18 May 07
Originally posted by Bobla45Personally, I thought it was brilliant. Not because of the obvious comedy factor but the satire behind it all. It's a great eye-opener to all the hidden bigotry, racism and prejudice in modern society, and I can think of nothing better than exposing and ridiculing some of cowards that cause it all.
I completely agree. I'm not very fussy with movies, once its rolling I'll watch most anything. I rented this a couple months back and I cant remember if I had ever stopped a movie after a half an hour, but I did with this one, I thought it totally sucked. Some people think its great, so I guess to each his own!
19 May 07
Originally posted by SeitseIsn't it outrageous what they'll do to get a rise out of someone? my favorite part was Borat trying to stuff Pamela Anderson into that burlap sack. She needs to be put into a burlap sack. I bet if it was made of casmir or pure silk she would have dove right into that pig.
I didn't laugh a bit.
Please tell me ALL the people appearing in that movie were PAID big bucks to act like scary, ignorant jerks.
Please.
19 May 07
Originally posted by kirksey957Well spotted
Not true. And I hope you will relax as I give you some parallels.
1) He left his village on a mission to meet people and show his love for them.
2) He enjoyed dining with people.
3) He was rejected by the religious establishment (as by the pastor at the fancy dinner in Birmingham).
4) He was a friend to prostitutes.
5) His icecream truck was his ...[text shortened]... d.
OK, now what do you have to say? Have you read the Bible lately or been to church?
19 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by SeitseI don't know about the film, but people could do A LOT LOT LOT LOT worse than book a holiday in Kazakhstan. It is a very cool place, amazing people, great weather, some of the best scenery anywhere (and I do mean anywhere), a good economy, an open and mostly fair society, many women in work, more literate people than most Asian and many European countries (including parts of the UK). Almaty is a cosmopolitan city to rival many European cities in terms of culture, night-life and shopping. Astana is an interesting forward-thinking city with some unique attractions and a very interesting plan to erect a tent over the whole city. The country is safer than most of Stoke-on-Trent any day of the week and the pound, dollar, Euro or whatever money you take there will go a very long way. The skiing is fantastic, cheap and the beer as good as any anywhere. You can also by Western ales in the major cities.
I didn't laugh a bit.
Please tell me ALL the people appearing in that movie were PAID big bucks to act like scary, ignorant jerks.
Please.
I know Borat was only a joke, and most Kazaks find it as funny as any Brits, but I just don't think it's fair... people there are not like that, they are intelligent, well-spoken, welcoming, friendly. The whole place is better than England, in most ways.
Their president was right to be offended, but also right then to shrug it off. I only hope many curious westeners do take the plunge and go. Those who do so with an open mind will have a great experience to remember for a lifetime.
This is just one of the reasons why...
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/images/photos/photo_sm_kazakhstan.jpg
19 May 07
Originally posted by asromacalcioFair on Kazakhstan? Borat is a full-fronted attack on some aspects of American culture. If anything, it isn't fair on the US!
I know Borat was only a joke, and most Kazaks find it as funny as any Brits, but I just don't think it's fair... people there are not like that, they are intelligent, well-spoken, welcoming, friendly. The whole place is better than England, in most ways.
The movie is very little about Kazakhstan, in my opinion. Cohen chose Kazakhstan because it's a country that not many people know about and so that he could have access to places and people he wouldn't ordinarily have access to. This is the only reason why he chose an existing country and not a fake one, I believe.
20 May 07
Originally posted by PalynkaSo why was the Kazak president offended? They also banned the film in Russia, but the Americans liked it.
Fair on Kazakhstan? Borat is a full-fronted attack on some aspects of American culture. If anything, it isn't fair on the US!
The movie is very little about Kazakhstan, in my opinion. Cohen chose Kazakhstan because it's a country that not many people know about and so that he could have access to places and people he wouldn't ordinarily have access to. This is the only reason why he chose an existing country and not a fake one, I believe.
20 May 07
Originally posted by asromacalcioYou tell me, I didn't know that. It sounds like political maneuvering to shield himself from the Kazakhs that didn't get it. As for Putin, it's crystal clear what he wants.
So why was the Kazak president offended? They also banned the film in Russia, but the Americans liked it.
That Americans liked it has also nothing to do with it. It's not like it's the first successful comical satire.
20 May 07
Originally posted by Palynkacorrect me if I'm wrong (I haven't looking into the making of the film), but I thought the way people acted in the Kazakhstan scenes were totally made up/acted, whereas the the people in the US scenes were real people acting normally? If this is the case, a false and derogatory picture of Kazakhstan was portrayed. As all most people know about Kazakhstan is what they say in the film, although they won't believe anywhere near it all, they will come away with the impression that it is a backwards country or simpletons at the least.
Fair on Kazakhstan? Borat is a full-fronted attack on some aspects of American culture. If anything, it isn't fair on the US!
The portrayal of people in the US was defamatory, as it shows specific people and allows you to assume that they represent a large proportion of US citizens. But it does show real people doing and saying what they ordinarily say and believe in - this means it shows a biased but true side of US culture and is therefore different from the portrayal of Kazakhstan
20 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakI don't see your point. A biased (but real) picture of a country is ok, but a purely fictional picture isn't?
correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't looking into the making of the film), but I thought the way people acted in the Kazakhstan scenes were totally made up/acted, whereas the the people in the US scenes were real people acting normally? If this is the case, a false and derogatory picture of Kazakhstan was portrayed. As all most people know about Kazakhsta iased but true side of US culture and is therefore different from the portrayal of Kazakhstan
I actually think it's the opposite, if a real backward village and real simpletons (because both of them exist in every country) of Kazakhstan had been portrayed would have been much worse as it is taking a small reality and generalizing it across a whole nation.
Borat simply portrays the absurdity of Western stereotypes about ex-Communist countries.
By the way, do you think his character Bruno is derogatory towards homosexuals? Of course not, yet he is also portrayed as a stereotype.
20 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure I'm arguing which is worse, creating an entirely fictional idea about a country or presenting (hopefully) extreme views of some in a country and allowing it to appear that these views are typical/widespread. The difference is that one was totally faked ('lies'😉, the other was the truth, albeit exaggerated by selective interviewing and editing.
I don't see your point. A biased (but real) picture of a country is ok, but a purely fictional picture isn't?
I actually think it's the opposite, if a real backward village and real simpletons (because both of them exist in every country) of Kazakhstan had been portrayed would have been much worse as it is taking a small reality and generalizing it across ...[text shortened]... o is derogatory towards homosexuals? Of course not, yet he is also portrayed as a stereotype.
I will say that I disagree with you when you appear to be saying that it's OK to portray Kazakhstan as simpletons, idiots, anti-semitic, incestuous... "because some of them will be". They paid people to act in an outrageously false manner. From the outside you might be able to say that it was obviously satyr based on the Wests images of countries like Kazakhstan, but if that was your country being portrayed like that I'm not sure you'd see the funny side. Plus I guarantee that most people who say the film, whereas they will disbelieve the "jew races", will now believe that all the people of Kazakhstan are backwards and stupid.
edit: I haven't finished the film yet - I didn't find it funny enough to watch in one go, so unfortunately I don't know who Bruno is...
20 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakThey weren't 'lies', they were 'fiction'. Selective interviewing and editing is are the usual trademarks of propaganda, whereas 'fiction' doesn't intend/pretend to portray a reality.
I'm not sure I'm arguing which is worse, creating an entirely fictional idea about a country or presenting (hopefully) extreme views of some in a country and allowing it to appear that these views are typical/widespread. The difference is that one was totally faked ('lies'😉, the other was the truth, albeit exaggerated by selective interviewing and editi ...[text shortened]... it funny enough to watch in one go, so unfortunately I don't know who Bruno is...
I never said that it's "because some of them will be", but because the point isn't portraying a reality but a fictional setting. If you can't understand the difference you must be from Kazakhstan and therefore a simpleton.
20 May 07
1 edit
woah! Why get personal and start throwing insults? I though we were just discussing the issue. When I quoted you saying "because some of them will be" I was referring to you saying "because both of them exist in every country". If these don't mean the same thing and I misunderstood then I apologize. What did you mean?
I do get what you're saying about propaganda. Maybe I find the portrayal of Kazakhstan worse simply because your average joe doesn't know anything else about the country. At least with America, everyone has seen other depictions of America (if not met Americans or even been to America ourselves) that give us a comparison so we know that what we are seeing are selected individuals who do not represent a whole. But how many people know anything else about Kazakhstan other than that which they saw in the film?
If you've ever wondered why some adverts are so over the top, this has the same effect. If you advertise a pasta sauce by showing the whole family racing to get home for dinner, no one is going to believe that their family will actually race home, but after they've dismissed this exaggeration they will be left with the impression that this pasta sauce will be something that will make their family appreciate dinner a lot. If you show a car doing somersaults, no one will believe that they will be doing the same if they buy it but based on no further evidence they will be left with the impression that the car has excellent handling. It's a very old and proven advertising technique. By showing Kazakhstan as backwards, with people having no other experience of the country for reference, while the viewers will dismiss the obvious exaggerations like the "Jew egg" races and "sleep with my sister" references they will still be left believing the more subtle slurs of the country as being full of dirty stupid people living backwards lives
20 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt wasn't an insult only a poor attempt at a bad joke... 😞
woah! Why get personal and start throwing insults? I though we were just discussing the issue.
I do get what you're saying about propaganda. Maybe I find the portrayal of Kazakhstan worse simply because your average joe doesn't know anything else about the country. At least with America, everyone has seen other depictions of America (if not met Amer ...[text shortened]... subtle slurs of the country as being full of dirty stupid people living backwards lives
I think we're running around in circles, but the fact that he portrayed a stereotype means that people already thought like that. If fact, many people paint with the same brush all ex-Soviet Union countries, which is quite ridiculous considering their diversity, and see such countries as mere pit holes of corruption, prostitution and backwardness.
The fact that Borat portrayed this stereotype of Kazakhstan and the fact that people actually discuss it has done perhaps more to diminish it than to actually increase it.
Of course, some people won't stop to think for two minutes about that. But what was the mental image of Kazakhstan of those people before? They might not have said it, but it would likely be the triple stereotype I've mentioned above. At least, that's my personal experience.
By all means, let's praise the good things in the real Kazakhstan. Just don't be unfair on Borat.