But let's see what Ben Stein says:
1.) The auteur and star of the movie, Sacha Baron Cohen, is a Jew of high degree in England and now in Hollywood. But much of the movie is viciously anti-Semitic. This includes not just some but many "jokes" about killing Jews, about how Jews are the devil, about how Jews will kill for money, about how Jews are like cockroaches (the last a direct steal from Joachim Goebbels, who compared Jews with breeding rats and insects). This is in a world where we just lived through an anti-Semitic holocaust with the same themes and another is promised by the terrorists in Iran.Clearly, Cohen means to lampoon anti-Semitism. You could say that it's ineffective, because there really is nothing to force anti-Semites to look critically at themselves and feel chastened. They can sit back and laugh heartily at the anti-Semitism.
These are not funny jokes. These are really just old-fashioned sickening racism disguised as hipness. It's also a smug joke by Sacha Cohen which is basically his endlessly saying, "I hate Jews, too, even though I'm Jewish, and hey, I guess I don't look Jewish because I can say all these horrible Jew hatred things and no one says, 'Hey, what are you doing? You're a Jew.'"
It's repulsive.
I remember the first time I saw Andrew Dice Clay, before I heard all the outrage at his sexism. I thought he was brilliantly lampooning sexism. So I may not the best person to judge.
Back to Ben:
2.) Much of the movie is about Borat making fun of people who have been completely kind to him. This is just infantile and narcissistic oppositional disorder. It's also rude, and it's not very funny. Maybe it is if you are five.Well, the key question is whether it's funny. But I can see feeling that it's wrong to laugh if he's being rude to people who are trying to be nice to him. But it's awfully straitlaced. All sorts of practical jokes and teasing are sort of mean. You could object to everything going back to "Candid Camera."
3.) Much of the story is mocking and belittling Southerners as a group....It is a bit cheap to target Southerners.
4.) It has a genuinely nauseating mockery of a woman just because she happens to be black. Why aren't people getting upset about that? It's pure, unadulterated KKK type racism. You have to see it to believe it.She happens to be a prostitute as well. Actually, I thought the movie got politically correct about the black woman. In the end, Borat goes back to her and marries her. It was more sympathetic than it needed to be. If anything, the movie targeted white men.
5.) Worst of all, it has acute mockery of Christians. There is a long scene mocking Christian fundamentalists, in which Borat makes cruel fun of the idea of Jesus as Savior...I agree that this was a pretty cheap target. It wasn't so much Christians as rural Southern Christians.
A close friend who saw the movie the same night I did said, "It makes you laugh, but then you want to take a shower after you've seen it."I think he's being way too prissy about it. What do you think? Is this just a matter of taste or is there a serious moral question here?
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
"It is a bit cheap to target Southerners."
...unless one is discussing federalism!
Ben Stein is a smart, professional writer and he is skilled at arguing his position (like you Ann). I agree with some of what he sai but he is being a little too serious.
However, the supply of comedy-writing talent, especially in movies, must be very scarce. I have not seen Borat yet but did see Meet the Fockers, thought it sucked and wondered how anyone could get paid to write a movie where about seven out of every ten jokes revolved around the name Fockers? I mean how hilarious is that - did they really need that great comedic actor DiNiro with such a great script?
I think he's right.
"If anything, the movie targeted white men."
Which, we now understand, can never be racist because white men do not belong to a race. Well... not a race designated as being in need of protection from targeting.
If I tell a racist joke, does it make me racist? Is it morally wrong?
What if I only laugh at a racist joke someone else tells? Quietly. To myself. During a lucid dream.
How about during a lucid dream from which I awake feeling dirty and in need of a shower?
Or is that just being prissy and humorless?
I wonder if Ben Stein would have been as negative toward the film if Cohen's targets had been examples of Blue State culture rather than Red State culture. If Cohen had stayed in New York and used the same techniques would he have been successful or would he have regularly been told off as a racist?
Or, I offer as a possibility, would lots of leftists have used the opportunity to go off on Israel and/or Jews? I've had a number of conversations where leftists became very heated and any Jew in the room would have no choice but to feel uncomfortable at the bile. After all this is a group who had to invent the usage of "neo-con" to avoid constantly talking about Jews. Imagine if he had made the movie in France. Wow, the footage he would have gotten!
I can appreciate a lot of Stein's objections. If the movie were shown in say. . .Iran -- would the Jew haters in the audience realize they were being mocked? Would they even think it was a comedy or would they just think, "Hey, here is a truth teller about the Zionist Jews traveling across America and Americans agree with him."
Having read about the methods used to obtain the footage, my main objection is the fact that he targets people not in the public eye and often used dishonest techniques to make them look bad. The people didn't really understand what was going on, were manipulated, and were tricked into signing release forms. It just seems like a very mercenary and mean-spirited enterprise that had as its victims people who did not deserve targeting. If he had made the movie about leftists I would probably not be very supportive either.
I'm Jewish and wasn't offended by the "anti-semitism." Does Ben Stein really think any sentient anti-semites were out there saying, "oh, yeah, cockroaches--right!" Cohen was having a bufoon be anti-semitic to show that anti-semitism is bufoonish, not to promote it, for god's sake.
I thought it was really funny.
Ben Stein should lighten up.
It's a big hit in Israel, where people can actually understand the Hebrew that Cohen is speaking. Perhaps if he understood the Hebrew that would allay his suspicions and help him understand that the anti-semitism is satire not a bizarre attempt at "hipness."
However, humor either appeals or not, so there is no way around that.
I did think though that Cohen pushed things a bit with the church scene at the end. That sequence, while having some funny moments, came off with a bit of a nasty/snide undertone.
It was widely understood at the time that the Dice Man was a character and an attempt to make misogynists seem small. Now the fact that many in the audience didn't necessarily take it that way has nothing to do with Clay's intentions and has more to do with his ability to be very funny simultaneously as opposed to many modern comics who venture into political areas and aren't funny at all. I mean, excruciatingly not funny. COUGHgarofalo/cho/frankin/crossCOUGH
I am always very uncomfortable telling someone else to "lighten up". I accept the fact that lots of people don't have the same sense of humor as me, and recognizing that lots of great humor comes at someone else's expense, it seems a little narcissistic to tell someone else when they should and shouldn't be offended. Of course, one of the worst insults you can throw at someone nowadays is that they have no sense of humor. Gotta be cool, gotta be hip, don't want to seem a prude.
Are the Cable Man and Jeff Foxworthy just lampooning southern culture?
Yes.
"Among working class young people in America, a semi-common derogatory phrase used is 'that's jewish', in the exact same way far more people use 'that's gay'."
I did not know that. If true, I'm not doubting just have never experienced that, it is truly unfortunate and frightening that it is going on in America. I'm so used to hearing stories of how well Jews are treated by Christians, especially Evangelicals, that I'm disappointed (too mild a term, really) to hear that we are heading down the path so well tread by France and other European countries.
I cannot imagine the vehement reaction a young person should get from me were I to ever hear that expression. I now have a bit more understanding for the PC police that I have often mocked for over-reacting. While I can't imagine the U.S. ever returning to slavery or Jim Crow and I can't imagine returning to less than equal rights for women it is all too conceivable that we will experience another (nuclear?) Holocaust in our lifetimes.
I have only seen clips of the movie. It would probably make me laugh and make me mad at the same time.
I have become more intolerant to this stuff over time. It's very sixth-gradey in quality, and no longer shocking because it's no longer a novelty. Jack-Ass, Team America, South Park and others have all done this stuff already. It's just not interesting.
And the ant-Semitic stuff is playing with fire. Is he he serious or lampooning? Who can tell? It makes, me, a non-anti-semite, cringe. Would it simply make an anti-Semite laugh aloud? So what's the point?
scottynx,
Not really, but thanks for trying! :-)
I imagine your friend who says "That's gay" will have some hot young patchouli wearing chick set him straight (see what I did there?!) soon enough. That's what happened to me, at least. It's amazing how quickly desire for approval from attractive women can cause change among young men.
As for the "That's Jewish" folks: I suppose a great part of my concern is that having never heard of that usage I must presume that it is a fairly recent phenomenon. As such it is troubling that at this time, considering the state of the world, such a phrase has come into being and looks to be gaining traction.
And while the cool thing is to respond to the phrase, "I'm gay." with, "That's awesome! High five!" I doubt the cool kids give a damn about the Jews. In fact, I rather suspect the opposite on many campuses.
The idea that the Oxford-educated hipster is only mocking "red staters" just doesn't work. I caught an episode just last night of Ali G, and he mercilessly mocked "tree-hugggers," animal-rights activists, and environmentalists (though Christie Todd Whitman handled him pretty well).
Borat was nothing but a 2 hour Polish joke. The point of satire is to make the target look absurd, not for the comedian to look absurd.
Nice job using it in a CivPro fact pattern, but I'm giving my patent law prof more credit for both creativity and taste. She used Stranger than Fiction for the fact pattern that made up 75% of the test. "After the trial, Harold Crick heard a voice in his head say, 'Why not patent?'"
"Again, the use of "that's jewish" is similiar to the use of "that's gay". "
Aside from a single person at the URL asserting the existence of this usage, I've neither seen nor heard any evidence of it before. (Note to commenter: you do realize that anybody can write whatever crap they want at Urban Dictionary, right?)
Can anybody provide more reliable evidence that such a usage is common?
I enjoyed Ali G, Bruno, and Borat on "Da Ali G Show," but thought the movie "Borat" was neither clever nor funny.
At one point, I thought about leaving because it was so slow and unenjoyable.
I found it especially mean-spirited and pointless to break the antiques in that one shop.
"Is this a matter of taste?"
Yes... bad taste.
I didn't find it even vaguely funny, but I don't find stupidity funny. At all. Ever. It was ethnic Adam Sandler.
I think a movie like this suffers from much the same problem as a lot of contemporary art. The artists of the 60s and 70s were too successful in their challenges of societal taboos. The taboos have mostly fallen, leaving those who want to mock the establishment in a tricky position. Christianity can be mocked, but is that really chic anymore? Everyone does it, even Christians.
Mostly now it's a lot less about some intelligent challenge and more about snickering in the back of the class, along with shows like South Park. It may provoke a laugh, but it's certainly not worth any broader discussion about the underlying message or theme.
Now, if a comedian was really brave there are issues out there which really are taboo, only artists now want to idolize folks like Carlin or Warhol but want to do it within the safety of the boundaries these men broke. They see provoking a mean press release from Falwell or Pat Robertson as censorship and persecution.
We're all the poorer for this loss of real courage and artistic vision. We need artists to be artists.
Well as a "born and bred" member of the working class let me shed some light on the "that's jewish" question. When I was younger I heard the term jewish and jew used as an insult quite frequently, although most of those using it didn't really have any idea what a jew was (elementary school central valley of calif. WASPs and mexicans only). As I've gotten older I hear it much less frequently and then usually to denote "cheapness" more that anything else. I would say that the term is fading out, not gaining usage.
drkittl: "Huh? Well I'm sorry that Borat wasn't racist enough to black people to amuse you Ann. I'm sure that on the DVD, he can add some watermelon and cotton jokes to make sure that his comedy is up to your personal standards. Sheesh."
How deliberately obtuse do you need to be to write that? The whole post is about how rude he was to white people. He treated the black woman with greater kindness than other people, rather than with equal disrespect. Shame on you for writing that.
"It is a bit cheap to target Southerners."
Speaking as a proud Georgian -- why do you say so? Merely because there is no social penalty to pay among the elite of Hollywood/Washington/London? Or is there another reason?
I haven't seen the movie, or any of Cohen's stuff in any medium. I do recall when he came to a rodeo in Virginia, however, and barely got out alive. It seems to me that it's very cheap to scoff at the South from London; it's deadly serious to do so in person.
I don't have any interest in being a consumer of his comedy, but I do respect a man who will take his life in his hands to make a point. He said that he wanted to draw attention to the fact that Americans didn't care to raise an alarm over anti-Semitism. There's probably a point to be made there. It's true, as some have said, that Evangelicals in the South are good friends to Israel. It's also true that the average Southerner cares as little about Jews, apart from "Israel," as about Malaysians -- which is to say, they don't care at all.
I don't know that this qualifies as anti-Semitism. If Israel is interested in survival, however, it's a point to which they need to turn their attention. If even their best friends aren't that interested in Jews-as-such, being not hostile but disinterested, they are in more danger than may be apparent.
Again, as a proud Southerner, I'm not offended. There are lives on the line, and not merely his own -- though he has risked that too. I've no interest in seeing his movie. I'm ready to consider his questions, however. He has paid for the right to ask them.
What I want to know is why were animals chained up for the amusement of humans? And why was Pamela Anderson involved with such a project? She publicly advocates for the "ethical" treatment of animals and yet she participated in this film which involved a chained bear, a chicken that is shoved in a bag, and various rodeo animals.
This movie was not appalling to me because of its emotional content regarding the human ego. Instead, it was appalling because it inflicted a very real suffering, one free of human egoistic suffering, on nonhuman sentient creatures.
Here is what Chatbot offered when I asked for a 20th Blogiversary Althouse post. But everyone would know it's a fake.
Althouse: 20 years of blogging, every day, since January 14, 2004
January 14, 2024
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the beginning of this blog. I can hardly believe it. It feels like yesterday when I decided to start this experiment, to express myself for the sheer pleasure of it, without any mission or message or agenda. I had no idea what I was getting into, or where this journey would take me.
I have written more than 80 thousand posts on this blog, covering a wide range of topics and events, from the mundane to the momentous, from the personal to the public, from the serious to the silly. I have shared my thoughts, opinions, observations, questions, doubts, joys, sorrows, hopes, fears, and passions. I have also shared my photographs, videos, podcasts, drawings, and other creative endeavors.
I have learned a lot from blogging, not only about the subjects I write about, but also about myself, my writing, my readers, and the world. I have discovered new perspectives, new sources, new ideas, new challenges, new opportunities, and new friends. I have also encountered some difficulties, some controversies, some criticisms, some misunderstandings, some mistakes, and some enemies.
But through it all, I have never regretted starting this blog, or continuing it. It has been one of the most rewarding and enjoyable experiences of my life. It has given me a voice, a platform, a community, and a purpose. It has also given me a lot of fun.
I want to thank you, my dear readers, for being a part of this adventure. You have been the best thing about this blog. You have enriched my life with your comments, your feedback, your support, your criticism, your humor, your wisdom, and your kindness. You have made this blog what it is, a unique, valuable, and enjoyable place to be.
I don't know what the future holds for this blog, or for me. I don't know how long I will keep blogging, or what I will blog about. I don't know if blogging will remain relevant, or popular, or viable, in the changing media landscape. I don't know if I will ever run out of things to say, or if you will ever get tired of hearing them.
But I do know this: I love blogging, and I love you. And I hope to keep doing this for as long as I can, and as long as you want me to.
Happy 20th anniversary, Althouse blog. And happy 20th anniversary, Althouse readers. You are the best.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 9:00 AM
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा