Did Borat Go Too Far? [now with ABC poll UPDATE]

Last week probably like many of you, I went to see the movie "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."  I thought it was pretty funny at times and at more times just a bit over the top.  Overall I had come away with a pretty good impression until I read this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

The village used to portray Borat's home in Kazakhstan is a real place but it is in Romania.  The horrible poverty and squalor that you see is no movie set.

The way the movie makes fun of Americans is humorous but to find humor in this village and the way these people are forced to live is not funny, it's sick.  I feel kind of dumb for not giving this a lot more thought at the theater.  It all seemed so crazy that there was no way it could not have been staged.  To realize that it was not is scary.  Then in addition to read how these people were treated by the film makers is inexcusable, Mr. Cohen should be ashamed if this all turns out to be true.  I'm feeling a lot less inclined to see his next movie.

So I'm interested in knowing if I am lacking sense of humor here.  What do the rest of you think.

UPDATE: There is another article in The Financial Times but it is subscription only

UPDATE 2: did ABC get the title for their poll here...hmmn?

http://abcnews.go.com/...

anyway it looks like this story is getting picked up and the Daily Mail is getting credited as the source...interesting, are they going all legit on us now? I don't think it would be the first time a tabloid has broken a "real" story, if you could call it that.

•  yes, frankly

  I found the way he treated those villagers appalling.  I'd sue, too, if I were them.

  It was funny in many places--and VERY funny in a few--but I frankly found it simply painful to watch more often than not.

  by thereisnospoon on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:08:59 PM PDT

  •  You know - I recommended this diary

    It's the type of cruel humor that Republicans are so fond of. I bet Bush would enjoy every second of this film - especially after finding out the plight of those villagers.

    Maybe it will help spread the word around.

    by PatsBard on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:45:46 PM PDT

    •  The joke is on you....

      The representation of this village is not factual and not meant to be.  The village and the character is meant to portray an arrogant and condescending American view of the rest of the world as backwards, stupid and immoral.

      It will be misunderstood by many.  

      That said, I think Sasha could have made better movie.  The TV episodes are much better.

      Must see Borat Segment, 'throw the jew down the well (so my country can be free)'

      by dft on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:02:32 AM PDT

      •  That whole village portion is a comic set up

        It establishes a sense of distance and superiority for the audience. Of course, if someone were to analyse exactly what Baron Cohen is implying in that first scene - that people living in poverty would tolerate quite indefensible stuff - of course it's not funny. But that set up is necessary to make the later portions of the film - when people act in truly offensive ways - as hilarious as they are. Like you say, many Americans somehow seem to think themselves superior to the rest of the backward world. But Baron Cohen catches well-off people acting in truly cruel and offensive ways.

        Actually, it's rather a brilliant movie considering what we are going through right now with the Middle East. Most of America is willing to bomb these countries back to the stone age because somehow they see them as backward and less deserving not just of dignity and respect but of life itself. Even after Bush admits that at least 30,000 innocent lives - at a minimum - were killed by our actions there, many people still feel our actions are justified. Now that's what is truly offensive.

        by John Campanelli on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:22:30 AM PDT

      •  The joke is on you.

        The objection is not to the fictional depiction of a fictional town.  The objection is to the way the actual filmmakers treated the actual people .

        by LithiumCola on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:11:28 AM PDT

        •  or is the joke on Republicans?

          nearly all Borat's victims are Republicans. God-fearing, often Southern and just a little unused to tricky foreigners, such people were supposed to be the Republican Party's core support. Suddenly the rest of the nation is laughing at them — and outvoting them

          Link

          by xy109e3 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:33:08 AM PDT

        •  filmmakers treated the actual people?

          what standards do you have for filmmakers who are trying to make a buck?

          i think this whole debate is faux outrage.  

          by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

    •  Republican humor

      Over on The Corner they have talked about this movie extensively which has spurred discussions about the funniest movies of all time.  This movie seems to be squeezing onto many of their all time lists.

      by rustydude on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:29:11 AM PDT

  •  Here is a YouTube of the first four-minutes

    of Borat. It shows the whole portion of the movie filmed in this village. Everyone can judge whether it goes too far.

    Call me cruel, but since nothing he says in that portion is true, I don't think it goes too far. Hell, if we're going to be offended for the villagers, we have to also be offended for Kazakhstan since he actually makes the libelous accusations against them as he does against these villagers.

    I guess the next question must be: is it okay to mock the rich truthfully yet not okay to mock the poor even it though true life people are used to create a fictitious character? Should the well-off Southerners and drunk fratboys who Baron Cohen catches on film acting like bigots and imbeciles also be offended or should they simply be embarassed because they were such whores for media attention, that they would act in the ways they did despite the cameras rolling and because they wanted, like others in Reality TV America, to have their 15 minutes of fame?

    While I understand people feeling bad for anyone who suffers from poverty, absolutely NOTHING he says about these people is true. If anything, he uses these people as foils for creating an offensive character. Perhaps, Baron Cohen should do the right thing and share some of his wealth with them because it's the right thing to do. But I fear we're getting a bit too P.C. here.

    by John Campanelli on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:45:17 AM PDT

    •  For me this is Politically Correct versus

      Politically Incorrect which I was composing in my head as I was scrolling down and then read your last line. I think a diatribe against the sleazy British Tabloids and Rupert Murdoch would have been more appropriate, they are the real enemies not Sacha Baron Cohen who exposes the bigotry & squalor.

      by Predictor on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:07:08 AM PDT

      •  i agree, the diarist should make an edit

        by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:43:06 AM PDT

    •  Oh dear

      that looks very funny.

      by coigue on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:40:08 AM PDT

  •  A man in New York City didn't find Mr. Cohen...

    ... very funny.

    Borat Spanked by Angry Yank

    by Flirtin with Disaster on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:10:03 AM PDT

•  i don't think

  you went too far.  Personally, I think the movie went too far.

  And the way his crew humiliated the entire village is quite disturbing.  I hope their suit is successful and they get their fair share of the tens of millions the movie will rake in.

  That, and in some cases it was simply too painful to watch.  I had to hide my head and look away in a lot of spots.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:09:19 PM PDT

  •  Me too.

    I saw it just earlier tonight, actually.  I read reviews (from reviewers I generally trust) saying it was "revolutionary" and that I would be on the floor laughing the whole time.

    After about half an hour I wanted to walk out . . . mostly from boredom.  But I stuck it out.

    There were one or two scenes that were sort of funny.  But on the whole I think Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" bits are funnier (where he goes out in the city and asks people simple questions which they can't answer -- clearly in good fun).  And "Jay Walking" is not what I would call hoo-larious.

    But then, Borat did manage to get frat boys drunk and filmed them saying sexist things.  Shocking!

    After reading the account of how he treated people, I kinda wish I hadn't bothered at all.

    by LithiumCola on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:31:58 PM PDT

    •  "Revolutionary"

      Yes, it seems that bigotry, racism, sexism, and just plain cruel humor are now the "in" thing.

      by PatsBard on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:48:04 PM PDT

      •  Where were you?

        It has been the "in" thing for at least 10 years now. This movie just takes it far enough for people to see what it really is.

        Personally I didn't think this was so bad, except for the fact that they lied to the villagers to make this. Still, I'd expect Kazahkstan to be more angry at this than Romania. Most Muslims I know seem to like it for some reason.

        by Beet on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:36:33 AM PDT

        •  i agree with you

          not bad at all..  can be argued that it is brilliant.

          by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:43:51 AM PDT

•  Answer: No

  Not far enough, I say! :-P

  by Sam Spencer for County Commissioner on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:09:27 PM PDT

  •  That comment was based on the movie as a whole

    not the plight of the Romanian villagers, which I knew about.

    Did they get any money?  Film crews usually leave behind some commerce wherever they go.

    by Sam Spencer for County Commissioner on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:26 PM PDT

    •  Read the article

      they each got 3 pounds.

      by coigue on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:18:38 PM PDT

      •  A Murdoch con -- and you fell for it, Kattania

        This story ran in the Daily Mail and the Financial Times. The former is a sleazy tabloid, the latter a broadsheet with an air of respectability.  But they have one thing in common -- they are both owned by Rupert Murdoch.  Murdoch is of course also the owner of 20th Century Fox.  Who made "Borat?"  20th Century Fox.

        In short, this is a phony controversy generated by one Murdoch company to gin up controversy -- i.e. publicity -- for a film released by another Murdoch company.  Murdoch was betting that most people would not connect the dots -- and in your case, he bet wisely.    

        The story unabashedly reveals its own phoniness.  From whom did the villagers find out about this supposed outrage against their honor? Why, from the very helpful Daily Mail reporter.  In other words, the writer essentially created the story he is "covering."  We can easily see how this worked: reporter goes to remote village (no problem finding it -- another branch of Murdoch's empire had already been there), tells the locals how they were insulted, gets quotes of indignation and threats of a lawsuit, and voila! An instant non-story giving a fresh boost of publicity to a movie entering that crucial second and third week when box office receipts drop off radically.

        For a blog that regularly decries the media, there is an awful lot of naivete here at DKos about how the media actually works.  I, alas, was in the news biz for 11 years -- during which I witnessed maneuvers even more cynical than this one.

        by richter on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:02:02 AM PDT

        •  Thank you for sharing your wisdom

          For a blog that regularly decries the media, there is an awful lot of naivete here at DKos about how the media actually works.  I, alas, was in the news biz for 11 years -- during which I witnessed maneuvers even more cynical than this one.

          by rustydude on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:38:15 AM PDT

    •  you should read the article sam

      by john de herrera on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:24:59 PM PDT

      •  a tabloid article?

        by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

•  Why are you questioning yourself?

  This is horrible, if true.

  by coigue on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:10:17 PM PDT

  •  guilt

    I really enjoyed the movie when I saw it. I still think the parts in the U.S. were very funny but I can't laugh at the memory of the "Kazakhstan" part now.

    by kittania on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:12:57 PM PDT

    •  this may make you feel better

      I was planning to go see it, after reading your diary...I won't.

      by coigue on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:17:05 PM PDT

      •  likewise

        Thanks for passing this on.

        by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:18:46 PM PDT

      •  thanks coigue

        I'm not sure I'd try to organize a boycott or anything but I think I wouldn't have gone myself if I'd heard about this first...at least I wouldn't have PAID to see it

        by kittania on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:19:41 PM PDT

        •  yeah, thanks for posting this k.

          i knew awhile back i'd never see this guy's stuff. no surprised about what the article says.

          by john de herrera on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:27:11 PM PDT

          •  What did you know about him?

            I just heard his name last week for the first time.

            by coigue on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:29:23 PM PDT

            •  i know he's given

              a lot of visibility in the MSM. red flag number one. have seen him on late night and morning shows both. innate repulsion at his brand of comedy.

              by john de herrera on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:32:06 PM PDT

            •  Have you heard of Da Ali G Show on HBO?

              That's his tv show

              He was very popular with a show on British tv but it only works if the interviewee doesn't have a clue who he is.  He became too well known over there and then brought his show to the U.S. via HBO.

              There have been some extremely hilarious interviews with politicians and public figures on the show.  It's one of the funnier shows around imo.  

              But after reading this article.... no way.  

              by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:38:16 PM PDT

              •  I once stumbled on Da Ali G Show, not

                knowing anything about Cohen. I'm not of an age where his type of humor likely to please! When "Borat" was on TDS, I watched B/C I always watch Jon! Didn't find the bit funny. Borat's been on everyone's show lately, pimping the "Movie film".

                I find he wears on me more and more with each exposure!

                Sorta a shame there isn't truly a homeland which would be inclined to regard cruel, snide and unfunny
                performance cause "for execute" Borat!

                There's too much exploitation in the world! I say:right on to the folk of Glod. Sue their ass, get a lotta money!

                Aloha. . .

                by dolphin777 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:06:25 AM PDT

              •  Never heard of it.

                I am "out" I guess.

                by coigue on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:34:00 AM PDT

            •  this is a pretty good summary

              wikipedia

              by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:42:29 PM PDT

      •  same here

        I've always enjoyed his stuff and wanted to see the movie but after reading this there is no way I would:

        1.  Give them my money

        2.  Be able to stand watching it knowing what the reality of it is.

        I'm glad you posted this.    I hadn't heard a thing about it.

        by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:35:10 PM PDT

        •  is this

          Mahir?

          by Avila on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:08:27 AM PDT

          •  omg lol

            no that's not him but i hadn't seen that site in ages.  wow lol.

            this is him

            by tlh lib on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:50:19 AM PDT

            •  still waiting on my invit-ate

              I is want to come to Turkey.  :p

              by Avila on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:47:14 PM PDT

    •  Consider the source.

      Daily Mail has got an Enquirer vibe

      Consider this headline from today's Daily Mail:

      Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

      I don't take this rag seriously.  

      by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:50 PM PDT

      •  fair enough

        I'd be glad to find out this wasn't all as it seems, guess we'll have to see what else comes out.

        by kittania on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:37:32 PM PDT

      •  Well since the Financial Times

        .. is also covering the story, I think we can safely say that it is legitimate.  And no, I cannot provide a link because I do not have time to learn how to do that right now... technopeasant that I am.  However, I can google!  And you can too!

        by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:39:13 PM PDT

        •  After five years of seeing the establishment...

          ...media doing PR for the Bush administration and serving as little more than stenographers for their lies, why are you so ready to place such unquestioning trust in the Financial Times? Just because it's British?

          by StupidAsshole on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:02:35 AM PDT

          •  No

            Because they are a serious financial paper, without the nuttiness of the WSJ editorial board, and they had they were one of the few outlets a few years ago that did extensive coverage regarding Bush's insistence about going to war in Iraq, regardless of what the UN decided and in spite of real facts on the ground.

            by Delilah on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:07:15 AM PDT

            •  I've no doubt that they're one of the better...

              ...papers. And it's good to know that they saw through the WMD bullshit. But good papers can get played and can have their own biases. I mean, surely we've seen enough lazy journalism over the past few years to take much of what we read with a pinch of salt?

              by StupidAsshole on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:13:44 AM PDT

            •  Delilah, I'm not trying

              to be an argumentative jerk about this.  But, every article I've read on this is sourced back to the Daily Mail.  I cannot take that source seriously.

              You're correct, the FT is a reputable insitution, but NYT and WAPO (both very badly stained standard-bearers) have run editorials based on questionable "facts" from disreputable sources.

              I would like to see if FT did their own reporting on this.  Because it's behind a subscription wall, I can't tell if it's an editorial using a bad source, of if FT has confirmed this.

              I make no apologies however, for doubting the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail.

              I will gladly apologize if I am wrong on this.  It matters more to me that we rely on good reporting than my being totally off-base.

              by 2lucky on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:28:48 AM PDT

•  it's still funny

  Being made fun of, even in this way is harmless. After all none of this guys characters are very flattering to himself, he makes a fool out of himself every minute he is on film. However he should compensate these people, and he should have told them what was what before the films release, that was unfair.

  by Grant Caesar Peters on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:14:06 PM PDT

  •  That's a fair comment, but,

    I must ask, do you think that these Romanian villagers even understand the Borat schtick?  I think the point is that that don't understand that SBC uses self-effacing comedy. They have no context. They only understand that they have been humiliated -- and set against the backdrop of cultural humiliation for most Roma in Europe (known as Gypsies), it is another slap in the face to them.  Frankly, it turns my stomach.  And I can't even begin to discuss the economic exploitation that occurred.  Overall, I think this is quite shameful, if true.

    by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:22:57 PM PDT

    •  not sure

      If paying them a lot more money would have made it better or worse!?!

      by kittania on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:25:13 PM PDT

      •  Indeed

        An ethical conundrum, isn't it?

        by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:44 PM PDT

  •  you read the article? you should if you haven't

    by john de herrera on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:29:12 PM PDT

    •  the tabloid article?

      by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

      •  yeah, the tablod article

        brian williams missed this story. someone had to pick it up, right?

        by john de herrera on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

•  brilliant at times, over the top at others

  Fortunately, a few of the over-the-top parts actually involved paid actors, which may make some fans feel cheated, but is probably for the best.  In particular, the prostitute in Atlanta was paid and was more or less acting, and Pamela Anderson was in on the joke (although in both cases the other people in the scenes weren't paid or in on the joke).

  To my great surprise, I stumbled across a review from Focus on the Family, and actually found its discussion interesting, in particular of the pros and cons of this sort of "expose people's prejudices" humor, and whether it was over the top or not.  (Warning: review does have some sanctimonious bits, as you'd expect from FotF.)

  by Delirium on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:20:14 PM PDT

  •  oh, a further warning

    The review contains lots of spoilers!

    by Delirium on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:21:25 PM PDT

•  On principle

  I wasn't going to see it anyway. I'm already annoyed with the hype.

  But I'll be forwarding your diary to a few people and suggesting others do the same.

  by melvin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:26:23 PM PDT

  •  Melvin, I ask that you consider the source

    first: UK Daily Mail.  I posted upthread with links to today's headlines.  The headlines alone speak for the credibility of this, ahem, publication.  

    by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:34:10 PM PDT

    •  As aforementioned...

      .. the Financial Times is covering this. Seems legitimate to me.

      by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:40:03 PM PDT

      •  I can't find the FT link: are they merely

        picking up the DM article, like every other publication has?  If FT has done some independent reporting, then it lends credibility.  But, if FT is running with DM sourcing alone, there's no credibility attached.

        by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:44:48 PM PDT

        •  First of all

          ... You do realize that the Financial Times is a newspaper of record and there is no earthly way they would carry a tabloid piece? Second, it is a separate article by Christopher Condon published Nov. 11.

          by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:49:57 PM PDT

          •  Do you have a link to the independent reporting

            done by FT?  Is that what Condon published?  That would carry more weight with me.  But, I've seen no links to the FT article (couldn't find any, but FT seems to be behind a pay wall).  If FT has done its own reporting, I would like to read it.

            by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:59:20 PM PDT

            •  the link to Condon's article is at the top of

              my comment below this one which you responded to.

              yes, it's behind a paywall so the full scope of the accusations being reported by FT cannot be seen but, as you said, the lede seems to insinuate the same as the article the diarist referenced.

              It's also not an article by somebody without clout in reporting on that region.  Christopher Condon  is the FT Budapest coorespondent.   The first result in the google search definitely lends credibility to his reporting.

              Of course, we still can't read the entire FT article so this is all merely circumstantial.  i doubt you'll find the article in its entirety unless someone with a FT subscription wants to pony up.

              by tlh lib on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:47:09 AM PDT

              •  Thanks again. I

                would like to see if FT reported independently, or if an editorialist used convient reporting to further their view.

                by 2lucky on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:54:55 AM PDT

                •  i guess that would depend on

                  Condon's credibility since the byline is his.   given his credentials shown via the google results, it doesn't seem like someone who would be phoning it in based on someone else's reporting.

                  but it'd be nice to see the entire article as well as any credit to other reporters given....which (conveniently) would be at the end, not the beginning lucky for us lol.

                  by tlh lib on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:00:47 AM PDT

                  •  I have no basis for doubting Condon, but I don't

                    have the benefit of his reporting, either.  
                    I think it would be beneficial.  

                    I just don't understand reacting with vigor to a pretty obviously suspect source.

                    If the producers of Borat pulled bullshit tricks on a poor populace for laughs, then they deserve all the blow back.  But, like any other matter, I want credible reporting.  Color me crazy because I think Daily Mail is a joke.  

                    by 2lucky on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:06:25 AM PDT

                    •  oh i don't disagree and the sourcing

                      aspect didn't even occur to me when i first read the diary.  you're right about the daily mail.  

                      i think the 2nd paragraph of the FT lede is probably going to end up reflecting the same story as the Daily Mail story though.  but, unfortunately since they want moeny to read it, none of us actually know that for a fact.

                      i guess we won't know for sure until it's reported somewhere that doesn't require a subscription on the net.

                      by tlh lib on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:19:21 AM PDT

        •  Appears to be FT reporting

          This is all that's available without a subscription:

          link

          Borat not so funny for folk mocked in spoof movie

          By Christopher Condon

          Published: November 11 2006 02:00 | Last updated: November 11 2006 02:00

          The residents of Glod, a remote village in south-east Romania that supplies the opening sequence of Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, still don't know what hit them. They are just beginning to understand that cinema audiences around the world are laughing at them.

          To add insult to injury, the residents of a village whose name literally means "mud" say they were paid a pittance for their appearance in the spoof documentary that grossed $26m (€20m, £13m) in its first weekend.

          by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:52:07 PM PDT

          •  Thanks, tlh lib.

            I can't see beyond the lede without signing up for the "free" 15 day subscription (I don't sign up for those).  The first few paragraphs sound just like DM.  Does anyone else have a little more of the article they can post?  

            by 2lucky on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:05:00 AM PDT

            •  some more..

              Paraschiva Stoian, the toothless 73-year-old who played Borat's mother, got €30 (£20, $38) and 200kg of cement - which she is using to make improvements on her tiny house. But the diminutive Mrs Stoian says she feels "insulted", especially because the film crew insisted she put balloons under her shirt to simulate large breasts.

              Petre Buzea, the vice- mayor of Moroieni, the municipality that encompasses Glod, cares less about whether the residents of Glod feel offended. "They got paid, so I am sure they are happy. These gypsies will even kill their own father for money."

              by Hatu on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:02:55 AM PDT

    •  True enough,

      but awfully specific. Should be realtively easy to fact check. Any Romanians around?

      I ran across this complaint in a random Romanian blog somewhere too, without much detail.

      o/t His whole schtick reminds me of Andy Kaufmann. Never liked him either.

      by melvin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:41:26 PM PDT

      •  Again, if there's reputable reporting behind

        this, that's a whole different situation.

        But, here's another DM gem headline Spoof Kazakhstani reporter Borat sparks White House crisis talks.

        If this were reported by CHB or WM, it would be laughed off the board.  Why Daily Mail gets a pass is beyond me.

        I will believe this, like anything else when there's reputable reporting behind it.  

        by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:56:46 PM PDT

•  Not cool.

  Wouldn't it have just been easier and cheaper to build a set? Why exploit these people?

  I won't be seeing this movie now.

  by Basil on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:31:49 PM PDT

•  As someone who hasn't seen the movie...

  I can't comment on whether I found the movie funny. I haven't seen it, and won't see it, which means I can't join the discussion about the movie itself.

  I saw Cohen on the Jon Stewart show. Jon Stewart spoke of the movie as being very funny, but, as far as I was concerned, Cohen's portrayal of his Borat character on TDS was not funny at all. I realized this movie isn't for me.

  Almost everyone has a sense of humor, so, kittania, my guess is that you have a perfectly satisfactory sense of humor.

  The exploitation of the people in an impoverished village is not funny.

  Thanks for bringing this article to my attention.

  by True North on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:34:22 PM PDT

  •  tds

    the humor was kind of lost on TDS.  Borat's humor is about the people not knowing he's a fake.  Jon knew he was a fake but was pretending he didn't know, and Cohen was pretending he didn't know that Jon knew he was fake... I can't even keep my head straight writing it out, so I can imagine how they might have been confused.

    by tunesmith on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:40:41 PM PDT

    •  good point

      that's exactly how it appeared too.... very forced as opposed to Da Ali G show interviews....for exactly the reasons you state.

      by tlh lib on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:54:21 PM PDT

    •   Good point but...

      As little as I knew about the film before I saw the interview on TDS, I did know that this was an actor who was in character as Borat.

      So Cohen, Stewart, and I all knew that the person being interviewed was an actor performing his character--and two of those people were pretending that this was all very real.

      As one person who was watching the two of them act their parts as interviewer and interviewee, I'd say that possibly the TDS interview strategy doesn't work well in this kind of situation. Of course, I might be the only viewer who lost interest in the movie because of that interview.

      by True North on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:02:45 AM PDT

•  I saw the article about

  the village people suing them too. As a result, I do not plan to see the movie. I refuse to give money to someone who treats unfortunate poor people that way. They are sick.

  by kathika on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:37:58 PM PDT

•  More Details

  Honestly, I'd like some more details before I decide on something like this.

  A few things that give me pause:

  • The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and a pretty trashy one at that. It's by no means a newspaper of record. Why has no one else picked this up?
  • Baron-Cohen's an astute businessman, so why would he leave himself open to something like this?
  • Baron-Cohen has a history of pretty good community activism (I live in the same neighborhood as he does) - he lends his name to issues, and has donated some good money to our local community.

  There's also the issue that we don't know what the going rate for this type of service is in Romania. The quote from the guy in the article says he makes, on average, 70 GPB (365 Lei) per month - when you compare this to the national average of just over 1000, you see how poor an area this is. He also said that he made 15 Lei from Baron-Cohen, which is 4.1% of his average monthly wage. Let's say the man "works" 26 days/month (6 days per week) - then his average income per day of work is 14 Lei, which is comparable to what Baron-Cohen paid him, if his numbers are accurate, and if we ignore the fact that he's not actually working those 26 days, as he's unemployed.

  Furthermore, let's look at the people who rented him the house - for four days, they've taken in just under half of the average monthly income in town.

  This whole analysis assumes that these people are telling the truth about how much they got, which is a different question entirely.

  So did SBC under-pay these people? I'm not sure. If he did, however, it's almost certainly not as bad as it seems, when their payments are compared to the average costs of working in that area.

  by Scipio on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:40:01 PM PDT

  •  just my opinion

    but i have no doubt the article is correct. have not seen the movie, but have seen the guy on t.v. and always got a negative feeling. that's just my opinion though.

    by john de herrera on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:46:41 PM PDT

    •  We'll See

      If this is indeed something legit, then it'll play out for all to see.

      For the meantime, however, I'm going to be skeptical. I see the guy in person fairly often (around the neighborhood), and always get a good vibe from him.

      by Scipio on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:48:52 PM PDT

      •  It is legitimate, I believe

        The Financial Times reported on it; see above.

        by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:54:27 PM PDT

        •  FT

          Anyone actually seen the FT piece, besides the lede that's given away for free?

          I also found it funny that someone posted the headline "Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth" as an example of how garbage the Daily Mail is.

          Don't get me wrong, the Daily Mail is crap - but the headline's not all that far from a discussion that's going on within the Anglican church nowadays.

          by Scipio on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:09:15 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for bringing some common sense...

    ...to this thread.

    by StupidAsshole on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:55:33 PM PDT

•  I think I'll skip it

  I like a good side-splitting movie as much as anyone (go see "Little Miss Sunshine" if you haven't yet!), but I think I'll resist all the hype on this one.  I spent a fair amount of time in the 1990s working in small, neglected villages in the former Soviet bloc (Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc.), assisting the people there on an assortment of environmental projects.  I gained so much respect for the reformers who struggled during the communist era, and who have struggled ever since to bring about positive change under tough circumstances.  While the powers-that-be were ignoring them, and the greedy were taking advantage of the chaos, and the well-connected were wallowing in corruption, these heroes were cleaning up the wreckage -- literal and metaphorical! -- of the Cold War.  I especially remember the great value people in even the most remote mountain villages placed on education.  It was not uncommon in these villages to meet a mother or father whose kid was studying in graduate school in the U.S.  It still gives me goosebumps to think about the people I worked with, whose commitment to democracy (not to mention environmental reforms) brought down the Iron Curtain.  The stories of their struggle for freedom, told over drinks late into the evenings, continue to inspire me in my work.  It would be hard to see the movie with these experiences behind me....  These places may not look like much, and their struggles continue, but they sure gave me a hell of a lot of unforgettable and inspiring "cultural learnings."  

  by strobusguy on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:40:18 PM PDT

  •  this sounds familiar

    why does this ring a bell?

    While the powers-that-be were ignoring them, and the greedy were taking advantage of the chaos, and the well-connected were wallowing in corruption

    by john de herrera on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:48:53 PM PDT

    •  John, it reads as familiar b/c it's an age-old

      story, and can/does take place in every/any locale -
      over and over and over . . .

      Aloha. . .

      by dolphin777 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:16:11 AM PDT

•  I cannot believe all the comments here

  taking the source of this information without question.  

  Check out Daily Mail for yourselves.  Read a few headlines!  Check out some of the articles.

  This is like getting all up in arms over a National Enquirer article.

  If the movie offends you, fine.  But until a more credible source backs this story up, I ain't buying it.  I don't buy Capital Hill Blue/Wayne Madsen idiocy.  I won't buy the Daily Mail's either.

  by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:41:27 PM PDT

  •  Would you "buy" the FT?

    The Financial Times is a leading newspaper of record and it is carrying this story.  

    by Delilah on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:45:52 PM PDT

    •  Again, if FT did their own investigation

      and reporting, yes.  But, if FT is picking up the DM article, then frankly no.  

      by 2lucky on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:47:54 PM PDT

•  He made a killer joke on TDS, tho'

  Something about W's father, Barbara, being angry with him.

  by ormondotvos on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:45:19 PM PDT

  •  "Barbara!"

    "Don't mess with me!" That was funny.

    by lirtydies on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:36:52 AM PDT

•  Left the film with a bad taste...

  I'm a huge fan of the Borat sketches from the Ali G show.  However, there was one aspect of the movie which was different than his TV stuff, and it made me leave with a bad taste in my mouth.  On his TV show he might make the occasional person look stupid, but he never really exploited their compassion as much as he did in the film.  I got the sense that several of the people in the film actually had compassion for him and were trying to understand him and help him out and he ended up mocking them quite harshly.

  In particular, I felt that the old school southerners who hosted him at the dinner party were very patient with him and he mocked them for no reason. Unlike most of the people he mocks, they never exposed backwards beliefs or insulted him in any way.  Quite the contrary, they appeared to be overly patient with him.  

  Things like that occurred many times in the field.  It's funny when bigots or assholes are exposed and made fun of, but I get a bit uncomfortable when he mocked people who did nothing to deserve it

  by RyneSandberg on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:47:36 PM PDT

•  Pretty despicable stuff

  I don't have a problem with Baron-Cohen making fun of American frat boys, but taking advantage of Romanian villagers by paying them so little and not telling them what they were doing just isn't right.  I've been to some villages nearby around Brasov and the people are very, very poor.

  by ortcutt on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:56:33 PM PDT

  •  For heaven's sake, people...

    You have the account of a group of people who are on one side of a lawsuit. You have to at least entertain the possibility that they're tailoring their stories for the purposes of their case. I don't see any reason to trust them unquestioningly, as so many people in this thread seem to be doing, and I'm certainly skeptical of media accounts, whether in the Daily Mail or the Financial Times. Has everyone forgotten our own experience with the media over the past five years?

    by StupidAsshole on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:09:09 AM PDT

    •  Dan Mazer

      the producer Ali G makes some pretty flippant statements here about a "strange little village" and jokes about buying them a pig for letting them film there

      I agree it's early in this story to tell what's the truth here but I'm afraid SBC is not getting the benefit of the doubt

      by kittania on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:14:10 AM PDT

•  If you liked Frank Zappa

  you'll love Borat.  It's heady shit he does.  Incredibly intelligent.  To be able to sell people on your dumbness the way he does is unbelievable.  If I didn't know better I would be taken in.

  I'm not so sure the people in the movie come off as anything other than fictionalized backstory for the real world Borat.  I feel for them and their plight, but I don't think they were as naive as they claim.

  Nonetheless, Borat is brilliant.  Bruno, which is his next film will be even more outrageous, simply because he's gay.  And he loves to go to places where gays aren't welcome.  Wait til that comes out.

  by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:15:41 AM PDT

  •  Brilliant?

    I have no doubt that Cohen is a very intelligent man and an extremely good businessman; however, I would hardly call his form of humor brilliant.  It does not take brilliance to exploit poor people...their unfortunate circumstances make it quite easy and obviously quite cheap.  

    No amount of community work excuses his form of "humor."

    by liberatedvoice on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:33:39 AM PDT

    •  It does not take brilliance to exploit poor ppl

      no shit.  just look what Bush did..

      however, i disagree, Borat is brilliant.  it is satire ppl.  come on.

      by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:01:38 AM PDT

  •  I am kinda stunned

    that so much of this thread is negative.  I'm not saying SBC's material doesn't make me feel very conflicted- it sure does.  I expected a lot of people to be angered and disturbed by the use of innocent people in ways they do not understand.  Paying them well or poorly, that is a serious issue.

    But surely someone's going to point out that there hasn't been a more incisive satire in  recent memory?  That the film acheives a "lifting of the veil" experience that many people will never forget?

    I mean, you see the bigotry of America in an unvarnished way that is simply striking.  I know I will never forget what I learned in that theater.  How often does a film do that?

    And the media hype is just because the executives suddenly realized that this small cult comedy they were about to release was getting mad raves everywhere it was screened- from both common audiences and educated critics.

    THAT's when the media kicked in- when they saw dollar signs potential.

    I just saw it- it's not quite as funny as I'd been told.  But I'll be thinking about it and discussing the issues it raises, for months.

    Someone on this thread needs to throw that point out there- for balance.  It is after all, brilliant political art.  That may well have been created in very unethical ways.

    by blue florida on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:49:32 AM PDT

    •  Jon Stewart unfairly critiques anchorpeople

      All those people toiling in newsrooms who make a legitimate living gathering news for us to consume, and Stewart just lampoons them. Sure there are some newsrooms where people are less than fair and balanced. Sure they sometimes will fill air time with a video report that was produced by marketing department or an arm of the government. But who among us has not done something sleazy and unethical to make a fast buck?

      For Stewart to make six to twelve times their income and yet dress up as a "news anchor" with the sole purpose of pretending to be one of them is demeaning to the anchor trade. It is caricaturing a group, which, if they lived abroad, we would rush to defend. Sure it is funny if it is Brit Hume, but what about Andreea Esca?

      Don't get me started on Colbert!

      by MarkC on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:39:42 AM PDT

      •  i'll never defend the anchors from

        Jon..  more like throw them overboard.

        we need more like Jon.

        by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:02:44 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, actually I was joking

          Just trying to point out that satire is something people regularly get behind here. But clearly wasn't able to pull it off with the same panache they do!

          by MarkC on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:28:15 PM PDT

•  I have no plans to see this movie.

  I was born without the gene that allows you to find the english funny.

  by Anthony W on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:18:35 AM PDT

  •  You don't like Peter Sellers? Alec Guinness?N/T

    by dolphin777 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:20:44 AM PDT

•  Nope..

  I understand the jokes...but they just don't trigger laughter in me.

  by Anthony W on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:28:22 AM PDT

•  Before we judge Borat, look in our closets.

  There's a good chance every article of clothing was made by someone working sweatshop wages. We all share the guilt.

  by daulton on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:31:14 AM PDT

  •  damn, that's harsh

    but true.  damn you, it's your fault for making me realize i am a bad exploitive person..  

    the pot calling the kettle black...  lotta that going around these days.

    by hypersphere01 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:04:00 AM PDT

•  Why is it that the overwhelming majority...

  ...of people who voted in the poll think that Borat was a funny movie, yet the vast majority of posts in this thread are by people who are offended by it (or by what they believe SBC did to those Romanian villagers)? I wonder what that says about us.

  by StupidAsshole on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:48:33 AM PDT

  •  I think is because

    The content of the diary gives people who dont like it a chance to vent, when in most environments youll be dealing with 80% fans of the movie and if you didnt like it, its hard to speak up.

    For people who liked the movie, its just the opposite. It becomes demoralizing to defend it once so many critical comments have built up.

    by Beet on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:13:49 AM PDT

  •  my bet