BARBELITH underground
 

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


Borat

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
miss wonderstarr
12:48 / 21.11.06
I don't know ~ I found the parody in the above post horribly unfunny, and... well, horrible is probably the best word. One significant aspect of Borat is the character's naive likeability somehow; his consistent innocence and well-meaningness. The character somehow doesn't seem mean and rude; he doesn't want to hurt anyone. His offence is all unwitting. His antisemitism, for instance, seems based on stupid ignorance, not calculating malice. I understand that the persona of a gullible "innocent" voicing prejudices that other people don't dare speak aloud, and the idea of a dumbly happy "foreigner" in itself, are problematic, but I think Baron Cohen's creation of a complete, convincing, maybe even complex character is an important part of Borat's appeal. People in the film respond to him as they do because he is likeable.
 
 
CameronStewart
12:49 / 21.11.06
I'm not necesarily sure I can get behind the idea that it's a comedian's own fault if his act is misinterpreted by idiots.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:52 / 21.11.06
Who's David Thomas? I assume not the bloke from Pere Ubu...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:52 / 21.11.06
Oops, sorry, just noticed the link.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
07:46 / 23.11.06
I'm not necesarily sure I can get behind the idea that it's a comedian's own fault if his act is misinterpreted by idiots.

Sure, sure. I just wanted to post that Daily Mail article to show how this act has been interpreted, because I think it probably shows how well (or not) the comedian's strategy is working.
 
 
Janean Patience
08:41 / 23.11.06
The Daily Mail is ineptly copying a popular comedian to further promulgate their racist Little Englander views, which have been unaltered by any of the social shifts in England since the days of Empire. And this is the comedian's fault.
 
 
Benny the Ball
09:09 / 23.11.06
Too much was about him and his producer doing funny voices (I'm sure they didn't learn Kazakhstani?) and hoping that subtitles were funny - which they weren't really.

Borat as a physical character is quite effective, the stance and uncomfortable movements make him clown like, and when he is using ignorance for light comic effect, it was okay - like the driving instruction piece, offering a drink - it was okay because it was him being stupidly ignorant as a character - but too much was anchored in him being from an ignorant race.

I didn't particularly like the film, Mark Komode was talking about it the other week, and was quite right in that easy targets are easy to make seem upset or angered by the character (calling a feminist 'sweet cheeks' or what ever, he isn't pointing out that feminists are grumpy cows, he's showing that if you insult someone they tend to react negitvely). The cowboy was frightening, the frat boys were idiots - but it wouldn't have taken someone doing an act that most 70's racist comedians in britain could pull off to show that.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:26 / 23.11.06
Well, yes - obviously Cohen isn't responsible for the bigotted content of Daily Mail articles. Just the bigotted content of his own comedy - which is substantial.

His next film is about how funny the gays talk, and how flamboyant they are! Well done, SBC!
 
 
Janean Patience
12:39 / 23.11.06
Cohen isn't responsible for the bigoted content of Daily Mail articles. Just the bigoted content of his own comedy - which is substantial.

Can you go into more detail about why you feel Cohen's comedy is substantially bigoted?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
18:41 / 23.11.06
The Daily Mail is ineptly copying a popular comedian to further promulgate their racist Little Englander views, which have been unaltered by any of the social shifts in England since the days of Empire. And this is the comedian's fault.

You do mean this is the comedian's fault? It's just that your post seems to be going in the other direction ~ ie. that it's not the fault of a comedian if a right-wing newspaper does an inept pastiche of his character in order to further its own agenda.
 
 
Janean Patience
09:12 / 24.11.06
It's not the fault of a comedian if a right-wing newspaper does an inept pastiche of his character in order to further its own agenda.

That's exactly my point, ineptly expressed. Apologies. The Daily Mail thing has thrown this thread off - their interpretations of Little Britain, the Mighty Boosh, and every comedy back to Love Thy Neighbour would be through the lens of right-wing family values etc. None of that's any fault of the comedians in question.

I'm interested in why Borat, the movie, made people uncomfortable and why it would be considered bigoted. Apart from the idea that he's a caricature of Muslim values, which has some merit, there's been little explanation of that so far.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:17 / 24.11.06
Again, the Daily Mail wouldn't need to put a reactionary spin on Little Britain - but there's already a thread about that...

Can you go into more detail about why you feel Cohen's comedy is substantially bigoted?

Ooh, I dunno, it's quite subtle, quite hard to put my finger on, but maybe the fact that there's the one about how working class and black people talk funny, the one about how people from Eastern Europe talk funny, and the one about how gay European men talk funny?

When Ali G first aired - before he got his own show, when it was just skits on The 11 O'Clock Show - I used to enjoy those sketches, and the 'point' of them seemed to be what people who defend Borat often describe - i.e., fooling politicians or celebrities into revealing their own prejudices in unstaged interviews.

But Ali G became a different kind of character in his own right - first of all more a 'satire' of a stereotype, then later a celebration of the same. And now with Borat, when so many of the interactions are reported to be staged, and so much of the humour - the adverts, etc - seem to be about how crazy/stupid the character is - and with Hilarious Gay Bruno waiting in the wings... I just don't buy that argument anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that SBC is very firmly in an established tradition of British funny voice comedy. And his funny voices so far have been based on very current British national figures of fearful obsession/ridicule - the 'wigger'/'chav', the Eastern European...

The Ali G film doesn't even have ANY of that "get a minor politician to say something daft" stuff in it, does it? I think people who still think that that's what Cohen is about are getting the balance wrong, especially in terms of what the vast majority of people watch SBC's comedy for, what they get out of it, how they think of him. Do you honestly think people sit around going "remember that time Tony Benn said 'ganj' on the 11 O'Clock show?", or do you think maybe they're saying "is it because I is black?" and "me Julie" at each other? Do you really think anyone who's seen the Borat movie will come away examining their misogyny and antisemitism - or will they come away going "Is nice! Kazakstan people talk funny!"?
 
 
some guy
18:32 / 24.11.06
"Do you really think anyone who's seen the Borat movie will come away examining their misogyny and antisemitism - or will they come away going "Is nice! Kazakstan people talk funny!"?"

Well, which of these better describes how you yourself came away from the film?

I've got a hard time accepting the "racist humor" reading because it all seems so ludicrous to me. When you've got Borat fleeing a B&B in terror because he thinks Jews can transform into maneating cockroaches you know there's Something Else Going On. The "sheeple" analysis just seems awfully elitist.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:57 / 25.11.06
I haven't seen the film, and have no intention of doing so. I'm familiar with the character of Borat through his television appearances.

What is the "sheeple analysis"? I never used the term.
 
 
some guy
20:12 / 25.11.06
I haven't seen the film, and have no intention of doing so.

Well then I'm confused why you would ask a question like this:

Do you really think anyone who's seen the Borat movie will come away examining their misogyny and antisemitism - or will they come away going "Is nice! Kazakstan people talk funny!"?

...of something you haven't actually seen. Which means you haven't seen the response of audiences. And of course there's a whole thread here involving people who've seen the film yet didn't "come away going 'Is nice! Kazakstan people talk funny!'" You're also positing a false set of response options.

Maybe I'm misreading you?

What is the "sheeple analysis"? I never used the term.

There's often an undertone when it comes to SBC or any controversial comedy that we get it and laugh at the "right" things but the unwashed masses are too dumb to be entrusted to do the same. Which exactly the sort of elitist crap Barbelith would normally jump on.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:08 / 26.11.06
Could you point out where this undertone appears in the discussion so far, WC? I think JDIY said that Sacha Baron-Cohen seemed in his opinion to have changed his approach in his use of "fool" characters - from Ali G on the Eleven O'Clock Show to his current film portrayal of Borat.

Meanwhile, it looks as if someone else is either righteously angry with SBC, or seeing a chance to make some money - the town of Glod threatens to go to court.

While looking at this question, I found this SBC interview with John Stewart here, where what one might by the JDIY scale is from phase one - highlighting the vacancy of American culture in the face of a television camera. How does Borat differ?
 
 
some guy
00:23 / 27.11.06
It certainly appears to be present in the quote I responded to in the post just above yours.
 
 
some guy
00:54 / 27.11.06
And some more:

There's also the possibility that people don't quite get the joke - that Borat's antisemitism is laughed at not because it is so backward, but because the audience interprets it as genuine.

I think a point made various times is that there's an element of ambiguity about whether or not he's satirising anti-semitism / homophobia while at the same time providing a vehicle for anti-semites and homophobes to laugh at a different and perhaps less overt, conscious or reasonable level. I certainly find this stuff troubling, even as I find many of those jokes actually among the better stuff he's produced.

having a bigoted character whose prejudices are so exaggerated the writers expect you to laugh at them, exposing the absurdity of people who hold those attitudes, means inevitably that some other people might just celebrate him "straight", either reading it deliberately against the intended grain or just not understanding that it was meant to be a satire in the first place.

My issue with Borat is that, at least among my peers, the people are laughing at a foreign person doing weird, shitty stuff, because foreigners are weird and shitty, aren't they? The whole "Ah, but he's actually making Americans who are the real racists look bad" is never the central point, it's always a justification- obviously not here on the 'lith, but then you'd expect that.


So I think "undertone" is fair, yeah.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:25 / 27.11.06
Well, it certainly appears that there is an undertone in the sense that one person has explicitly stated it. JDIY is doing something rather different, for which see below.

JDIY's distinction between, in effect, two phases of Sacha Baron Cohen's comedy appears reflected in this John Stewart interview here, which I uncovered while reading around on the topic. Here he is talking specifically about the dislocation of people in positions of power, and the ease with which they can be fooled and lampooned by a combination of low expectations of the media and a bit of exoticism. Compare this - in which Letterman is in on the joke, and the humour is found in pure 'Allo 'Allo level - rude words in a funny accent - and mockery of the primitive simpleton, dancing like a cretin in a polyester suit. These seem to me to be two different approaches to the role of the fool.
 
 
some guy
02:33 / 27.11.06
Citing a post asking what the "sheeple analysis" is as proof of the "sheeple analysis" seems a bit of a reach.

Not at all, considering the same poster seems to have offered up the sheeple analysis in another comment. But as I pointed out in my next post, it's an undertone that has popped up elsewhere in this thread.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:36 / 27.11.06
I have at no point offered the sheeple analysis. You misunderstand me completely, and I suspect deliberately, since it allows you to ignore my actual point. I am so, so far from saying that "we" (as if I'd ever refer to the disparate people who post on here in those terms) interpret Cohen's comedy the "right" way, but that the majority of the public interpret it the "wrong" way. If anything I am saying the opposite: I think general public understands instinctively what Cohen wants them to laugh at, and it's the self-justifying would-be liberal intellectuals and pompous media windbags who misread him.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
10:07 / 27.11.06
ahhhh, the reverso-sheeple analysis . . . . .



big borat backlash piece in da guardian last friday.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:48 / 27.11.06
I have at no point offered the sheeple analysis. You misunderstand me completely, and I suspect deliberately, since it allows you to ignore my actual point.

Bit harsh. Your original post isn't exactly well argued when it comes to this specific point, and I think it's quite easily misread. It can be taken either the way you appear to mean it, or the way who cares appears to think you mean it, depending on whether you think SBC is still doing a worthwhile satirical job (WC), or whether you think he'd abandoned this a while back in favour of the Jim Davidson trope of broad racist comedy (JDIY#11). I'd also point out that in most cases when examining a text (in this case the Borat movie) we'd consider the text itself as opposed to our own opinions about the text based purely upon previous iterations of the character and what we've read about the text in the papers. I mean, you can carry on being angry about it, but your opinion doesn't carry as much weight, you know?

Haus, I've always believed that SBC's decision to promote the movie as the character was a significant mistake if he wants to keep the satirical flag flying for the film (hence agreeing with you that the Letterman appearance and all the other interviews since do tend to support the 'Borat's silly voice is ver ver funny, no?' argument for appreciation of the film. However, just because he's undermined himself by promoting the movie in this way doesn't mean the movie itself is automatically called into question as satire, it just means he's screwed up the promotion of the film. In the same way, when Fox/Groening allow film magazines to 'interview' Homer Simpson in order to promote Simpsons box sets (box sets which show a clever and wittily written show) and then the magazine's interview isn't remotely funny and makes him come across as the dumbass, lumpen Fred Flintstone character that anyone who's never seen the show (apparently there are still some amoeba in the Pacific unfamiliar) automatically thinks him to be, Fox/Groening screw up the promotion of the box sets, but don't destroy the text.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:05 / 27.11.06
Good point, HB - there's a fantastic edition of Simone de Beauvoir's "the Second Sex", released as a pulp, with a picture of a hot lady leaning against a wall and the legend THE SECRETS ONLY A _FRENCH WOMAN_ COULD TELL! Presumably somebody buying a copy expecting hot tales of lust would have been disappointed, albeit edified.

There's another strand there, maybe - that SBC has made Borat more of a corporate product - the production costs probably weren't _that_ great, but obviously a lot a lot of cash has been spent on marketing the product. And, I imagine, more attention is being directed to and more control exerted on how he behaves as part of that marketing plan. It's perfectly possible that he is under orders to play the rape-is-funny clown to publicise a far deeper and more sophisticated experience. Offered the same kind of money, can we be so sure we would not do the same?
 
 
Janean Patience
15:42 / 27.11.06
Joe:the one about how working class and black people talk funny, the one about how people from Eastern Europe talk funny, and the one about how gay European men talk funny?

I wouldn't say that constituted any kind of prejudice on its own. This is, after all, comedy, and it has a long history of people talking funny. Cohen also talked funny in Talledega Nights, where he played a Frenchman who confirmed to all the redneck racecar drivers's worst fears. It could be that he just thinks talking funny is, like, funny.

And I'm not sure his characters conform so well to very current British national figures of fearful obsession/ridicule as you say; the stereotype of the white-boy gangsta is middle class, the fear of Eastern Europeans seem to have faded now the Mail readers have realised they'll do plumbing jobs for cash, and we're not particularly obsessed with Euroboys. Obviously all the roles he plays have been the subject of prejudice at some point, but that's part of what he uses them for; to expose prejudice and the fear of prejudice in others. Apart from the magisterial Tony Benn, very few people had the courage to confront Ali's ridiculous worldviews.

When Ali G first aired - before he got his own show, when it was just skits on The 11 O'Clock Show - I used to enjoy those sketches, and the 'point' of them seemed to be what people who defend Borat often describe - i.e., fooling politicians or celebrities into revealing their own prejudices in unstaged interviews.

It's not coincidence that all Cohen's characters come from the same place - a mask to wear to fool others and trick them into agreeing with stupid statements. They develop during these interviews because of what they say, and the cartoonish world they come from is slowly fleshed out. The Ali G movie, which I honestly quite enjoyed, went full-on for this and was essentially a live-action cartoon. It didn't vilify either the character or his world, though, and it's crucial to the plot that at one point Ali remembers his white indie-boy roots. So it's a satire of a middle-class stereotype, not of a British Asian, and it's an affectionate one. As for Bruno, apart from once when he poked fun at the pretentiousness surrounding a fashion show, I don't think I've seen him do anything but expose homophobia in others.

Do you honestly think people sit around going "remember that time Tony Benn said 'ganj' on the 11 O'Clock show?", or do you think maybe they're saying "is it because I is black?" and "me Julie" at each other? Do you really think anyone who's seen the Borat movie will come away examining their misogyny and antisemitism - or will they come away going "Is nice! Kazakstan people talk funny!"?

They sure don't come away examining their misogyny and anti-semitism. It's a Saturday night comedy movie. They come away laughing at the misogyny and anti-semitism of others, which they consider to be ridiculous. I don't think that's actually a bad thing, myself. There might be a certain self-congratulatory element in there, but I'm not convinced liberal self-examination and laughter really mix.

I hate the assessment of audiences on the internet - there's far too much "I stood up in the theatre at the end of Attack of the Clones and said 'Lucas, you have despoiled my childhood,' and everyone there agreed with me," - but subjectively, from when I saw Borat, it was the people we talked about. The Frat Boys who appeared to need no prompting to reveal their astonishing misogyny, and seamlessly moved to comforting Borat when he was upset about Pamela's sex vid. The Christians who initially seemed too easy a target and then began to exorcise him, hands on the forehead, the whole bit. The driving instructor who manfully challenged Borat's statements about rape, saying "In America, women choose who they sleep with, and I think that's a good thing," and came away with credit.

It wasn't all about the talking funny. In fact I, and the people I've spoken to about the film since, seemed to react just like you used to watching the Ali G segments on the 11 O'Clock Show.
 
 
some guy
16:03 / 27.11.06
I have at no point offered the sheeple analysis.

I'm not sure how else to read this:

Do you really think anyone who's seen the Borat movie will come away examining their misogyny and antisemitism - or will they come away going "Is nice! Kazakstan people talk funny!"?

It appears to me to be laying out a pair of audience responses and the "really" implies that the first option is not the one you're leaning toward. This is specifically why I asked which option you experienced after the film - only to learn you were talking about it without actually having seen it (or its audiences).

You misunderstand me completely, and I suspect deliberately, since it allows you to ignore my actual point.

Don't be silly. I immediately admitted that I could be misunderstanding you upthread when responding to you.

I think general public understands instinctively what Cohen wants them to laugh at, and it's the self-justifying would-be liberal intellectuals and pompous media windbags who misread him.

So which bits do you think Cohen wants the general public to laugh at and which bits are the self-justifying would-be liberal intellectuals and pompous media windbags misreading? Have you seen the film yet?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:44 / 27.11.06
Oh, goody. Another thread about to be trolled into the ground.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
16:56 / 27.11.06
"About to be"?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
17:06 / 27.11.06
The Daily Mail thing has thrown this thread off - their interpretations of Little Britain, the Mighty Boosh, and every comedy back to Love Thy Neighbour would be through the lens of right-wing family values etc. None of that's any fault of the comedians in question.

Only, Love Thy Neighbour was a racist pile of shit. If you're trying to claim that it was attempting to do the same as something like Till Death Do Us Part, you're sorely mistaken.
 
 
ibis the being
17:06 / 27.11.06
two phases of Sacha Baron Cohen's comedy appears reflected in this John Stewart interview here, which I uncovered while reading around on the topic. Here he is talking specifically about the dislocation of people in positions of power, and the ease with which they can be fooled and lampooned by a combination of low expectations of the media and a bit of exoticism.

I can't tell if you're just being dry but I didn't get that at all from the clip. I heard Cohen say only that he asks "really stupid questions." He didn't explain how his personae work or why he uses them... mostly he just reenacted some funny bits and got some more laughs out of them. That's not to say that a comedian needs to explain his comedy but perhaps it would be nice in some instances. I think what I see Cohen doing with his comedy is an old undergrad art school trick of someone who doesn't really have anything intelligent to say but is smart enough to present something ambiguous enough for an intelligent audience to flesh out for him, and turn into something meaningful by their interpretation, not necessarily by its intention.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:36 / 27.11.06
About to be?

Well, we can hope. And try. Try, damn it. So, heroically swimming back towards SBC:

Cohen also talked funny in Talledega Nights, where he played a Frenchman who confirmed to all the redneck racecar drivers's worst fears.

I was hoping very much to see Talladega Nights last night, but the in-flight entertainment was busted. Failure to Launch, by God. However, am I not right in thinking that in that film Sacha Baron Cohen plays a French racing driver who is gay? One who has a male partner called Gregory?

Now, Ricky Bobby - being played by a USC graduate who divides his time between homes in New York and Los Angeles - is not exactly an aspirational figure, as I understand it - the audience who like Saturday Night Live movies are probably not quite the audience who idolise NASCAR drivers. However, NASCAR is being used as a backdrop between two caricatures - an American who calls his children Walker and Texas Ranger, and a Frenchman who has never seen Highlander and enjoys sex with a man. So, I'm not sure what is meant by:

Cohen also talked funny in Talledega Nights, where he played a Frenchman who confirmed to all the redneck racecar drivers's worst fears.

as a rebuttal of:

the one about how working class and black people talk funny, the one about how people from Eastern Europe talk funny, and the one about how gay European men talk funny?

He's a gay European man who talks funny in TN.

What I don't know is, more broadly, how that funny-talking gay European man is being presented. As I say, the character of Ricky Bobby is himself a caricature of a type of American the people who wrote, directed, starred in and funded the film may not have everyday familiarity with. Nonetheless, the structure of the narrative seems to suggest that it is with Ricky Bobby that we should be identifying - he is the protaganist, Jean Girard the antagonist. Perhaps, however, my innocence of the film means I have missed something - for example, Ricky Bobby may in fact be portrayed as a monster, an American grotesque who the viewer is also invited to despise. Casting against Ferrell's basic likability worked in Zoolander, after all, although there he was formally the bad guy. So, I'd like to fill in some of those blanks.

Back on Borat, I understand that there is a scene in which he pretends to have defecated into a plastic bag and brings it downstairs to a dinner party at the Magnolia Springs Manor. Having not seen the film itself, might I inquire as to what prejudice he is seeking to satirise there? Or is it a more general satire on the absurdity of our cultural taboos against faeces at the dinner table?

I'm also interested in the recent legal action brought by the inhabitants of Glod, the Romanian village used for the "Kazakhstan" scenes. These people are not having their attitudes to sexuality, race or gender challenged - they are not, as far as one can tell, given very much rope at all to talk about their politics - they are paid four dollars or so a day to have a voiceover identify them as rapists or simpletons in a movie to be shown globally. Again, who is the joke on there, and what is it?
 
 
some guy
17:36 / 27.11.06
I think what I see Cohen doing with his comedy is an old undergrad art school trick of someone who doesn't really have anything intelligent to say but is smart enough to present something ambiguous enough for an intelligent audience to flesh out for him, and turn into something meaningful by their interpretation, not necessarily by its intention.

His recent Rolling Stone interview gives the impression that he does know what he's doing, but that he stumbled onto the basic idea accidentally.
 
 
some guy
17:47 / 27.11.06
Back on Borat, I understand that there is a scene in which he pretends to have defecated into a plastic bag and brings it downstairs to a dinner party at the Magnolia Springs Manor. Having not seen the film itself, might I inquire as to what prejudice he is seeking to satirise there? Or is it a more general satire on the absurdity of our cultural taboos against faeces at the dinner table?

The context of the scene is Borat learning the manners and behavior associated with an upper class Southern dinner. SBC seems to be tossing a grenade with the bag, simply to see how everyone reacts. One of the things I liked about Borat is that some of his targets come out on top; in this scene a woman takes the bag in stride and proceeds to escort Borat to the toilet and explain what he should be doing. It's funny for multiple reasons (or not, depending on your POV).

These people are not having their attitudes to sexuality, race or gender challenged - they are not, as far as one can tell, given very much rope at all to talk about their politics - they are paid four dollars or so a day to have a voiceover identify them as rapists or simpletons in a movie to be shown globally. Again, who is the joke on there, and what is it?

Does the joke have to be "on" someone? The audience is aware they are laughing at fiction as far as I can see.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:24 / 27.11.06
Actually, I was talking to Wolf from the Door, about how he came out talking about the people. But here's a chance for a bit of a thought experiment, WC. 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?
 
 
some guy
19:11 / 27.11.06
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?

Is there a question in here?
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply