My wife and I took in Borat this afternoon. Funniest movie we've seen since last year's 40 Year Old Virgin. Some parts were so funny that it hurt, but some scenes were a little uncomfortable to watch because they seemed a bit mean spirited. That may be the point, but much of that mean spiritedness seems to be directed at Southerners and religious people (read devout Christians); the church and rodeo goers. Maybe that's just because these are the sort of people that were less likely to have ever heard of Baron Cohen and this character. But it still made me feel a little uncomfortable about how it seemed to portray parts of America and how this movie's view of the state's would be percieved in the rest of the world.
I need to give this more thought. That said, I recommend everyone see it, but leave the kids at home, this isn't for anyone easily offended.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
TIME magazine did a story on this a couple of weeks ago, and in the next week's letters section there was a letter from someone who had booked "Borat" on a local (not here, just saying not national) magazine type news show. He said he had been approached by a PR firm, and everything looked legit, and then they got there and started the live broadcast, and it was immediately apparent that it was not, in fact, legit. The booker's boss lost confidance in his judgement, and he lost his job over it.
I have no idea if that particular apperance made it into the movie or not, and I don't intend to see it. I just think it's pretty poor to do things that might affect people's livelihood in order to make a movie out of them.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Man's boss was a jerk. National media have often fallen for such tricks. B.B.C. and N.P.R. have often done so, and this does not seem to have damaged their reputation.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It was the funniest movie I have seen in years, I was laughing nearly the entire time and at one point couldn't breathe because of it (the fighting scene). Aside from Borat, the hooker, and the guy with him noone was an actor (to be honest I am not sure whether or not the hooker was an actor).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought it was laugh out loud funny at several points, but on the whole, nothing special.
I expect Night at the Museum to be a lot more funny than this was. I've seen The Daily Show and Colbert report do this kind of stuff all the time. Sacha just took it one step further, and decided that any consideration for decency was unnecessar. I doubt I'll see it again.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Borat peaked at the rodeo. After that, there was just too much profanity and not enough wit.
Although the scene were he destroys the antique shop is hilarious (that man totaly deserved it, too, as does anyone with that much racist merchandise.)
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
I assumed that Pamela Anderson was also acting. I'm sure she would have had a body guard of some sort that would have put an end to that sooner.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: It was the funniest movie I have seen in years, I was laughing nearly the entire time and at one point couldn't breathe because of it (the fighting scene). Aside from Borat, the hooker, and the guy with him noone was an actor (to be honest I am not sure whether or not the hooker was an actor).
She was listed in the credits as having played herself, so I'd say that she was complicit, but not an actor.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I saw Borat and I haven't laughed that hard since...since...ever. I came close when I saw Rat Race.
Today I read this article. I feel really guilty now for laughing so hard.
quote: But now the villagers of this tiny, close-knit community have angrily accused the comedian of exploiting them, after discovering his new blockbuster film portrays them as a backward group of rapists, abortionists and prostitutes, who happily engage in casual incest.
They claim film-makers lied to them about the true nature of the project, which they believed would be a documentary about their hardship...
quote: Mr Tudorache, a deeply religious grandfather who lost his arm in an accident, was one of those who feels most humiliated. For one scene, a rubber sex toy in the shape of a fist was attached to the stump of his missing arm - but he had no idea what it was.
Only when The Mail on Sunday visited him did he find out. He said he was ashamed, confessing that he only agreed to be filmed because he hoped to top up his £70-a-month salary - although in the end he was paid just £3.
He invited us into his humble home and brought out the best food and drink his family had. Visibly disturbed, he said shakily: 'Someone from the council said these Americans need a man with no arm for some scenes. I said yes but I never imagined the whole country, or even the whole world, will see me in the cinemas ridiculed in this way. This is disgusting.
The law suite of the 2 college frat boys doesn't disturb me. But these people were very very wronged. I hope they get a lot of money.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: It was the funniest movie I have seen in years, I was laughing nearly the entire time and at one point couldn't breathe because of it (the fighting scene). Aside from Borat, the hooker, and the guy with him noone was an actor (to be honest I am not sure whether or not the hooker was an actor).
I think, by definition, a hooker is an actor.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What about the rodeo and church bits seemed more mean-spirited to you, Mig? I didn't think they were any better or worse than, say, the meeting with the New York femenists, at least on Cohen's part. In fact, the church came out of it rather well, I thought; they seemed welcoming, if credulous. At the rodeo, the only one who came off looking bad was the bigoted cowboy he talked to before he sang. The rodeo crowd booed, but what did anyone expect?
EDIT - I forgot about the "May George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq" line. According to the Wikipedia article, the film was edited so that it seemed like there was scattered applause at this line. If true (and I can easily believe so), I'll admit that was very mean-spirited.
[ November 12, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Indeed Mr. Cohen didn't do anything outrageous at the Church. They act that way normaly, he just filmed them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The more I read about this movie, the more it seems to be like malicious exploitation as opposed to comedic mockery.
I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. SCrewing with the frat boys, well goofy drunk guys from the south spouting off racist gibberish doesn't so much bother me (other than for the obvious reason it shoul). But taking advantage of the plight of poor people in Kazakhstan, to say nothing of worsening the image of America (even though Cohen is BRITISH) in a part of the world where we could use a lot more GOOD will, not bad.
Editing the reactions from people to produce a humiliating and meanspirted result isn't right either, so long as they are presenting it as truth. At least when MOST comedians do this for their shows, like Jay Leno or Jon Stewart, it is done knowing it's a joke. Cohen is presenting it as fact.
Pamela Andserson is a good friend of Cohen's in real life. She knew he was going to do SOMETHING, but wasn't sure what. Otherwise there's no way he could have gotten past her bodyguards, along with his cameraman, to get it done in the first place.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
Wow, thanks for posting so much on this.
I now know I won't be seeing it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But taking advantage of the plight of poor people in Kazakhstan...
Well, technically, he only took advantage of the plight of poor people in Romania.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah crap, you're right, I forgot that.
Though you could argue that by inference, he does damage to Kazakhstan as well. Good for him, he hit two, poor, impoverished birds with one film reel.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Pam was in on it, period.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
she'd have to be. there's absolutely no way they could've done everything they did at that signing if she hadn't been in on it 100%.
I also think the stop off where he learns to be black was planned, and though i can't remember off the top of my head, I think i remember noticing a few more.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: The law suite of the 2 college frat boys doesn't disturb me. But these people were very very wronged. I hope they get a lot of money.
I don't know enough about these situations to make any kind of ruling one way or the other based upon these reported accusations. These poor villagers could very well be telling the truth, and if they were wronged I feel sad for them.
But I've known a lot of people from a lot of parts of the world. In fact, I know more than my share of people from poor former Soviet nations. And people everywhere, for all the differences in their backgrounds, are essentially cut from the same cloth. And humans from vastly different cultures, times and places can often be found to do the same things, with the same motives.
It's common knowledge that similar accusations are being brought against the producers by a group of frat boys that appeared in the film. I haven't seen it discussed much on this forum. But where I have seen or heard it discussed, there seems to be a more skeptical reservation of judgment based on the understanding that, while these kids could have a legitimate grievance, it's possible that they may have seen how much money this film is bringing in, and they want a piece of this pie.
As I said, I know a lot of people from this post-Communist part of the world, and there are some amazingly decent and generous people living there. But capitolism is a part of human nature, and there is just as much greed at work in those places as in the godless American fraternities. And, based upon the information I've seen, I don't know why the claims from the villagers should be treated any differently than the claims of the college dudes.
Again, don't misread my post. I'm not trying to canonize Mr. Cohen, Mr. Charles, or any of the other people involved. If it turns out that they are the a-holes in this situation, I hope they get whatever is coming to them. But I'm not leaping to any conclusions yet based upon the evidence presented.
In fact, based upon what I know, there is only one thing I'm ready to go on record saying about this film, and that is that it was very, very funny. I saw it over a week ago, and I'm still breaking out in spontaneous fits of laughter whenever I remember Borat singing about his country's potassium exports at a rodeo, or inviting a prostitute to his dinner party.
I view this movie, at worst, like Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore used some tactics in making this movie that I find very questionable. He reached some conclusions that I don't agree with. But I've seen the movie, and however opposed I may be to the way it was made, I can't deny that it was a good flick. The man knows how to make a compelling piece of entertainment, regardless of how disgusted I am with the methods of its production.
If it turns out that Cohen is just a bastard child of Michael Moore and Johnny Knoxville, I won't shed a single tear at any amount of money he loses to lawsuits in real life. But it was still a fantastically entertaining film. I may eventually regret having supported it with my money, but I don't see myself feeling guilty at having laughed in the theater.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'd like to say that, in the case of the who booked "Borat" for the news show and lost her job, I can't dredge up a whole lot of sympathy. Wasn't it (at least part of) her job to weed out this type of thing? It kind of sounds like she didn't do any cursory checking at all. I can't be sure now, since the film would skew the results, but I'd still be willing to bet a simple google search before booking Borat would have given the game away.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
From the article linked above:
quote:Indeed, when local vice-mayor Petre Buzea was asked whether the people felt offended by Baron Cohen's film, he replied: 'They got paid so I am sure they are happy. These gipsies will even kill their own father for money.'
Maybe Cohen should have made Borat a Romanian.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think humiliating people is funny, just like I don't think pantsing junior high boys while they climb the rope is funny. I think Borat's a bully.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Some of those people needed to be humiliated. The people at the rodeo stands out in this regard. How can you sympathize with a man who tells a visitor from Central Asia that he should shave his mustache so he doesn't look like a Muslim, but like an "Eye-talian" instead, and then goes on to say that he thinks homosexuals should be hanged?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I also hate cruel humor, katharina, but my overall impression of Cohen's antics was positive. The frat boys and the Romanian villagers get a lot of press, but not much is said about the excellent sequence where Borat innocently approaches a group of scary-looking black guys in Atlanta and is immediately accepted and treated with kindness. Several of the things he does during the high-society dinner party are shocking and crude, but the people at the table were free to respond however they saw fit, and I thought that the hostess in particular ended up looking pretty awesome. Even when Borat was off camera, she did her best to find positive explanations for his bizarre behavior. His visit to an evangelical megachurch passed entirely without incident, even though he's brought up on stage and handed a microphone... the worst he does is say that Jesus can't possibly like his neighbor Nursultan, because nobody likes Nursultan, which makes the entire congregation laugh appreciatively.
There's plenty to be offended by in this movie, but honestly, I didn't feel like anyone was being bullied or humiliated unjustly in the sequences I saw in the film. Yes people were shocked, and yeah Borat does a lot of really offensive stuff, but on the whole the good people responded the way you'd expect good people to, with understanding or bewilderment or with a determination to remain respectful no matter how rude their guest is being. And the people who ended up saying that homosexuals should be executed, that anyone who looks like a Muslim probably has a bomb strapped to their chest, that it's a shame we don't have slavery anymore... well, I think it'd be great if more of those folks were shown spouting their crap in hit feature films. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apparently Cohen got punched several times in the face when, after doing SNL the other night, he went to a bat afterwards with some castmates, and slipped away to do a bit, with in character, where he liked some guy's shirt, wanted to buy it and then 'make sexy time' with it. They guy didn't get it, felt threatened and punched him.
All I can say is: Karma.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Have you actually seen the movie, Lyrhawn?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
His first post in the thread seems to indicate that he has. The scroll button is your friend. Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Ahh true. I should have scrolled up further than "I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.", which I took to mean he hadn't seen it at all. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I agree with Zeugma. I found the film to be strangely inspiring actualy. Being able to laugh at the dark side helps defeat it, I think that Jewish culture understands that much better than most.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Ahh true. I should have scrolled up further than "I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.", which I took to mean he hadn't seen it at all.
My best friend works at a movie theater. I pay a lot less often to see movies than I used to.
Though I usually end up paying a lot more for Christmas and birthday presents.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think what bothers me about "he only makes the fools look foolish" is that we ONLY know them through his lens. We only think it's okay to make fun of them because Borat has edited and manipulated things to make them look like the kind of people it is okay to make fun of.
I don't accept Borat's story that these people are such fools that tricking them is okay.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Some of those people needed to be humiliated. The people at the rodeo stands out in this regard. How can you sympathize with a man who tells a visitor from Central Asia that he should shave his mustache so he doesn't look like a Muslim, but like an "Eye-talian" instead, and then goes on to say that he thinks homosexuals should be hanged?
What benefit do you think humiliating him served? Do you think he will change his ways now?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think what bothers me about "he only makes the fools look foolish" is that we ONLY know them through his lens. We only think it's okay to make fun of them because Borat has edited and manipulated things to make them look like the kind of people it is okay to make fun of.
I don't know enough about privacy laws and film laws, but I would assume that these people gave permission for their views to be videoed and shown (and, implicitly, edited).
So if people give permission, why can't they be made fun of? (I'm thinking particularly of the frat boys (but he said they wouldn't show it in the US!) here, not the allegedly* tricked Romanians).
I read a really interesting quote from Baron Cohen** about this film in a local magazine, but I can't find it online. In essence, he said the interesting thing about playing characters like Borat is that when you say something outrageously sexist/racist/bigoted, it is amazing how many times a room full of people will, after their initial shock reaction, agree with what you are saying or take it further.
I agree, it's not nice to make fun of people. I also think anything that makes people think about their tendency to accept bigoted speech without question is a good thing.
I haven't seen the film (not out in Australia, not sure I'll go, but not for ideological reasons, just because I find Baron Cohen as Borat teeth grindingly irritating) so I'm not sure if it does either of these things.
* That linked article read very... news of the world to me. I'm not sure whether it was just the writing, but it seemed to be a beat up.
** Kat, out of interest, why do you refer to him as the fictional Borat and not the actual person Baron Cohen?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Kat, out of interest, why do you refer to him as the fictional Borat and not the actual person Baron Cohen?
Oh, because I'm lazy and Borat is shorter.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Oh, ok. I thought there might have been some deeper meaning/issue that I was missing.
[Edit - I should add, I do think the distinction is important. Borat is a character that is used for a satirical purpose. Baron Cohen is the person who edits the clips etc, and the views of Borat are not the view of Baron Cohen (and, indeed, are often antithetical to them)]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I could make something up. I could say that since the actor insists on playing a conniving baffoon, then he will be discussed and treated as one. You can be the story, tell the story, or comment on the story, but all three are rarely done well and his antics in being and telling the story diminish his credibility and ability to comment on the story.
But in reality, I'm just lazy. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Aah - slow editing! (I did my edit before I saw your post )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That does raise some questions, though. He's done all publicity and all interview so far in character (although an out-of-character one with Rolling Stone is coming up). It's very funny and all, but I think being able to take the criticism while in character should follow.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I agree with that actually.
But I also think being able to see *beyond* the character is also important (the purpose behind the film other than Borat is funny and insulting).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In the class I was auditing last night, the professor assigned the class to watch Borat and come up with some criticisms of the movie based on Terry Eagleton's presentation of text theories. I have to admit that now I'm torn - I deeply, deeply do not want to see this movie. I don't like scatological humor, I don't think rape is funny, and I don't like humiliation humor. On the other hand, now I want to read Eagleton's book and watch the movie with that in mind.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:What benefit do you think humiliating him served? Do you think he will change his ways now?
I think the point is that the guy probably still has no idea he was humiliated. And even if he does know it was a joke, no, he probably won't change his views or ways at all. Which is what makes Borat incredibely funny and makes me sad for this country at the same time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I don't think practical jokes and their unwitting objects are confined to this country alone.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
point taken. I'm now sad for all of humanity as well... Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Mr. Cohen, through Borat, showed us a side of humanity which we are uncomfortable with. In recognizing this, the intolerance evident in both New York Feminists and Southern Racists, we can combat it within ourselves.
Comedy is debasing to humans, but uplifting to humanity. All comedy, not just Borat. The only difference here is that the people are real, we cannot dismiss them by saying "there is nobody like that." There are people like that, even if Mr. Cohen edited the film to show a certain side of them.
Legally, the Frat boys have no case the "I was too drunk to read the paperwork" defense is generally considered a poor one.
I sympathize with the Romanians, whom I believe were wronged. However, in wronging them, I feel that Mr. Cohen committed a greater good, by satirizing the ineffectual and/or corrupt nature of governments which leads to third world poverty, even in Romania, a country which is soon to join the E.U. It must be far worse in Belarus or Kazakhstan itself.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think that Jewish people got bashed pretty hard in this movie. Especially at the cockroach part.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think anti-Semites got bashed pretty hard (Mr. Cohen is a practicing Jew; Borat is the anti-Semite.)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I really like what Pelegius has had to say in this thread and I think he made alot of very good points. (Edit: this sounds alot more patronizing then I meant it to. I just meant to say that I agree with most of what he said.)
I agree that Anti-Semites were definitely the ones being bashed, not Jews. I was laughing so hard when they thought that the old Jewish people shapeshifted into the cockroaches and started throwing monehy at them. And at the Running of the Jew scene at the beginning of the movie. And I'm Jewish. This movie has been quoted non-stop all over my school since its release. This is a classic, IMO.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I cried at the hotel part, it was so funny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Legally, the Frat boys have no case the "I was too drunk to read the paperwork" defense is generally considered a poor one
If Dag wanders into this thread, I'm curious about that. IS the fact that they were drunk any sort of defense, and that they apparently claim the producer took them all out for drinks beforehand and then had them sign away some of their rights in what was obviously a harmful way to themselves?
I mean, what if they had gotten drunk and then signed away the deed to their houses or something similar? Is there a way to nullify the contracts, or claim fraud?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Although the scene were he destroys the antique shop is hilarious (that man totaly deserved it, too, as does anyone with that much racist merchandise.)
This has been bugging me for a couple of days. Do you really think it's alright to destroy someone's property just because you think they are racist or make money off of racists? That strikes me as pretty illiberal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Did he reimburse the store owner? Someone destroying your inventory is no joke. I can only assume he was reminbursed because if not he SHOULD sue.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Do you really think it's alright to destroy someone's property just because you think they are racist or make money off of racists? That strikes me as pretty illiberal.
I don't think that was the reason for destroying the antique shop at all. There was no conversation that took place that would reference that at all. I think he just thought it'd be funny. And he paid for pretty much everything he broke. Sure the guy probably made less than he might've charging full sticker value for everything, but they pretty much bargain over price all the time at places like that. And from personal experience, Russians(and slavic peoples) look at bargaining like a sport, where you're not respected if you don't play well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And he paid for pretty much everything he broke.
Pretty much? Not everything?
Not a trick question. Did they agree he'd only pay a percentage of the damages?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
no, i think he ended up being like $20 or $30 short(out of somewhere around $300 worth of merchandise) and the guy was like, "fine, that's enough. just get out of here".
[ November 16, 2006, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My question was less about what happened in the movie than Pel's statement that anyone who had that much racist stuff deserved for it to be destroyed.
I've got a copy of "Adventures of Huck Finn" that says n*****r in it. Wanna come burn it, Pel?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
huh, i can't really comment on that. I personally didn't pay attention to the specific objects in the store so I don't know.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I know I'm coming in late to the discussion, but I wanted to add my two cents worth anyway.
I saw Borat last week. Parts of it were genuinely funny, but for the most part, it was that kind of humor where I'm like, "Ha, ha, ha. Oh, I really shouldn't be laughing at this." Maybe it's being inured to political correctness, or just the fact that I feel there's something wrong with racist humor. I don't really know. Or like with the rodeo scene, where I was wondering, are these people really that ignorant? That wasn't so much funny as really, really sad.
At any rate, I don't understand Pelegius' whole thing with the shopkeeper. The guy sold Civil War memorabilia. And yes one side of that war was considered racist. But are we to destroy an entire part of our collective history, just because it was ugly? And from what I recall, Borat smashed some plates and a lamp and such. I don't recall him going after Confederate flags or well preserved manacles or anything, so it's not like he went in with the intent to destroy racist artifacts. (And I didn't really get that whole part anyway. I felt bad for the shopkeeper 'cause I'm sure Borat destroyed some one of a kind antiques.)
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
They paid for everything after the shoot was done. link Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, yet another reason for me to not watch this movie. I'm sick of stuff that convinces everyone else that the south is the most racist place ever.
It's okay; James Bond is this weekend.
-pH
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I felt bad for the shopkeeper 'cause I'm sure Borat destroyed some one of a kind antiques
Well, he WAS selling them. So it really doesn't matter what is done with the merchandise as long as it's paid for. From a purely materialistic standpoint.
great link Sean!
quote:Speaking on the telephone, Joseph, with Mariam chatting in the background, says they saw the film and thought it "was not anti-Semitic at all. It was outstanding. I think [Sacha Baron Cohen] is a genius."
These were the jewish bed and breakfast owners who Borat thought turned into cockroaches which he tried to appease by throwing money at.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's offensive, but not to Jews. I think he's taken advantage of people's natural politeness and used editing to paint a picture that isn't true, and now that he's giving interviews as himself, he's actually being self-righteous about it. Good grief.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
The movie was hilarious. End of discussion. The people that looked bad in the movie looked bad because they were morons.
The fratboys? Drunk. Racist. Sexist. Not Cohen's fault.
The guy at the Rodeo? Racist. "You can look like an Eye-talian, not a dadgum muslim!" Yeah - also not Cohen's fault.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You know, racism against Muslims is kind of encouraged in this country nowadays. Maybe if we really want to pretend we discourage racism, we should focus on ourselves and our culture and the messages we send instead of looking for ways to feel superior to others.
-pH
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well one way of focusing on those issues is first bringing them to light. Maybe you don't like the way it was done, but a very large amount of Americans who have never heard such racist talk have now been exposed to it, in a way where the people espousing those beliefs were made to look foolish. racism isn't some concept that you learned about in school, it's out there all around you.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think if you learn something through being humiliated, you don't really "learn" that thing at all.
Isn't there a better way for Cohen to get his point across? Or is the point just a by-product? By which i mean, is he making these comedies to enlighten ignorant racists? Or is it just something that might happen as a side-effect because he's dealing with controversial issues?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:By which i mean, is he making these comedies to enlighten ignorant racists?
I think he's making them to make money. Does anyone think this is altruistic?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
actually, i was really referring not to the humiliated parties learning anything, but to the audience who is made aware of the prevalence of these ideas.
Either way, sure there are much better ways for Cohen to get his point across and enlighten people. But it's important to remember that when it comes down to it this movie and that character are meant as entertainment...comedy. As much as I stick up for his intelligent commentary on these important issues, I mainly like it because I think he's absolutely hilarious.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: The movie was hilarious. End of discussion.
Oh! Well, that's good, then. I was worried that the discussion might continue. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The movie was hilarious. End of discussion. The people that looked bad...
How can that be the "end of discussion" when you follow it with qualifiers? Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:actually, i was really referring not to the humiliated parties learning anything, but to the audience who is made aware of the prevalence of these ideas.
Again, I ask, is this Cohen's intent? To slap the Western world with this wake-up call? Are these movies/clips/what-have-you really meant as "intelligent commentary on...important issues?" Cause while I'll agree with you all day that they might be funny and entertaining at their core, I can't imagine anyone thinking it's actually an "intelligent" way of showing people how prejudiced much of this country still is. It embarasses and angers those who are of that mindset, and trivializes their viewpoints in the eyes of the majority of the population. Whether their viewpoints SHOULD be trivialized is another matter, because obviously i think prejudice is pretty clearly a harmful mindset, but the fact is is anyone really learning anything from this? Those people have those prejudices for a reason, and they need to be educated, not ridiculed. So what is this? Just one more reminder of how far we are as a society from being truly enlightened and open-minded?
This kind of humor has always bugged the heck out of me, though, so i'm coming from the biased viewpoint of someone who finds mocking people in this way to be dishonest and manipulative. I hated Candid Camera and all of its off-shoots -- especially the so-revered-by-my-generation "Punk'd" I don't see what's so intelligent about putting someone in a plausible scenario and making them think one thing is happening when really it's this other thing and "oh my, aren't you stupid for believing this ridiculous foreign reporter is actually REAL?! You're hysterical in your ignorance! I laugh at your misfortune at being randomly chosen to be made a fool of on movie screens across America."
It could happen to ANYONE at ANYTIME and the fact that Cohen manages to expose some sad truths about the mindset of our society in the process I don't think excuses his means. There's nothing intelligent about his comedy, it's all smokescreen and falsehoods made to look clever, when really they're just out-and-out lies.
Yes, he himself is clever and he says some hysterical things in character that are brilliant and spontaneous. But for my "foreign guy messes up Americanisms and is really quite provincially prejudiced, how cute!" fix, i'd rather read Everything Is Illuminated, which deals with these same issues and doesn't resort to cheap tricks to get the point across.
whew, reading over that I realize i'm pretty worked up about this issue. I guess i hate the thought of someone being taken advantage of for the temporary comedic benefit of someone else. It offends my sensibilities.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, leonide - I almost want to applaud. You said that very well.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
haven't you ever played a practical joke on someone? Or had one played on you but still thought it was funny afterward?
I don't know, look at all the people in the article Sean linked that after seeing the movie thought it was really well done and funny. They enjoyed that style of humor, and they were the brunt of it.
quote:There's nothing intelligent about his comedy, it's all smokescreen and falsehoods made to look clever, when really they're just out-and-out lies.
I'd also just like to comment that this is a bold statement from someone who hasn't seen the movie or any of his other comedy.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:haven't you ever played a practical joke on someone? Or had one played on you but still thought it was funny afterward?
Rarely. In fact, it's a strange quirk of my character that i'm actually generally incapable of working up the nerve to pull a trick. In fact, I remember quite distinctly the one time i actually pulled off a successful "practical joke" on you, calling and saying my car had broken down again on the way to visit you in New Jersey. I felt like crap afterwards, even if you didn't see any harm and weren't yourself offended by it. And truthfully, i have had a practical joke or two of that nature played on me and not come out the worse for wear. Or even thought about it again as having harmed me. I don't see any harm in periodic tricks like that, but at the same time I acknowledge that they are an incredibly cheap form of humor, no matter how amusing the outcome. April Fool's Day is based on this very mindset, and i don't see any harm in that "holiday."
Actually, you personally are quite good at tricks like that, in fact I think you played them on me quite a bit over the last few years -- nothing harmful, just little things like "Oh, i forgot to buy that! No, i didn't, i'm lying. Here it is." But occasionally I'd believe you strongly enough that it actually hurt a bit when you revealed the truth. I look at Cohen's humor like that. He takes it too far. It's not a quick little comment that's immediately explained as false. It's a fable, a performance, and it goes on and he never breaks character and he makes fools of these people, and its never fair.
Actually, because you found that kind of trick humor so appealing, I often tried to match you with it, trying to come up with my own "tricks" because i knew you found that so funny. I can't tell you how many times i planned to say something misleading to you and then thought twice and decided I didn't want to lie. Cause that's what I looked at it like, as lying, even if it was short-lived and harmless. I don't know why that was such an issue with me, why i couldn't ever do that effectively, but no, in general I don't play those kind of jokes on people because i feel bad immediately afterwards, like I got my laugh, yeah, but it wasn't honest and it wasn't clever. It was just lying diguised as humor.
quote:I'd also just like to comment that this is a bold statement from someone who hasn't seen the movie or any of his other comedy.
That's not true. I've watch a few clips of his "news reports" on You Tube, solely on your recommend, and the interview Borat had with Conan O'Brien. The funniest thing i saw? The interview, because Conan was in on the joke. Secondary to that was the singing of his "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song, because while in a sense it was poking fun at the denizen of the bar, it didn't actually "trick" anyone. And it was funny. I'm not denying that any of his stuff is funny. I'm simply saying it's not *smart* humor. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack on your own love of his comedy, cause it's not meant that way. I understand that if you turn off your brain and just enjoy it for itself, it IS funny, if at times uncomfortable.
edit: something I noticed during the O'Brien interview, he wasn't as funny at his schtick as in other clips. I wonder if that was because he wasn't getting the honest, un-knowing feedback of his usual "dupes." It's like his comedic doesn't work as well if he doesn't have some stupid schmuck who doesn't know what's up. Conan knew what was going on, and while he attempted to play into it, obviously his responses weren't going to be as organic. And it wasn't as shocking or uncomfortable as his interviews with those that aren't in on the joke, and that's why it was the funniest to me.
[ November 16, 2006, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
ahh...maybe that's why i love him. He has the guts to take those tricks to the extreme levels I never could. I do love me my practical jokes. Where does that phrase come from anyway?
Isn't all comedy lying to a certain degree? Comedians tell jokes about people they know or things that happened that were amusing, they also exaggerate things tremendously. I doubt many of those stories are true. But they pass them off as true for comedic affect.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Cohen is clearly angry. This kind of mean-spiritedness has to come from somewhere. Maybe he's one of those guys to whom society seems impossibly wrong-minded; maybe he, as a Jew, has been the victim of some serious anti-semitism; I don't know. But I can definitely see why people would be upset about his tactics.
On the other hand, I think he's brilliant. I haven't seen this movie, but I've seen almost every episode of Da Ali G Show -- and I *like* his tactics. I *like* that he lies about who he is, and the way he presents himself, because by doing so he gets people to open up about how they really feel. They think, 'This Borat is all right -- he hates Jews just like me!' and they let their hateful despicable guts spill.
And it's hilarious.
But it's also upsetting. It upsets people like me because we sit there and think 'wow -- Americans are more screwed up than we let on. This is embarassing. I'm ashamed that these racist idiots are from the same society as me.' It upsets people on the other side because they sit there and think 'how dare he chump-out my fellow racists and make us all look like uneducated idiots? It's not like that! What's he trying to prove?'
So it's comedy that comes from a very dark place, and it's going to make us *all* uncomfortable. I also sort of thing it comes from a noble place, in a way. A gutsy place. Cohen takes a lot of risks. I admire what he does, because I *do* think it serves a purpose, and the purpose is to expose the racism and the stupidity that we want to keep buried, and by exposing them, to make us think about these things -- and maybe we have to address these things we don't want to address.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Secondary to that was the singing of his "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song, because while in a sense it was poking fun at the denizen of the bar, it didn't actually "trick" anyone.
how is that sketch any different from the rest of them?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think playing practical jokes like that and especially taking it beyond the point of where the object is comfortable with it is an attempt to dominate.
I personally hate it. My older brother would do it and I just loathed him every time. It feels like dealing in bad faith and then trying to pass off the unpleasant results as a personal failing of the object.
You know what it reminds me of? Those Milagre experiments. That's more extreme, but I think it's the same principle. We are social creatures, and we make decisions all the time that make things a little more smooth socially. I think Borat took advantage of that natural tendency not to expose something that was bubbling close to the surface but to trick people into acting in ways that they never would if they were not being manipulated into it.
Like in the Milagre experiments when the students who were cast as the guards and the prisoners displayed behavior that they were horrified by later. Experiments like that are considered wildly unethical, and rightfully so. Borat is doing the same kind of thing, only blaming the people afterward for "not getting the joke."
If the people in the movie agreed to the final cut of themselves, then I'd be fine. They didn't, though, and while the disclaimers cover every letter of liability necessary, I think the star and producers dealt in exceedingly bad faith.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't know if i can articulate it adequately. It was just a performance. It was his character, surely, and his schtick, but it was just this bar, that he walked into, sang a song, and left. The bar patrons could think whatever they wanted about what happened, and i'm sure a few of them thought he was just pretending. It was more of a moment of comedy, like those improv groups that perform in public and pretend things that aren't true. Performance artists. LIke that Improv Everywhere group, and their schtick. In fact, the only improv of theirs that really made me feel uncomfortabe was the hypnotist one, where people in the crowd were getting upset that he was manipulating that girl, and then he ran away and everyone was concernd for those he left behind. That made me uncomfortable. It's a fine, fine line. In comedy you're always manipulating people, surely, but there's that line between their willing participation in your manipulation, and you just pulling a fast one on them and waiting for the inevitable realization that they were fooled.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I just read the interview linked to above, and found this passage to be pretty revealing:
quote:"Borat essentially works as a tool," Baron Cohen says. "By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it's anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism. 'Throw the Jew Down the Well' [a song performed at a country & western bar during Da Ali G Show] was a very controversial sketch, and some members of the Jewish community thought that it was actually going to encourage anti-Semitism. But to me it revealed something about that bar in Tucson. And the question is: Did it reveal that they were anti-Semitic? Perhaps. But maybe it just revealed that they were indifferent to anti-Semitism. "I remember, when I was in university I studied history, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, 'The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.' I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but I think it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic."
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Or maybe the people in the bar thought it was a joke. I can imagine plenty of Strider's friends (He's culturally Jewish) singing a song like that in a raucous manner, and not meaning anything remotely anti-semitic by it. I could imagine sitting in a bar and having someone sing a song like that and i would just assume it was too outrageous to be real. I would sing along with aplomb because i would be so sure it was a joke
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
TL's quote is exactly what I don't agree with. Someone who acts like a raving anti-Semite is NOT going to expose other people's antisemitism so much as catalyze and cause it.
People take social cues from those around them all the time. The reason he acted like a Khazak instead of a Californian is that people would not give someone from California the same tolerance and indulgence as they would to someone who portrayed themselves as a well-meaning foreigner.
You know who else this is reminding me of? Cedrios. Stay with me. Remember he lied about who he was and then claimed to passing it all off as a social experiment? It's the same thing.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think you can invoke Cedrios without guilt. After all, Hitler and the Nazis were just mentioned, and we're only on page two ;0p
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It upsets people like me because we sit there and think 'wow -- Americans are more screwed up than we let on. This is embarassing. I'm ashamed that these racist idiots are from the same society as me.' It upsets people on the other side because they sit there and think 'how dare he chump-out my fellow racists and make us all look like uneducated idiots? It's not like that! What's he trying to prove?'
You're making a false dichotomy here. As much as I don't like anti-Semites, I still don't like the idea of playing mean-spirited jokes like this. I also don't like the idea of goading them on to make some "artistic" point.
He lies. I'm trying to figure out why we tolerate his lies in these situations.
And no, I'm not under the assumption that everything a comedian or actor says must be true. The difference is that he acts as an actor in a situation where he intentionally causes the people to think he's not acting. It's deception. It's lying. And the fact that some people find it funny doesn't change that.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Or maybe the people in the bar thought it was a joke. I can imagine plenty of Strider's friends (He's culturally Jewish) singing a song like that in a raucous manner, and not meaning anything remotely anti-semitic by it. I could imagine sitting in a bar and having someone sing a song like that and i would just assume it was too outrageous to be real. I would sing along with aplomb because i would be so sure it was a joke
I think maybe that's the possibility Cohen was talking about when he said it could have just been indifference.
quote:TL's quote is exactly what I don't agree with. Someone who acts like a raving anti-Semite is NOT going to expose other people's antisemitism so much as catalyze and cause it.
People take social cues from those around them all the time. The reason he acted like a Khazak instead of a Californian is that people would not give someone from California the same tolerance and indulgence as they would to someone who portrayed themselves as a well-meaning foreigner.
We're in total agreement about the methods Cohen uses, katharina -- at least in the sense that we both (and I'm sure everybody does) understand how he does what he does.
What we're going to have to agree to disagree about is whether or not someone acting like an anti-semite CAUSES anti-semitism in others.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:You're making a false dichotomy here. As much as I don't like anti-Semites, I still don't like the idea of playing mean-spirited jokes like this. I also don't like the idea of goading them on to make some "artistic" point.
What is the false dichotomy? If I gave the impression that I think there are only two possible reactions to Borat, let me correct myself. There are many possible reactions.
quote:He lies. I'm trying to figure out why we tolerate his lies in these situations.
Yes. He lies. I don't think that's any great revelation. We tolerate his lies because -- what is the alternative? In America, we have freedom of speech. I'm very glad that those who might not want to tolerate his lies, really, have no choice.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It's just dishonest. Sure, he exposes anti-Semites and racists. But he does it through trickery, and it's dishonest. I disagree with katharina that we shouldn't be held responsible for what we say and do under the influence of a charismatic manipulator. I think it's false and dishonest and any number of things, but i don't think he makes them act racist. Sure, they'd probably contain themselves in different company, but that doesn't make them any better for knowing which audiences will be sympathetic to their complaints, it just makes them prudent.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'd also like to add that i'm not at all advocating for him to stop what he's doing. It makes me uncomfortable, in much the same way that Punk'd and Candid Camera and certain comedic movies do, and i simply avoid them. I freely admit that not everyone feels the same way and i have no problem allowing him to continue. Just because i think it's a lazy kind of comedy (not in the planning, of course, cause certainly you have to be very good at method acting and improv to pull off what Cohen does successfully, and my hats off to him for that) doesn't mean i think it's not comedy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes. He lies. I don't think that's any great revelation. We tolerate his lies because -- what is the alternative? In America, we have freedom of speech. I'm very glad that those who might not want to tolerate his lies, really, have no choice.
You seem to be using "tolerate" in a far different manner than I. I wasn't referring to legal action of any kind.
I think he should stop what he's doing. I think he owes an apology to everyone whose time he wasted by lying to them to get them to participate in his boorish behavior.
Whatever racists were exposed by him owe their own apologies for their own faults. They don't lessen his.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: haven't you ever played a practical joke on someone? Or had one played on you but still thought it was funny afterward?
Never. I also don't find practical jokes funny at all. If someone were to play one on me, I would be upset and hurt and then probably become paranoid for a little while.
Edit: Also, my point is that with this movie, you just point and go, "Ha-ha, silly racists!" Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't distinguise between Arab and Muslim or know that there are actually different countries in the Middle East. But that's okay because we can all ha-ha at the people who are gullible enough to say outright what's becoming increasingly pervasive within our country. It's completely unproductive and probably counterproductive because it makes the rest of America feel like oh, so glad we're not as bad as THOSE guys instead of paying attention to what they do in their own lives.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Luet13, "The guy sold Civil War memorabilia"
No, he did not. Among other things, he sold signs expressing how unfortunate it was that the Confederacy lost the war. I have some civil war memorabilia, including a picture of my great grandfather in his Southern uniform. I have never regretted the Northern victory, and doing so, in my mind, expresses a preference for the existence of slavery.
Anyway, the man is eventually repaid, albeit with many absurd setbacks. Really, I have every right to enter a store and ruin all the merchandise I want, as long as I pay their asking price for it. Mr. Cohen is far from the first to do this.
"I've got a copy of "Adventures of Huck Finn" that says n*****r in it. Wanna come burn it, Pel?"
As I am not in the habit of burning books and do not believe that Mark Twain was a racist (in fact, I am fairly sure he was not), I have not intention of burning your book. However, if you had a copy of Mein Kempf, and I were making a certain type of comedic film, I might well flush it down the toilet on camera and then pay you back on camera.
If anyone should be angry, it is the city of Dallas, were that antique shop was suposidly located. Judging by almost any factor (accents, merchandise, size of store), I do not think that was in Dallas, which is not part of the Deep South and was integrated fairly early and peacefully.
"Does anyone think this is altruistic?"
Is anything ever entirely altruistic? Would Gandhi have been so saintly had he not known that his biographies would be read even today, would Michaelagelo have painted the Sistine Chapel had he not been forced to?
“I'm sick of stuff that convinces everyone else that the south is the most racist place ever.”
Compared to certain regions of Rwanda, the South is very accepting of ethnic differences.
Seriously, a large portion Southerners, although probably no longer a majority, hold publicly racist views. There is a section of Southern society, namely uneducated rural males, which tolerates the most egregious racist views and actions. There have been lynchings in East Texas during my seventeen year life span. The town were my great aunt lives still has a fence between the “White” and “Black” cemeteries.
I do not claim that all or most Southerners are racists, I have seen quite the opposite, but to deny the real presence and frightening prevalence of racism in the Southern U.S. is to lie to oneself. We have progressed far more than imaginable in 1960 and far more than even most liberals felt desirable in 1860. But the generation that rioted in Mississippi and Alabama is still alive, and not all of them changed their minds about African-Americans. The evidence for this is beyond all contestation.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't distinguise between Arab and Muslim or know that there are actually different countries in the Middle East."
I find that also to be pretty scary, considering that U.S. policy is now entagled in a web of Turks and Kurds and Farsi-speakers and an assortment of tribes and sects and parties. Actualy, the U.S. media has done better than one might expect, given its record, in explaining the complex ethnic, religious and political divisions of the region.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: However, if you had a copy of Mein Kempf, and I were making a certain type of comedic film, I might well flush it down the toilet on camera and then pay you back on camera.
Destroying someone's personal property (even if you recompense them) is wrong. Saying someone deserves to have their property destroyed because of a viewpoint you find distasteful is illiberal. I generally hold that people should be secure in their persons and property, regardless of their beliefs.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The reason I'm pushing this issue, Pel, is because I feel your attitude strikes against the heart of liberal democracy, which you claim to support so strongly. Believing it's okay to hurt someone because you don't like their beliefs betrays the basic principles of liberty (as set forth by, for instance, John Stuart Mill, the philosophical grandfather of the Liberal Democrats).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Seriously, a large portion Southerners, although probably no longer a majority, hold publicly racist views. There is a section of Southern society, namely uneducated rural males, which tolerates the most egregious racist views and actions.
You might find this shocking, but people in other areas of the country are both racist and tolerant of racism, as well.
-pH
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Seriously, a large portion Southerners, although probably no longer a majority, hold publicly racist views. There is a section of Southern society, namely uneducated rural males, which tolerates the most egregious racist views and actions.
You might find this shocking, but people in other areas of the country are both racist and tolerant of racism, as well.
-pH
No one ever claimed otherwise, pH.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Destroying someone's personal property (even if you recompense them) is wrong."
Not if they are selling it and you recompense them. Indeed, it was presumably the desire of the shop owner to have people relieve him of his possesions and give him money for it, which is what Mr. Cohen did. His methods were uncoventional, but still.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
But that's not what you said, Pel, at least not in your "Mein Kampf" example.
Do you believe it's justified, or deserved, when a racist has his personal property destroyed?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have every right to enter a store and ruin all the merchandise I want, as long as I pay their asking price for it.
No, you really don't.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Even if they are selling it, and you recompense them, it is wrong. People put conditions on sales all the time. If I own a Van Gogh that I want to sell, I have the right to refuse to sell it to anyone but a museum, if I wish to make sure it will be available for people to enjoy and not locked away in a private collection. In this particular case, he destroyed the property before it was purchased. If the store owner had wanted to, he could have pressed charges against him, instead of accepting the money. "Borat" did not have the right to destroy it, even intending to pay. Many store owners don't care what you do with something once you purchase it, but many do care, and would not sell you something knowing you were going to turn around and destroy it. Antique store owners tend to be in the business because they are passionate about what they sell -- for the most part, they sure aren't in it for the money. It is reasonable to assume that they would be less likely to sell something knowing it would be destroyed. And that is their choice.
Also, did Mr. Cohen remove the broken merchandise from the store? Generally, when a shop owner is relieved of his possesions in exchange for money, the person takes them away, and doesn't leave them in a broken mess for the owner to clean up. I haven't seen the movie or read the linked article, so he very well may have been compensated for his extra trouble, as well. But if he wasn't, that's another reason that Mr. Cohen didn't have the "right" to do what he did.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I just came back from the film, and I may not have agreed with everything Mr. Cohen did, or how he did, but around me it has sure sparked many long discussions and arguements over topics that would not otherwise be discussed. Could it be that Mr. Cohen does not want everyone to like his film? Maybe he just wants to spark discussion and make people think about their predjudices for more than the 84 minutes people sat and watched his film for.
Or maybe he didn't intend any of those things, but is it not still a good thing that people are talking and thinking about these often taboo subjects?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Do you believe it's justified, or deserved, when a racist has his personal property destroyed?"
What personal property, by whom and under what circumstances? Merchandise in a store is very different from other property, as the intention is to sell it.
Generally, I do not believe in the destruction of property, but the circumstances here are special. Mr. Cohen destroyed allot of frankly hideous pieces belonging to a man who was something of a jerk and who had no intention of keeping them the shop owner was compensated.
"Many store owners don't care what you do with something once you purchase it, but many do care, and would not sell you something knowing you were going to turn around and destroy it."
I work in amateur theatre, we frequently buy antiques and "destroy" them, and I have never felt guilty about that. And I am a member of the American Archaeological Institute and frankly much more concerned with material evidence of the past than most people. It is not my opinion that most items ending up in small antique stores are of great academic interest, nor, in this case, of great aesthetic value.
To be clear, I would be quick to condemn the destruction of property without recompensation of the destruction property that was not available for purchase under any circumstances. All I am really saying is that, in this particular circumstances, my sympathies are not with the shop owner and I feel no guilt in having laughed at the wreckage nor in having economically supported the wrecker.
Mr. Cohen was unquestionably rather rude, as is the nature of reality-based situational comedy (for want of a better description), but I cannot see him as having been seriously immoral. After all, it was a buisness transaction in which both parties profited.
And, clearly, this man had no qualms about being filmed, having the film shown publicly (he was not drunk) and is not suing. I do not thing we should be offended for him if he is not (and the evidence suggests he is not.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Maybe he just wants to spark discussion and make people think about their predjudices for more than the 84 minutes people sat and watched his film for.
But that sort of thing DOESN'T make people think about their prejudices. That's my whole point. It just makes people go ha ha, what a stupid racist. About OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not offended for him. I think you're wrong to say a racist deserved to have his property destroyed, regardless of it was on sale or compensated for or not.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
What ElJay said. I don't think anyone deserves to have their property destroyed, regardless of their beliefs.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
Wow, this thread went down the pooper.
Started out about a funny movie, but then ended up being derailed by people easily offended by crude humor.
Its ok to laugh, guys. It wont make you any less human. In fact - it will make you even more human.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I wouldn't call his humor "crude" in the slightest.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I wouldn't call his humor "crude" in the slightest.
Well the 'wrestling match' was slightly crude, you gotta admit.
High-larious, but a little on the crude side. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
From what I've heard about that particular scene, I have every confidence that it wouldn't offend me at all.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I also don't think that scene is indicative of the majority of his comedy, or the kind that I or anyone else has been commenting on in this entire thread.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: From what I've heard about that particular scene, I have every confidence that it wouldn't offend me at all.
Oh, not what I was saying at all my friend. Regardless if one is offended at seeing a fat man's nublets - the fact that you are indeed seeing a fat man's nublets is something that could be considered crude.
edit: That scene is extremely funny though, lol.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm sure it is. You said that we who didn't like Cohen's comedy were "easily offended by crude humor"
Since there are very few scenes in his comedy that could be considered "crude" and since no one here has actually spoken about those particular scenes, your statement is irrelavent yet surprisingly caustic and confrontive.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
Well am I not right, for the most part? We've got people here raving that they refuse to watch it because he breaks someone's Civil War memorabilia, and others almost calling him the devil for making moronic sexist fratboys and idiotic white-trash racist people look bad.
Get over yourselves already.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: but is it not still a good thing that people are talking and thinking about these often taboo subjects?
Whether the results are good or not, his tactics are not good.
quote:Well am I not right, for the most part?
No, as usual, when you insist on speaking for others, you are wrong.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
I'm not speaking FOR others lamebrain. Half of the people in this thread haven't even seen the film and they are lambasting it because they are ignorant.
A lot of you people still need to get your heads out of your asses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: I'm not speaking FOR others lamebrain.
I'm sorry, are you saying someone else said that people in this thread are "easily offended by crude humor"?
That was you, right?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
...lamebrain?
--j_k
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Watching this kid post is like watching a train wreck.
But how many times does he have to jump into a thread about books, TV, or movies and call everyone who doesn't like what he likes ignorant before we just stop ignoring him altogether?
Or do we need him around so we all feel a little better about not being quite so closed-minded?
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: I'm not speaking FOR others lamebrain.
I'm sorry, are you saying someone else said that people in this thread are "easily offended by crude humor"?
That was you, right?
Yes, because it's true.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: Watching this kid post is like watching a train wreck.
But how many times does he have to jump into a thread about books, TV, or movies and call everyone who doesn't like what he likes ignorant before we just stop ignoring him altogether?
Or do we need him around so we all feel a little better about not being quite so closed-minded?
Actually people jumping into a thread and being called things started way before I got here. Might want to read before making assumptions.
And you're calling me closedminded? Wow, you are the best example of 'imbecile' I have ever seen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you were saying that some people here were offended by crude humor. In other words, you were saying, on their behalf, what it was that offended them about the movie. Or, in shortened form, speaking for them.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Actually people jumping into a thread and being called things started way before I got here. Might want to read before making assumptions.
And you're calling me closedminded? Wow, you are the best example of 'imbecile' I have ever seen.
Oh, you're by no means the first person to do it, just the most annoying at the current time.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you were saying that some people here were offended by crude humor. In other words, you were saying, on their behalf, what it was that offended them about the movie. Or, in shortened form, speaking for them.
lol@nerds
No. I was speaking ABOUT them. Kind of like how I'm calling you someone with their head in their ass? Like that.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I've reported you to the administrator, PUNJABEE. I think we'd all appreciate it if you took it down a notch, and quit the personal attacks.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But that sort of thing DOESN'T make people think about their prejudices. That's my whole point. It just makes people go ha ha, what a stupid racist. About OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES.
That's definitely true in some cases, and perhaps in most cases it is true. But it also helps people to see how ridiculous racism really is. I've not seen this movie, but this discussion reminds me of some of Dave Chappelle's racism sketches. He feels that by making racism look ridiculous and stupid and by getting people to laugh at some of those silly notions, he is increasing awareness in a subject that is often times ignored. At the same time, though, there are many people that feel that Chappelle's sketches just incite more racism by making it seem acceptable as something to joke about, not as something to take seriously.
A lot of people thought Crash was a very good movie while many others thought it was too preachy. I dont' know. It seems to go both ways. Since I haven't seen the movie, I can't comment on Cohen's methods, but sometimes "that sort of thing" can be an effective way to address racism.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I've reported you to the administrator, PUNJABEE. I think we'd all appreciate it if you took it down a notch, and quit the personal attacks.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you were saying that some people here were offended by crude humor. In other words, you were saying, on their behalf, what it was that offended them about the movie. Or, in shortened form, speaking for them.
lol@nerds
No. I was speaking ABOUT them. Kind of like how I'm calling you someone with their head in their ass? Like that.
No, you were saying that they were offended and identifying what offended them. And you were wrong about the second half of that, hence my initial post to you.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
But I wasn't wrong, and I am currently not wrong.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It's possible, camus, that Cohen's movie does just that: shows racism as ridiculous and raises awareness about a real issue.
But i still don't like his tactics Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
PUNJABEE, stop. Your comments are unacceptable, and you have been told so in the past. Lay off the personal attacks and name-calling.
--PJ
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
As long as people act stupid, they will be called stupid.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
*resists*
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: *resists*
*dweeb*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: *resists*
Me too...I'd actually typed it out and was hovering my mouse over add reply. Damn my self-control!
-pH
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:...about not being quite so closed-minded?
Whoops! I accidentally read this as
quote: we all feel a little better about not being quite so closet-minded?
*grin*
AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*grin back
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Wow, if this thread doesn't get any better, I think PapaJ should lock it.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Actually, I hope he doesnt. I rather thought everyone was doing a really good job of ignoring the... hmm... I guess I'll go with troll, in the corner. I'm really enjoying the conversation in this thread, and I do hope it doesnt get shut off just because someone has taken it upon themselves to act in an inappropriate manner. I know there are lines that shouldnt be crossed, and the PJ has to make that decision, but I think that most of the posters in this thread have a good handle on keeping things in check.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
But after Punjabee's first post, nothing related to the original thread (or the current tangent thereof) has been said.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Thats not true. camus and Leonide were continuing a conversation after that. I'll tell you what. Why dont WE try to get it back on track? I'll start...
I think that Sascha Baron Cohen is a VERY good looking man. rrrrow. Hottie.
That being said, I also hate this particular type of humor. It makes me very uncomfortable to see other human beings humiliated, regardless of whether or not they "deserved" it. It makes me uncomfortable because of the sense of malicious righteousness I get when I see some dumb nut get caught out. It makes me feel, for lack of a better word, good when bad things happen to bad people. And I dont actually think that is a very healthy additude for me to hold. I think it says more about me and my judgementalness than it does about the person being embarrased.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Deleted for obscure legal reasons which still do not make any sense to me and which I find incredibly annoying.
[ November 17, 2006, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
(Pel, if that's a copyrighted song, cut it down to two lines . If I'm displaying my ignorance of some pop culture uncopyrighted fab by the name of "Avenue Q", I apologize.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
It is illegal now to quote copyrighted material even with atribution?
Christ, if only my English teachers knew this, I would be in huge trouble over some essays I have written about books that are still copyrighted.
The lyrics are from a website that stores lyrics, which I assume to be legal, although God knows that copyright law becomes more paranoid and useless every day.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I don't know what all the legal issues involved are, Pel, and I'm personally not particularly interested in the debate at this time, but the request of the Cards has been that copyrighted lyrics specifically be limited to two lines. I'd appreciate it if you would edit your post to conform to that request.
--PJ
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
As far as I can tell, not being a lawyer, my use of lyrics is allowed by the Copyright Act of 1976 under fair use stipulations.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The request is made under the rules here, rules PJ is entrusted by the owners of this site to enforce. You post here at their pleasure, and you agreed to follow their rules when you signed up.
Your understanding of the law, however, is almost nonexistent. First, nothing in any copyright act makes it okay to distribute copyrighted material if you give attribution, though I will admit it is a common myth that it does.
Secondly, fair use guidelines are provided by the law, not specifics (with a few exceptions that do not apply here). Judges do use and have used those guidelines to lay out more particular boundaries.
So far no case I know of regarding posting of song lyrics has reached court, but that means little. For one thing, the default is that something is not fair use, not that it is. For another, song lyrics do not have some special status. Plenty of case law on excerpting has built up.
Sampling a song beyond the tiniest amount (unless for parody purposes -- parodies and a few other things have special protection) is a violation of copyright. In some cases, reprinting one paragraph of an entire book is a violation of copyright (there was a case on that involving Harper). It is abundantly clear that distributing most of the lyrics of a song is a violation of copyright.
Here's a simple guideline: if its a copyright work, you don't get to redistribute anything but small amounts of it, because the right to distribute it (among other rights) is reserved to its creator, as the laws on copyright explicitly stipulate. Several stanzas of a short song are not (edit: typo) fair use distributable.
Again, though, the reason you were asked to take down the lyrics was because you were breaking the rules, despite your agreement to follow them. Don't get all hissy because you think something's legal (despite it not being so) when the legality has nothing to do with your offense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:But that sort of thing DOESN'T make people think about their prejudices. That's my whole point. It just makes people go ha ha, what a stupid racist. About OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES.
That's definitely true in some cases, and perhaps in most cases it is true. But it also helps people to see how ridiculous racism really is. I've not seen this movie, but this discussion reminds me of some of Dave Chappelle's racism sketches. He feels that by making racism look ridiculous and stupid and by getting people to laugh at some of those silly notions, he is increasing awareness in a subject that is often times ignored. At the same time, though, there are many people that feel that Chappelle's sketches just incite more racism by making it seem acceptable as something to joke about, not as something to take seriously.
A lot of people thought Crash was a very good movie while many others thought it was too preachy. I dont' know. It seems to go both ways. Since I haven't seen the movie, I can't comment on Cohen's methods, but sometimes "that sort of thing" can be an effective way to address racism.
Chapelle, at least from the few times these days that I bother with him, almost never seems like he's trying to poke fun at racism. Maybe it's just bad timing, but he always seems to be dissing white people whenever I watch him, and there's nothing particularly amusing about it. I've never understood why everyone but white comics somehow get a free pass to make fun of anyone they want, but unless a white guy is talking about white guy stuff, he's labeled as a gay basher, or racist, or mysoginist, or whatever. Granted that free pass doesn't let them get away with everything, but the fact that there is one at all is disturbing to me.
In relation to Borat, the thing about making fun of racists, is that the only people who are going to find it amusing are those that already aren't racist, and it's likely only to fuel antipathy towards racists. It's not a healthy vehicle for change, or discussion. It only pisses off the racist guy, which fuels his inner demons, and makes the rest of society less tolerant of their ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm rather intolerant of racism myself, but somewhere along the tolerance/intolerance line you start getting into thought police type stuff, and I draw the line there.
Basically: Mocking racists, with the claim that doing so will somehow fix the problem of racism is ludicrous. These guys aren't going to say "dear God, I never looked at it like THAT before" and change their ways.
I think what the guy at the rodeo (in I think North Carolina) said was reprehensible and offensive, but I also don't think for a minute that mocking him in a theater will get him to change his ways. If anything it only reenforces his predjudices. And I think Cohen is full of it if that is his honest reason for doing so.
Cohen has said that his movie is far more about mocking the people who hold misconceptions as truths, than on making misconceptions. For example, that Kazakhs are fans of incest, and all women are prostitutes, etc etc about Kazakhstan. Alright, when I first saw this movie I actually took it the way he says it was meant to be, that the whole thing was really making fun of stupid people who hold stupid untruths about places like Kazakhstan. The problem with this however, is the same thing with the racist. If you already know that it isn't the truth, this movie will come across as funny. If you DON'T know what the truth is, this movie is STILL funny, only now it's reenforcing your negative stereotypical misconceptions. I also totally dislike the fact that everything is represented as truth. When the Daily Show or Colbert Report mock something (often times for the same reason), we KNOW that they are kidding, and we KNOW that whatever the subject is, it ISN'T really true. Absent that, I disapprove of the way Cohen went about this.
Anyway, like my original blurb said, a couple pages ago, regardless of the controversy, I didn't even really find the movie super funny. The best part of the movie I thought was the kids running up to the ice cream truck and the bear roaring at them. But, even as I saw it, I thought it was obviously staged. Something about the kids all playing by the parking lot and running to the ice cream truck yelling "Yay!" screamed of staged to me.
It wasn't the best comedy of the year by far. It was the intellectual equivilant of fart jokes and pulling someone's pants down, which can be very funny, but isn't clever, and certainly isn't hard to do, so I have a hard time giving Cohen a lot of credit for it.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Fart jokes and pulling someone's pants down strays into the realm of the crude. And we've most definitely, without a doubt established that his humor is usually NOT CRUDE!!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Chapelle, at least from the few times these days that I bother with him, almost never seems like he's trying to poke fun at racism. Maybe it's just bad timing, but he always seems to be dissing white people whenever I watch him, and there's nothing particularly amusing about it.
Hmmm...I've seen what you describe here in some Chappelle shows, but I've also seen sketches that definitely poked fun at black people because there were no white people to be seen and it focused specifically on African American culture. I have found some Chappelle skits to be hilarious, and others not so amusing.
I think his primary goal was to make people laugh, and he seemed successful at it. The Wayne Brady skit where Wayne is a pimp was pretty darn funny. And I can't help but laugh at the Racial draft - which poked fun at everyone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Fart jokes and pulling someone's pants down strays into the realm of the crude. And we've most definitely, without a doubt established that his humor is usually NOT CRUDE!!
To each his own Leonide.
Naked wrestling with a giant naked man, hitting people with sex toys, and handing your dinner host a bag of crap, in my book, is crude. It's so far within the crudeness sphere it's taken up permanent residence, and has started laying sod.
It's not clever, it's rude, I'd call it crude.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Chapelle, at least from the few times these days that I bother with him, almost never seems like he's trying to poke fun at racism. Maybe it's just bad timing, but he always seems to be dissing white people whenever I watch him, and there's nothing particularly amusing about it.
Hmmm...I've seen what you describe here in some Chappelle shows, but I've also seen sketches that definitely poked fun at black people because there were no white people to be seen and it focused specifically on African American culture. I have found some Chappelle skits to be hilarious, and others not so amusing.
I think his primary goal was to make people laugh, and he seemed successful at it. The Wayne Brady skit where Wayne is a pimp was pretty darn funny. And I can't help but laugh at the Racial draft - which poked fun at everyone.
In all honesty, I haven't watched enough of him to really have a good estimate of his comedy as a whole. Whenever I've given him a try, I've been totally turned off by what I heard. Just bad timing on my part perhaps.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've apparently had more or less bad timing.
(Although the blind black racist was funny.)
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm glad this thread seems to be back on track. Couple of things I noticed that made me want to comment...
quote: Dag: Whether the results are good or not, his tactics are not good.
I take this to mean "his tactics are morally wrong," which of course is subjective. I think his tactics are very good, if good can be interpreted to mean "effective" in this context. His tactics are effective in that they acheive what he wants them to acheive.
quote: Lyrhawn: Basically: Mocking racists, with the claim that doing so will somehow fix the problem of racism is ludicrous. These guys aren't going to say "dear God, I never looked at it like THAT before" and change their ways.
I'm not sure where the idea that Cohen is claiming that he can fix the problem of racism with his comedy. Clarify this for me. Are you talking about Cohen? Or maybe someone in this thread said it? I just can't remember anybody claiming a nobler pursuit at the heart of 'Borat' like solving the problem of racism.
I have the impression that as a comedian, he's interested in exploring the territory, and finding comedy there, and that's about it.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think what most of us are saying is it is a nasty sort of comedy, that makes fun of people without those people knowing they're being made fun of.
Take another instance, for example, where Borat is being interviewed at a dating service (you can find the link on YouTube) That makes me uncomfortable, and he's not even bringing out "the worst" in the lady, the way he is with the racists. She comes across as polite and well-meaning and bewildered. BUT -- the point of the comedy sketch is to laugh at Borat, this character, who is interacting with this woman, a dupe, who does NOT know that Borat is actually not real. So while we watch the sketch to see what outrageous thing Borat will say/do next, we ALSO watch the sketch to laugh at the woman, for being so sincere and trusting of this guy who we all know is just faking it all. She is part-and-parcel of the comedy, and it wouldn't work at all if we thought she might be in on it. Or it just wouldn't be as funny (funny subjectively -- i'm assuming those who like that sort of humor wouldn't think it was funny if she KNEW he was a fake -- like the Conan O'Brien bit. It still IS funny, but not funny in the same way. It's like you watch it because you like seeing someone tricked, and not for the genius of the Borat character. It's about control, it's about having power over that situation -- knowing that you know something that that woman doesn't, knowing that she's being tricked, it makes you feel good about yourself. Better about yourself. Maybe you don't actively think "i wouldn't be fooled like that!" but that thought is still there, I think.
And maybe they told that woman after everything was done, and maybe she thought it was funny. But why do we think practical jokes are funny? At their heart, they are lies told to trick someone, make them react a certain way based on the lie, and then usually revealing the trick to them, so they know how thoroughly they've made a fool of themselves. And if they take it poorly, they're "A bad sport" or they "take themselves too seriously" or "they have no sense of humor." So you lied to me, told me something that wasn't true, I trusted you,and you betrayed that trust, and then you expect me to think it's a laugh riot? What you did wasn't clever, nor was it particularly nice, it was merely a lie told to humiliate.
On the racism note, I think those of us who don't like his comedy are wondering if cohen IS saying he's trying to reveal racism, and if so, how he can possibly think this his comedy is doing anything but preaching to the choir.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cohen has stated that his mockery of people like those of Kazakhstan is ACTUALLY his way of mocking people who hold misconceptions about those places. In other words, "ha ha, how dumb are you for thinking people in Kazakhstan actually have incest with each other all the time." His stated intent was to bring to light the predjudices around the country by mocking them.
Maybe he isn't trying to fix them outright, but if that isn't his endgame, then his goal for this movie seems a little silly.
quote:I take this to mean "his tactics are morally wrong," which of course is subjective. I think his tactics are very good, if good can be interpreted to mean "effective" in this context. His tactics are effective in that they acheive what he wants them to acheive.
Given what I've read, as I just said, about what his goals for the movie were, I'd say he didn't achieve his aims. What do you mean by effective? Effective at making people laugh? Sure I'll give him that, in the same context that I gave him that before, and that fart jokes are funny. But what else do you think he wants to achieve?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Not all practical jokes involve lying to people or making a fool out of them, FWIW.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Not all practical jokes involve lying to people or making a fool out of them, FWIW.
Such as what, exactly? Turning all the furniture upside-down in a room?
See...I put that under trying to make a fool out of someone as well.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
How, exactly?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, where's the funny? It seems to me that the funny is the person's reacting when he/she walks into the room and is all, "What just happened here?!"
-pH
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Cohen has stated that his mockery of people like those of Kazakhstan is ACTUALLY his way of mocking people who hold misconceptions about those places. In other words, "ha ha, how dumb are you for thinking people in Kazakhstan actually have incest with each other all the time." His stated intent was to bring to light the predjudices around the country by mocking them.
See, I think that's a leap. The second part of that quote (with regard to his intent) does not connect with the first part of that quote. I'm wondering where we're getting the idea that his intent is "to bring light the prejudices around thie country by mocking them."
I agree that it is one of his intentions, but I think it is one of many intentions; I think where we're in disagreement is that I don't think he's portraying himself as any kind of crusader, I just think he's trying to be funny.
quote:I think what most of us are saying is it is a nasty sort of comedy, that makes fun of people without those people knowing they're being made fun of.
I think all of us are saying that. The disagreement is: Some of us think this is a bad thing, and some of us don't mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:See, I think that's a leap.
Okay, then I think your issue is with Cohen, not me. The point is that people's misconceptions about Kazakhstan are representative of their ideas about the rest of the world, and third world countries in general. Maybe using Kaz. wasn't the best example, I should've picked something in the US.
quote: He has said the segments are "dramatic demonstration of how racism feeds on dumb conformity, as much as rabid bigotry."
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What I think Mr. Cohen should best is how condescending Americans often are. The New York femminists were the worst, but others were pretty bad too.
The Atlanta African-Americans and the Southern Belles both treated him with kindness, but tried to turn him into one of them.
Of course, we all do that. And it isn't always pretty.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In all fairness Pelegius, Cohen approached all of those groups looking to learn their ways. It wasn't an active conversion attempt. He walked up to the teens on MLK Blvd (which was either staged, or ballsy) and asked them to teach him how to be like them. He set up the meeting with the feminists (whether or not they are from New York seems immaterial to me) to ask them about women's rights. He set up the meeting with an etiquette coach, to find out how southern manners and hospitality works, and then went to a dinner under what appeared to be the assumption that he would learn how southern lifestyle and dinners and manners work.
You can hardly fault them given the circumstance.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Okay, then I think your issue is with Cohen, not me.
Well, actually I didn't think I had an issue with anybody. But since you mentioned it, what I'm saying is: Cohen is not saying what you're saying he's saying.
That is the leap.
"He has said the segments are 'dramatic demonstration of how racism feeds on dumb conformity, as much as rabid bigotry,' does not equal "Mocking racists, with the claim that doing so will somehow fix the problem of racism."
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Not all practical jokes involve lying to people or making a fool out of them, FWIW.
I think the essence of the term "practical joke" implies just that, actually...
quote:Main Entry: practical joke Function: noun : a prank intended to trick or embarrass someone or cause physical discomfort
Seriously, is there an example of a practical joke where the purpose is NOT to fool someone in order to get their uncensored reaction?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I just found this New Yorker article (as a link from Slate's year-end movie round up) and thought it was a great exposition of what I found so abhorant about the cultural phenomenon that was (hope that remains past tense forever and ever) Borat.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Referring back to something on the first page, I would have loved it if some guest-booker for a targeted local TV show had gotten wise to Borat's schtick, had had him on the show in the guise of having fallen for the character, and then at the last minute, had introduced him on live TV as "Sasha Baron Cohen", not as "Borat", and had asked him pointed questions about his intent to embarrass the show
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)