch an ally. I don’t have a way of knowing if the foreign policies of European countries or he US are influnced by antisemitism, so I don’t consider them antisemitic unless there is actual evidence. I just treat them as smart, stupid, helpful, unhelpful, justified or hypocritical as the case may be.
4) “I am sure you agree with me that “anti-semite” is a label too freely and unjustly distributed lately, and that its never a bad idea to reserve it for the real deal.”
I don’t know if it has been used too freely. Maybe here in Israel I only hear about the most extreme cases, when the use is justified. I oppose using it to freely and support using it when it is appropriate, such as in the case of the cartoons I mentioned.
5) “”Saying that someone is not antisemitic because he likes Gershwin is like saying that some of my best friends are Jews. It is rather silly. If someone is an antisemite should be judged by his words and actions.”
I gave three examples when I could have given 50 or a hundred, but none was needed. The idea I was trying to express is that liberal-left in europe cultural universe is not only full of modern and old jewish references but actually accept them as something of their own, not some exotic novelty. As much as a few eccentric nazis could have enjoyed any number of jewish cultural manifestations, they were still nazis by conviction or convenience. The comparisons with them should be reserved to real racist/hatemongers, not to those who simply dissent.”
I never said that the liberal left in Europe is Nazi. I didn’t even say they are antisemites, which is not the same thing. What I said is that liking individual Jews or art created by Jews does not proove that someone is not antisemitic.
The culture and history of Europe and the US contains Jewish influences. It also contains antisemitism and racism. Since the Holocaust tthe acceptability of antisemitism in Western culture has decreased significantly, althogh it did not disapear completely. I hope it will remain that way.
5) “And you never accused me of beign an antisemite, even tho some suggest it every now and then,”
Has anybody in this board accused you of being an antisemite?
Recently someone unfairly accused someone else on this board of being racist. I made a great effort to oppose that. If anybody unfairly accuses you of antisemitism, you can be sure I will oppose it with a similar effort. I agree with you that people should be careful about caling people racist or antisemite.
6) “About eastern europe… soviet era preserved a lot of ethnic crap on those parts. I dated a hungarian girl and you should see the kind of feuds they still brood.”
Ethnic crap has not been eliminated from Western Europe for that long, if at all.
“And many extreme nationalist right groups there are direct heirs of those that existed back then.”
So are the extreme nationalist group in Western and Central Europe.
“Remember Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia and Bulgary all cooperated with Germany during WWII (althoug their treatment of their own jewish population was diferent in every place)…”
So did Italy, France, and to a certain degree Spain.
My father lived in Romania during WWII. His fate would not have been better, and could have been worst if he lived in the parts of Western Europe that were under Nazi influence. Luckily, the Romanians were not that committed.
I haven’t seen “Borat,” and haven’t seen more than just snippets of “Da Ali G Show” (although what I’ve seen, I’ve liked), so for obvious reasons I haven’t had much to say.
But I do want to comment on a couple of things.
Posted by: Cory!! Strode at December 22, 2006 08:07 PM
So, how you take a prank is more important than the prank itself, and if you take it the right way, you can make the people pulling it look bad.
Easier said than done in some cases. Some pranks go beyond the pale and aren’t easily shrugged off. If Sacha Baron Cohen did indeed lie to people about the nature of his movie in order to get them to sign release forms, he committed fraud. Pure and simple. It’s a little much to ask someone to take that in stride.
The best pranks are the ones that leave even the victims laughing at the end. The original “Candid Camera” was brilliant in that respect.
As an aside, I remember one brilliant “Candid Camera” bit where Alan Funt would briefly leave a child alone at an office desk. When Funt stepped away, the phone would ring and the child would answer. The person on the other end would give the child an unbelievably lengthy and convoluted message to convey to Funt. It was a riot watching the kids trying to relay the message. When asked by Funt if anyone called, one of the kids simply shook his head to say “no.”
Some crappy “Candid Camera” knock-off in the ’80s tried a bit where an actor fooled pre-schoolers with a talking doll. As though fooling pre-schoolers is at all difficult or entertaining. “Candid Camera” was something special. Its imitators were able to mimic the surface but failed to capture its essence.
Robert Fuller: You strike me as an extremely intelligent fellow. I am therefore confident that there are better ways to use your time then going around in circles with Mike. I have learned from bitter experience that he argues merely for the sake of doing so. And he won’t stop. Ever.
Mike, I realize this will provoke yet another cheap shot from you. It’s something you seem to need to do, so go ahead and take it.
Sure, we’ll condemn them in the safety of our homes or with the anonymity of the Internet, but we won’t tell someone to their faces that they are intolerant, ignorant stupid-heads. Wouldn’t want to offend them.
I know it’s real devious of Mr. Cohen to put these people on camera and make them too self-conscious to say something about his remarks, (and there’s the additional deviousness of false pretenses about the nature of the “documentary”), but I think it says more about us than it does about him. The camera shouldn’t make a difference. It shouldn’t paralyze the conscience.
If telling ofdf someone to their face has a good chance of making them see the error of their ways, I’d agree.
In most cases it has a much greater liklihood of riling up a nut. Little good will come of that.
The first time I saw the movie I thought that the folks at the etiquette dinner came off badly when the høøkër came in but after getting dragged to see it again yesterday I thought it came off as being highly editted–one suspects there was some provocation left out (how did they know she was a høøkër, for example).
Interestingly, the movie was funnier the second time around, though maybe it was the company I was with tht made it so.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 23, 2006 09:01 PM
In most cases it has a much greater liklihood of riling up a nut. Little good will come of that.
Took me years to realize that. When I was younger I would kick myself for not confronting everyone who made bigoted comments. As I got older I realized I was not being a coward. I was intuitively recognizing people who would be receptive to criticism versus those who would not.
Man, I was really looking forward to “Borat.” I do still want to see it for myself, but maybe I’ll just rent the DVD.
This — with no sense of irony — from the man whose first comment to this thread had no virtue except to antagonize. Pitiful.
“You asked what was funny about it, and I answered your question. Your appropriate reply is “thank you” or, since I didn’t reply for thanks, nothing at all.”
So the proper response is to say nothing. Wow.
“You strike me as an extremely intelligent fellow. I am therefore confident that there are better ways to use your time then going around in circles with Mike.”
Thank you. That means a lot coming from you, whom I’ve long respected for your intelligence and rationality. And you’re absolutely right. I think I’ve just heard so much about Mike, but never had the patience, or interest, to follow any of his infamously epic arguments, that I wanted to experience it for myself. I think I’ve had enough now.
Posted by: Robert Fuller at December 23, 2006 09:19 PM
Thank you. That means a lot coming from you, whom I’ve long respected for your intelligence and rationality.
You just made my evening! Thank you.
Peter David: Considering the massive and intense anti-Semitism that’s rife in France, in Germany, in the Middle East (where they hold Holocaust cartoon competitions and Holocaust denial conventions) and even in Baron Cohen’s own England…
=======================================
I realise this thread has moved on somewhat but I really have to go back to this point. “massive and intense anti-semitism that’s rife in … England” Seriously, Peter? Is that what you intended to say? Cos if so I have to say that I find that that statement so incorrect as to be insulting and offensive! I’m honestly flummoxed as to where you got that impression from…
While I don’t doubt there are some xenophobic idiots here who, I imagine, would certainly make their presence felt to England’s Jewish community, the wide and ugly national spectrum of English bigotry simply does not contain anti-semitism. It just isn’t part of the national psyche. Most English people wouldn’t know a Jewish stereotype (malignant or benign) if they tripped over one and anti-Jewish jokes pretty much don’t exist. I’ve certainly never heard or overheard even one in all my 36 years.
Honestly, Peter, the statement “massive and intense anti-semitism that’s rife in … England” makes as much sense to me as I imagine “massive and intense anti-Trainspotter-ism that’s rife in … America” would to you.
LEE
P.S. For modern British satire at it’s best check out the works of Chris Morris – THE DAY TODAY, BRASS EYE, JAM – over here Borat/Ali G is for teenagers, frankly.
When I was younger I would kick myself for not confronting everyone who made bigoted comments. As I got older I realized I was not being a coward. I was intuitively recognizing people who would be receptive to criticism versus those who would not.
Good point, although there’s no saying for certain whether the poor people in this movie had that same level of intuition. The movie probably illustrated the American fear of talking with strangers more than anything else.
Remember to save some of your outrage for the Daily Show.
P.S. For modern British satire at it’s best check out the works of Chris Morris – THE DAY TODAY, BRASS EYE, JAM – over here Borat/Ali G is for teenagers, frankly.
While, admittedly, not being intimately familiar with the show or movie in question, I’m pretty sure they have the same target demographic over here.
Also, totally separate from questions about Cohen’s talent or the legality or morality of his actions, I still have a lot of trouble drumming up any sympathy for anybody, in this day and age, who lets themselves get caught doing or saying something stupid on camera (much less signing a release), regardless of whether it’s “supposed to” ever air in their own country.
Living in the digital age means having to assume that anything recorded will likely end up on the net within the week, and within a day if it’s embarrasing or potentially damaging.
On a lighter note, here’s hoping everybody has a Merry Christmas!
-Rex Hondo-
When I read Bill Mulligan’s one comment up above, I remembered walking with my mother in the mall. We see an interracial couple. My mom, VERY old school, says they shouldn’t do that and it’s disgusting. So, curious, I ask her why. So, she starts spouting off how if they have kids, what race are they gonna be, and other stuff that I found equally silly. I had what I thought were reasonable responses to what she was saying, but she DID NOT WANT TO HEAR THEM. She was perfectly comfortable with her views, and felt perfectly justified. I think most people, with a few exceptions, will cling to their views just as fervently. I’m not saying don’t TRY to change them. I’m saying we should look within and see what we can make better about ourselves, because that’s the only way real change happens.
Borat is head and shoulders above Kaufman. Both do comedy of annoyance but Borat, especially in the film actually has a point. Kaufman just wanted to see how far he could go to piss the crowd off. Some of his work was clever, some was childish.
As for the U.S. being an easy target for comedy exposing prejudice. Um… should that make a comic avoid pointing out the obvious? I think North America feels that kind of hate happens in other places in the world (as Peter mentions) but this was a comedy wake up call that it’s here as well.
It was shock comedy with a social conscience. Jáçkášš with a point. Did Andy’s work ever have that conscience? What was the point of the Letterman stunt? Of wrestling women? I have nothing against comedy for comedy’s sake but when someone adds the extra layer and takes the kind of risks Sasha does. Good on them.
Right up front, let me say I never found Andy Kaufman all that funny. Or Allan Funt. Or “Girls Behaving Badly,” “Punk’d” or any of the other practical joke shows. They’re all greater or lesser degrees of cruelty to me. Kaufman, to give him his due, was so oblique and wrapped up in himself that what he did could be counted as “performance art” rather than “comedy” or “entertainment.”
Now…a couple friends of mine, “cultural” rather than “religious” Jews, have recommended that I see “Borat” before it gets censored due to lawsuits. I don’t really know why. I certainly don’t need to be reminded how close to the surface anti-Semitism is in a lot of people, even in this day and age.
But perhaps they feel it’s something that should be documented so it can’t be denied. It certainly doesn’t sound like they find it amusing. More of a confirmation of their darker fears.
Remember to save some of your outrage for the Daily Show
Which is exactly why I don’t watch those segments all that often and, more importantly, I do not find them all that amusing when I do.
Long before the movie opened, I watched the teaser trailer and found it painfully unfunny, xenophobic, and insulting. (Due to the fact that, through a church I had once attended, I met a few people from Kazakhstan and had seen presentations about their church, country etc.) When I read about how the Romanian gypsies were treated, I decided that this wasn’t the film for me. So I’m not going to see it.
I’ve never been a fan of humiliation comedy, I even found Meet the Parents to be unwatchable.
“I realise this thread has moved on somewhat but I really have to go back to this point. “massive and intense anti-semitism that’s rife in … England” Seriously, Peter? Is that what you intended to say? Cos if so I have to say that I find that that statement so incorrect as to be insulting and offensive! I’m honestly flummoxed as to where you got that impression from…”
Well…I got the impression from Tom Dalyell, long-standing MP who accused Tony Blair of being under the influence of “a Jewish cabal.” And from the Professor at University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology who fired two assistants because they were Israeli, and she “deplores the Jewish state.” Or the Oxford professor who rejected a Ph.D. candidate specifically because he’s Israeli. Or the grand tradition of British literature that has the most vile villains specifically depicted as Jews.
I’m not saying everyone in England hates Jews. All I’m saying is that if Sacha Baron Cohen is interested in turning the blazing light of his satire on anti-Semitism, there seems to be plenty of fodder in his own back yard.
PAD
I think Borat would be too recognizable in England these days. Cohen became quite famous over there for doing his characters on The Ali G show before he brought the act to the U.S.
Most of the anti-Israeli criticism I’ve seen seems hypocritical, but not really “anti-semitic”. Some liberals judge Israel by much harsher standards than they do Islamic states, but I don’t think it’s because the Israelis are Jews.
It’s rather because Israelis are seen as white, rich, occidental people. And since they are in conflict with “colored”, “poor”, “oriental” people, then Israelis are automatically to blame for every sin under the sun.
That Israelis are Jews don’t matter all that much to most of these critics, so I don’t think the anti-semitic accusation is justified. These people are being manicheist, partial, hypocritical, but not racist.
There are some specific cases in which criticism of Israel or anti-Israeli attitudes draw on clearly antisemitic motifs. The rest of the time there is no way of knowing. So it is pointless to psychoanalyse such attitudes.
It doesn’t take much effort to psychoanalyze it when it’s so obvious, right? On one side you got white, rich people. On the other side you got, “colored”, poor people. It’s totally expected that most outsiders of a liberal persuasion will automatically side completely with the colored, poor ones.
I see this phenomenon very clearly in my country of origin. Jewish culture and identity is something so foreign to most Brazilians that there are no stereotypes attached to it, positive or negative. Still, most Brazilian intelectuals will side totally with Palestinians and Islamic states and consider Isreal tyranical thugs.
“Borat” was used far more in the UK than the US, years before the US shows.
However, the US works better because a) people seem more open about being anti-semetic to him in the US, where he never got that openness in the UK and b) a film set in the US generally makes more money and has a greater impact, both in the US, the UK and the rest of the world.
>All I’m saying is that if Sacha Baron Cohen is
>interested in turning the blazing light of his
>satire on anti-Semitism, there seems to be plenty
>of fodder in his own back yard.
He tried, it didn’t really work as well. Remember, Borat played out in the UK over a number of years. The anti-semitism aspects never really got the reaction he needed. The character worked much more in that respect in the US. In the UK, it ended up all about British passive racism regarding Eastern Europe/Asia.
However, the US works better because a) people seem more open about being anti-semetic to him in the US, where he never got that openness in the UK
Did he really expose much anti-semitism in the movie? The gun seller let his “kill Jews” comment slide by. Not much else lingers in my mind…the guy at the rodeo was homophobic but I don’t remember him being anti-semetic as well. The bit at the elderly Jewish couple’s home was funny only if you AREN’T anti-semetic. So If the film was meant to be an expose of America’s animus toward Jews I’d say it missed the mark.
I see the Borat/Daily Show-style being more effective against an attitude of “racism isn’t a problem” versus an attitude of “racism isn’t my problem.” The denial of general racism in the US is common, which makes the US a fitting target for Borat-style ambushes.
I remember in a documentary someone associated with the production of the “French Connection” report that NY theaters with mostly black audiences would give hard applause where Gene Hackman’s cop says “never trust a ni**er.” The portrayal of a law enforcement agent in a mainstream film saying something virulently racist was perhaps unprecedented.
(Remember: Bill Cosby was the first mainstream portrayal of a black man with a gun who was not a criminal, 50 years after “Birth of a Nation,” the highest grossing movie for the 25 years before “Gone with the Wind.” BoaN portrayed the kkk as chivalrous, cowled knights, emerging immediately after the Civil War to counter the threat of freed slaves.)
Is it common to hear denials there even is such a thing as racism in the UK? Or are racists simply unrepetent over there?
It’s funny that PAD talks about the portrayal of Jews in British literature. I was JUST thinking the other day, listening to an audio production of A Study In Scarlet, where Watson speaks of one of Holmes’s visitors looking like a Jew peddler, and that really bothered me. Granted, it was written a while ago, but still, it bugged me.
I keep reading comparisons between Borat and Candid Camera/Punk’d, but there is a huge difference between them. Candid Camera and Punk’d were all about setting people up and then filming their reactions. While there may be aspects of that in Borat, Cohen also illustrates our society’s preoccupation with fame. Candid and Punk’d hide the cameras, Borat shoves them right in the people’s faces. The funny/sad thing about the people that Borat “tricks” is that they are voluntarily acting foolish simply to appear on TV. Some folks will put up with a lot of šhìŧ, literally speaking, just to get their fifteen minutes of fame.
Neither Funt, Kutchner, nor Kaufman touched on that aspect of our society, and Cohen does so brilliantly.
And why can’t someone take an act, or a bit, and move forward with it? Sure, Cohen performs similarly to Kaufman, but there are real and meaningful differences. Art is always in dialogue with previous pieces of art. Always has been, always will.
Just google for “Throw The Jew Down The Well”. That wouldn’t have worked in the UK. It might have worked for “Throw The Paki Down The Well” of course…
“It’s funny that PAD talks about the portrayal of Jews in British literature. I was JUST thinking the other day, listening to an audio production of A Study In Scarlet, where Watson speaks of one of Holmes’s visitors looking like a Jew peddler, and that really bothered me. Granted, it was written a while ago, but still, it bugged me.”
Sean, when I was young, I used to read classics written in the 19th century, translated into Hebrew. Every once in a while somebody would say something antisemitic, or there would be an antisemitic image or character. In these cases there would be an astrix and a footnote saying that such attitudes were common in the 19th century.
One of my favorites was Ivanhoe, which has a stereotypcal Jew but is sympathetic to Jews in a way.
After reading most of the comments posted here, I feel like most Americans did not like the movie because it is an embarassing portrayal of its ignorance of the world around them.
Let me start by stating that I am half American, half Portuguese, I have lived most of my life in Portugal and I am now living in Los Angeles. Having said that, I can tell you right away that I have had many ridiculous questions asked about Portugal. This is not Kazakstan and Middle America we’re talking about, this is a country in Europe and Californians. I’ve had questions like “Do you have cars in Portugal”, “How do you dress in Portugal?” and most of the time “Where is Portugal?”. If you’re asking yourself that question right now, then my point is proven. What I am trying to say is that this movie would not’ve of worked as well had it not been made in the US, if not at all. I don’t think English or even Portuguese people would fall for this as hard as Americans. The reason is because most people in Europe know about other countries even if it is Kazakstan. This gag would not’ve worked so well. Why does he pick the US for all his acts? ( And don’t tell it’s because he hates Americans and wants to make fun of them).
Don’t be mad if Sasha Baron Cohen portrayed people being ridicule and ignorant if that’s what some people really are in the US. And granted, people are ignorant everywhere in the world. But when it comes to this kind of stuff, the US is pretty bad.
I didn’t see the movie as a social commentary about anti-semitism in America but more about the ignorance that exists pertaining to the world surrounding it, especially in Middle America.
JD
Portissimus
Posted by: JD at December 27, 2006 08:51 PM
And granted, people are ignorant everywhere in the world. But when it comes to this kind of stuff, the US is pretty bad.
Then why have so many Americans criticized the movie on the grounds that “Borat” gives a grossly inaccurate impression of Kazakhstan (including people who have participated in this very thread)?
It seems to me that you’re focusing on the things that reinforce your perceptions and selectively ignoring those that don’t. I would bet good money that the cutting room floor of the editing room used to put together the final cut of “Borat” is littered with footage of people who weren’t quite so ignorant… and therefore not quite so entertaining.
I am the first to admit that a degree of ignorance about the international community is one of our Achilles’ heels in the U.S. But I’ve noticed that as bad as the problem is, it’s never quite as bad as most of our critics claim.