Battleangel | Personal

I saw “Borat” (Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) the other day and since everyone seems to be lauding the movie I must offer a few sentences in protest. Having seen very little of Cohen’s previous work and nothing specifically of his “Borat” character I fell for the hype. And more to the point, I had unused tickets that were about to expire.

Getting names wrong and mispronouncing words is a comedy goldmine compared to wrestling nude and taking a dump in public. There are few and far apart subtleties that seemed to pass the audience by and I will admit that a few of the slapstick moments killed, but the road in-between was sadly paved with crude toilet humour (yes, seeing “Borat” you realize there is a refined toilet humour as well) and frankly over the top ethnic jokes which could too have been done with more finesse. All of this anchored to a mildly entertaining main story which really goes south when it diverts to finding Pamela. Would it perhaps have been better to have stitched together a series of sketches and bizarre happenings instead of contriving a story which detracts more than it contributes? It seems like the standard pitfall when limited TV characters are to be expanded on for the big screen (Mr Bean: The Movie etc). Plus, Cohen makes a fairly lousy Kazakhstani character. At least as I imagine Kazakhstani characters if I allow my preconception to flourish. His sidekick, “Azamat” (Ken Davitian), is more convincing by leaps and bounds.

Not even the critical look at American society manages to entertain. Despite my well-documented animosity towards the United States. Or perhaps that is just the reason why the movies fails to impress in this area. Been there, done that I mean. There really isn’t much that would shock me at this point. The visit to a Pentecostalist church or whatnot is particularly repetitive and I believe Richard Dawkins did a better job documenting religious kooks when he walked in on the now discredited Rev. Ted Haggard and the New Life Church in “The Root of All Evil?”
As for the other major punching bags — namely Kazakhstan itself, “Jews” and “Gypsies” — the crudeness really ruins much of the potential not to mention the effort (as claimed by Cohen) to expose prejudice, at least at first glance. But I guess that is also the point. In order to expose prejudice you have to make them much larger than life, make them silly and unbelievable. But not as comically precise as they could have been. Just watch the Daily Show for a couple of weeks to see how it is done. There you’ll also see much broader, biting comedic criticism of American society via field reports or studio commentary. It is also noteworthy that the criticism of America in “Borat” is largely done by example using unwitting Americans, whereas the prejudice towards the other major punching bags is constructed and exaggerated beyond belief. No person really has that sort of crude notions of Kazakhstan, “Jews” and “Gypsies” even if one can be shown to harbour rational or irrational dislike. Exposing people’s ignorance and prejudice is one thing but this is taking it into the area of the ridiculous (not to mention how it awakens the conspiracy theorist in me) — and more to the point — the comedy suffers as well.

So, the really surprising thing here is that people and reviewers alike seem to be falling over themselves to praise the movie. It was funny and had its moments but I would generally characterize it as lowbrow, building on toilet humour and unscripted awkwardness rather than clever scripting — hence, the reception “Borat” has received is perplexing.

For more on the implications of “Borat” I’d heartily recommend Gilad Atzmon’s Some Things to Keep in Mind when Watching Borat.