![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was going to write an in-depth article about "The Kazakhstan syndrome" and the different interesting angles on why "BORAT" is so loved and hated, but I'm not going to do that, let's just be honest instead.
For the last week I've been chatting a lot with different BORAT-fans, "fans" as in people thinking BORAT is brilliant. If you are even a slightly bit bothered by something in BORAT then you probably don't belong to this group of people. Many of them told me in various wordings that I (as in me, myself, my person) belong to the American PC-movement because of the questions I asked, and that I was offended by the movie because I was dishonest (in which they seemed to mean that I want to "coddle minorities who don't need my protection, because deep down inside I want protection myself")
These people did not know that I'm not American, they probably thought that I was a white middle class female american with a college degree & were bothered by my movie experience.
The most effective question I asked BORAT fans was: What in the movie made you feel good?
There is no end to how vague the answers were - if I even got an answer at all. Words like "brilliant" and "hilarious" were used to describe the movie, but what made the fans feel GOOD was a very tricky question to ask. Because BORAT is not only about various american sub-groups like evangelical christians, republicans, gangstas, jews, hillbillies, feminists and frat boys being ridiculed - that part can actually be pretty funny sometimes and most americans I've met who don't like the film at all didn't actually have much of a problem with those parts of the film.
So, what was the problem really? For a long while, after listening to Borat fans revel against people being OFFENDED (and actually, I asked a local movie-theater manager in Louisville Colorado and he confirmed that usually a few people per day from the audience do leave BORAT in mid-scene) I also had to ask myself what made me different from many as a viewer. I knew I wasn't offended, as in "shocked" or "angry" or "hurt" there was nothing in the movie that was gross enough to make me want to leave, but I also wasn't enamored or impressed. I even pondered posing the question among some BORAT-fans if it was the unusual abundance of male genitalia, in other words cock, that made them love the movie so much - because there are a couple of juicy moments where the ding-dongs dangle in an cute way, so if you're cock-starved you would certainly love BORAT.
In Sweden we get a fairly healthy amount of cock and vag in view, and by that I don't mean porn.
TV drama or movies produced in Sweden show genitals frequently, actors undress, and we go to saunas or skinny dipping together and see our co-worker's and friend's private parts in a non-sexual or funny or private way all the time. Some of us are still shy in Sweden, and not at all as frivolous as some Americans seem to think we are..but still, to se a cock on film is no big deal.
I know for a fact that the people being offended by BORAT didn't have a problem with the nudity and the cocks and not really by the mocking of Americans either, they were mostly bothered by the one thing that bothered me a bit - the fake "documentary" Kazakhstan.
But what was it that made the film so loved by the fans, and why were some fans so furious and at the same time delighted when someone criticized the movie?
A few likely theories arise after some research:
1. They want to protect the viewing of cocks on screen (very logical from my point of view)
2. They have been hurt for so long by the BIG PC-movement in the USA that they adore the thought of people not liking BORAT being middle aged, white, christian feminists with foot-right shoes and a poor connection to their subconscious mind. Or, lacking that, anyone else from the PC movement for that matter. (the phenomena of the PC and anti-PC movement on this continent is so vast and complex I could write a thesis about it if I had the time)
The problem with the movie is however neither the cocks nor the PC or anti-PC movement, the problem is that in order for BORAT to work, and by "work" I mean be interesting at all, it needs to not only be a road trip through the USA and all its more or less absurd sub-groups of population, but to also be a road trip made by two guys who are more embarrassing and inapt than even the most crappy or weird old american. It's a really old-trick-pony, the satirical usage of the unbrushed peasant asking the hostess of the party where he should put the bag of feces after he's done his business. (okay, I laughed really hard at that one, I admit)
But here arises the question: which country does really want to take on the part of hosting feces-bagging, pubic hair-selling, piss-drinking, pimping citizens with ugly clothes and unhip hairstyles? Which country wants to play the part of Kazakhstan?
In order for this film to work, the exploration of the most absurd or embarrassing American phenomenas must be shown by someone from a culture that is made up by the worst ideas some Americans seem to have of a poor muslim/eastern European country. (I know Kazakhstan is in Asia, but the Kazakhstan in BORAT looks pretty Eastern European to me...)
Sasha Baron Cohen takes all the prejudice about poorer countries that exist in richer countries and bundled them together: lack of water-toilets, abundance of black body hair, clothes 15-20 years behind in fashion, fixation with technical gadgets as symbols of prosperity, sexism, peasantry-humor, no cultural clue whatsoever when it comes to the West, etc etc and makes the inhabitants of these traits x 10 the ambassadors who explore the US. Borat viewers get to see the worst cliches about America being presented by their own worst ideas about a poor muslim/eastern European country (not to be confused with Kazakhstan). It really is hilarious and mocks Americans on so many levels, all would be well except for three things:
1. There really is a country called Kazakhstan, it's pretty big, and they don't dig the unhip part they are made to play in the world according to BORAT. They mean that: okay, this film exists, and there's nothing we can do about that, we have no power against Hollywood, and if it's hip to make up lies about us that make us look vastly unhip (but hilarious), then we're sitting ducks, but it's kinda sad that we'll be known for our supposed bad toilet-training and piss-drinking in the future to come.
2. Some americans really think Kazakhstan is like the BORAT-Kazakhstan. No kidding! On a rather large Internet forum BORAT-fans write openly that the Kazakhs are poor sports and party-poopers to be so upset by the "truth".
3. Americans can't laugh at America unless they can laugh EVEN more at someone else who's not American right after, in Borat it's like a gag-reflex.
I'm not kidding, this is the key to BORAT. For every scene where some American group gets humiliated or embarrassed, the audience gets 2-3 scenes with something even more obscure presented by the "Kazakhs", and a lot of the movie is about this muslim-peasant stereotype invented in the "American" mind, and most of the audience is laughing far far more from these scenes than from their own countrymen being daft or bizarre. (possibly with the exception of the Jesus-revelry scene)
So it's probably not about the cocks after all, which is a pity, because that would have been rad.
Lastly, when criticizing this film at all, a lot of BORAT fans seem to think it's about censorship and that the critics think the film should be forbidden. I don't know why I always get that when I explore people's right to not like something cultural, please chill, no one wants to muffle BORAT (except perhaps the Russians, and here we thought it was COMMUNISM making them do that, hah.)
No, no, go see the movie, but I still remain convinced that the best question to ask someone after seeing BORAT is not: what made you upset with the movie? this isn't a very surprising area and there are a couple of obvious variations to the answer. No, go out and ask: What in the movie made you feel GOOD? instead, and observe some pretty interesting reactions.
For the last week I've been chatting a lot with different BORAT-fans, "fans" as in people thinking BORAT is brilliant. If you are even a slightly bit bothered by something in BORAT then you probably don't belong to this group of people. Many of them told me in various wordings that I (as in me, myself, my person) belong to the American PC-movement because of the questions I asked, and that I was offended by the movie because I was dishonest (in which they seemed to mean that I want to "coddle minorities who don't need my protection, because deep down inside I want protection myself")
These people did not know that I'm not American, they probably thought that I was a white middle class female american with a college degree & were bothered by my movie experience.
The most effective question I asked BORAT fans was: What in the movie made you feel good?
There is no end to how vague the answers were - if I even got an answer at all. Words like "brilliant" and "hilarious" were used to describe the movie, but what made the fans feel GOOD was a very tricky question to ask. Because BORAT is not only about various american sub-groups like evangelical christians, republicans, gangstas, jews, hillbillies, feminists and frat boys being ridiculed - that part can actually be pretty funny sometimes and most americans I've met who don't like the film at all didn't actually have much of a problem with those parts of the film.
So, what was the problem really? For a long while, after listening to Borat fans revel against people being OFFENDED (and actually, I asked a local movie-theater manager in Louisville Colorado and he confirmed that usually a few people per day from the audience do leave BORAT in mid-scene) I also had to ask myself what made me different from many as a viewer. I knew I wasn't offended, as in "shocked" or "angry" or "hurt" there was nothing in the movie that was gross enough to make me want to leave, but I also wasn't enamored or impressed. I even pondered posing the question among some BORAT-fans if it was the unusual abundance of male genitalia, in other words cock, that made them love the movie so much - because there are a couple of juicy moments where the ding-dongs dangle in an cute way, so if you're cock-starved you would certainly love BORAT.
In Sweden we get a fairly healthy amount of cock and vag in view, and by that I don't mean porn.
TV drama or movies produced in Sweden show genitals frequently, actors undress, and we go to saunas or skinny dipping together and see our co-worker's and friend's private parts in a non-sexual or funny or private way all the time. Some of us are still shy in Sweden, and not at all as frivolous as some Americans seem to think we are..but still, to se a cock on film is no big deal.
I know for a fact that the people being offended by BORAT didn't have a problem with the nudity and the cocks and not really by the mocking of Americans either, they were mostly bothered by the one thing that bothered me a bit - the fake "documentary" Kazakhstan.
But what was it that made the film so loved by the fans, and why were some fans so furious and at the same time delighted when someone criticized the movie?
A few likely theories arise after some research:
1. They want to protect the viewing of cocks on screen (very logical from my point of view)
2. They have been hurt for so long by the BIG PC-movement in the USA that they adore the thought of people not liking BORAT being middle aged, white, christian feminists with foot-right shoes and a poor connection to their subconscious mind. Or, lacking that, anyone else from the PC movement for that matter. (the phenomena of the PC and anti-PC movement on this continent is so vast and complex I could write a thesis about it if I had the time)
The problem with the movie is however neither the cocks nor the PC or anti-PC movement, the problem is that in order for BORAT to work, and by "work" I mean be interesting at all, it needs to not only be a road trip through the USA and all its more or less absurd sub-groups of population, but to also be a road trip made by two guys who are more embarrassing and inapt than even the most crappy or weird old american. It's a really old-trick-pony, the satirical usage of the unbrushed peasant asking the hostess of the party where he should put the bag of feces after he's done his business. (okay, I laughed really hard at that one, I admit)
But here arises the question: which country does really want to take on the part of hosting feces-bagging, pubic hair-selling, piss-drinking, pimping citizens with ugly clothes and unhip hairstyles? Which country wants to play the part of Kazakhstan?
In order for this film to work, the exploration of the most absurd or embarrassing American phenomenas must be shown by someone from a culture that is made up by the worst ideas some Americans seem to have of a poor muslim/eastern European country. (I know Kazakhstan is in Asia, but the Kazakhstan in BORAT looks pretty Eastern European to me...)
Sasha Baron Cohen takes all the prejudice about poorer countries that exist in richer countries and bundled them together: lack of water-toilets, abundance of black body hair, clothes 15-20 years behind in fashion, fixation with technical gadgets as symbols of prosperity, sexism, peasantry-humor, no cultural clue whatsoever when it comes to the West, etc etc and makes the inhabitants of these traits x 10 the ambassadors who explore the US. Borat viewers get to see the worst cliches about America being presented by their own worst ideas about a poor muslim/eastern European country (not to be confused with Kazakhstan). It really is hilarious and mocks Americans on so many levels, all would be well except for three things:
1. There really is a country called Kazakhstan, it's pretty big, and they don't dig the unhip part they are made to play in the world according to BORAT. They mean that: okay, this film exists, and there's nothing we can do about that, we have no power against Hollywood, and if it's hip to make up lies about us that make us look vastly unhip (but hilarious), then we're sitting ducks, but it's kinda sad that we'll be known for our supposed bad toilet-training and piss-drinking in the future to come.
2. Some americans really think Kazakhstan is like the BORAT-Kazakhstan. No kidding! On a rather large Internet forum BORAT-fans write openly that the Kazakhs are poor sports and party-poopers to be so upset by the "truth".
3. Americans can't laugh at America unless they can laugh EVEN more at someone else who's not American right after, in Borat it's like a gag-reflex.
I'm not kidding, this is the key to BORAT. For every scene where some American group gets humiliated or embarrassed, the audience gets 2-3 scenes with something even more obscure presented by the "Kazakhs", and a lot of the movie is about this muslim-peasant stereotype invented in the "American" mind, and most of the audience is laughing far far more from these scenes than from their own countrymen being daft or bizarre. (possibly with the exception of the Jesus-revelry scene)
So it's probably not about the cocks after all, which is a pity, because that would have been rad.
Lastly, when criticizing this film at all, a lot of BORAT fans seem to think it's about censorship and that the critics think the film should be forbidden. I don't know why I always get that when I explore people's right to not like something cultural, please chill, no one wants to muffle BORAT (except perhaps the Russians, and here we thought it was COMMUNISM making them do that, hah.)
No, no, go see the movie, but I still remain convinced that the best question to ask someone after seeing BORAT is not: what made you upset with the movie? this isn't a very surprising area and there are a couple of obvious variations to the answer. No, go out and ask: What in the movie made you feel GOOD? instead, and observe some pretty interesting reactions.
