The New York Times headline about all the political films in this year's TIFF was: "At the Toronto Film Festival, Liberal Politics As Usual." David M. Halfbinger of the Times cites Barbara Koppel's Dixie Chicks documentary and the fictionalized doc about the assassination of George W. Bush ("D.O.A.P." or "Death of a President") in his round-up of evidence to support his thesis that Toronto "has been all but overrun with films attacking President Bush or the protracted war in Iraq — in subtle ways and like sledgehammers, with vitriol and with dispassionate fly-on-the-wall observation."
This may well be true (even though, as some would quickly point out, it is in the New York Times); I don't know because I haven't seen most of the films he lists (yet), though I'll probably get to a few. But I'm mildly surprised that he doesn't mention the two most scathing attacks on the Bush regime that I've seen so far: Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" (in which the Franco Fascists fight the local insurgents) and Sacha Baron Cohen's and Larry Charles' "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." OK, Halfbinger does mention "Borat," but mainly to say that Michael Moore was at the midnight premiere, where the projector broke down.
Before I forget to mention it explicitly: Yes, I loved "Borat."
If George W. Bush is the most hated figure in Toronto (and I think it's safe to say he is, though Moore ought to at least be in the running -- not so much for "Fahrenheit 9/11" as for the fact-challenged portrayal of Canada in the loathsomely fictitious "Bowling for Columbine"), then Borat is surely the most loved. And "Borat" (the movie) is the most devastating and hilarious semi-documentary indictment of American cultural and political hegemony imaginable.
It's all right there in the title: "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." This is a movie about a nationalistic idiot, who believes his country is by far the greatest on earth, despises rival nations (like rotten ol' Uzbekistan), fears and hates ethnic minorities (mostly Jews), and believes women are merely "vagines" with legs. (That term rhymes approximately with "machines.") Borat is a reporter for a Kazakhstan TV station who travels abroad to learn about American culture for the benefit of his beloved home country. At first the joke is that Kazakhstan is a backwards developing nation, where attitudes about human rights are still stuck in the muck of the barbarian Dark Ages, and the technology hasn't advanced much further.
If you've seen Borat on HBO (and I've only seen a little), you know that Cohen's schtick (like that of his other dim-witted alter-ego, Ali G), is to appear in character with other people who aren't in on the joke, and to make them look as stupid and confused as Borat himself. He succeeds, though the joke isn't exclusively on his candid-camera victims. ("Borat" is too sweet a guy for that -- even his bigotry is rooted in ignorance, not in a malicious heart, which is more than can be said for some of the American frat boys and rodeo patrons he interviews in the movie.)
I don't want to give away laughs (people have already been making references ever since the movie first started screening in LA) -- and I even recommend you skip the trailer. But allow me a few general observations:
The movie is fair to its targets. One can only assume that anybody who appears on camera is either an actor or had to be let in on the gag later on, or they wouldn't have signed releases. The movie doesn't necessarily have to make up a lot of this stuff, like the gathering of southern socialites at a mansion near Secession Blvd. in Birmingham (a dinner party that must have Luis Bunuel guffawing in his grave). It gives some characters enough rope, or screen time, to hang themselves. But when, for example, Borat gets a rodeo crowd riled up and then goes "too far," we see the people in the crowd who, until then, had been encouraging and humoring this strange little foreigner (and enthusiastic supporter of "your War of Terror"), as they begin to realize something's not quite right.
The movie is not "an equal-opportunity offender," as another piece of New York Times let's-whip-up-a-non-story spin tried to cast it last week. In fact, its targets are carefully chosen and very specifically delineated. It might have been a braver movie (and far more offensive and, you know, "controversial") if Borat had been openly anti-gay or racist against "chocolate faces" (or even "vanilla faces" -- he uses both terms). But when it comes to gays and blacks, he's a good liberal. Borat doesn't quite understand homosexuality even when it's right in front of (or behind) him. He has no qualms about taking part in naked male-on-male wrestling. He's down with the young urban black crowd (a shrewd commercial move at the very least: "Teach me how to be like you"), and the movie goes out of its way to romanticize and sentimentalize his relationship with a fat black prostitute. This is not a complaint or a compliment -- it's just what's there, in the movie. Like "The Aristocrats," which was gleefully scatalogical in its attempts to offend, the really risky stuff is avoided. In Borat's case, that's a good thing, because the laughter this movie inspires deserves the tired adjective "liberating," and "Borat" should be seen by as many people as possible. Those of us who do, may even recognize ourselves.
And except for a mild scene at a Pentacostal hoedown where people speak in toungues, religion is barely mentioned. The movie is not even close to being anti-Semitic (even if the character of Borat is). The scene where he stays in a bed and breakfast run by a nice elderly Jewish couple is brilliant and funny not because of any slurs against those "shape-shifting" Jews, but because of Borat's comically overwrought paranoia. (He reminded me of a Turkish friend of mine who once panicked, only half-facetiously, when he realized the Seattle diner we were eating in was run by Greeks. "They want to kill me!" he exclaimed in a stage whisper.)
Borat, and "Borat," will be funny for at least as long as anybody remembers there were, and are, bigots anywhere in this world.
I adored "Borat" as well -- and since none of my friends have seen it yet, I find myself in the unenviable position of not being able to talk about any of its brilliant, brilliant gags.
A quick note about Michael Moore, though: folks in Toronto (at the fest, at least) LOVE him. You should have heard the ovation at "The US vs John Lennon" when the director pointed him out in the audience and thanked him for, I dunno, being a royal pain in the ass. I just sat in the back and shook my head, and wondered how rude it would be if I booed.
As for "Bowling For Columbine", it was HUGE up here. Appallingly huge. We Canadians are an odd lot. We give the world David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, and Guy Maddin, and then eat up Moore's "documentaries" like there's no tomorrow.
Yes, my emphasis was on the "should." Moore is the Ann Coulter of the left, and not somebody I want claiming to speak on my behalf.
Great news! I can't wait for this movie. I only recently discovered Borat, mostly on youtube.com. I doubt I've ever laughed so hard in my life.
OK, could someone please explain to me EXACTLY what was erroneous in "Bowling for Columbine"? I've ignored most criticism as it sounded like hyperbolic rightwing horseshit, but if there are deep and legitimate problems I'd really like to know. Thanks.
JE: One of the big errors/distortions I remember (and referred to above) is that when he talked about Canadian ownership of guns, he didn't point out that Canada has a higher percentage of rifles and more restrictions on handguns than the US.
Among the best of the non-right-wing sites that have detailed the many errors and Bush-worthy distortions in the film is Spinsanity: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
They also did a follow-up on changes Moore made to the DVD version: http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html.
looks like someone needs to develop a third world sense of humor . . .
http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3552806
is this a sign of the end of Days?? world leaders taking offense to the insightful satire of a comedian?? Lenny Bruce is probably laughing in his grave . . .
Many Canadians do in fact love Michael Moore, but some of us have yet to forgive him for Canadian Bacon.
Reading your comments on Borat reminded me of nothing so much as a cross between Nardwuar the Human Serviette and Rick Mercer’s Talking to Americans.
Talking to Americans began as a segment on This Hour has 22 Minutes before being spun off into a one-hour special.
Nardwuar, a former Programme Co-ordinator (I belive) at CiTr at the University of British Columbia and member of the Evaporators, is, amongst other things, well-known as a (guerilla) journalist.
One of the funniest Nardwuar interviews I ever saw was when he shanghai'd none other than . . . Michael Moore.
sorry jim, your contention that borat is a "good liberal" when it comes to gays is way off. did you miss the part where he suggests (to the rodeo owner, if memory serves) that homosexuals should be put in death camps, and extracting the response "that's what we're hoping to do"?
i don't blame you if you did miss it, hard to catch everything while laughing like a madman.
however, he does seem to want to be like black people, just like his ali g character.
Hey, I think I saw you at the premier of 'Borat' in Toronto. I was a volunteer and you were showing me some of your digital pictures of the big wigs you've met. I didn't get a chance to catch the film because I was working but am looking forward to seeing it in November. Thanks for the review.
Great review, waiting to see the film here in Finland soon:)
Your review is way off, especially your claim about being fair to their targets. They were made to sign a release form for a documentary from Kazakhstan that said they wouldn't sue for fraud in small print and paid a pretty miniscule amount considering the kind of business that Cohen and co hope the film will garner. If there's some solace that can be taken from this, it's that since the forms were signed under false pretenses, there's nothing stopping these people from sueing once the film is released. As a filmmakier I'm incredibly offended and frustrated at duping people like this. It's hard enough to get people to trust people with cameras without his kind of sophmoric crap.
I'm also amazed the hypocrisy in this film. The film dares to posture itself as some kind of social satire because it reveals anti-semitism yet or some reason has no issue with making the people of Kazakhstan look like a bunch of ignorant, degenerate, anti-semetic, morons. Racism toward Jews is bad but to impovershed people on another continent is fine. How convenient. I wonder how many would be laughing if it was a racist portrayal of Jewish stereotypes who, as you suggested, spouts out anti-gay or anti-African American stuff. Somehow I think people like Larry David and many of those who gave it glowing reviews would suddenly find themselves being "without a sense of humor."
Your review of this movie jsut couldnt be further from reality. Why you think Cohen had some master plan in making this movie is beyond me and anyone with an ounce of intelligence. This movie is dangerous to Jews and just shows us how truly racist and anti-semetic our soceity really is. Cohen went where the money is and even though hes jewish himself, he went and fed the hunger of jew-bashing that has become an icon of our society. Congrats!
You think this movie promotes Jew-bashing? I thought it highlighted the stupidity of the jew bashers.
IMHO, the closet racism and the way in which people are forced to be so mindful of what they say leaves an undercurrent of unspoken things that kind of ferment. I think the unspoken racism in this country is far more dangerous than the spoken racism. I dont mind Cohen exposing it in some way...
Wow. Americans are dumb. Hating this movie is like calling the reflection in your mirror offensive. Everyone's got flaws but it's up to the individual to change....if you catch my drift.