What's the deal? Is this one of those times where I should indulge my love of transgression despite some negative things (like demeaning all of Kazakhstan, crude jokes, etc., etc.) because it's pointed satire and I'm just too dumb to fully appreciate it? Or is this actually not all that funny or insightful in any sense?
In an article carried by Portside, Kenneth Turan wrote in the LA Times that:
You will laugh at "Borat," you really will, but the laughter will sometimes stick in your throat. This is partially intentional -- "Borat's" fiendish brand of subversive social commentary comes with an ironclad shock-and-offend guarantee -- but partially not.
and...
We don't laugh at all of this, but we laugh at more of it than would seem possible, even if our laughter makes us uncomfortable enough to wonder why. For one of the unexpected things that seeing "Borat" underlines is that we don't laugh only because something strikes us as amusing. We laugh out of astonishment and disbelief, out of embarrassment for what the people on screen are going through, and because we simply can't figure out any other way to respond. "Borat" takes advantage of all these, and more.
and concludes with:
With his corrosive brand of take-no-prisoners humor that scalds on contact, Cohen is the most intentionally provocative comedian since Lenny Bruce and early Richard Pryor, with a difference. For unlike those predecessors, there is a mean-spiritedness, an every-man-for-himself coldness about his humor. The one kind of laughter you won't find in "Borat" is that which acknowledges shared humanity. Instead, there is that pitiless staple of reality TV, watching others humiliate themselves for our viewing pleasure.
Gifted and funny though he is, Cohen and his love of transgression are finally very much of and about our time. For better or worse, we deserve each other, and we might as well laugh.
Having seen some bits on late night talk shows and the old Ali G show, I wonder: so is it true? Might as well laugh? Approach a little more reflectively?
Pointers would be appreciated.
- saurav's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
What does Borat get right and wrong about his native land?
From that article:
blah. His research interest may go "beyond academic" but his methods don't seem to. This whole "everything I learned I learned from the internet," and "what I learned from the internet qualifies me to determine whether or not such and such is authentic" attitude pisses me off. He doesn't really offer citations for most of his findings, and, since he doesn't mention having been to Kazakhstan, probably hasn't.
If we looked at most of what people have written about South Asia and their experiences there, for example, we'd probably come up with a pretty silly and inaccurate idea of the place (not to say that we haven't perpetuated some of these ideas at some point in our lives - I know I have).
Love Borat! You will also love the Papdits! Its a Kashmiri family traveling the US on CBS. I'm hoping they get it off the innernet and onto actual network tv. http://www.cbs.com/originals/papdits/
I know from personal experience that when you are writing something for non academic publications and mainstream publications such as Slate, putting citations as if it were an academic paper is not going to get you published (well, rarely). There is a way to do this, such as weaving your sources into the article. But editors also think that since readers voluntarily read pieces, they will be put off by something that is 1)dry 2)too extrenuous to read and/or takes too much effort and time. Of course this can not be ideal, as subject matters are forced to become "interesting" and digestible, when perhaps a subject is more complex than that.
Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with "you've never been there, you're not qualified to speak." I've met plenty of people who have been to the countries that they are writing about but that doesn't mean they are painting an accurate picture or that they are seeing the complexities of any given society. As a foreigner/toursist/student/whatever you sometimes see what you want to see (and hence, my experiences with people who are well travelled but pretty racist, ie "Trust me, DI, I know. I've been here/there. I've seen the world."
Thirdly, he does mention details that hint at his having stayed there (specific streets, having drunk the wine, etc). But you're right, he never said he has been there.
Where did he say he learned things off the Internet?
If a writer states specifically that he/she is writing about his/her own experiences, then it is up to the reader to not take that as an "accurate" general portrayal of the place. Personal experiences are exactly that: personal experiences.
I do agree with your question about methodology. And I am defending the writer of this piece only to the extent that I think you're shooting him down rather quickly :)