Kazakh movie critic: “Borat” film of the year
posted at 11:55 pm on November 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
He recognizes what Debbie Schlussel recognized. It’s not anti-Kazakh at all. What it is is “cruelly anti-American.”
Or at least, it tries to be. Hitch saw it last week and says the joke’s on Sacha Baron Cohen:
Among the “cultural learnings of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan” is the discovery that Americans are almost pedantic in their hospitality and politesse. At a formal dinner in Birmingham, Ala., the guests discuss Borat while he’s out of the room—filling a bag with ordure in order to bring it back to the table, as it happens—and agree what a nice young American he might make. And this is after he has called one guest a retard and grossly insulted the wife of another (and remember, it’s “Americana” that is “crass”)…
Is it too literal-minded to point out what any viewer of the movie can see for himself—that the crowd at the rodeo stops cheering quite fast when it realizes that something is amiss; that the car salesman is extremely patient about everything from demands for pussy magnets to confessions of bankruptcy; and that the man in the gun shop won’t sell the Kazakh a weapon? This is “compliance”?…
The joke, in other words, may well be on the prankster. I thought the same about Da Ali G Show. As far as one can tell, most youth culture is as inarticulate and illiterate and mannerless as Sacha Baron Cohen made it out to be: The elderly dupes who did their best to respond (Gen. Brent Scowcroft on the anthrax/Tampax distinction being the most notable) were evidently resigned in advance to quite a low standard of questioning. You can see the same fixed expressions on the faces of politicians when they attend a “real” event, like Rock the Vote, where wry, likable smiles are obligatory, and the only dread is that of appearing uncool.
Speaking of jokes on Cohen, this is great. “Neither the ‘president’s’ besotted eyes, his funny suit, nor his denials of the existence of soap, gravity, and North Korea could shake the Western viewers’ confidence that Ahmadinejad was a real thing, so strong was their belief that anything coming out of the Islamic Republic had to be so utterly stupid.” If only they really were kidding.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yeah, right….it’s the Anti-Semitic flick of the year
Too bad there isn’t a Nurnberg Film Festival presided over by the ghost of Goebbels
Janos Hunyadi on November 19, 2006 at 12:10 AM
For what it is worth, I saw this movie with my girlfriend. On the opening night.
We both laughed our asses off. Because he is wickedly funny.
But even at the time, there was another part of me that was bothered by what I was seeing. It was hard to articulate, but there it was.
I mulled it over, and read a few articles about Borat/Cohen and how he made the movie, and spent time rethinking about what the movie showed, and what it didn’t show.
Anyway, the other night, I was talking to my girlfriend. And I mentioned out of the blue that I was starting to take a real disliking to Borat/Cohen. And surprisingly, she said she was thinking the same thing.
More and more, the movie and or Sashe Baron Cohen seems real meanspirited.
I read he’s been saying this movie is just a way of revealing anti-semitism that just lurks beneath the surface. Maybe.
But I’ve started to wonder if it really reveals more about Sasha Baron Cohen’s attitudes instead. I wonder if he looks at someone like me and my kind and just assumes that I’m an anti-semite. Right off the bat. As if I’m automatically assumed to be guilty, and have to prove myself.
If that is the case, that seems to me to be just as wrong as someone just assuming that Jews are all about the money or running arround and controlling Hollywood and keeping the Gentiles down.
Which is just crap and anti-semetic and wrong.
So why should I get slammed and smeared with the same sort of prejudice in reverse?
I’m sure Sasha Cohen would deny this if I could ask him about this. And I’d like to believe I’m wrong.
But my gut feeling is starting to move in the oposite direction.
Anyway, I feel a lot less good about the movie and this guy now.
EFG on November 19, 2006 at 12:18 AM
I really lean with Hitchens and Schlussel on this one. I’ve stated before that I just don’t see what America finds funny about this guy. I know…he lampoons societal behaviors, blah, blah, blah…but a lot of people do that and I don’t find them particularly funny either. I really believe folks will soon tire of this guy and quickly resign him to has-been status. Or, maybe that’s just my wishful thinking because I really can’t stand his particular brand of “humor”. Like Hitchens, I suppose I, too, am a curmudgeon but I think he’s making fun of us, and we’re paying him really big bucks to do it. Unlike Hitchens, I think the joke here is more on those who promote Borat than on Borat himself.
thedecider on November 19, 2006 at 12:19 AM
I have not watched the movie. The reviews is forcing me to watch it. With this new twist, I definitely going to see tomorrow. And I am coming back with with fire.
Ouabam on November 19, 2006 at 12:55 AM
It seems certain Americans think this is funny – making fun of the rednecks. How many Good Ol Boys show up at the Lincoln Center to mock the concert-goers – or do they just leave them alone?
This sounds like a pure “New Class” superiority attack. Make fun of the rubes. It seems funny at first, until you realize what he did and how he went about it. He lied, presenting himself as one thing, and took advantage of people’s graciousness, then used the footage to laugh at them when they were confused. Not wasting my hard-earned cash on this piece of swill.
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 1:02 AM
Borat is funny because his approach, although crude and vulgar, brings a different perspective that many find amusing. His ability to jar our sense of reality, of putting values into stark relief, captures attention and thought.
I do believe that Borat is best taken in small doses and that the popularity of this character will fade relatively quickly. Once the novelty, the contrast, the point he is makeing is made, this character will age quickly and most will loose interest.
I look forward to see what other colors this Chameleon can put on to entertain us.
omegaram on November 19, 2006 at 1:24 AM
Borat + Osama Bin Laden = Barak Obama
What a coincidence!
Labamigo on November 19, 2006 at 1:37 AM
I’m hypersensitive to PC crap in movies, but I thought Borat was funny and was not offended. He makes a little fun of Christian fundamentalists speaking in tongues, but hey… the scene with Barr wasn’t anti-Republican, just funny. And the interview with the bitter feminists was priceless. Schlussel is way overreacting and Hitch has it mostly right, in that the movie makes most of the Americans look good.
I watched it with a liberal, whose reaction was “I thought this was going to make fun of America, but it ended up making fun of Kazakstan”, so that was a good review.
Halley on November 19, 2006 at 3:36 AM
Funny thing – my ex talked me out of letting my 12 year old daughter see Borat (I had no idea it would be so graphic – in all honesty, it deserved an NC-17), because she was concerned there might be racial overtones… and just a few minutes later said she wanted to take them both to see Saw III. “What? She’s seen 1 & 2 already.” she said when she saw the look on my face. In hindsight, I’m glad she convinced me to just take the boy… but geez… I guess a little racial humor is more offensive than a little murder, right?
*shakes head*
Oh yeah – my review…
7 out of 10.
Very funny movie, but essentially one joke dragged on for 90 minutes. Amazing that it was as funny as it was. Prepare to be offended, and bring your sense of humor.
Would I see it again? Yes… on rented DVD.
Ugly on November 19, 2006 at 4:15 AM
Thoughtful posts. Now I more fully understand why I didn’t like it that much. There were certainly laugh-out-loud moments, but it is not the second coming of comedies. The hype was way off on this one.
Valiant on November 19, 2006 at 6:56 AM
Labamigo…um, no. Just; no.
stevezilla on November 19, 2006 at 9:07 AM
Ah, so guys dressing up in character to elicit a specific response for humor is bad, and hence the panning of Jeff Goldstein for his horrible attack on the soft racism found in liberal thought.
Same concept, different audience. Borat has a bit more of an edge to him. I like it, either way.
Krydor on November 19, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Goldstein went after both sides. I think the main criticism here is Borat exclusively targetted the right.
B Moe on November 19, 2006 at 11:03 AM
One of the best parts of Borat is his mocking, on the one hand, the cultures that pervasively indoctrinate Joo hatred (Beck showed us some examples last week) and the subjugation of women; and on the other, the multi-culti sentiment that excuses the most barbaric acts from those cultures, lest one appear guilty of Cultural Chauvanism or (gasp!) Intolerance.
Of course, it tries to make the folks at the dinner party out to be racists; it would be interesting to see how similar the reaction would have been had he brought a white prostitute instead.
Somehow, though, I think all the Hollyweird types will get from the film is validation of their belief that we Flyover Country Christers are a bunch of reactionary knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
The Monster on November 19, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Haven’t seen it, not planning to.
I am instinctively bothered by yet another attack on America. However, America is the world’s whipping boy. While it does diminish us, and the upside may be hard to see – America often makes the sacrifices for the world.
I would prefer the attack be focused on Britain, or France for a change (we joke a little, but we are not cruel).
The problem is that those who should react to the racism (the MSM) in the movie, and defend America by pointing it out in say the Middle East, will simply agree with it.
A broader worldwide realization of antisemitism would be helpful. Unfortunately, it is easier to see our own faults and decide we should not judge, rather than look outside and risk revealing its dangerous magnitude.
Then we would have to ask more questions like “what is it about antisemitism that puts my freedom, and even my life at risk”?
Agrippa2k on November 19, 2006 at 12:02 PM
I saw it last night, and laughed my ass off. In fact, I am still snickering as I think about it today.
the movie and or Sashe Baron Cohen seems real meanspirited.
There were some people he mocked who really didn’t deserve it – especially the old couple who ran the bed and breakfast, but also the guy who taught him how to drive. Others did deserve it. But it was interesting that he did manage to bring out some mean-spiritedness in others, too.
I wonder if he looks at someone like me and my kind and just assumes that I’m an anti-semite.
I don’t really come away with the impression that Cohen thinks everyone is a secret anti-Semite. It’s more like he wants to say something shocking and see what people do (and perhaps going after certain other ethnic groups in this country would be too shocking). What is interesting, of course, is what others have pointed out – the reaction of most people in this country now, even in the Deep South, is to be so polite and tolerant that they won’t even respond to crass displays of racism/anti-semitism.
I really believe folks will soon tire of this guy and quickly resign him to has-been status.
What will happen is that his shtick will be too well known. It only works if the interviewee doesn’t know that Borat is having them on. Once everyone knows, he’s done. So his movie is self-defeating, in a way.
It seems certain Americans think this is funny – making fun of the rednecks.
Yeah, but you notice he also made fun of New Yorkers and Los Angelinos, too? I thought the “rednecks” in this movie actually came off pretty well, for the most part. Even the frat boys could have been a lot more obnoxious than they were.
I am instinctively bothered by yet another attack on America.
I don’t see this movie as an attack on America. At any rate, there is nothing in the movie that is “untrue” – without a doubt, the people in the movie displayed genuine attitudes that some Americans have. Selectively chosen, perhaps, but 100% American nonetheless.
Lehuster on November 19, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Howard Stern has been doing it for 20 years. It’s called ‘goofing’. Making people look foolish.
Also, before getting too riled up about the film’s anti-semitism, read Cohen’s biography. You may be surprised.
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Wait wait wait Mister America! Our comrade Borat make expose you! Why you laugh? Is true not funny ha ha!
Doug on November 19, 2006 at 3:14 PM
The Borat movie is hilarious and great entertaining. And so are most of the other Borat clips to be found on YouTube. This one is particularly funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJsukOL-0Os
However, the joke is certainly intended to be on Americans. And to the average British “sense of humour”, this falls into the same category as a Michael Moore movie. Indeed, I am sure Michael Moore would be a great fan of Borat.
MoonbatMedia on November 19, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Cohen’s biography:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1990387.ece
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 3:35 PM
How does this make one feel knowing this:
Virginia papers described “Borat” asking to sing the National Anthem at a VA rodeo and then mangling it on purpose. Not so funny when unsuspecting spectators who have paid to watch a favorite sport have some jerk come in and wreck it for them, filming, then editing their confused and disappointed reactions for laughs at their expense. The crowd was not happy and there were a lot of complaints afterwards, and they were absolutely right. But one wouldn’t know that bad blood “Borat” left from the gushing reviews nor from the final film result.
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 3:38 PM
naliaka,
Me thinks you protest too much!!!
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 3:41 PM
WHat is the argument that Americans are ant-semitic? Wasn’t the American GI, the working class guys of 1940s America, who fought against the German Nazis and liberated the concentration camps?
Yeh, people may say some of the worse things, but what’s important is what they DO. THe Holocaust was a European event. Go make fun of them…or maybe the truth of it is, it’s too dangerous. Go pick on Americans, it’s far less likely to be killed by them. General George Patton was a son of Virginia, a proud example of the Virginia military heritage, and he forced the German neighbors of the concentration camps that the Third Army had liberated to march through them to see the evil that they had enabled.
Borat makes fun of safe, Lefty stereotypes. Brave new comedy indeed.
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 3:49 PM
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Okay. chillax pill. :( to :)
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 3:51 PM
…I have *NO* notion of seeing this. It has nothing to do with Da Hitch’s opinions, which I generally credit. It has nothing to do with Ms. Schlussel’s review. I’ve read Ms. Schlussel once or twice, and she tends to go overboard.
I’ve seen the trailers and some promo for the film and it seems to be a “comedy of embarrassment” movie…Candid Camera on crack. I don’t like that sort of film. It just doesn’t jive with what I consider funny. Back in Allen Funt’s day, some of this sort of thing was funny, gently done, with the “mark” laughed along *WITH*, not always *AT*.
Having less than the thinnest film of dignity myself, I hate to see it stolen from others. That’s a matter of taste.
When Laurel and Hardy set off a pie-fight, they *ALSO* get whacked with a creamy smacker…everybody’s in on the joke…even the prim and stuffy society dame, who gets it in the kisser along with her chauffer…even willowy and eternally young Anita Garvin, who slipped and sat on a projectile, as she slinks around a corner out of frame, shaking a the fragments of the custard creme off of her knickers.
That’s funny.
As to “class warfare”, Hollywood’s been making “the rubes are soooo stupid” films for well over 100 years. I remember Ma and Pa Kettle, Tobacco Road and some of the moonshiner movies of the 50′s and 60′s. Folks in the Red States are used to farmers, hunters, outdoorsmen, and folks from the more “ethnic” and charismatic forms of Christianity being shown up as hillbillies by Hollywood.
Vaudeville made fun of rubes. That’s nothing new. George M. Cohan wrote a song about being “45 minutes from Broadway”, where the folks had “whiskers like hay”, and were a “fine bunch of rubens” who pronounced “gay” as “jay”. That was in 1906! No news there.
The thing that the glitteratti of the “New Class” have to realize is that *THE RUBES DON’T CARE*.
The “sophisticates” pay what would be a week’s pay for a trendy city meal you could cover with the palm of your hand. It’s their “betters” who seem somehow confused about the simple matters of reproductive biology. It’s the “slickers” who pay a homosexual $250+ to make their hair look like they’ve just gotten out of bed.
You’re only offended if you take what they say seriously.
Puritan1648 on November 19, 2006 at 4:02 PM
naliaka,
I personally don’t like the concept of goofing, which Stern has been doing for the past 20 years. It is not new.
But I do understatnd what Cohen, himself an orthadox Jew and British comedian, is trying to accomplish.
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 4:05 PM
I would hope that your ex would be more concerned about the “naked man romp” instead of the “racial overtones.”
In the beginning, I thought the Borat thing was funny – watching the 5 minute clips on youtube cracked me up. then I started reading about how he totally misrepresented himself and my attitude towards him changed. but, i still went to see the movie last night. parts were funny, but i couldn’t get past the fact that he was making jokes at other’s people’s expense/ignorance, etc.
And I think making fun of Pentacostals was really over the top and insulting.
pullingmyhairout on November 19, 2006 at 4:09 PM
pullingmyhairout,
“…., but i couldn’t get past the fact that he was making jokes at other’s people’s expense/ignorance, etc”.
That, my friend, is the concept of goofing. In Mel Brooks movies, goofing is a major part of them, and everyone who goes to them now expects it.
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 4:18 PM
Virginia papers described “Borat” asking to sing the National Anthem at a VA rodeo and then mangling it on purpose.
That was in the movie, and it was frickin’ hilarious!!!
Lehuster on November 19, 2006 at 4:32 PM
…Mel Brooks? When has he ever made a movie where the cast or any member thereof was not “in on the joke”?
The idea of “goofing” is to put someone on the spot. Mr. Brooks movies are all scripted. He does satire, but satire isn’t goofing.
You can use goofing to make a point. That, evidently, is what Mr. Cohen is trying to do, if you believe his “my intentions are pure” bio linked above. I think that his “higher purpose” here is the same as Mr. Stern’s: to make a buck at the expense of others dumb enough to allow themselves to be ambushed.
Ambushing someone else may be funny to some. That doesn’t make it funny to all. Personally, I think it rather nauseating.
Puritan1648 on November 19, 2006 at 6:07 PM
EFG:
Although I haven’t seen the movie, I did see Borat with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show and was left with a similar aftertaste. He did an hilarious doubletake on “discovering” that Stewart was Jewish. Then he spit what he was drinking back into the Daily Show mug he was holding — which, for reasons I can’t really explain, I found shockingly unfunny. Having watched the public resurgence of anti-semitism in Europe and its increasing appearance on the left at home with alarm for several years now, maybe it just seems too real to be funny. Maybe that’s the point, but who knows? I just find it hard to watch.
JM Hanes on November 19, 2006 at 7:30 PM
The problem is, “Borat’s” actions have an uneasy resemblance to hatred. That’s why the humor begins to sour after it sits awhile. What was in the man’s mind when he went to the rodeo and inserted himself, uninvited into a respectful opening ceremony to make a mockery of it ? Those were real people minding their own business, trying to have a pleasant afternoon. They were not actors or extras. They were a lot more considerate of him than he was to them.
Just ’cause critics say a film is good don’t make it so. A lot of stuff out there is very destructive. And the fact that Cohen claims he is an Orthodox Jew reeks of “infallibility” rather than credibility or lack of agenda. A lot of Orthodox Jews would be appalled at this man’s behavior.
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 8:41 PM
Brooks goofs on everybody. No one is immune. He includes all professions. A Jew himself, he’s pretty hard on his own religion, which, at times, could be seen as anti-semitic.
For example, in Blazzing Saddles he goofs on: lawyers, politicians, Mexicans, Chineses, blacks, Southerners, clergy, movies, gays – to name a few, and that’s just in one picture.
People, you need to lighten up and not take things so seriously. Life is too short.
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 8:55 PM
Mel Brooks does not go out to all those groups and lie to them for the humor. He has scripts that present weird ideas, like making a play so bad it will fail to make more money than a successful play. He goes through the various odd behaviors of people, making fun of racism, sexism and lots of other-isms. But it is actors performing those roles, not people from particular groups being tricked.
I’m not planning on seeing it; from what has been described I would not be entertained by it.
WiseDood on November 19, 2006 at 9:15 PM
Have you forgotten that his movies are shown to audiences filled with lawyers, politicians, Mexicans, Chinese, blacks, Southerners, clergy, gays, who, at times, have complained about the racism, sexism, and homophobia in his movies?
As for the actors, they are part of the goofing process.
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 9:45 PM
What was in the man’s mind when he went to the rodeo and inserted himself, uninvited into a respectful opening ceremony to make a mockery of it ?
Um… mockery was on his mind? It’s real hard to make a movie about mocking people unless you actually mock people.
Lehuster on November 19, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Cohen and Brooks are both mocking people, but are using different media to do it in. They both have audiences do they not? Do they both cause some people to feel uneasy? You betcha!
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 10:33 PM
For all those who think Sacha Baron Cohen is a comedic “genius” who produced a thoughtful and avant-garde movie which serves as a critique of America, prejudice and anti-Semitism, we would’ve preferred him to take his road show to the Middle East and try the same stunts.
Now, that would’ve been funny. And revealing. Really. Until, the beheading.
Making fun of America and the West is an unoriginal script. Liberals use it all the time.
California Conservative on November 19, 2006 at 10:37 PM
Yep. That’s exactly what he was doing.
A lot of people were taught that it’s not right to mock people, so when they see it, they don’t find it funny.
Yeh, “uneasy.” “Art” for a political message. Bleh. Stop being slave to the critics. They like worthless things like French novels with pointless suicides – they’re “deep.” No, they’re pointless.
The Left parses this stuff ad nauseum, to muddy the water that the product was vile.
Stop defending the indefensible. If you liked it, fine, that’s your business.
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 10:50 PM
A lot of people were taught that it’s not right to mock people, so when they see it, they don’t find it funny.
Well, whatever, but if comedy based on mocking people were forbidden, there wouldn’t be a whole heckuva lot of comedy left.
Lehuster on November 19, 2006 at 10:52 PM
Cohen and Stern are not comic geniuses, and they will admit to that. Brooks, however, is a different story. But they all use a concept that people cannot get enough of. That’s why stern has been doing it for over 20 years, and Cohen has been offered a multi-million dollar contract for his next movie.
One of the greatest things about Americans is that we know how to laugh at ourselves. Can you say that about the Middle East? I think not!
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Okay, you genuises.
If you think mocking is so harmless, go to Gaza and make fun of the PA. Mocking means INSULT. Not humor, nor satire. Good luck! Ha ha!
Hollywood throws money at the most worthless projects if they think they can push their agenda on the public. That’s no reliable indicator of genuine quality. You’re protesting too much, maybe you are uneasy about “Borat” after all. If that little voice inside says, “this was not right,” it’s not leading you astray.
Good night.
naliaka on November 19, 2006 at 11:17 PM
I GIVE UP!!!
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 11:24 PM
I find it bizarre that Cohen wishes to portray ordinary Americans as racist anti-Semites. Americans are the greatest supporters of Jews and of Israel in the world. That’s almost like kicking a friend because he has helped you.
MoonbatMedia on November 20, 2006 at 1:47 AM
Nalaika, I have actually seen the movie, so I am qualified to comment. I don’t think this movie reflects some “Hollywood Agenda” (whatever that may be). As for worthlessness, a lot of people are seeing it, and it’s making a lot of money, which would not be true if it did not have humor value on some level. Certainly everyone in the theater when I saw it was laughing.
Lastly, no, I am not at all uneasy about this movie, and no little voices are telling me it’s not right.
Lighten up, already.
Lehuster on November 20, 2006 at 8:10 AM
Then what kind of audience would there be for the movie? Americans don’t really like subtitles, and this is where the market is.
As far as Stern, I agree with others here who say that Stern
amusesabuses people (in a non-physical way, of course). It is a type of “humor” I really don’t get. I need a punchline. I love irony. I grew out of situational comedy after about three episodes of Three’s Company. (I was a small child at the time.) I guess I sympathize with the victim too much.urbancenturion on November 20, 2006 at 12:23 PM