Sacha Baron Cohen’s Newest Riles ‘em Up in Israel
Jul 15th, 2008 | By Rick | Category: Analysis and Comment, News & Comment
Here’s an interesting piece by one of the victims of Sasha Baron Cohen’s latest guerrilla-filmmaking outing. Titled Bruno, it follows Cohen’s narcissistic, very gay German fashion reporter as he once again interviews unsuspecting experts, in this instance about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Though you’d think folks would be on to him by now, Cohen and his crew seem able to continue on their merry way.
I have mixed feelings about Cohen’s antics. There is no doubt that his initial outing, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, was exceedingly funny. The sight of Baron Cohen getting “saved” at a Southern fundamentalist church or getting some very racist frat boys in an RV to say some very racist things is often hilarious. But it’s just as often simply mean. Many of his victims are being made fun of just for being the way they are, and most of the time, they’re harmless enough. The humor is one-sided, because his interviewees don’t know they’re being victimized and can’t fight back.
I might be a bit biased, because I know one of his victims — a Birmingham pastor who didn’t deserve the treatment he got at Baron Cohen’s hands. He is a gentle soul, dedicated to nothing more than pastoring his flock and serving the people of Central Alabama. As a matter of fact, the entire sequence — the one at the Birmingham dinner party — preys upon nice people trying to be hospitable to a visitor from abroad.
I don’t know . . . maybe I’m just getting old and crotchety. I’m increasingly intolerant of over-the-top, gratuitous violence, and mean-spirited fare such as this leaves me progressively more cold. Yossi Alpher puts it this way:
Sacha Baron Cohen is loose in the Middle East. The end product will undoubtedly be hilarious. We’ll try to be good sports about it.
But will Sacha Baron Cohen? He is exploiting our tragic and painful conflict in the most cynical and deceptive manner. I doubt he’ll give us anything in return.
He’s undoubtedly right.
(Thanks to Yair Raveh’s Cinemascope for the pointer.)
RSS 2.0
Sir Rick,
Subjective: I just had a chance to experience this sick and empty hole in my midsection. Carolyn and I rented “Borat” simply due to the curiosity in us that also allows cats to suffer. She got up and walked away while I endured for five, maybe seven, minutes longer following the driving instructor scene. Up to that point I found a few feeble grins. I still feel guilt for even that.
Objective: in this town of 2000, half of whome are new-comers from Southern California, “Borat” is still being rented from both grocery store video rental centers by middle school students every time one of their parents gets a “B” in a 5th grade literacy test.
Hmm. Well, we actually enjoyed “Idiocracy”. That one was actually controlled by its director so as not to let a bunch of goof off actors and extras go any further over the top than necessary.
Take care, and
Thanxxxx!
EarlWiz
Earl, “Idiocracy” was a different animal … it was a scripted story that took aim at our culture that values stupidity and the lowest common denominators. All actors, no victims.
Yes, I watched all of “Borat,” though I too hated it in the morning. Hope you and Carolyn are doing well now that the troll is out of the shed.
I agree that what he does is inherently mean, although I have no problem with the comedy. Taking the example you shared, Rick, of your friend at the dinner table, if memory serves me correctly we were laughing at the situation they found themselves in, but we were never laughing at them. It’s like candid camera: we’re not laughing at the people, but we are laughing at the plight they have been placed in.
That distinction is enough for me.
Of course, this is different when Cohen gets people to make fools of themselves (the racist fratboys, for instance), but at that point they get what’s coming to them.
So, I agree with you that what he is doing on a personal level - tricking people into becoming set pieces for his film - is pretty awful. But would this be less mean if afterwards he let them in on the joke? For example, what if there were outtakes at the end of the film with Cohen yucking it up with his ‘victims’? Would that make it less cruel, because they were in on it? It seems that because he doesn’t do this - that these people found out the truth the same time they found out they were in a major motion picture - that is what is upsetting. It isn’t the film that angers people - it’s the method Cohen used to make it.
The film itself is no more upsetting than most of the comedy that comes out of Hollywood these days, and in many ways it’s incredibly insightful and piercing. Cohen is lifting the veil and revealing a very dark, disturbing undercurrent lying beneath the superficial exterior of America and human nature. It’s comedy with bite.
Hi, Evan … thanks for the thoughtful comment. Much of what you say, I have no problem with. Yes, it’s comedy with bite. Yes, it “lifts the veil” on dark and disturbing undercurrents lying beneath, etc.
But you know what? There’s not much of a veil . . . racism in America? What a revelation! Alert the media!!!! Fundies look silly at some of their revivals? Do tell . . . These encounters might have unveiled something to Cohen, but not to anyone who’s spent any time in this country really living here. And not to someone who’s taken time to really understand the people he’s using to make those shallow “points.”
And I disagree that the people in that dinner-party scene were laughing at themselves. I went back and watched it again, and they were genuinely horrified and disgusted when Cohen brought out that little baggie of feces and insulted the host’s wife. And though I understand wherein the humor supposedly resides, juxtaposing the oh-so-proper dinner-party set with his antics, and thereby making a statement about how shallow they are (as if Robert Altman, Jean-luc Godard, Luis Buñuel and filmmakers too numerous to mention hadn’t already done that), I don’t buy that it’s worth humiliating decent people for.
The Coen brothers have been accused for years of making fun of their subjects, many of them from the Southern part of the country. But if you take a close look at their films — “O Brother” comes immediately to mind — it’s clear that they have genuine affection for, and understanding of, their subjects. Last night, I screened the baptism scene with a bunch of southern Presbyterians, and to a person they all agreed that it was respectful of their religion and culture, while poking gentle fun at them at the same time. You could not say the same thing about Cohen . . . there’s more difference in them than just in that one letter in their names.
Again, my friend, thanks for the comment! I love a good discussion.
Ok, perhaps he’s not really breaking new ground, but he is breaking some ground, which is more than you can say for comedies like Superbad and Wedding Crashers. Not that comedy has to have some kind of biting social commentary to it, but it certainly helps. As to whether or not the ‘point’ he is making justifies his treatment of these people…probably not. You’re likely right on that point.
And my earlier comment on the dinner scene was that we, the audience were not laughing at them, but at their situation. I fully agree that they were not laughing in the slightest. However, that joke could have been played on pretty much anyone with any kind of manners, and I don’t think the scene was specifically making fun of the people. What I mean to say is that they didn’t look like fools in the scene - I was laughing at their situation, not at them.
Agreed, it was humiliating, but I would contend that the only people who would perceive that humiliation would be they ‘victims’ themselves and people who know them personally (like you). If you were to ask me which people in the movie were truly humiliated, I would say the fratboys and the rodeo organizer (who made the homophobic comment). I thought that your friends at the dinner came out looking pretty good considering.
But, really, I’m just playing devil’s advocate, here. I found the movie funny, but i could never in a million years do what Borat did to those people. I couldn’t live with myself. However, if I find it humorous does that make me complicit by association? Hmmm…I don’t know about that.
Actually, I only am acquainted with the pastor, and only in passing. I’ve known many folks like the dinner hosts and others at the dinner-party, though … there is a certain saccharine, plastic nature to some of their Southern manners, and it was funny seeing their befuddlement.
And agreed that Cohen has a point, and that comedies like “Superbad” and “Wedding Crashers” certainly don’t … but even though I’m not nearly as enthralled with “Superbad” and it’s cousin “Knocked Up” as most critics, they have an underlying sweetness that is totally lacking in Cohen’s humor.
Interesting last point, Evan … I did feel complicit when I watched and admittedly laughed my ass off. It felt voyeuristic, as if I were witnessing personal humiliations, which I guess I was. More important, I think he’s doing it because there’s an audience, and that’s us, so the complicity is real.
“He is exploiting our tragic and painful conflict in the most cynical and deceptive manner. I doubt he’ll give us anything in return.”
I think Alpher sums up Cohen’s crude movies perfectly.
Cohen reduces the pain of Gazans under the militant rule of Hamas and the fear of Israelis that said militant group - who in their charter call for the end of the state of Israel - keeps getting stronger and stronger day by day, down to a humus joke.
Contrast this with Adam Sandler’s brilliant comedy that lampoons the enjoyment of humus by Middle Eastern cultures and then ultimately uses that joke to resolve a conflict in the end.
I respectfully disagree with Evan that this isn’t “any more upsetting” than other comedies these days. Cohen’s film shows the ambush and destruction of real people, and that’s where it is different. I also think it does nothing to show us a dark underbelly. It only inflames people’s knee-jerk perceptions. (Is there anyone out there that really needs Cohen to remind us that bigotry exists???)
Is the rodeo guy a homophobe? I don’t know. Maybe. But how can we be sure just from a clip of a weird mustachioed guy shoving a camera in some confused strangers face. How do we know that the rodeo guy wasn’t just giving Cohen what he thought he wanted to hear so he would walk away??? I think Cohen places labels of racist, bigot, homophone etc. on people’s foreheads without giving them a chance to defend themselves. This is why I think he’s a hate monger.
Sorry… I get a little worked up over Sacha Baron Cohen. I pretty much despise the guy. Good discussion though!
Hi everybody, I’m late to the discussion so I’m just going to end up reaffirming what’s already been said. I agree with Fox. There are certain people, let’s take a life insurance salesman for example, that you agree with just to shut them up or make them happy.
“You don’t want your wife and kids to be saddled with debt do you?”
“No, of course not.”
“Well then you should really think about this great term life offer…”
“You know I really should do that. Let me read over this and think about it, thanks.”
Those are the kinds of situations Cohen puts people into. He makes them uncomfortable enough that their manners take over and then he punishes them for it. I’m sorry, but I think he’s a colossal asshole and I’m glad to see how you two feel about it because I’ve found that it gnaws at me ever so slightly when someone finds him humorous. I remember reading some rave reviews for “Borat” and I couldn’t help but feel disappointed in the reviewer each time. I wonder, “Geez, what other cruel behavior do you find funny and why do you find cruel behavior funny?” I also get disappointed because I associate Cohen with juvenile behavior and when a teenager finds him funny I can deal with it, but when a grown man finds him funny I wonder how developed he is intellectually.
Fox, it’s ok … I like discussion on this blog. I tend to agree with you, though … who’s to say that a guy who makes one homophobic remark when a microphone is shoved in his face is a homophobe or not?
And what does it matter if he is? Will ridiculing him make him or society any better? And does he deserve being humiliated for making a homophobic remark?
But Cohen isn’t concerned about whether or not he is or not, he’s just trying to exploit it for a cheap laugh.
Hi, Jonathan. I think you hit it on the head. He says and does things that are so outrageous that people are like stunned oxen, ripe for the kill. And then he moves in and finishes them off.
I remember one time back when I was doing research that somebody from the local PBS station came to do an interview about what I was doing, and the camera guy was there and the pretty reporter asked me questions, and I was so nervous that I said stupid things until about the 3rd or 4th take. I would not have liked it if those early takes were broadcast; although I didn’t say anything racist or homophobic (that I remember!), they didn’t make me look too intelligent. (you’re welcome in advance for the cheap-shot opening).
Anyway, Cohen is an asshole, indeed.
This is a very interesting discussion. I found much of the comedy to offend different senses of mine, but the parts that I enjoyed were those “candid camera” bits, as Evan says, like the chicken on the subway. Much of the rest of it, especially the climactic naked fight, was more off-putting than anything else.
It’s a little disconcerting when you’re thought to be “weird” for NOT cracking up at Jackass humor.
Daniel — the candid camera bits are the ones that are, to me, ethically suspect. Much of the scripted stuff — with the bear or the nude wrestling match, for example — seemed just not very funny.
There is an article to be written, I suspect, on what the responsibilities of “artists” are … film ethics, so prominent in earlier discussions of the medium, seem to have been abandoned as a discussion in mainstream film.