BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Borat

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
some guy
14:30 / 29.11.06
Why don't we think about ways in which the "fiction" of Sacha Baron Cohen playing Jean Girard, the "fiction" of Sacha Baron Cohen interacting with a shill - say, Pamela Anderson, - the "fiction" of Sacha Baron Cohen interacting with an unknowing member of the public - say, a driving instructor - and the fiction of a poor Romanian villager being filmed and then that film being given a humorous voiceover differ?

To what end?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:38 / 29.11.06
Ah. Trolling. Back on ignore, then.
 
 
some guy
14:43 / 29.11.06
It was a serious question. If I asked us to consider the soundtrack, you'd quite rightly ask how that pertains to the current discussion. Exploring the different techniques used in Borat could help us explore why some people seem to be uncomfortable with aspects of the film, but it would probably be more useful if get into that based on a thesis put forward by one of those posters so we know where to go. Simply listing differences in comedy technique would seem to be another thread.

Have you seen the movie yet?
 
 
some guy
16:48 / 29.11.06
Has he done any characters which hilariously mock the backwardness of people from his own privileged background, then?

Isn't that the point of a great deal of his in-character interviews?
 
 
Char Aina
17:08 / 29.11.06
no.
why do you think it is?

also, i think haus was trying to direct you towards an understanding of the difference in those examples, helping in your quest to understand the issues folks are having with borat.

do you see the difference?
 
 
some guy
18:35 / 29.11.06
why do you think it is?

Because from what I've seen of all three SBC characters, members of his "priviledged" background seem to be the most common target.

i think haus was trying to direct you towards an understanding of the difference in those examples, helping in your quest to understand the issues folks are having with borat.

The differences in technique should be obvious to us all. Perhaps he should offer a propsition related to technique based on his viewing of the film?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:01 / 29.11.06
Well, they obviously do differ. There are different levels of deception involved, and different ethical questions. The forms of fiction Haus identifies range from

1. generally accepted that SBC is playing a character who interacts with other characters, also played by actors (also the case with Da Ali G movie) ~ everyone involved is in on the pretence. That SBC is playing a character is made obvious, except within the fiction of the movie; that is, he doesn't promote the film as Jean Girard. Only a very naive viewer would be duped into believing that Jean Girard is a real person and that Talledega Nights is a documentary.

2. SBC and Pamela Anderson are in on the pretence, but there is an attempt to trick the viewer into accepting that only SBC was in on the pretence, and that Pamela Anderson was duped ~ that is, really being herself, rather than playing herself. Other civilian participants in the scene are, we assume, genuinely duped to an even greater extent, believing that SBC is really Borat, and that Pamela Anderson is genuinely taken by surprise.

3. Viewer is in on the joke that SBC is playing Borat, and has the advantage over the driving instructor, who believes Borat is genuine.

4. Viewer is in on the joke that SBC is playing Borat, and has the advantage over the townspeople of Glod, with the distinction from (3) that the people involved are given different individual names and histories, and their lives, situation, nationality and geographical location misrepresented after the fact by the editing and commentary: unlike the situation with the driving instructor, who is not portrayed (for instance) as Borat's disabled cousin from Germany.

That's a start to thinking about this question, perhaps.
 
 
some guy
19:15 / 29.11.06
Options 3 and 4 are the likeliest candidates for potential offense to some viewers' sensibilities - presumably based on a host of other situational qualifiers. Option 3 has a long history in comedy (hello Candid Camera).

With regards to Option 4: I'm curious to hear from viewers who have a problem with this considering the extras themselves are essentially characters (in other words, the "funny" comes from an obviously fictionalized description that nobody takes to be true). Is this far removed from Monty Python recontextualizing footage of a women's group applauding (so that the women appear to be cheering a controversial skit)? If we film John and then provide a humorous voiceover about "Bob," are we mocking or disparaging John?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:05 / 29.11.06
I'm curious to hear from viewers who have a problem with this considering the extras themselves are essentially characters (in other words, the "funny" comes from an obviously fictionalized description that nobody takes to be true).

Well, while people might not take everything Borat says about Kazakhstan to be literally true, they might well think it is generally true. That there are animals walking around people's shacks, that someone might be proud of their prostitute sister and jokingly scold a rapist, that this culture naively celebrates things that the viewer's culture regards as dated or naff (Baywatch, disco-dancing).

Also, "extras" are generally people who agree to play a character in a film or TV programme ~ not people who are filmed basically being themselves (I'm not clear about how much coaching the inhabitants of Glod had) and then made into a character through the editing and commentary.


If we film John and then provide a humorous voiceover about "Bob," are we mocking or disparaging John?

If John is filmed being John, as far as he's aware, and we then provide a voiceover about Bob being a paedophile, or imbecile, or big fan of Michael Knight (none of which portrayals are dissimilar to what happened with the people of Glod) then I'd say yes, we are mocking John and it wouldn't be surprising if John, watching the film, felt exploited and angry.
 
 
some guy
21:57 / 29.11.06
Well, while people might not take everything Borat says about Kazakhstan to be literally true, they might well think it is generally true. That there are animals walking around people's shacks, that someone might be proud of their prostitute sister and jokingly scold a rapist, that this culture naively celebrates things that the viewer's culture regards as dated or naff (Baywatch, disco-dancing).

Did anyone in this thread come away from the film believing any of these things? And if not, on what basis do we assume that other people will? Are they not as clever as us? I'm wary of that argument.

If John is filmed being John, as far as he's aware, and we then provide a voiceover about Bob being a paedophile, or imbecile, or big fan of Michael Knight (none of which portrayals are dissimilar to what happened with the people of Glod) then I'd say yes, we are mocking John and it wouldn't be surprising if John, watching the film, felt exploited and angry.

Even though the audience is aware the claims are fiction and do not apply to the "real" John? Are the recontextualized clips of the applauding women's society mocking that society when they are shown to be applauding a cannibal sketch?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:04 / 29.11.06
Mocking Kazakhstan and the people who live there by presenting it and them as "backward" compared to "us" is racist, who cares. And that is what WFTD has said that Borat is doing. I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than that. Cohen may claim (not "point out") that he might be doing something different, but that doesn't make it true.
 
 
some guy
23:28 / 29.11.06
Mocking Kazakhstan and the people who live there by presenting it and them as "backward" compared to "us" is racist, who cares. And that is what WFTD has said that Borat is doing. I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than that. Cohen may claim (not "point out") that he might be doing something different, but that doesn't make it true.

But neither does refuting it make the claims of yourself or WFTD true.

I fail to see how presenting us with a fictionalized setting that everybody knows is not true is inherently making a comment on the reality of the setting.

To return to Miss Wonderstar for a moment (and hopefully bringing the Glod scenes into context): Imagine that I have been filmed by a production crew and the video is played back with a voiceover describing me as a pedophile. Surely there is a difference between broadcasting the footage under the signifier "documentary" (I fear people will believe the claim and sue) and the signifier "comedy" (I know people will not believe the claim and laugh). It seems to me we're losing the plot a little.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
06:32 / 30.11.06
Did anyone in this thread come away from the film believing any of these things? And if not, on what basis do we assume that other people will? Are they not as clever as us? I'm wary of that argument.

I'm trying not to make a "sheeple" argument. I may be an uneducated, unenlightened cultural dupe myself, but I had no idea about Kazakhstan when I went to see Borat, and had no idea that the scenes in Glod were not shot in Kazakhstan. I believed the scenes were exaggerated, but to be honest (this may not reflect well on me) that they probably exaggerated some truth ~ eg. that there are Kazakh villages made of what I would see as huts and shacks, that animals wander around more freely than they do in my culture, and that "dated" icons of Western culture are celebrated.



Even though the audience is aware the claims are fiction and do not apply to the "real" John? Are the recontextualized clips of the applauding women's society mocking that society when they are shown to be applauding a cannibal sketch?

I don't think it's that valuable to keep returning to Monty Python, which I either haven't seen or don't remember, and which isn't central to this thread.

I think you're too confident that the viewer regards Borat as "fiction". I didn't respond to most of it as "fiction" ~ I assumed that maybe 80% of the scenes with Borat and members of the public showed the member of the public's "genuine" response. As noted above, I assumed the scenes in Glod were exaggerated but represented some basic truth. I'm confessing my cultural ignorance and prejudice about Kazakhstan here to make the point that I don't think it's far-fetched for someone to come out of Borat thinking that Kazakh culture probably is a bit "primitive" compared to that of the Haymarket I walked down after seeing the film ~ and that that someone doesn't have to be a stupid, sheeple, non-Barbelithian Other.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
06:37 / 30.11.06
To return to Miss Wonderstar for a moment (and hopefully bringing the Glod scenes into context): Imagine that I have been filmed by a production crew and the video is played back with a voiceover describing me as a pedophile. Surely there is a difference between broadcasting the footage under the signifier "documentary" (I fear people will believe the claim and sue) and the signifier "comedy" (I know people will not believe the claim and laugh). It seems to me we're losing the plot a little.

I think you're forgetting that Borat is a comedy documentary. It genuinely is a documentary in many respects. It records things that actually happened, with SBC as the only actor. Interactions between Borat and hotel staff were not staged. The rodeo man really did come out with those opinions about Muslims. The car salesman really did recommend the best vehicle as a "pussy magnet". It being comedy does not mean it doesn't also follow most of the conventions of documentary.

Inviting people to laugh at something someone genuinely said is surely the basis of this film: thus, comedy-documentary.

And I think you also have to consider that "comedy" doesn't mean that everyone is laughing. Some people are presented here as the butt of the comedy. Those who were caught out don't find Borat funny at all. A film being presented under the genre of comedy (which I don't think is unambiguously the case here, at all) doesn't automatically mean that you (as "paedophile") are going to laugh it off. The joke would be on you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:13 / 30.11.06
Worthwhile point, Miss W. There's a kind of cognitive dissonance at play here - on the one hand, the film can be excused from any questioning because it is a serious work in the pursuit of a higher purpose - to make people aware of the endemic racism of the privileged (if by privileged we mean those who live in America but do not have their own TV shows), or as Baron Cohen puts it to function as a "dramatic demonstration of how racism feeds on dumb conformity, as much as rabid bigotry". On the other hand, the film can be excused any questionable content on the grounds that it is a pure comic fiction, entirely unrelated to reality - it can be directly compared to the wacky hijinx of Monty Python's recontextualisation of library footage which is distinctly from a different source than the sketch-based comedy around it.
 
 
some guy
14:43 / 30.11.06
I don't think it's that valuable to keep returning to Monty Python, which I either haven't seen or don't remember, and which isn't central to this thread.

I personally find it useful because it's a warm fuzzy nostalgia for many of us and Borat has the shock of the new. Discovering similar techniques helps bring a sense of perspective. For me, anyway.

I think you're too confident that the viewer regards Borat as "fiction".

You may well be right.

I'm confessing my cultural ignorance and prejudice about Kazakhstan here to make the point that I don't think it's far-fetched for someone to come out of Borat thinking that Kazakh culture probably is a bit "primitive" compared to that of the Haymarket I walked down after seeing the film ~ and that that someone doesn't have to be a stupid, sheeple, non-Barbelithian Other.

How do you think this plays in to SBC's comment that the joke is on the people who believe his fictionalized version of Kazakhstan could exist (in other words the people who form their view of a nation based on viewing a comedy)?

It being comedy does not mean it doesn't also follow most of the conventions of documentary.

Yes, that's a good point. And yet I disagree that it therefore follows that the jokes in the film carry the heft of a documentary rather than a comedy. I don't believe, for example, that we are supposed to come away from the film fearing that Jews can transform into blood-sucking cockroaches rather than laughing at the notion that some people could be so stupid as to actually hold that anti-semetic belief.

So now you and I come away from the film with these two different responses. I guess the next question is which of these responses SBC is "responsible" for and whether the filmmakers have gone beyond the pale in crafting a vehicle that provokes the negative response.

A film being presented under the genre of comedy (which I don't think is unambiguously the case here, at all) doesn't automatically mean that you (as "paedophile") are going to laugh it off. The joke would be on you.

I disagree - the joke is on a fictional construct that is "played" by me in the film. Or more accurately, the joke is on the viewer who doesn't pick up that s/he is viewing a deliberately fictionalized comedy sketch. Having said that, however, I agree that "comedy" doesn't mean everyone is laughing.
 
 
ibis the being
16:40 / 30.11.06
I don't believe, for example, that we are supposed to come away from the film fearing that Jews can transform into blood-sucking cockroaches rather than laughing at the notion that some people could be so stupid as to actually hold that anti-semetic belief.

If this in indeed the function of those scenes in the Jewish couple's home, I have to ask, what is the purpose in using unwitting dupes rather than either actors or informed citizens in on the "joke?" If the joke is on us, the viewers, then why aren't all the participants in on it - why aren't they given the choice to voluntarily play the joke on us? I think it's completely dishonest to pretend that we're laughing only at anti-Semitism when Borat and his producer refuse to eat the sandwiches the couple have prepared for them. We're laughing at the couple's bewilderment, right? Again in that scene, Cohen is playing with a human, not a specifically cultural, taboo by refusing a meal. Sharing food is very much a cross-cultural ritual whose meaning is universal. There's no way to play this "joke" on us/anti-Semitism, using unwitting players, without making dupes of those players. One might argue that the scene wouldn't be as funny with actors or informed participants, and that's because you've removed the real element of pain and humiliation, which is the real source of the comedy in Borat.
 
 
some guy
16:49 / 30.11.06
If this in indeed the function of those scenes in the Jewish couple's home, I have to ask, what is the purpose in using unwitting dupes rather than either actors or informed citizens in on the "joke?"

Based on the way the couple seemed on the verge of laughter, I suspect the couple actually was in on the gag in this instance (or at least were clued in enough to recognize that "something" comedic was being put together). However, in my personal view using "unwitting dupes" helps demonstrate how ludicrous the behavior and assumptions actually are because it contextualizes them in a "real world" situation. The "gypsy" spiel at the yard sale somehow becomes even more transparently idiotic than if the woman was an actress. In my opinion, obviously.

I think it's completely dishonest to pretend that we're laughing only at anti-Semitism when Borat and his producer refuse to eat the sandwiches the couple have prepared for them. We're laughing at the couple's bewilderment, right? Again in that scene, Cohen is playing with a human, not a specifically cultural, taboo by refusing a meal. Sharing food is very much a cross-cultural ritual whose meaning is universal.

I see where you're coming from with this, but I chalk it up to the Candid Camera tradition (although of course you may have issues with viewers laughing at bewilderment in that type of comedy as well, and fair enough).

One might argue that the scene wouldn't be as funny with actors or informed participants, and that's because you've removed the real element of pain and humiliation, which is the real source of the comedy in Borat.

Can you tell me which scenes in Borat you feel contain "the real element of pain and humiliation?" Would the Jewish couple be an example? They didn't seem pained or humiliated to me and in fact came off admirably - all the moreso when we look at the typical Borat "victim" who is hoist by their own petard.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:42 / 30.11.06
Discovering similar techniques helps bring a sense of perspective. For me, anyway.

I don't think it's that similar, as from my understanding, you're comparing Borat to a Monty Python device of editing together two scenes from entirely and obviously distinct sources, where it would be clear that the audience wasn't "really" applauding the previous shot. I don't think that what's "really" the case is as obvious in the Borat film.


How do you think this plays in to SBC's comment that the joke is on the people who believe his fictionalized version of Kazakhstan could exist (in other words the people who form their view of a nation based on viewing a comedy)?

Well, I guess SBC might laugh at me for believing that Kazakhstan could be anything like his portrayal of Glod, but that laughter at me isn't inherent in the film. There is no scene where Glod is unmasked and we see the real Kazahkstan, and anyone who was duped is mocked for being tricked. There's nothing in the film to correct and satirise anyone's mistaken belief that what we see of Borat's village is a reasonable representation of Kazakh society. So, perhaps he'd be disappointed at my coming out of the film with the misapprehension that Kazakhstan might look something like the fictional version of Glod ~ but maybe it's a failing in his film that he doesn't in any way correct that misapprehension. He just assumes, apparently, that the satire will work on its own. But without a "reveal" ~ a prestige, maybe ~ a lot of people are going to be stuck at the middle stage of the trick, where they more or less accept what they're shown as truth, and don't have the curtain pulled away to show them how wrong they are.

I don't believe, for example, that we are supposed to come away from the film fearing that Jews can transform into blood-sucking cockroaches rather than laughing at the notion that some people could be so stupid as to actually hold that anti-semetic belief.

I agree, but I also agree with the point made above that this scene wouldn't work in the same way if the Jewish couple weren't real ~ it does depend to an extent on Borat refusing this nice, well-meaning and generous couple's hospitality, and potentially hurting their feelings. It's partly a comedy of embarrassment. Maybe for Borat's anti-semitism to be truly shocking (and absurd), it has to be placed in the "real world" of this genuine couple, who are genuinely harmless and nice, rather than among actors.

But, no, you're on safe ground with that scene I think, in that the message is pretty unambiguous. That Kazakhstan is not an amusingly naive and "backwards" culture where people naively hanker after naff Western commercialism and aspire to "our" values but get them comically wrong is not so clearly indicated in the film, in my opinion.


I disagree - the joke is on a fictional construct that is "played" by me in the film. Or more accurately, the joke is on the viewer who doesn't pick up that s/he is viewing a deliberately fictionalized comedy sketch. Having said that, however, I agree that "comedy" doesn't mean everyone is laughing.

I think your point only works if you know you're "playing" that character. In which case, fine, you're like Kevin Bacon playing a paedophile in The Woodsman, and anyone who really thinks Kevin Bacon is a paedophile is mixed up. But if they film you in conversation with someone you think is a well-meaning Eastern European interviewer, and then edit that into a film with a commentary you didn't agree to, which announces "here's my cousin Bob, the town paedophile", then show your responses out of context, I don't think that's the same as you agreeing to play a role.
 
 
some guy
22:24 / 30.11.06
Hi Miss Wonderstarr - I do see where you're coming from in your last post above, and while I disagree with most of your arguments I don't discount them. However I think we're entering dead-horse-beating terrority and furthermore coming up against some pretty hefty subjective taste issues (always a danger in comedy). If there's something specific you'd like me to address I'm happy to do so but I'm getting dizzy visions of the two of us trading line-by-line posts for another two pages and sensing that might try everyone's patience...
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:26 / 30.11.06
No, that's fine by me WC ~ maybe we've come as far as we're going to, and can only shruggingly respect each other's opinion from this distance, but I'm glad it's remained a friendly discussion.
 
 
grant
12:55 / 01.12.06
Borat causes trouble for real Kazakh TV crew documenting U.S. elections.

It's in Ohio. The cameraman's name is Bolat. They are unhappy Kazakhs.
 
 
Spaniel
14:53 / 01.12.06
a lot of people are going to be stuck at the middle stage of the trick, where they more or less accept what they're shown as truth, and don't have the curtain pulled away to show them how wrong they are.

Just to say that if anyone disagrees with this... well... I suggest they get out more.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:28 / 01.12.06
The Jewish landlord and landlady are useful examples. They don't know what SBC is doing - they recognise the odd bits of Hebrew in his patter, but they don't know what his angle is. Fortunately, they are largely positive about the experience, but this is happenstance. It remains that they were the subject of (faked, intended to entertain an audience not including them) anti-semitism. What was the bigotry they diisplayed to merit that experience?
 
 
Tsuga
12:17 / 14.01.07
If anyone is interested, Fresh Air on NPR had a pretty long interview with SBC recently, where he tries to explain his humor and discusses making the movie. He does address some of the complaints made here, though I think he ducked the issues a bit.
 
 
Slate
10:11 / 16.01.07
SBC just won a golden globe for the Borat. Kenneths Rancid Bubble even made a mention. Kenneth is the 300lbs Borat side kick who sits on his face?? Naked?? I might just have to go see it now, this thread had turned me off it BUT I have to go see what the fuss is about.

Oh, I have no idea what the Golden Globe award category was either sorry.

So, Borat wins, the people who did the judging must have put their PC bone in a plaster cast or did they just 'get it?'

I have to remember what my mummy kept saying to me when I was scared watching movies, "Don't cry, it's only a movie".
 
 
Char Aina
10:37 / 16.01.07
why did it make you want to cry?
 
 
Slate
10:39 / 16.01.07
I haven't seen it yet. I have encountered many people who have either loved it or hated it for similar reasons on this thread, so when I go see it, I will remember my mum's words if the tears start to well.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply