Borat: A Review

There are few people in America who have not yet heard about Borat, the comedy about a Kazakhstan journalist (Borat Sagdiyev--played by Sasha Baron Cohen) who makes a trip to and across America with his movie producer (Azamat Bagatov--played by Ken Davitian) in search of "cultural learnings" that will help his people in some way. During the course of his journey he manages to offend, perplex, and expose to ridicule dozens of Americans from former Presidential candidates (Alan Keyes) to private citizens. One gets the impression that many of them didn't know who Cohen was or, better said, believed his story that he was from Kazakhstan making a movie about life in the US. Borat himself is full of his own overstated prejudices: against Jews, women, etc., and his brand of scatological humor, politically incorrect tirades, and twisted English sentences set the stage for some genuinely humorous events. Priceless is the naked wrestling match with Azamat; very funny is his television interview with a local TV personality and his wandering on the set while the weatherman was giving his report. But these scenes nothwithstanding, I left the theater last night feeling more depressed about life (and any movie) since I saw The Ice Storm about a decade ago.

Honing in on My "Depression"

I was perplexed with my depression because this film has been given the highest ratings by most critics and has been called the best comedy of the year by many. I began to think that I was just a sort of superannuated prig for not joining in on all the fun, especially since a few of the scenes are genuinely funny. But then it came to me why I not simply didn't like the movie but actually rather despised it (I despise few things these days). In a sentence, it is because Borat takes advantage of "little people" through acts of systematic deception and plays off their nobler instincts, in most cases, by deliberately doing things which he knows will make them become unglued. Then, when he makes them look ridiculous, the audience is supposed to laugh. By doing this Cohen has demonstrated all the sophistication of an adult ridiculing a child and then taking delight when the child gets mixed up trying to understand what is happening to him.

Let me illustrate my perspective, first from my experience as teacher and then from scenes from the movie. One of the things very evident to me as a teacher is the knowledge and power discrepancy between me and my students. My longer experience in the world, mastery of subjects, greater opportunity for skill development, ability to give grades, ability to "throw my weight around" to a degree with out repercussion make the teacher/student relationship inherently "unequal." In this situation I could embarrass the students and make them feel angry, abused or bad about themselves. But, I choose not to do so. For some reason I feel more inclined to try to draw good out of them, to engage them as people with aspirations and hopes for the future, to encourage them to work hard at what they do. While doing this, by the way, there are lots of occasions for genuine humor.

Borat, In Contrast

Borat, in contrast, derives his laughs by deceptive (and highly selective) ploys on people who genuinely are trying to help him. Let's begin with the "highly selective" point. About 90% of the people he wants to embarrass in the film are the "little people" of America--those who have no pretensions about their own importance and who are just trying to make their way through life. But he likes to ridicule people who the cultured elites love to despise--Southern Frat boys, Fundamentalist Christians, humorless feminists, Southern families at dinner. He also ridicules Jews unmercifully, but he can "get away" with this because he is Jewish himself. As we know, only an African-American can get away with using the "n-word" in jokes or conversation; only a Jew can ridicule Jews. Apart from a few politicians, he doesn't "expose" to ridicule any of the "cultural elites"--such as college professors, lawyers, accountants, Northerners, or those of obvious means. And, he especially doesn't want to ridicule African-Americans. In fact, he forms a relationship with some rappers that leads to their teaching him "Blackspeech" for a future encounter. Thus, he takes pot shots at the biggest and easiest targets in our culture today.

But he takes shots at many of these after they seemingly "buy" his story about being a Kazakhstan journalist and try to help him understand aspects of American culture. Maybe the "joke" is on them for not "seeing through him," but I think the poor taste is on him for playing ungrateful guest when hosts have extended themselves to him. An example is his experience in a Civil War memorabilia shop somewhere in TX. The proprietor tries to answer Borat's questions as he wanders through the chock-full-of-memorabilia gift shop. Then, as one could probably have expected, Borat "loses his balance" or "slips" on something, thus propelling himself over dozens of glass objects, smashing tables and glasses, and landing in a heap. The proprietor is, surprisingly, not immediately upset, but calmly tells Borat he will have to pay $450 or so for the wrecked items. Borat counts out an insufficient supply of money which, when supplemented by a few dollars from Azamat, doesn't add up to $450. The man throws him out of the store. This is humorous? The only slap-sticky thing is his falling all over the objects. But if the proprietor truly didn't know that Borat was just "staging" this, I am sure that the thing running through his mind was the nature of his insurance policy, whether he really would have enough to make it through the week, etc. Borat got great laughs for his clumsiness; laughs at the expense of little people.

These stories could be multiplied--where he plays off the Fundamentalists desire to "bring him to Jesus" or where he upsets the hospitality of three Southern couples by disgracing the wife of the pastor and then bringing a bag full of his excrement to the table. He hits easy targets, targets which the movie-going public has been trained to hate, and cashes in on his superior knowledge when he is making out as if he has no knowledge.

The relentless attack on little people, mostly of the Southern or Fundamentalist stripe, more than outweighed in my mind a few clever scenes in his relationship with Azamat or his "attack" on Pamela Anderson during her book signing. Funniest movie of the year? Maybe, but that is an indictment of the year and not a praise of Borat. One hopes that Mr. Cohen's star falls as quickly as it rose. Come to think about it, I might laugh at that.

2428