Comments

1. jabarig wrote:

   I appreciate this post. It must be hard to write a negative opinion about this movie in spite of its huge popularity.
   However, I’m always a little skeptical of one-sided scathing critiques (or raves). Are you sure you’re being fair?

   For example, I don’t know anything about Cohen but I don’t think he’s a complete racist moron. In fact I’ve always been under the impression that he’s an extremely sharp comic and social critic. Even if he went way overboard with this movie I like to think there is something more there than a step below a KKK rally. Even if I’m completely wrong about Cohen and he is a belligerent money-mongering racist there is at least one shining silver lining to this film… the final punch-line is on us. The huge popularity of this movie illustrates how deeply racist and bigoted this country still is.

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 11:08 am ¶

2. KXB wrote:

   Tony Karon put out an excellent post on my Borat, and by extension Cohen, is racist. In the Western world, there are few charges that are as explosive as anti-Semitism, yet Cohen feels free to label an entire nation, in the interests of profits.

   In the comments section, of the same post, someone compared Borat to Larry the Cable Guy. Both are cartoons that appeal to the tastes of their target audience. In Borat’s case, it is Northerners who look their noses down at the South, but rather than sending some ordinary guy from New York or Boston to behave like this, they’ve invented a fictional Kazakh.

   http://www.tonykaron.com/2006/11/03/sorry-sascha-but-borats-not-funny

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 11:34 am ¶

3. JuliaStepchild wrote:

   Sasha Baron Cohen is Jewish and I think his brand of comedy is meant to be a method of exposing racism (albeit in a very shocking and highly satrical way). He’s a Cambridge graduate who wrote a thesis about Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights movement. I think people who don’t know about his background can easily take offense to his style of comedy, but I think he’s just being subversive…

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 11:42 am ¶

4. Bubba wrote:

   Oh yeah leave it to the p.c. weenies to come out and not get the satire in one of the funniest films of the year!

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 12:25 pm ¶

5. Patty Ayers wrote:

   Yes, I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. Do you feel the same way about the character Archie Bunker in the classic TV series “All in the Family”, that he’s a dangerous racist?

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 2:29 pm ¶

6. Sewere wrote:

   You know what, I just dislike the use of the word racist, because everyone and their uncle Jimmy hear the word racist and immediately file the individual under ignorant and stupid, not quite dealing with the structural issue at hand. How does this relate to Cohen’s character? His characters, Borat and Ali G are two examples of race/cultural based satire gone wrong. Borat’s character uses a back-country facade to expose the underlying racism while Ali G’s character is an Asian or white Brit who is trying hard to act “black”. What both characters end up doing is less of the social critique and more of reinforcing stereotypes of the minorities he portrays. I say this because the target audience aren’t the minorities he’s portraying but a mostly white-oriented audience and what ends up happening is that the satire gets lost while the focus falls on the ridiculous antics of the central characters, thereby reinforcing stereotypes.

   Dave Chapelle tried to walk the fine line between playing on stereotypes to expose underlying racism but when he realized that most folks were laughing at the stereotypes rather than the interaction. The unfortunate reality is that Cohen will never come to this realization because he has not and will never understand the specific experiences of the minorities he portrays.

   Julia – “He’s a Cambridge graduate who wrote a thesis about Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights movement. I think people who don’t know about his background can easily take offense to his style of comedy, but I think he’s just being subversive…”

   I’m sorry Julia but I really don’t care that he’s an Oxford grad, that he’s Jewish or that he’s what his thesis was, because neither of those factors are exclusive of him peddling racism.

   Bubba: “Oh yeah leave it to the p.c. weenies to come out and not get the satire in one of the funniest films of the year!”

   You know you’re right, we minorities are always so sensitive when it comes to being portrayed negatively. It’s not like we’ve had a couple of centuries of being stereotyped and laughed at… We just need to grow thicker skins.

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 3:08 pm ¶

7. Tk wrote:

   I actually saw Borat’s encounter with the guys rolling dice in Atlanta differently. Throughout the whole movie, most of the people he encounters treat him badly or expose themselves as racist, sexist, etc. When it came time that Borat went through Atlanta at night, the audience I sat with all gasped, thinking that he was going to get jumped by all these black dudes. It turned out that they were the some of the only people in the movie that treated Borat with any decency. With that skit juxtaposed to the other ones, I took it that he exposed the stereotype of the dangerous black dude out to mug you or worse. Either way, if some parts were staged and others not, it’s still good to see.

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 4:04 pm ¶

8. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   I have to say I’m really fascinated by all the differing perspectives on the Borat movie. I still haven’t seen it yet (and honestly, am so reluctant to spend the ten bucks that I’ll probably wait till it’s out on DVD) so I haven’t formed an opinion yet. But I’ve really been enjoying following the discussions here among all of you. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts – everybody!

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 4:09 pm ¶

9. mtevc wrote:

   Haven’t seen the movie, but have seen tons of parts of it, and have seen the character on his Ali G show. While the jury is still out on the racism thing, I think the bash against Kazakhstan at least warrants a charge of ethnocentrism—that we are somehow better than those folks. Besides that, the humor is infantile. It’s funny for about 3-5 minutes…enough for one skit, but not a movie. And, I could never watch it again, as the gimmick—preying upon people who don’t know he’s really just an actor—gets really old, very fast. I don’t carry that he’s an Oxford grad. In fact, that should give him a reason to write humor in a more intelligent fashion. UGH all around. Attacking a whole nation is atrocious, even if there is some legacy of truth there. Not all of the people there can be painted with such a broad and awful brush.

   Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 7:20 pm ¶

10. HighJive wrote:

    A few quick thoughts:

    Oddly enough, the problem with the word racism is that it leads to stereotypes.

    To say that racism is at the heart of this movie is my personal and biased opinion. But it hardly means Cohen is a stereotypical racist — at least not on the levels of some of the characters depicted in the film.

    That he attended Cambridge and marched against racism is not really relevant. Does the fact that John Wayne Gacy worked as a clown for children’s parties make him a kind-hearted soul? Doubt it. At the same time, the Borat movie does not mean Cohen is a cross-burning Grand Wizard. But to deny the racial overtones here requires a high level of insensitivity.

    A movie that forwards stereotypical depictions of people based on cultural cues is inherently racist. Duh. Would the movie have been any less amusing if Borat was the native of an imaginary country ala the late Andy Kaufman’s Latka Gravas? Was it necessary to only feature the worst Black stereotypes? Would it have been any less amusing for Borat’s new wife to be a White-Trash hooker versus the corpulent Negress? Why didn’t Borat disrupt services at a synagogue versus visiting a Christian service?

    Not clear on the notion that Cohen is making a statement about racism. It’s not like the movie has inspired serious debate on the issues. It’s being dubbed as the funniest movie of the year — not the most provocative statement on race relations. This is no “Crash,” folks. Cohen is no social scientist.

    Cohen is simply delivering a monologue of racist, sexist, religious jokes. And worse. If this movie intends to make a statement on racism, the statement was lost on the majority of audiences. And it probably made a different statement to the minority audiences. But as always, that’s just my opinion.

    Posted 10 Nov 2006 at 7:40 pm ¶

11. Lyonside wrote:

    As someone who doesn’t plan to see the movie, but is following the whole thing: http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/11/10/humiliated_frat_boys_sue_borat/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

    The AP claims that 2 frat boys in the movie are sueing. They claim that they were duped and wouldn’t have made sexist/racist remarks if 1) not drunk and 2) if they’d known the movie was going to be shown in the U.S. Their claim that they signed papers while drunk is possibly valid, in as much as the document may then be illegal – but as for the rest? Isn’t that what those Girls Gone Wild videos are all about, seeing what some people will do drunk??

    Funny, I’ve spent quite a few evenings drunk and never felt the urge to spout off with racist and sexist language… I’m thinking I’m just not drinking the same Kool-Aid as Mel and the frat boys…

    Posted 11 Nov 2006 at 2:36 pm ¶

12. Rachel wrote:

    I saw it yesterday. It thought much of the humor was embarssing (the naked fight scene was too much for me). It is interesting to note that the primary people who put up with Borat were gays, blacks, Jews.

    The frat boy scene was probably the best part of the movie, and they came off as real idiots.

    I suppose maybe there was a message in there somewhere, but the gross out embarassing humor didn’t sit well with me.

    Posted 11 Nov 2006 at 7:15 pm ¶

13. ebog/gary wrote:

    SPOILERS BELOW! Don’t read if you want to see the movie fresh.

    I really have to say that the posting above is a terribly muddled and superficial take on the movie. Besides suffering from basic critical tone-deafness, the writer strikes me as over-concerned with the fairness of attacks on white, southern, conservative Christians, folks who (in case you guys haven’t paying much attention) actually don’t like us too much.

    The argument that Borat is racist because his audience might not get the joke is certainly worth considering, but I’m not as quick as some to use that possibility to tar the work itself or Cohen as racist. Potentially irresponsible? Sure, I guess, but what isn’t? Anyone with a particularly pressing need to police “the media” is certainly entitled to characterize the film as irresponsible, but doing so strikes me as a self-evident waste of time. Borat isn’t, say, a blog claiming progressive politics while using blackface, it’s a brutally abrasive and adolescent Hollywood satire (omigod! the naked butt wrestling!) that’s positioned in the culture as an attack on propriety. Calling it irresponsible is like decrying kids setting off M80s for “playing with fire!” Big duh.

    The ethnocentrism/xenophobia argument strikes me as a classic knee-jerk reaction. Although I’m sure it feels good to rise to the defense of a maligned “minority,” no one has made a locally or historically informed case that rural Kazakhstan can’t be accurately characterized as anti-Semitic and misogynistic. Although the US multiracialist wing of our coalition is invested in denying it, there remain real and powerfully dangerous forms difference in the world, and those of you who don’t understand that are free to go ask to feminists, homosexuals, Jews, or whoever what their day is like in the rural second and third world. In certain parts of Haiti (where my family is from) parents have been known to burn their gay children with burning embers in order to drive the evil spirit out of them. Would you call me a racist if I created a Haitian character who made reference to that?

    In write all the above well aware that there is a parallel universe where Niemöller actuallyy wrote “First they came for the Khazaks/and I did not speak out…”; my point is that I’m not convinced that we live actually live there. I think it’s telling that in all the posts above no one has taken Cohen to task for misogyny. There is a point of view (not mine) from which the closing attack on Pamela Anderson constitutes a violent sexual assault, but folks were apparently too busy carrying the flag of rote racial outrage to notice.

    Posted 11 Nov 2006 at 11:40 pm ¶

14. makethelogobigger wrote:

    “The huge popularity of this movie illustrates how deeply racist and bigoted this country still is.”

    I am not defending Borat/Cohen nor absolving him, (we discussed this even more on an earlier Raciallicious post a few weeks ago, worth reading), but I think that statement sums up the main issue the best. The movie is viewed as one of the funniest ever by many, but to HJ’s point, what’s that humor based on?

    I take that one further though and say everyone jumps on Cohen for these views through his characters both here and in his previous shows, but he’s not the only problem as brought up in this point:

    “Northerners who look their noses down at the South”

    This and other racist stuff isn’t ‘lost’ on us ‘Yankess’ up North y’all. No matter how much you want to blame Borat, it doesn’t make what was seen on camera any less true though.

    The camera reveals some racist folk out there. Blame Borat all you want, THEY said what they said – for real.

    As for charges of being PC? That’s over-simplifying it I think. Now I love the a lot of the flick, bears + kids = fun, but this ain’t no Rodney Dangerfield doing his ‘Back to School’ boorish schtick with a few co-eds in a hot tub. There’s deep racial shit at work here that should be recognized.

    Posted 12 Nov 2006 at 1:43 pm ¶

15. Kai wrote:

    I haven’t seen the Borat movie yet but have watched plenty of Sacha Baron Cohen’s impressive performances on Da Ali G Show, and as I consider various reactions here and elsewhere, a few (hopefully relevant) thoughts pop into my head.

    At one level, I suppose the Borat movie is simply an extended showcase of Cohen’s tremendous technical gifts in the comedic craft of absurdist-realist portrayals of unhinged ethnic caricatures, especially in settings that draw stark and uncomfortable cultural contrasts.

    At another, more self-consciously political level, I suppose that if large numbers of people from a certain ethnic group are offended by a certain portrayal — especially when that ethnic group is largely unrepresented in mainstream consciousness — it seems rather cavalier to simply dismiss genuine objections without genuine consideration. (Of course, the key here is to listen to objections from members of the group in question and not simply mainstream liberals speaking on their behalf.)

    Maybe the word “racism” is indeed too broadly multi-faceted and historically, emotionally charged for this discussion; so let’s just talk about whether or not Cohen’s work advances bigoted and/or destructive cultural constructs. Is the work’s overall effect an endorsement of backwardness and bigotry, or a comedic exposition on them?

    One question I like to ask myself when I feel that a work of art might be an expression of bigotry is: What is the power relation between the artist and the subject? When an artist is centered in a cultural millieu which she satirizes, caricaturizes, mocks, or otherwise criticizes or even demeans, I tend to think the artist’s proximity to the subject matter is crucial (e.g. ebog’s hypothetical example above of his own relationship with Haitian society). When an artist from outside of a cultural millieu takes shots at those within it — especially when the artist emerges from a dominant culture and the subject rests in an unrepresented or misunderstood or oppressed culture — the barbs often miss the mark because of granular cultural misperceptions, and the accusation of bigotry are certainly more worthy of consideration.

    Having said all that, I’m probably gonna catch the flick later this afternoon…

    Peace.

    Posted 12 Nov 2006 at 3:22 pm ¶

16. HighJive wrote:

    A few more quick thoughts, mostly in response to comments from ebog/gary:

    “Terribly muddled and superficial” is probably an accurate critique of the original post — and the movie that inspired it. Sorry, I’m not a professional social scientist or movie critic. Just tossing out thoughts without benefit of an editor.

    For the record, there’s no over-concern for any group targeted in the movie. In fact, there’s no attempt to rise to the defense of any group — although I will admit taking unique and personal offense based on the honest ability to say some of my best friends have ties to Kazakhstan.

    If we closely examined every offense in the film, we’d ramble endlessly, and probably create more muddled superficiality.

    To semi-digress, the misogyny and sexist aspects were noted. The Pamela Anderson incident stuck me as the most staged and un-authentic part of the film. In the real world, security would never have permitted it to happen (i.e., Borat would have minimally sustained a broken jaw before he could even hope to bag Anderson). In some ways, it goes to the global problems surrounding the film: What is real and what is not? What are the true intentions versus the true net impressions?

    On the one hand, it is obsessive on our parts to debate these points at all. But so long as we’ve started, let’s continue the dialogue.

    Perhaps racism isn’t the proper term for Borat’s crimes, as it segregates according to ethnicity and culture. Maybe bias and stereotyping are better.

    It’s probably idealistic and delusional to even think it, but perpetuating and fueling problems rooted in bias and stereotyping has to end.

    Claiming that Borat masquerades as satire seems like a pretty lame defense.

    This movie paints negative portraits that the clueless and uninformed will only use to validate their continued ignorance. While our country is loathe to support censorship (except in cases involving the political desire to keep the truth from the general public), should we not question the value of films like Borat — as well as consider the potential collateral damage they may generate?

    No one will deny that the characters in the Borat movie may exist in the real world. There are Black prostitutes and punks. There are racist frat boys. There are greedy Jewish people. There are sexists, thieves, liars and more. Hell, there may even be citizens in Kazakhstan who defecate in public parks. But Borat’s narrow depictions help fuel the bias and stereotypes that counter any hope for progress. All for a few cheap laughs and ticket sales.

    Much of my own outrage (and that’s an exaggerated term — I’m not exactly writing my Congressman over this shit) is in response to the defense of Borat as satire and the labeling of critics as PC weenies.

    To brush it off as satire seems to require heavy arrogance and apathy. To criticize people for PC leanings is usually the MO of morons who could truly benefit from demonstrating a little PC TLC on occasion.

    Not sure it’s right to label Cohen as a visionary either.

    But as always, that’s just my opinion. Thanks for reading.

    Posted 12 Nov 2006 at 3:31 pm ¶

17. makethelogobigger wrote:

    To Kai’s point, if you see it, I think you’ll agree that there’s no gray area on the issue of race when it comes to the Running with the (blank) scene up front.

    As a genereal crit of Ali G, i don’t like it not because of hiss take on race, it’s just not any good. T-Mobile’s ‘poser’ exaggerated commericials were funnier. The personality that is K-Fed is the character Ali G. wanted to parody with his character. (With real source material like him and Vanilla Ice, what parody of the coopted whigga mentality can beat that?)

    hj – You hit on that thing we talked about, in that Borat is coming off like a mocumentary-’real’ character but in real situations with real people. The moc dynamic in movies has changed with this. Half hidden camera, half satire.

    And in many ways, the use of so many stereotypes in one movie is kind of like the way Oliver Stone seems to take on his subjects. He takes every sensational thing that may have happened over the course of time and puts it all in one movie. (Any Given Sunday for one.)

    I think had Borat sprinkled one or two of his ‘political’ takes throughtout, we’re probably ignoring this as it goes straight to DVD.

    As it is, he puts them all in at once and takes a collective dump on culture.

    Posted 12 Nov 2006 at 4:33 pm ¶

18. makethelogobigger wrote:

    (Major spelling issues above, please to forgive me, glorious peoples of the racialicious.)

    ;-p

    Posted 12 Nov 2006 at 4:37 pm ¶

19. ebog/gary wrote:

    SPOILERS AGAIN BELOW. You were warned.

    HJ writes: “This movie paints negative portraits that the clueless and uninformed will only use to validate their continued ignorance. While our country is loathe to support censorship (except in cases involving the political desire to keep the truth from the general public), should we not question the value of films like Borat — as well as consider the potential collateral damage they may generate?”

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I realize my tone might have been harsh, but this conversation reminds me of numerous “positive images” convos I have had over the years, so my back immediately went up. For the record, I put “positive images” in the same crap bucket as “keeping it real.” Also, once upon a time I worked as a film critic, so these issues are high on my admittedly random list of pet peeves.

    I guess still don’t see what the actual collateral damage is from a film like Borat. That white racists will laugh? I know it’s selfish, but it’s hard for me to seriously perform any kind of cost benefit analysis where “racist laughter” can be weighed against my own laughter. I mean, racists do all kind of dumb shit all the time. I don’t see what that has to do with me.

    (for those of you who were tracking the Billmon blackface thing and suggest there’s a contradiction above, I’d argue that Borat doesn’t enter into the same kind of contract with its audience that Billmon’s blog does. Indeed, Borat is actually predicated from the very beginning on assaulting audience members and unsuspecting onscreen targets alike, claiming you were, like, assualted by it seems somewhat disengenuous.)

    Are you concerned about the perpetuation of subliminal racist ideology? I guess, but my feeling is that on any given day Racialious points to tremendously worse assaults on our rights and mental health. The thing about Cohen is that, being nominally on our side, he is actually susceptible to being shamed and moved by colored outrage. Try that on Ward Connerly sometime and see where it gets you.

    I also have to say that the folks who have argued “why are all the black people thugs and prostitutes” (I’m paraphrasing) are guilty of at least 1/2 a racism. When I saw those guys, they just struck me as some black dudes from ATL standing around. I didn’t think to myself: “Good lord! Why couldn’t Cohen have depicted the Morehouse math team!” Except for one of them asking “who are you running with” (paraphrase again) there was nothing to indicate thugginess except clothing, race, bad lighting and the built in assumptions of the viewer. The joke cuts not because of what a racist might assume, but because thoughtful colored folks (i.e., us) can be counted on to immediately make the associations we did, making us as much Cohen’s dupes as the trad white racists on screen.

    Re the prostitute, truth be told, I found all that kind of sweet in an admittedly pervese kind of way. For one thing, I find it telling re: the charge of blind ethnocentrism that Borat only has meaningful and genuine exchanges with black people, which is to say, only with people who are as disadvantaged as he is. (There is also a sharing moment with his driving instructor but it doesn’t have the same punch ).

    Also, the prostitute storyline enacts a racial arc that I think multiracial folks with white in the mix (of which I am, in the interests of full disclosure) might find particularly unsettling. I mean, Of COURSE, the psycho racist male khazak falls for the idealized blond baywatch bombshell (IBBB), and then being denied that finds himself a black prostitute, marries her and takes her home to make “chocolate face babies.” That there is only myth and racial fetishism in Borat’s psychosexual make up – instead of love, honesty or connection – strikes him as much as an indictment of white masculinity as he is an extrusion of the filmmaker’s racism. If you assume that most white men begin life as being in some way or another racist, Cohen has only recapitulated one of this nations’s foundational racial-sexual dynamics: i.e., racist white men are turn to the “other” in order to play out crude, disgusting and self-serving fantasies, and lo-and-behold: a handful of them find themselves, somewhat against all odds, transformed by the encounter. That’s as American, as well, slavery and stuff, and the extent to which Cohen is able to immediately reconnect the live wire there speaks not to his racism, but the US’s.

    The big question is always: has she been transformed? (For he sake of argument I’m conflating fictional and candid camera notions of “here.) Has she benefited? Is being the object of racist veneration in Khazakstan (Cohen seems to be deliberate evoking the Hottentot Venus) worse or better than being a sexual provider in Georgia? Or is it just ore of the same? You might not like the answers to any of those questions, but to call Cohen a bigot for provoking them strikes me as calling for, not censorship, but psychic impoverishment wherein our thinking about race has to pass a rigid, borderline stalinist set of tests about some vague notion of “value.”

    I’m not telling anyone who found the film infantile that they should laugh, and I’m not telling anyone who was disturbed by it to get a thicker skin. I am saying though that blaming Cohen for deliberately pushing a painful button might make him an asshole, but it doesn’t make him a bigot. You only have an beef here if you had no idea in the world what the movie was about and you were blindsided and assaulted, an even then forgive me for not being sympathetic, as in my eyes that makes you kind of bad moviegoer.

    Posted 13 Nov 2006 at 5:30 pm ¶

20. HighJive wrote:

    Wow, ebog/gary, you are diving way deeper than I would ever hope to go. And I don’t mean that in a sarcastic or judgmental way. It’s just an observation.

    Here are a few more quick thoughts:

    When I refer to the “clueless and uniformed,” I am not implying these people are racists beyond redemption. Quite the opposite. I think most cultural problems are rooted in a simple lack of familiarity. The majority of clueless and uninformed folks are not deliberate, scheming and calculating. There is plenty of evidence that shows people make presumptions based on repetitive images. I just posted a story on my own blog detailing how Italian Americans are taking offense to the ways they’re depicted in the media — as well as the general public’s belief that most Italian Americans are Mafia-related (thanks, Tony Soprano!).

    I do not subscribe to a solution mandating the depiction of positive “keepin’ it real” imagery. However, I do believe we must slow the flow of constant negative images. Hell, if there were a way to demand that every 100 negative depictions must be offset by one positive image, it would be a greater achievement than anything any activist in history ever accomplished.

    I do not think movies like Borat are entertainment for racists. I think these films keep the clueless and uninformed from making progress. And ultimately, they prevent minorities from moving forward.

    The “worse assaults” that Racialicious regularly points out are being produced by the clueless and uninformed versus hardcore racists.

    I might have to review the damned movie to dispute your “dice-rolling punks” rebuttal. I recall Borat’s encounter to be preceded by scenes of lower-class urban environments. It did not appear that Borat had rolled up to a typical urban neighborhood.

    Your reasoning involving the Black prostitute is way over my head, friend. And I’ll bet you a month’s salary that few moviegoers shared your thoughts on this one. While I can’t speak for the masses, I believe most people saw her as a prop — she’s the stereotypical Black hooker that ultimately denigrates and demeans all women, but Black women in particular.

    I think Cohen is probably among the clueless and uninformed, especially if he believes his work is making a statement. His alleged scholarly background (in regards to studying race) makes his actions pretty questionable. That is, if he’s so damned enlightened, he should have known better than to do the things he did with this movie.

    I suspect we’re the only ones (crazy enough to be) over-thinking these points. Everyone else is laughing at the outrageous obscenities. And ultimately fortifying their stereotypical beliefs, whether they realize it or not.

    But as always, that’s just my opinion.

    Posted 13 Nov 2006 at 8:36 pm ¶

21. Daniel wrote:

    ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz…oops, I always fall asleep when people start discussing bore-at.

    Posted 14 Nov 2006 at 2:32 pm ¶

22. defacto wrote:

    Saw Borat, this is old material for the most
    part and not amazingly entertaining.
    I feel that outside of some type of religious
    setting or educational institution or workplace
    it’s increasingly difficult to preach beyond
    the converted. Most people seem hesitant to
    reveal their prejudice and crippled assumptions
    on people places and things they form opinions
    about and then never question again.

    Cohen has found a way to get people to react
    and the fallout is international dialogue and
    questioning.

    Makes me wonder why the upper reaches of
    authority and true power in the world never
    get as honest with themselves about the
    consequences of their attitudes towards economics and inequality that maintain
    our unsustainable status quo around the world.

    It’s bigger than Borat. Much bigger. It’s nice to see some people in large numbers being entertained. Nicer still to see a few more of those people finally asking themselves why?

    Posted 17 Nov 2006 at 7:09 pm ¶

23. defacto wrote:

    Saw Borat, this is old material for the most
    part and not amazingly entertaining.
    I feel that outside of some type of religious
    setting or educational institution or workplace
    it’s increasingly difficult to preach beyond
    the converted. Most people seem hesitant to
    reveal their prejudice and crippled assumptions
    on people places and things they form opinions
    about and then never question again.

    Cohen has found a way to get people to react
    and the fallout is international dialogue and
    questioning.

    Makes me wonder why the upper reaches of
    authority and true power in the world never
    get as honest with themselves about the
    consequences of their attitudes towards economics and inequality that maintain
    our unsustainable status quo around the world?

    It’s bigger than Borat. Much bigger. It’s nice to see some people in large numbers being entertained. Nicer still to see a few more of those people finally asking themselves why.

    Posted 17 Nov 2006 at 7:10 pm ¶

24. Dave wrote:

    Cohen AKA Borat is indeed a bigot. The almost subtle target is the Slavs of Eastern Europe . He’s supposed to be a Khazak but the accent is undeniably Eastern European. The not quite subliminal message to America is that Slavs are a silly, stupid, buffoonish bunch of clowns who deserved to be laughed at. The standard greeting of Borat, Jakze Masz (Yak-sheh Mahz) is not Khazak but Polish for “How are you?”. But this is not surprising. The bigots among Jewish comics are an old story from Don Rickles to Robin Williams to Jon Stewart. They all love the Polish joke and the standard mockery of “funny sounding” slavic names. There seems to be this revenge thing for crimes of anti-semitism real, embelished and totally imaginary. It’s like Ben Stein saying that “Kike” is a low Polish word for evil aliens when there is no such word in Polish or any Slavic language. Both Stein and Cohen are well educated, intellegent people who should know better. Obviously they’ve joined the ranks of the bigots. Thankfully the majority of Jews don’t belong in that club.

    Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 9:43 pm ¶

25. Alan wrote:

    So hilarious watching wannabe intellectuals spending their time debating an item of popular culture with nice-sounding phrases and high moral judgements, each competing to be the one with the best worldview, presumably in order to with the Nobel Prize For Inactive Decency or something. Well, it’s hilarious for about 10 seconds. Then it simply becomes depressing. I think I’ll have to go watch a funny movie to get over this. I’ll be sure to laugh extra hard at all the bits I think offended all the right-thinking folks who like to debate things endlessly.

    Posted 20 Dec 2006 at 12:42 pm ¶

26. MaybeABitWiser wrote:

    Although i do understand where you are coming from, it has to be understood that this isn’t supposed to be a politically correct movie. This is supposed to divulge straight from the ignorance of America, showing that they would believe that these things are real. Although a lot of things are staged, a lot of things are not, which also contributes to the fact that this isn’t just a bash at different cultures. I mean, would it be the same for a bunch of clean white men to be playing dice at night in the ghetto in Atlanta? Obviously not, which is why it is there. And also remember, Cohen is British, and this movie is going to be shown around the world, including Britain and the rest of Europe. This is not only supposed to show Americans what they already know about America, but show the rest of world the ignorance of Americans. And the thing about the church… This is a real pentacostal church. Go to one of their services if you dare. This is seriously what happens during one.

    Posted 10 Mar 2007 at 3:20 am ¶

27. UtahPirateRadio wrote:

    This was an excellent method of exposing racism in this country.

    Aside from the sexual/homosexual inudendo and ludeness, I think that this movie hit a core at some people that they didn’t even know that they had.

    Subtle racism is still racism.

    Posted 03 Apr 2007 at 8:42 pm ¶

28. Una wrote:

    I find it surprising that you say nothing about the most obvious group whom this movie, to put it mildly, misrepresents: Eastern Europeans. Perhaps your oversight may be due to the fact that in North America racism against people from the other side of the Iron Curtain is not much of an issue; however in Western Europe it is rampant. “Bordt” looks like and talks like an Eastern European far more than a Kazakh; many of the songs in the movie and Serbian gypsy songs (used in Serbian movies!); and the movie resembles nothing so much as the “travel guide” to the fictional country of Molvania, a guidebook to stereotypes about Eastern Europe.

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶