Borat is getting sued..

[diamond]

Your "perception" of people makes me laugh.

^Case in point.

dbs

 

[BVS]

 

[Butterscotch]

When you really look at it, anyone in a movie deserves to be fairly compensated for their screen time. He took advantage of all those people and lied to them. If they had known he was a fraud and all of his gags were setups they would not likely have consented. Would any other movie maker do that? Even people on Candid Camera or Punk'd are told they were fooled and agree to being broadcasted anyway. These people didn't get that chance. That's why it's wrong.

 

[diamond]

When you really look at it, anyone in a movie deserves to be fairly compensated for their screen time. He took advantage of all those people and lied to them. If they had known he was a fraud and all of his gags were setups they would not likely have consented. Would any other movie maker do that?

Agreed.
I do think some Americans would do anything for money more so than the uninformed and lesser educated Romanians though.

dbs

 

[Bug]

Those villagers should have been payed much more, told what was going to happen and given a chance to decline.

Damn if you were one of them you'd be pissed to.
What he did is just wrong, and I usually find this kinda of movie funny but not when people are brutally taken advantage of.

The fratboys are just dumbasses though, simple as that.
They're pissed because now people know what they're like.

 

[diamond]

Those villagers should have been payed much more, told what was going to happen and given a chance to decline.

Damn if you were one of them you'd be pissed to.
What he did is just wrong, and I usually find this kinda of movie funny but not when people are brutally taken advantage of.

The fratboys are just dumbasses though, simple as that.
They're pissed because now people know what they're like.

Kaching, we have another fair minded person in FYM.
I agree with you Bug.

dbs

 

[diamond]

i like how the results of the poll are changing the more people read up on this.

dbs

 

[diamond]

Poor Mr Borat makes his point well however he did not nor can not defend his character (no pun) on how he duped and misled the Romanian characters.

His silence in addressing that issue is quite deafening.

Interesting read:

Baron Cohen comes out of character to defend Borat
By Arifa Akbar
Published: 17 November 2006
He is a comedian whose alter ego - a racist, sexist homophobe - has delighted many, appalled some and is selling out cinemas across Britain and America.

Now, after staying resolutely in boorish persona during previous interviews, Sacha Baron Cohen has spoken in depth about his motives in creating his comical anti-hero Borat. The journalist from Kazakhstan who sings anti-Semitic songs and refers to women as prostitutes was created "as a tool" to expose people's prejudices, he said.

The 35-year-old Jewish comedian from London has maintained a long silence over the controversy raised by Borat, whose extreme anti-Semitic remarks have earned censure both from the Kazakh government and from the Jewish community.

In one sketch from Baron Cohen's film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, which premiered this month in London, Borat performs a song called "Throw the Jew Down the Well" in a country and western bar in Arizona.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, the comedian revealed he was a devout Jew, observing Sabbath and eating kosher foods, and he referred to the singing scene to defend his inflammatory comedy.

"Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudices, whether it's anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism. 'Throw the Jew Down the Well' was a very controversial sketch, and some members of the Jewish community thought it was actually going to encourage anti-Semitism.

"But to me it revealed something about that bar in Tuscon. And the question is: did it reveal that they were anti-Semitic? Perhaps. But maybe it just revealed that they were indifferent to anti-Semitism," he said.

Baron Cohen said the concept of "indifference towards anti-Semitism" had been informed by his study of the Holocaust while at Cambridge University, where he read history. "I remember, when I was in university, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, 'The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.'

"I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but I think it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic," he said.

He also talked of his astonishment at hearing that the Kazakh government was thinking of suing him over the offence caused by his comic alter ego, and stressed that the "joke is not on Kazakhstan".

"I was surprised, because I always had faith in the audience that they would realise that this was a fictitious country and the mere purpose of it was to allow people to bring out their own prejudices. And the reason we chose Kazakhstan was because it was a country that no one had heard anything about, so we could essentially play on stereotypes they might have about this ex-Soviet backwater. The joke is not on Kazakhstan. I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist - who believe that there's a country where homosexuals wear blue hats and the women live in cages and they drink fermented horse urine and the age of consent has been raised to nine years old...

"I've been in a bizarre situation, where a country has declared me as its number one enemy. It's inherently a comic situation," he said.

While Borat has drawn much criticism from Kazakh ministers - the government took out a full page ad in The New York Times to promote their country at one stage - Erlan Idrissov, the Kazakhstan ambassador to Britain, admitted to finding some humour in the film.

Baron Cohen, who was born in Hammersmith to an affluent Orthodox Jewish family, is the second of three sons. He went to an independent school in Elstree, and Christ's College, Cambridge, and worked for the investment bank Goldman Sachs before starting his career in television.

He is a comedian whose alter ego - a racist, sexist homophobe - has delighted many, appalled some and is selling out cinemas across Britain and America.

Now, after staying resolutely in boorish persona during previous interviews, Sacha Baron Cohen has spoken in depth about his motives in creating his comical anti-hero Borat

 

[maycocksean]

To be frank, the legality of what Cohen did is irrelevant to me.

He might be legally clear, but it just seems wrong to take advantage of the poor the way that he did.

Like diamond, I don't have much sympathy for the frat boys. The issue with them is different. They were, perhaps, tricked into revealing their "true views" and are embarassed about that, but that is not at all the same as what happened to these villagers.

I'm not saying the villagers are saints or anything, I just really feel it's wrong to use and manipulate them in the way that he did.

 

[anitram]

To be frank, the legality of what Cohen did is irrelevant to me.

...

I just really feel it's wrong to use and manipulate them in the way that he did.

I understand what you're saying, but as far as the civil suits are concerned, of course it matters whether or not the waivers were valid, etc.

It may be morally wrong to manipulate people that way. But our courts should not be the arbiters of morality, and so insofar as their case is concerned, what difference does it make whether what he did is mean/wrong/inherently immoral/etc?

 

[Butterscotch]

If he told them when they signed that it was for a documentary in his country when it was actually a large scale release movie for profit in the US, he misled them and I think they have a case.

 

[U2lunatic]

I am really looking forward to see his new movie,

 

[diamond]

To be frank, the legality of what Cohen did is irrelevant to me.

He might be legally clear, but it just seems wrong to take advantage of the poor the way that he did.

Like diamond, I don't have much sympathy for the frat boys. The issue with them is different. They were, perhaps, tricked into revealing their "true views" and are embarassed about that, but that is not at all the same as what happened to these villagers.

I'm not saying the villagers are saints or anything, I just really feel it's wrong to use and manipulate them in the way that he did.

Kaching for maycocksean.

While some of our liberal friends continue to stick the legalities and legalese of the case etc etc etc ad hominem slaying me with the most insipid predictable posts.

 

[AtomicBono]

Get over it. It's fiction. I don't care if you are poor uni-armed; grasp fiction. No one actually thinks those people are like that, and the people of the village need to stop throwing a pity party. What dignity are they forfeiting anyway? If it's that important to you, don't sign a contract you know absolutely nothing out.

Exactly

The people are essentially actors.

I don't see the problem.

Who thinks that element of the movie is actually real? The people weren't exploited; had they not tried to sue no one would have even realized they were actually from a poor village. i had assumed they were actors

 

[BVS]

While some of our liberal friends

Do you ever look at the world other than through "conservative or liberal" glasses?

 

[maycocksean]

I understand what you're saying, but as far as the civil suits are concerned, of course it matters whether or not the waivers were valid, etc.

It may be morally wrong to manipulate people that way. But our courts should not be the arbiters of morality, and so insofar as their case is concerned, what difference does it make whether what he did is mean/wrong/inherently immoral/etc?

I understand that the villagers may not have a legal case and I respect that. There are lots of unethical and immoral things which are legal and I'm not suggesting that it should be any other way.

But, I won't watch this movie (though I had been planning to) because I think what Cohen did was despicable.

It's the same reason I won't be reading OJ Simpson's latest book. (Another example of something that might be technically legal to do, i.e. publishing his "if I did it" book, but that I believe is morally and ethically reprehensible).

 

[maycocksean]

Kaching for maycocksean.

While some of our liberal friends continue to stick the legalities and legalese of the case etc etc etc ad hominem slaying me with the most insipid predictable posts.

Well, actually, I'm pretty liberal. I'm a bit amazed though at the lack of concern, if not legally, then ethically for these villagers. And while I agree it's possible that they may not have any case, I don't see why it's not possible that they could have one. . .that perhaps they were mislead or taken advantage of.

I mean why is everyone so eager to defend Cohen? Is he that funny?

I guess I'm trying to read the subtext (you obviously believe there's a subtext here too, what with your "liberal friends" comment) but I'm just not getting it. . .

 

[diamond]

I understand that the villagers may not have a legal case and I respect that. There are lots of unethical and immoral things which are legal and I'm not suggesting that it should be any other way.

But, I won't watch this movie (though I had been planning to) because I think what Cohen did was despicable.

It's the same reason I won't be reading OJ Simpson's latest book. (Another example of something that might be technically legal to do, i.e. publishing his "if I did it" book, but that I believe is morally and ethically reprehensible).

Perfect summation and sentiments of my feelings.

I may peek at OJ's interview to poke holes in his story.

A supervisor of mine long ago predicted OJ would do something like this before he died citing double jeopardy laws as his safety net etc.

dbs

 

[Salome]

the villagers were background material
and it wasn't them who were made fun of but the people of Kazakhstan who they were supposed to portray
and in reality not even the people of Kazakhstan were made fun of, but everyone who could actually be silly enough to take the portrayal of them even remotely serious

ergo: wtf?

 

[Zoomerang96]

forgive the teenage expression, but wow some of you are babies.

tough shit if some people were made to look like assholes. it's their fault for the things they said, they could just as well have told borat to fuck off and be done with it.

why is everyone so eager to sue?

pathetic.

i wish sacha had gone after them harder and made them look even worse.

 

[Zoomerang96]

and it wasn't them who were made fun of but the people of Kazakhstan who they were supposed to portray
and in reality not even the people of Kazakhstan were made fun of, but everyone who could actually be silly enough to take the portrayal of them even remotely serious

people don't get it.

people don't get humour that requires anything more than a punchline.

how else can you explain why shows like "the war at home" are shown on primetime television?

anyone else watch bbc's 'extras'? look at the show ricky gervais created inside that show... it's awful and he knows it...

but guess what?

it has six million viewers!

mindless masses...

 

[diamond]

the villagers were background material
and it wasn't them who were made fun of but the people of Kazakhstan who they were supposed to portray
and in reality not even the people of Kazakhstan were made fun of, but everyone who could actually be silly enough to take the portrayal of them even remotely serious

ergo: wtf?

That the villagers were misled from the beggining and made fools of was ethically wrong; and if those are your ethics or you're ok with ppl who espouse such ethics then we have nothing to discuss.

dbs

 

[1stepcloser]

Is he that funny?

Funniest film i've seen in ages. The absolute last thing on my mind would be to criticise Sacha Baron Cohen after he's just done his job and made me laugh for an hour and a half.

The idea of sueing him is a joke.

 

[tpsreports2424]

What I've said before, you have to have a lot of sense of humor to watch this film...

This movie was all in fun and not to make everyone look like total ass wholes and idiots..

The best movie I've seen in awhile because he took it to another level...People are going to have to deal with the fact that he's done it already and theres nothing you can do about it..

 

[Bono's shades]

I actually agree with diamond on something.

I think hell just froze over.

If Borat did indeed mislead the people of this village just to get a laugh, that's reprehensible.

 

[yolland]

I guess I'm trying to read the subtext...but I'm just not getting it...

Well in a few people's cases, it's pretty clear that they simply haven't read the thread closely enough to realize that the criticism pertains solely to the Romanian villagers and no one else. But other than that, it seems like the overt, highly scripted absurdity of the "Kazakh village" scenes (as opposed to the Hey,-they-really-did-say-it "realism" of the American ones) disqualifies them from being taken seriously as exploitative or discriminatory for many viewers; they don't see it as being essentially different from if, say, Monty Python had done such a scene (easily imaginable, comically depraved villagers being one of their favorite themes as well). Sure, Python would've used actors, not real people who might be unclear as to the end result, but either way the resulting portrayal is so hit-you-over-the-head nonsensical (in the eyes of Western viewers accustomed to pointedly double-edged Us-vs.-Them satires) that no one in the audience would take it as realistic. I do understand this view, though the assumed universality of satirical conventions underlying it strikes me as naive. And like I said earlier, I found the dismissive racism of the Romanian local official ("These gypsies will even kill their own father for money") an especially painful irony, given the stated overall mission of the film and its director's claim that "We certainly tried to avoid taking advantage of people who would be perceived as the meek or the weak of society." If one doesn't understand why gypsy peddlers in rural Romania belong in this category then one doesn't know Eastern European history (or present, for that matter) very well. Of course it isn't Baron Cohen's fault that such attitudes exist--and he does lampoon racist stereotypes of gypsies too--but the fact that he wound up unwittingly enabling them in this case, for me, underlines why the particular tactics he used to create the village scenes (which were quite different from his usual tactics) are ethically problematic.

That said, I can understand the argument that since no reasonable Western viewer would take the "Kazakh villagers" at face value anyhow--and since they did knowingly agree, if nothing else, to the low wages they were paid--there's no compelling reason to feel complicit in anything unethical, as it's understood by the audience that no village anywhere is actually like this, regardless of what the villagers themselves might suspect. Even if you're weighing this argument against the excessive-deception argument, I can understand why someone might in good conscience conclude that the former is stronger. My main reason for (probably) not seeing this film is ultimately less this issue than the fact that I've seen a few episodes of Ali G, and I just don't find Baron Cohen all that funny. I understand the idea of showing how "benign" conformity perpetuates racism, and admire his spine in putting himself in situations that could (and sometimes do) result in physical attacks, but the unmistakably selective Will you look at what we got these stupid rednecks to do! dimension of his humor is enough of a turnoff to me that it puts a damper on my enjoyment of the rest of it. Not that I think comedy has to be scrupulously equal-opportunity "revealing" to be ethical--that would be silly, and I don't in general find him unethical anyway; it's just that for me personally, the whole "Gotcha--expectations fulfilled!" element to his schtick renders it a lot less funny than I'd probably find it otherwise, no matter how usefully revealing it is. I do understand why many find it hilarious though.

 

[Butterscotch]

What I've said before, you have to have a lot of sense of humor to watch this film...

This movie was all in fun and not to make everyone look like total ass wholes and idiots..

The best movie I've seen in awhile because he took it to another level...People are going to have to deal with the fact that he's done it already and theres nothing you can do about it..

It's not humorous to use and mislead people that way. There IS something they can do, they can sue and/or have their parts deleted from the movie.

 

[anitram]

Well, actually, I'm pretty liberal. I'm a bit amazed though at the lack of concern, if not legally, then ethically for these villagers. And while I agree it's possible that they may not have any case, I don't see why it's not possible that they could have one. . .that perhaps they were mislead or taken advantage of.

I mean why is everyone so eager to defend Cohen? Is he that funny?

I guess I'm trying to read the subtext (you obviously believe there's a subtext here too, what with your "liberal friends" comment) but I'm just not getting it. . .

Well maybe we are replying to the thread in question.

diamond in his infinite wisdom comes in blasting people for posting "insipid" and "legalese" posts - clearly he's not in the habit of reading his own threads. Does he or does he not ask, at the outset of this thread, whether Borat should be ordered to pay damages? Now you tell me which court will order damages on the basis that this was immoral?

So ok, if the point here is to discuss the ethics then why the hell are we being asked about a civil action??

 

[diamond]

don't you just love her?

 

[corianderstem]

Yes!