The Front Page: Whorat
PopMatters review of Borat by Cynthia Fuchs
Just how gullible are we? As Sacha Baron Cohen’s pig and pony show continues to rake in the disposable income of an indiscriminate North American demographic ($67 million and counting), the critical community is having a literal laudatory filled field day. Rarely has the supposed scholarship of the journalistic branch been so unified in its praise. Some point to Cohen as the new Peter Sellers or the next Monty Python, others push for the British comic as a clear Oscar front runner, while others suggest that his movie is a kind of comedy revolution, a Blair Witch/Pulp Fiction like genre bender that merges reality with the ridiculous to form a new kind of radical reinterpretation of filmmaking.
But what, exactly, has Cohen done? Where is the invention in showcasing the readily apparent racism buried right on the surface of the United States social structure? Why is his ambush style approach to interviews and interaction so celebrated? It is really nothing new within the media framework. Howard Stern used to manage various foils (Stuttering John, Gary the Retard, etc.) to take the piss out of pompous, self-important individuals and the recent Jackass phenomenon argued that senseless stunt work in the name of self-serving slapstick can be intensely popular. And yet Borat seems to suggest something more than this to the rabid members of the fanbase. For them, this movie is much more than a cobbled together mock documentary. It’s a striking cinematic call to arms.
But would it surprise you to learn that this new Eastern European emperor has no clothes (his infamous nude wrestling/fight scene in the film aside)? Would you be shocked to learn that many of the movies more infamous moments were scripted and staged for the cameras? Recently both MTV and the New York Post have ‘outed’ various aspects of the Borat production, from which characters are really actors (Borat’s prostitute date) to the reality behind the various threats, skirmishes and fights featured (there were arrests, and a few ugly confrontations). While not meant to undermine what is obviously a growing phenomenon, these reports bring into perspective the power of film, and the credulity of individuals desperate to find something new and unique in an otherwise routine motion picture industry.
Primary amongst the revelations was Pamela Anderson’s willing participation in the project, including her full cooperation in the film’s infamous finale. For anyone not instantly jacked into the entire Borat experience, this last act confrontation between the buxom Baywatch beauty and the swarthy stalker-like reporter is a seemingly blatant buzzkill. What starts out as a standard photo op meet and greet with her fans turns into a full blown, storewide chase, ending with Cohen and his co-star grappling openly in a store parking lot. For many, it’s the prankster piece de resistance, a pristine melding of Borat’s naiveté with celebrity’s harsh realities to form an intellectualized version of a Kutcher punk.
Except, none of it is real. Not a single moment. Though she claims to be “sworn to secrecy” Anderson’s camp makes it clear that the actress has a long standing relationship with Cohen (they have worked together before) and reports indicate that the two conspired together to stage the assault in front of a pair of unknowing security guards. Even more intriguing are hints that scripted elements were used, along with professional camerawork, all in an effort to make sure the scene went off perfectly. Now, for a movie that is selling itself as an off the cuff altercation between acceptable social standards and human values, doesn’t having your target in on the ruse destroy the subtext? Is comedy by entrapment still funny once you learn the victim is as complicit as the attacker?
Even worse, there are troubling reports about the factual material in the movie as well. Members of the feminist group that Cohen interviews/insults argue that they were not fully informed about the purpose and point of their conversations with the actor, and when you think about it, they actually couldn’t have been. Had they been told that a UK comedian, playing a bigoted foreign journalist, was going to sit down and ask them questions that attack the very foundation of their group’s gender-based agenda and that, even better, this material was going to be used as part of the big screen comedy in which the whole point is to deflate those with a self-important (or shockingly misguided) approach to their beliefs, how many would have said yes?
This goes to the very heart of this surreal sub-genre, an entertainment category with its roots firmly in the success of nu-reality television. Unlike Survivor, where a competition supposedly separates the winner from the losers, or MTV’s The Real World which claims to capture authentic young people in the act of being buffoons, nu-reality walks a fine line between fact and fiction, making up material as part of, and in direct response to, how certain individuals and situations respond to their surroundings. Structured like an old fashioned suspense sequence in which certain people are in on the joke (the audience, members of the cast), and arguing that what you are seeing is an accurate reflection of the truth, the nu-reality experience pretends to play fair while relying on a foundation of falsehood to get its results.
It’s a lot like entertainment entrapment, especially since in Borat Cohen is coercing the indignation and indignity out of his unsuspecting victims. The law makes it clear that individuals cannot be held liable for crimes they were more or less forced or cajoled into committing and it’s the same with Borat’s comedy. It gets bigots to expose their hatred, idiots to emphasize their cluelessness and the psychotic to show their terrifying true colors through the humor equivalent of a well-rehearsed show business sting operation. But how clever is it really, and indeed, how successful overall? Is it funny to find out that a redneck country bumpkin thinks that Jews are evil? Does it make it more hilarious that Cohen’s character totally agrees, and even amplifies the anti-Semitism?
Some will argue that none of this matters. No matter how he got the audience reaction during his butchering of the National Anthem, or how ‘staged and scripted’ certain scenes are, the reactions are the reason behind the film’s import as a shocking, scatological satire. But doesn’t that argument beg the manner in which they were achieved – and more importantly, the truth behind said responses? Would the Anthem scene work if you knew that the jeers and boos were added in later during post-production, or that the collapsing horse was merely a happy accident, not the result of Cohen’s performance? Would you care that some of the targets appear in on the joke (the driving instructor, the antiques’ dealer) and would that, then affect your subjective viewpoint on the film’s success?
In many ways, Borat is the kind of experience that demands the support of subterfuge for as long as possible. Like the Blair Witch, which tried to get pre-screening audiences to believe that it was the real final footage of a doomed documentary crew, the success of this comedy rests solely on the level of believability you have in the prank. Had Cohen merely made a frazzled foreign farce about a Kazakhstan reporter leaving his hilarious hometown for the first time, the reaction would probably be minimal, not massive. In fact, it’s the same fate the comic’s first film based on one of his well known small screen characters faced. Ali G Indahouse went straight to DVD in America, its distributor sensing that, without the crazy confrontational antics that made the TV show a success, the film faced an uphill battle at the box office. And they were right.
Like learning the trick behind a magician’s mindblowing performance, or getting step by step instructions on how a certain sensational special effect was accomplished, discovering that Borat has as much manipulated as genuine material as part of its production acts as a buffer to much of the movies’ heralded genius. Even more distressing, recent reports suggest that the people of Glod, an impoverished Romanian village with no running water or sewage, were paid a mere ₤3 each to be portrayed as abortionists, rapists, and sexual deviants in the film’s opening sequence. Tricking people who should know better is one thing. Fooling folks who have nothing is the height of moral bankruptcy.
The true brilliance behind Borat and Sacha Baron Cohen is not the resulting film. It is merely a fresh, friendly experience marred by occasional gross outs and delusions of social commentary grandeur. It is not the funniest thing to ever hit cinema, nor is it the shape of things to come – one hopes. No, the real genius here is getting people to pay for the privilege of being part of the gag itself. In the end, Borat‘s biggest success is fooling the audience into thinking that the movie is more meaningful than it is. What started out as the second coming of comedy has ended up being an expertly controlled extended shock jock joke. When all is said and done, the only ones who’ll be left laughing are Cohen and his cohorts – and you can guarantee their giggles will resonate all the way to the nearest bank.
Comments
Thanks Bill for spelling it all out to us.
Boy, he sure had me fooled.
I can’t believe that Borat’s shtick isn’t 100% unadulterated.
The shock. The horror.
Must not laugh. Not funny.
Thanks Bill.
Comment by Howard E Davis from Miami — November 12, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
And there I was, thinking that Borat made the horse collapse, but it was only accidental? OMG!
Don’t waste your indignation on comedic movies, go and write about politics or the environment; much more important and you won’t be making such a fool out of yourself.
Comment by Vincent Vega from New York City — November 12, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
This is the sort of thing Howard Stern would do if he had talent.
Comment by Art Williams from Los Angeles, CA — November 12, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
I’ve got to agree with Howard, these people had to sign some sort of release or they never would have appeared. In light of the success maybe they should be further compensation for their participation.
Comment by Quentin Barry from Kentucky — November 12, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
Well…you don’t say. Glad that was made clear to me, Bill.
Comment by curiouscat from somewhere — November 12, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
Geez, what a disappointment!! Next thing ya know, you’ll be telling us that “magicians” use tricks to make us think they’re performing real magic!!
Comment by Larry Terrell from Inglewood, CA — November 12, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
I pretty much guessed as I watched the film that a number of the more spectacular scenes and setpieces were staged - it didn’t effect my enjoyment in any way shape or form. I still laughed, I still came away with plenty of food for thought.
Comment by Tim O'Neil from Massachusetts — November 12, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
Pamela Anderson’s in on it!! Holy Smoke-and-Mirrors, Batman, she COOPERATED, and she DID have to sign a release before they could use her footage. We’ve been fooled!
Or… not. Are you serious? You WERE fooled, weren’t you, and now it stings that you’re behind EVERY KID IN AMERICA who saw no fewer than SIX writers in the credits and figured out SOME of this was scripted?
You write how Cohen states the obvious? Dude, your mindlessly, obliviously pointing out the obvious to this extreme makes Cohen seem like the most sophistcated master of artistic discovery and subtlety on working today.
By the way, did you know the word gullible has been removed from dictionaries in certain states in the US?
Comment by matthew sparks from Albuquerque — November 13, 2006 @ 12:26 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
Yeah, the movie sucks. Could get more laughs at a Bush speech. Only so much of that simpleton skitting, one can take. Then Cohen does a desire for fame, and he will rip off as many poverty stricken Rumanians as it takes.
Comment by Bore at — November 13, 2006 @ 2:11 am
Hmm, all the reviews I’ve read have been pretty mixed - your laudatory critical community is made of straw and so are the sacred cows you think you’re slaying.
Whorat. Now THAT’S clever.
Comment by Josh from Jersey City — November 13, 2006 @ 2:31 am
I’ve enjoyed Cohen for years but I must agree with “Bore At”. Until Cohen makes up for his shameless exploitation of Romanian Gypsies (Who are exploited and abused enough in this world) then I will suck it up and refuse to see this film. I’m sure there are numerous hilarious moments - scripted or not - but his hypocrisy in demonizing others for their sociopolitical ignorance while exploiting the weakest of the weak himself is inexcusable. He’s too smart to say it was an accident too.
Comment by Stupid Git from NYC — November 13, 2006 @ 2:42 am
That Jew Cohen ripped off everyone and took his money straight to the bank…
Hey, that’s just like something Borat would say, Bill. Way to go.
Comment by DolphinGirl from NJ — November 13, 2006 @ 3:26 am
News Release: Congresswoman Sherri Davis, (R-CA), Turns Up the Heat on “Daily Show” Host Jon Stewart and his “Misinformed Midtacular” Election Coverage
2006-11-07 09:13:39 -
New York, New York (PRINSIDE) November 7, 2006 - Congresswoman Sherri Davis, R-CA, issued a statement today blasting the the election reporting of Jon Stewart and his ‘Daily Show- reporting team as “misinformed, misleading and occasionally mystifying.”
“Some of his reporting does not even seem factual,” charged the outspoken Republican Congresswoman. “It appears to be ‘belief-based,’ rather than ‘fact based.’”
Congresswoman Davis, a conservative Republican who has become known as the “Ann Coulter of Anaheim” for her vocal opposition to flag burning and illegal immigration, and her fierce support of the American family, charged Jon Stewart with deliberately misleading the American public in his “Midwest Midterm Midtacular” series broadcast from the key election battlefield of Ohio about the true issues in that key battlefield state.
“Jon Stewart insists on incorrectly emphasizing the war in Iraq, jobs, and the Canadian fence issue as the top issues mobilizing the Ohio electorate,” says Davis, a former Miss Pomona and the widow of Chinese industrialist Soon-Yi Davis. “But Ohio this year is actually a textbook example of how purely local issues are mobilizing key Republican voting blocks to get out and vote - and that will tip this state into the Republican column once again.”
Specifically, Davis charges that Stewart and his “Daily Show” reporters are deliberately overlooking the impact that two major statewide ballot referendums in Ohio will have on voter turnout this year.
The first is the Republican-backed proposed amendment to the state Constitution to add a ‘mandatory portion control” clause to the state constitution for the first time in state history. “That’s a very popular issue for Republicans in the state, and particularly suburban Republican women,” says Davis. “It’s similar to what they’re currently doing in New York City in regards to trans-fats. And that’s a Republican-backed proposal that should drive core Republican voters to the voting booth, energize them, almost as much as the issue of gay marriage has in the past.”
And the other key Ohio ballot issue this time around that Jon Stewart and his “Daily Show” analysts are overlooking, says Davis, is Proposition 15, the Democratic-backed proposition that would create major new statewide incentives for scrapbooking.
“That proposal would add substantial scrapbooking tax breaks and would also add a required scrapbooking curriculum to the state school system at both the junior high and the high school level,” says Cong. Davis. “And also at community colleges. And they’re also proposing scrapbooking vouchers. Democrats feel that scrapbooking is a family-friendly pasttime that will dramatically expand their base, but we as Republicans are against anything that would increase the already high tax burden of Ohio residents, and on those grounds this measure is doomed to defeat.”
According to Davis, if the scrapbookers stay home from the polls this week—“and is this really the best the Democrats could come up with?”—that could hurt the Democrats and even cost them a few House seats in Ohio’s hotly contested suburban districts.
“The Republican Party, however, is confident that the mandatory portion control amendment that we have proposed to the state constitution will drive our core voters to the polls, energize them, and tip this state into the Republican column once again,” says Davis. “And that’s where it belongs.”
But a major “wild card” in this Ohio election, notes Congresswoman Davis, is a downstate proposal backed by Ohio native Sarah Jessica Parker that has controversially divided the rural county of Athens, a traditional Republican stronghold.
“Down south, in Athens County, which is the birthplace of celebrity actress Sarah Jessica Parker, issue ads taped by Miss Parker have been blanketing the airwaves airing in support of a controversial county-wide proposal for stricter regulation of yoga mat cleanliness, which is Proposition 32 on the local ballot,” says Davis. “And this could have a major influence on voter turnout in that county and tip it into the Democratic column for the first time in decades.”
This issue bubbled to the forefront when, on a recent trip to Nelsonville, Ohio, to receive the key to the city of her hometown, Miss Parker used a local yoga mat and returned home to New York City with a a bad case of tinea cruris, commonly known as “jock itch.”
‘Now, Athens County generally votes Republican,” says Congresswoman Davis, “but as the seat of Ohio University, the county does have a very strong liberal Democratic minority. And so it is a possibility that Miss Parker’s highly publicized Yoga Mat Cleanliness Act could bring out the liberal Democrats in force, and tip that key county into the Democratic column for the first time in years.”
Elsewhere in the nation, election-year controversy has been stirred by issue ads airing expressing the views of celebrities Michael J. Fox (stem cells) and even Boy George (seatbelt safety).
Finally, Congresswoman Davis reprimands Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show” for failing to note in their reporting the significance of the fact that the entire Democratic ticket in the state is headed by a Brown this year—Sherrod Brown, who is running for Senate.
“Now, Brown has long been a potent political name in Ohio, just as Green has been in New York and Orange has been in Florida,” says Davis. “And so the `Brown Factor,’ could also tip the race to the Democrats as legions of Brown supporters make their Brown voices heard at the polls. And that is a factor not to be overlooked.”
Concludes a disgruntled Congressswoman Davis: “Next year, send Stephen Colbert to the state. He’ll get it right.”
Comment by Jake Barnes from Tarzana — November 13, 2006 @ 3:27 am
Jake Barnes,
Wow, that’s amazing. Trans-fats and Scrapbooking are more important than the war in Iraq? This woman is f*cking nuts. Thanks for linking to that.
Comment by Stupid Git from NYC — November 13, 2006 @ 3:52 am
Morays!? Who let the eels out?
Comment by Maq Palte from Nebraska — November 13, 2006 @ 4:14 am
Jews inciting anti-semitism so they can cast a spotlight on anti-semitism….kinda like the pharmaceutical companies making diseases to sell more drugs, innit?
Comment by mothy! from Oregon — November 13, 2006 @ 4:16 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
Good article.
Notice how when one person comes out and says something not in line with the approved rote media reaction, so many of the fans become livid.
The incensed say nothing about the very valid point that it appears that the dirt-poor residents of Glod were exploited. If they weren’t, the filmmakers can show the releases they obtained. If they spell out that the people of Gold are going to be subjected to international ridicule, then give that one to Cohen and crew. Otherwise, Cohen should answer to this charge. Since he apparently never talks about the movie without going out of character, he might well play it for laughs, and all will be forgiven. Of course, the fawning media, including the high moralists of late night television, because exploitation of an unpopular minority is a small price to pay for the gift Borat has given us: proof (if any were needed) that you can find anti-semites in America. Just like you can in every country of the world, practically, but never mind that small point.
Comment by C Barnes from California — November 13, 2006 @ 4:56 am
I didn’t read this whole article. I stopped because it was RIDICULOUS! This author needs to think through her work before he writes or find a job she’s good at.
Comment by yall — November 13, 2006 @ 5:25 am
Thank you for starting my day off with high irony.
I was linked to this article from Google News. That’s right, Bill, your *blog* is *the News*. And what do I find? Complaints about the “unreality” of some film.
Classic.
Comment by dig dug — November 13, 2006 @ 5:33 am
Next thing, you’ll tell me that Riggs and Murtaugh don’t really fight crime or that Marty McFly never went back in time! And was Lt. Col. Frank Slade not actually blind?! I bet you’ll tell me he was faking it too! Well, he sure had me fooled…
Seriously, if this article has done anything for me, it’s enlighten me to the possibility that parts of this movie might’ve NOT been scripted. I didn’t know that. Reading through this, all I could think was, “Am I the only one aware this is a piece of written comedy and not an actual documentry?” Thankfully, reading the comments, I learned that I am, in fact, not alone - rather, the author is. Very much so.
It’s a movie. It stars actors. We get it.
Comment by Jeff from Wayne, NJ — November 13, 2006 @ 5:35 am
Is anyone surprised by this? However, the author neglected to mention another famous liar who has made his fame and fortune in a similar way: Michael Moore.
People don’t care about the truth. They like having the people they don’t like made to look stupid. They like being able to point to this stuff and say “See? So-And-So is a (fill in the blank)!”
I sure wish more people could tell a story straight. Adding fake “punch” only deflates a story entirely.
Comment by TikiMon from Atlanta, GA — November 13, 2006 @ 5:41 am
Ummm….
No one ever doubted the the fact that there were writers for the movie Borat.
Way to get your knickers in a knot about nothing.
Seriously though, if you don’t like it that is just too bad.
Comment by Markham Méderos from Cole Harbour NS — November 13, 2006 @ 5:41 am
AWESOME post, Jake Barnes!! You hit the nail on the head regarding what needed to be said about this article. It’s almost as if that was written specifically in satire to the ridiculousness shown here. I wonder if it’ll go over the author’s head though.
Hey, Bill, may I suggest you pick up a copy of The Onion? I would LOVE to hear your thoughts…
Comment by Jeff from Wayne, NJ — November 13, 2006 @ 5:44 am
Thanks for ruining it for me, Bill. Someone in the theatre drizzled hot sauce over my eyes at the end of the movie so I couldn’t see the writers credited, and I left the movie with the impression that it was all 100% real.
But seriously, to answer your question, no I would not be surprised to find out that this movie had scenes that were staged. And neither would anyone else. Except you, apparently.
Way to pop a blood vessel over a comedy movie, buddy.
Comment by Hobbes the tiger from Louisville, KY — November 13, 2006 @ 5:45 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
you people ALL missed the point of the blog.
typical fucking stupid americans
Comment by mothy! — November 13, 2006 @ 5:53 am
everyone who went to see this movie is an idiot, as only complete retards will see something so stupid. But then again - it is right at their level.
Comment by paki — November 13, 2006 @ 6:16 am
We saw Borat yesterday because our local newspaper review thought it was brilliantly and extremely funny. Our reviewer is an idiot, it seems. On a scale of one to five (five being the good end), it gets about 1.5. VERY disappointing. Mostly boring or stupid (but not funny-stupid). There are a few funny spots but only a few over the whole movie, and that’s about all it had going for it. And even then not ROTF funny, just plain-funny. Avoid this movie, it already stole our money. I’m embarrassed to have contributed to their gross revenue.
Comment by Carol from usa — November 13, 2006 @ 6:18 am
i think it would be wise for you to clarify your argument a bit. it’s devastatingly contradictory to cry foul that some of borat’s “more outrageous” moments are scripted, and then decry the fact that some of them are unscripted, which is unfair to those interviewd. what could “borat” have done to satiate you?? or did you just not like the film.
furthermore, if you’re going to be critical not only of a film but of it’s proponents, perhaps you might want to think more critically. some of the scenes in borat were played exclusively for laughs and were not aimed at any sort of social comment. take the nude wrestling scene. clearly not a comment on anything, simply made to elicit laughter (whether or not it suceeded in your case is beside the point). the same is true of the pamela anderson scene. it was clearly just a simple way of resolving the story line and inducing a little haha. it doesn’t change the quality of the scene or the message of the movie (if it can be agreed that there is one) for that scene to have been partially scripted. this is obvious to anyone viewing the film with an eye for the critical.
furthermore, a work of art’s methods need not be completely innovative in order to be effective. i’m sure you know this and that you just conveniently ignored it because it suited you in your haste to illegitimize a film you clearly simply did not approve of.
even furthermore, you can’t seriously feel comfortable claiming that the film’s bigots are absolved of the judgments of their bigotry because they are “entrapped.” come on now. many of the most egregious violators in this regard obviously needed very little prompting to expose themselves, and in fact seemed glad to do it. the rodeo cowboy who told borat he should shave his moustache so that he wouldn’t look so much like a muslim or a terrorist (which he makes explicitly clear are synonymous as far as he’s concerned) was giving advice, seemingly unsolicited. no one was forcing him to do it, and he in fact seem to think that he was doing borat a favour. the same goes to the frat boys. would you really argue that they wouldn’t say those things unless “forced” (truly, this is laughable)?? i would wager my life savings (meager as it may be) that those guys say those kinds of things whenever the opportunity presents itself. do you know why?? because they believe them. and sense entrapment is a legal offense, and expository filmmaking is not, i’d say your point borders on non-sequitur.
lastly, in an “article” questioning the legitimacy and credibility of “borat’s” moments, it might behoove you to make sure you don’t blur the lines between fact and speculation yourself. the claim that there is as much scripted as unscripted material in “borat” is disputable, and even if true misleading, since it’s already been noted that there are moments in the film played specifically for laughs and not social satire or commentary. furthermore, you should make it clear how much of what you claim about the movie’s content is rhetorical or speculatory and how much is fact. it wouldn’t really be fair for you to colour your readers perceptions of the movie by misguiding them or to make your point by misleading, would it?? you would in fact be just as guilt as you claim cohen is.
if you hated the movie, it’s enough just to say that, or at least be more clear and precise if you want to make the point that you didn’t just hate it but that there is actually something objectively wrong about the film. also, there are real criticisms about the production of the film to be made, such as the claim that he has exploited the members of a rumanian community; much more substantive than your contradictory and misguided nitpicks.
Comment by HAPPY — November 13, 2006 @ 6:27 am
Reading the article is five minutes I’ll never get back. Can we all just have a laugh and not disect every parsec of it. Geez Louise!
Comment by daniel from St Louis, USA — November 13, 2006 @ 6:33 am
You mean Pamela Anderson wasn’t really kidnapped? GASP! Next you will be telling me there’s no Easter bunny.
I feel so betrayed.
Thanks, Bill, for pointing out the obvious over and over again
Comment by shocked from Boston — November 13, 2006 @ 6:39 am
Thou dost protest too much. Besides you present as a windbag sans any sense of humor. Lighten up, Laugh. There’s no reset button.
Comment by hsk01945 from Marblehead, MA — November 13, 2006 @ 6:43 am
Raising awareness about Anti-Semitism by picking on another ethnicity. Well ain’t that rich?
Comment by AJ from Wyoming — November 13, 2006 @ 6:45 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
So your point is what? That fiction cannot contain valid social criticism? Or did you think the movie proported to be non ficntional? Honestly, I think the point of your article is that you know how to write provactive titles.
Comment by garrett — November 13, 2006 @ 6:53 am
Some make millions filming hilarious comedies, some make nothing writing pretentious and oblivious blogs. To each his own I guess.
Comment by Bob Sacamano from LA — November 13, 2006 @ 7:05 am
Dude, it’s just a movie. People are always getting a hair up their arse about movies. It’s NOT reality - that’s (supposedly) for documentaries. I guarantee you that this Borat fluff will not be nominated in the documentary category (or any other). Movies are fiction, by definition. Lighten up!
Comment by Pepe from Nirvana — November 13, 2006 @ 7:31 am
christ bill, you are daft! i know its really easy to just write you off and say that you dont get it, but in all honesty, YOU DONT GET IT! it would be one thing if you understood what was going on and had incredible insight into this film and could tell us something we didnt know, or even if you could just tell us what we already do know but in better words, but you are so clueless on this it is embarassing. honestly, im kind of surprised this is even posted on a blog. arnt bloggers supposed to be ‘with it’? ok. ok. im feeling bad for you know. im imagining you have kids. im imagining you are either doing this for fun or trying to have some extra money to put into your kids college funds. im trying to feel bad for you, i am, because its the only way i can ignore this article.
Comment by grom from drom — November 13, 2006 @ 7:59 am
As the first to respond to Bill’s exposé, I would like, having slept a few hours in the interim, to clarify a few points.
A. I haven’t seen the movie. I have seen the Ali G show enough to know the nature of the Borat character and though I found “him” amusing, I’m not overly fond of humor at other peoples expense, the most glaring example for me being the way that Michael Moore taunted Charleton Heston (Fahrenheit 911) in spite of the obvious fact of his senility/alzheimers.
B. If impoverished Rumanians were purposely financially exploited by the filmmakers that would be unconscienable, though I believe that is still a rumor
C. As most of the other respondents have stated, iit’s a comedy, a satire, a FANTASY. If it provokes ANY positive thoughts or insights then so much the better.
Comment by Howard E from Miami Beach — November 13, 2006 @ 11:04 am
you are an excellent writer
NOT
Comment by Borat — November 13, 2006 @ 11:07 am
Much of the Borat humor reminds me of the late Andy Kaufman. The trick was not that many of his victims were “In on the joke” but that the audience just was not sure. Its part reality and part sleight of hand, illusion. With Borat being such a huge success the media had dug and prodded to tear apart the illusions. In doing so they have also discovered many of the gags were in fact not staged.
Its entertainment, how the scene gets constructed is to me of less important then how the final productions comes across
Comment by David Levine from PDX — November 13, 2006 @ 11:15 am
To ammend my previous post, I wanted to clarify that I have not seen this movie. Based on the trailers, I truly believed the entire thing from beginning to end was scripted. As it turns out, much of it involved non-actors and un-scripted language. I truly had no idea.
Take this guy for example - apparently he’s quite angry about possibly letting a little too much of his own ideas becoming public…
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1113061borat1.html
That page even includes pictures of the man who “doesn’t normally drink” and “isn’t the frequent drinker that the movie implies he is”. Priceless.
And, of course, the <a href=“http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:qTca9EkzOBMJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=3574017+"Justin+Seay"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a”>Google cached version of his myspace page is just wonderful</a>. Damn, he’s gonna need one heckuva lawyer…
Much to confusion of at least one friend, his currently live page has been changed…
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=3574017
All of that having been said, I still stand firm on my assertion that anyone who believed no part of this movie would be or should’ve been scripted is off their rocker. Furthermore, if the author of this article did, in fact, never assume that and wrote the entire piece in jest (as mothy seems to imply), than I can only assume the author (and/or mothy himself) is British. I never did - and likely never will - get their humour.
Comment by Jeff from Wayne, NJ — November 13, 2006 @ 11:16 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
I’ve never heard of anyone who should “no” better, buddy.
Looks like your grammar and your insight are right on-par.
Comment by elessar — November 13, 2006 @ 11:20 am
Wow, this is the longest article ever about how bad the movie was. I get it, the writer didn’t think it was funny but Jesus Christ this article was boring. I couldn’t even finish it, let alone agree with it. I thought this was possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen, top three at least. It wasn’t meant to be a blockbusting, high-quality, smart comedy. It is supposed to be funny, plain and simple. Granted I am 22 years old so may think it to be funnier than some older people, but everyone in the theater that night I went to see it (the place was packed) was laughing their asses off with me through the whole movie. Young and old, black and white, Jew and non-Jew, Arabs, you get the point…
Anyway, I’m going to have to say that people are reading way too far into this movie. Yeah…
Comment by cole from usa — November 13, 2006 @ 11:38 am
I saw the movie on the opening weekend. My decision to go was based on the glowing reviews from the mainstream movie critics, as Bill mentions in his lengthy critic. Well, I was sorely disappointed in the movie. People must be living a boring existence to call this movie great humor, or original (“pussy” is a dirty word! People are bigots, people don’t like to be insulted? oh my! what new humor!) This is the movie version of “Punked” with an R rating, hardly ground-breaking stuff. Comparable to Monty Python, NOT. Does anyone think this will be funny 2 years from now? I think it is a commentary on the sad state of the movie industry that people think this is good stuff. Excuse me for expecting something to be original as advertised.
To all of you self-important Borat lovers – please go watch the movie over and over. I support your love on Borat…wrestle with Borat like pigs in heat with their snouts smelling each other’s crotch locations. Now don’t get upset; it’s just humor.
Comment by Wizard of Oz from Chicago — November 13, 2006 @ 11:53 am
I really think Bill’s point was not that people were deceived into thinking everything was unscripted. The point is that people are taking this movie as more “meaningful” than it really is, meaning, people are applauding the political or cultural tactics of the film when the film may not have really had any such agenda. The point is that there is no clear line between Baron revealing peoples’ flaws for sociological experimentation or dialogism, and revealing peoples’ flaws out of a truly wicked insensitivity. This is the crux of the issue, and I do not believe Bill has wasted his writing effort on something like this, because this is an important, inflential event that has place in the modern socioideological arena.
Comment by Phantasmagoria — November 13, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
My wife and I saw (part of) the film and were so disgusted we had to walk out.
Even sadder is the sheer hatred and resentment expressed in these replies.
Thanks for taking the time to post this Cynthia. I wish I read it before I wasted my money.
Comment by Charlie from USA — November 13, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Hmmm… Somehow Borat has become the new Bush in polarizing our populace.
Comment by Hemski from Glorious Nation of Country of People With No Socia — November 13, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
As a SBC fan, I was disappointed by the film. Go back and watch the HBO (or earlier UK versions)and you will notice one key point - in most cases the “victim” has an opportunity to walk, rebuke, or otherwise. See Donald Trump walking out, the venture capitalists telling Ali G that the ice cream glove is the dumbest thing ever, the Daytona Beach frat boys running away from Bruno, the gun show guy threatening to punch Bruno, and on and on and on.
Borat is funny, but it is also a hitjob…without limitation. Where are the scenes of him getting chased out of the rodeo? Where are the scenes where Borat gets told to f-off or even knocked about a bit? Of course, the editing team left those out.
SBC can do better than Borat. True comics have the ability to draw laughs at themselves moreso than others. OK, he wrestled naked with a fat guy, wore an outrageous bathing suit, and “acted” like a moron. What about the people he and his producers ambushed? They are left with a small stipend and a huge post-Borat hangover. Is that really funny?
Comment by Da' AliG Show is Funny; Borat is not from NYC — November 13, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
If the real genius is getting audiences to see it, doesn’t that prove the argument that the main success is how Borat plays off the audiences perceptions—something you counter quite weakly before?
Also, you ignore the fact that he’s playing off people’s lack of knowledge about central Asia, and that his portrayal of Kazakhstan is not making fun of the country but pointing out how little we know, so much so that we approve of his depiction of Kazakhstan?
There have been a lot of successful box-office draws based on political controversies, such as Passion of the Christ and The da Vince Code. Why criticize someone who is not hiding the fact that he’s milking the controversy for all its worth, when the previous two lied about their hype so blatantly?
Comment by Ethan Stanislawski from Chicago — November 14, 2006 @ 1:47 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
sascha baron cohen is great
Comment by duts from kazachstan — November 15, 2006 @ 7:59 am
Everyone who went to see Borat expecting anything similar to a documentary is a moron. He’s an actor/comedian! Watch Da Ali G Show so you know what to expect. All of the complaints for this film have come from uptight inbreds who expected to see a documentary and instead whitnessed a naked obese man sit on another nude man’s head and scream “Eat my asshole!” in a strange language. Here’s a tip; KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GETTING YOURSELF INTO BEFORE SEEING THE MOVIE!!! It is sick humor and if you are too narrow-minded to appreciate it, then DON’T SEE IT. If you enjoy laughing and don’t feel like you need act all high and mighty all the time, then go watch and form your own opinion. Never listen to shitheads like the author here or anyone else who tells you what to think.
P.S. Who the hell cares about Romanian gypsies? Honestly now
Comment by Duke from Chicago — November 18, 2006 @ 5:34 am
I read the reviews that said this movie was ground breaking humor. It was not groundbreaking. I went to this movie expecting humor. What I saw was vulgar crap pretending to be humor.
To Duke from Chicago - Please leave Chicago mister high and mighty. It is narrow minded low-lifes such as yourself who try to tell people what to think. To use your own phrase: DON’T LISTEN TO SHITHEADS SUCH AS YOU.
Comment by Wizard of Oz from Chicago — November 18, 2006 @ 8:25 am