I would prefer the attack be focused on Britain, or France for a change

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 amuses abuses 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.

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.

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!

Well, whatever, but if comedy based on mocking people were forbidden, there wouldn’t be a whole heckuva lot of comedy left.

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

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.

Do they both cause some people to feel uneasy? You betcha!
pocomoco on November 19, 2006 at 10:33 PM

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.

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.

Um… mockery was on his mind? It’s real hard to make a movie about mocking people unless you actually mock people.

As for the actors, they are part of the goofing process.

I’m not planning on seeing it; from what has been described I would not be entertained by it.

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.

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

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.

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.

In Mel Brooks movies, goofing is a major part of them, and everyone who goes to them now expects it. — pocomoco

…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.

That was in the movie, and it was frickin’ hilarious!!!

“…., 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.

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…

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.

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.

It seems certain Americans think this is funny – making fun of the rednecks…This sounds like a pure “New Class” superiority attack. Make fun of the rubes. — naliaka

…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.

Me thinks you protest too much!!!