|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
look, kazakhstan was just chosen randomly. If you think Borat really reflects Kazakhs or is intended to, you need to lighten up. I think one of the messages of the movie is we're all crass and offensive; some are just more obvious than others. Part of the purpose of Borat is to put others at ease and to let down their guard. It worked on a lot of people as the movie shows. He chose Kazakhstan because hardly anyone in the west has heard of it. If he had chosen to be an African American, people would have immediatly picked up that he was an actor and pulling their leg. Hell, had he been Mexican, ditto.
If you focus so much on Borat, you're missing out on what really is offensive and scary: a large number of people he interacts with. |
Yes, many people in North America and England never heard of Kazakhstan. I am aware of that. That is part of the problem. They, in their ignorance, may actually have a negative impression after seeing such a movie. The people of Kazakhstan consider the movie to be quite defaming whether that applies to the Turkic Kazakhs or Russian Slavic Kazakhs. They are not too amused at all. The Kazakhs did not know they were going to be defamed. Again, if Hispanics or African Americans were disparaged in such a joking way, it would cause a huge stir. But, since they are "safe" to bully culturally for capital gain, it is done. We wouldn't make light of it, if were Kazakh, now would we? I just think it is a sign of the times where we are looking for the next outrageous thing to keep our interest. We have gone far from the upright characters of John Wayne to the next outrageous thing that will pop up on our screen.
As far as attacking Jews, which some posters did, because of Cohen's behaviour, that is kind of going too far. Just focus on whether you think there is a problem or not a problem with the motif behind these films.
Engaging in prejudice against Jews, because you consider this movie prejudicial against Kazakhs is not positive. Of course, I think that his being Jewish hurts other Jews in Russia, because of the stereotypes in Russia. In my opinion, everyone has negative aspects of their culture whether they are British, Jewish, Muslim, or WASPish. So let us focus on the movie, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The ADL hasn't made a statement about this film although it looks like they should. Its a new movie. I'll give them a month or so.
| Quote: |
Our Mission
"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."
ADL Charter
October 1913
|
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hans Blix wrote: |
never been quite sure about this. sure, he uses his guise to expose some idiots for the racist/homophobic/whatever coqs that they are, but these are not his only targets. doesn't he also go for the educated leftists just to shock them? that he represents a 'kazakhstanian' has to come into play in these cases.
|
No, he doesn't go after them just to "shock" them but to show that the educated leftists can be as close-minded as anyone else.
Remember that the feminist leftists are even less patient and more rude than the well-to-do southerners he eats with. The latter puts up with his antics and is extremely patient with him until the black prostitute shows up. The feminists, on the other hand, quickly tell him they've had enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I haven't seen the movie yet but I remember reading that the people that had the most patience with him were the young black guys that he was asking for advice on re: how to dress like them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That is true, but I also think he wasn't as obnixous towards them as some others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| ...many people in North America and England never heard of Kazakhstan. I am aware of that. That is part of the problem. They, in their ignorance, may actually have a negative impression after seeing such a movie. The people of Kazakhstan consider the movie to be quite defaming whether that applies to the Turkic Kazakhs or Russian Slavic Kazakhs. They are not too amused at all... |
I object to this kind of thinking. I think you also touched on this as far as whether or not Americans are getting the right kind of newsprogramming in their lives. Although well-intentioned, this leads to its own kind of authoritarianism and censorship, a hypersensitive, leftist, PC dictatorship, if you will.
But people should be free to create, criticize, agree with, disagree with, be offended by, laugh with, or laugh at whatever they want or can imagine.
Kazakhstanians are offended by this film? OK. Then they can boycott it or protest against it. But if you are looking for the equivalent of a mod with an itchy trigger finger to come and "lock" it up, I hope you are not successful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, my questions rather than objections regarding the movie arises from two things, basically. The people of the West don't know Kazakhstan at all. The first thing they will encounter is a movie that disparages them in a comical way. The first time someone who knows nothing of Kazakhstan meets a Kazakh they will think of the movie, and they may repeat something from the movie.
If Western media gives the Kazakhs a place to show case their country and tell their story, then things will be all right. Otherwise, there is a risk of appearing, at least, to choose such a country to get away with it. One might argue that Cohen was making fun of many people in England, Canada, and America regarding their ignorance of other countries, but I am sure it is marketed to the larger U.S. market and audiences. Then my other question was did Cohen manipulate those Romanians who are impoverished and felt, as they claimed, he was out to help them? If what they are saying is not true, then that object to him would be dropped. I believe in treating people fairly. Was Cohen exploiting people unfairly for his profit. That is what I am asking.
I did not call for a boycott anywhere. I am just wonder if we are poking fun of the Kazakhs, in that way, because we can. I can understand how Kazakhs wouldn't want the first impression of them to be a very negative one. Granted, there are certain questions regarding the human rights situation in both Russia and Kazakhstan. That is another story. The movie actually might have redeeming value, good intentions. I haven't really heared from Cohen on the subject. I am not calling him a racist, by any means, and I am not. I just am concerned about lampooning a people that people are not familiar, and this movie will be their first impression of the country. I am just hoping we give the Kazakhs a fair shake. It does play on to the idea that many have this idea of Central Asians riding around on horses or camels. They have no clue about Central Asia. Again, I never called for a boycott or censorship of this movie. To imply such is unfair. Anyway, where is the promotion of the movie about Bush's assassination? Do you actually believe balanced portrayals of artists' opinions are given such weight. Obviously objections to the assassination movie does affect those who will promote it. Cohen's movie may be actually a criticism of the U.S. regarding knowledge of other countries, according to some. I just hope we give the Kazakhs room to tell their story, too. That's all I'm saying. We shouldn't just leave room for stereotypes.
From the ADL website --
"Press Release Miscellaneous
Statement On The Comedy Of Sacha Baron Cohen, A.K.A. "Borat"
New York, NY, September 28, 2006 � The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement on the upcoming theatrical release of Sacha Baron Cohen's new film, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" starring his farcical anti-Semitic character "Borat" in the lead role:
The premiere of Sacha Baron Cohen's new film featuring his farcical character "Borat" has raised anew concerns among some in the Jewish community about the character's notoriously boastful expressions of anti-Semitism and stereotyping of others.
When approaching this film, one has to understand that there is absolutely no intent on the part of the filmmakers to offend, and no malevolence on the part of Sacha Baron Cohen, who is himself proudly Jewish. We hope that everyone who chooses to see the film understands Mr. Cohen's comedic technique, which is to use humor to unmask the absurd and irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias born of ignorance and fear.
We are concerned, however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry.
While Mr. Cohen's brand of humor may be tasteless and even offensive to some, we understand that the intent is to dash stereotypes, not to perpetuate them. It is our hope that everyone in the audience will come away with an understanding that some types of comedy that work well on screen do not necessarily translate well in the real world -- especially when attempted on others through retelling or mimicry.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Cohen chose to make jokes at the expense of Kazakhstan. It would have been better to have used a mythological country, rather than focus on a specific nation." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| The people of [X] don't know [Y] at all... |
As you can see, I took liberties with your words. Please forgive me, as I did not do it to mischaracterize you but rather to abstract your point.
This is a general truth in human affairs, and not at all exclusive to the (allegedly especially insensitive) West -- and, indeed, sometimes "the West" is the victim of this.
And I agree with you. People should not reduce, essentialize, or in any way, shape, or form, create, ridicule, or mock crude stereotypes of Others.
But that is just not the world we live in. Humor exists only at someone else's expense. It is always so. The only way to wipe it out would be to suppress humor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But that is just not the world we live in. Humor exists only at someone else's expense. It is always so. The only way to wipe it out it to suppress humor. |
Here we go again, justification hiding in the form of "pragmatism". There is no justification specifically when said humour is aimed at a market where there won't be much prior knowledge to afford an understanding of the sophisticated nature of said humour. The people marketing this movie know this -- they are just feeding on basic hate and bigotry hiding in the guise of humour.
Humour also IS NOT always at someone else's expense. Sorry but for a good definition and the best read on the subject, try Huxley's Act of Creation. There he defines humour as Like not meeting Like. We expect one thing and get another. It doesn't have to be at the "expense" of another person's humanity.
Censors every day, act on the behalf of the audience's prior ability to understand. Even with adults. They shouldn't have let this movie slip through -- given its crude humour that only plays to the lowest common denominator.
I also don't think it just trashes Jews and Kazakhstani's or Romanians , Gypsies. It also trashes the concept of the "immigrant" . That is the basis of its popularity, the stupid immigrant stereotype that doesn't understand the truth that is American holy life. Especially given the climate of the times, it is to be castigated on this count.
I prefer Sellers as Chance the gardener, there, the bumpkin humour works to disarm the real "at fault". Robin Williams did a fine job also in the movie which I can't recall the name, ....on the Hudson .....where he played a Russian immigrant.
Let's look at the state of "kulture" at present. It consists and its humour specifically, in the debasement of others. All those crude fear factor, prank, survivor, elimination things are all about putting down others, spiting others. I would ask, how have we come so NOT far?
We don't have to swallow all this low stuff, just because it is seemingly how the world works/is. That is not an arguement at all....in foreign affairs or regarding hatred in film.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You know, I can think of a few smaller nations that probably would have loved the attention Kazakhstan's getting now. Just a guess, but I suspect Nauru or Kiribati (please pay attention to us world, our whole country is sinking) would have jumped at the chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel, don't you think though that it's precisely this 'stupid immigrant' that has allowed the movie to capture people at their most honest and unguarded? Somehow I doubt the anti-Jewish hunting guy would have been so upfront had the interviewer been producing a serious documentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Here we go again... |
another sermon from Ddeubel. That is right: "here we go again..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mith, I do agree that it would be a good way to get a reaction. I disagree one, that he was successful and two, there aren't better ways to go about it. As a slate article on this went to say.....
http://www.slate.com/id/2153578/?GT1=8805
| Quote: |
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.
Having gone this far in a curmudgeonly direction, I may as well add that any act that depends too much on the scatological is in some kind of trouble. Borat�and Borat�rely on excremental humor from the very first frames. This isn't unfunny just because it's infantile and repetitive and doesn't know when to stop; it's unfunny because the revulsion produced by feces is universal and automatic and thus much too easy to exploit. This is especially true when, in a cheap knockoff of Luis Bu�uel, our hero decides to introduce the unmentionable topic at the dinner table. (To be honest, I am still reeling at the relative composure of that Birmingham society lady. If I wasn't trying to change the subject, I would say that I admired her phlegm.) |
See this interview with Andy Rooney. Interesting. Andy knows it is an "act" but he just won't go with it, just won't buy into the dumbing downess of it all . This shows how unfunny Borat actually is.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpDyJObCKOY&NR
Those that think he is funny, go for all the stupid antics, car crashes, things blown up, things in a horses ass..........they'd laugh at Jesus on the cross....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched it last night and almost fell of the bed I was laughing so hard. It was freaking funny.
And unlike the "40 year old virgin" and similar movies where people act, let's say, homophobically and it's ok, Borat is making fun of those people, I think.
Still funny.
As for the fratboys who are suing, they should just shutup, the producers may have given them drinks but he didn't turn them into racist assh*les, they did that all on their own.
Last edited by Octavius Hite on Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:34 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
