The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has issued the following statement about "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," which opens in the US November 3:
When approaching this film, one has to understand that there is absolutely no intent on the part of the filmmakers to offend, and no malevolence on the part of Sacha Baron Cohen, who is himself proudly Jewish. We hope that everyone who chooses to see the film understands Mr. Cohen's comedic technique, which is to use humor to unmask the absurd and irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias born of ignorance and fear.My response: If anybody is stupid enough to think that "Borat" reinforces their own bigotry, then they can find reinforcement just about anywhere -- including the ADL's statement, which will probably do more to unintentionally inflame anti-Semitism than anything in "Borat."We are concerned, however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry.
While Mr. Cohen's brand of humor may be tasteless and even offensive to some, we understand that the intent is to dash stereotypes, not to perpetuate them. It is our hope that everyone in the audience will come away with an understanding that some types of comedy that work well on screen do not necessarily translate well in the real world -- especially when attempted on others through retelling or mimicry.
I'm glad they got it. Too many organizations are incapable of getting jokes these days.
I personally believe it’s ok for me to laugh at this movie, because I have a homosexual friend who wears a blue hat.
Yeah, I'm not so disheartened by that statement. As the other commenter said, institutions -- especially those who feel they must safeguard this or that portion of society -- so often have no sense of humor. I could do with less of the nannying tone present here, but hey! I'm glad to take this as evidence that satire is not entirely dead.
We are concerned, however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry.
Unfortunately, I see this as a major problem with, particularly, American media consumers. One could say that the same applies to several "social satires masked in stupidity," including "South Park" and "The Simpsons." When I look at "The Simpsons" in particular, I see a show which appeals immensely to younger viewers, on whom the satirical aspect is lost. Older viewers who dislike the show are either overwhelmed by its mask of stupidity, or are simply incapable of "getting it."
I completely understand the ADL's concern. My fourth grade students watch "The Simpsons." They think it's funny, but for the wrong reasons. Will they eventually absorb the biting messages through osmosis? Or will they grow up thinking, as viewers, that stupid is funny (as opposed to the satire providing the humor) and, as people, that it's cool to be a Bart and lame to be a Lisa.
By the way, it should be "for Make Benefit Bigots".
JE: You're right. I was afraid it was going to be too long, but it's already dropped down to a second deck on my Mac, so I may as well do it right...
Kubrick was devestated when he heard the reaction to "Clockwork Orange". He assumed that people would immediately understand that the killers and rapists in the film were not good people. He was wrong. Audiences are sheep, mostly. It's really to bad. I'm just glad that the ADL actually watched the movie before making a statement. So often these days a lot of these groups throw statements around without ever having seen the movie. Absurd!
I agree with you, Phillip, but isn't it sad when we feel pleased or relieved that an organization has actually acquainted itself with the thing it's criticizing? You'd think that would be the very minimum one could assume, but you're right -- we can't always assume it.
What I object to about the ADL is that I think they're inadvertently adding fuel to the fire they claim they want to stamp out. Humor (especially satire) requires a point of view (although I know many people who, like little kids, will laugh at almost anything for any reason as long as it's dumb or naughty in some way). "Borat" has a definite point of view. If you laugh at the drunk white frat boys who claim that minorities have the upper hand in America, then I guess you do have to ask yourself why. Is it because they're speaking the truth? Or because they're so pathetic about rationalizing their own failures? (I pick #2.) Same goes with the rodeo bigot, or the Running of the Jew. I suppose it's possible that "sheep" in the audience could find these things (in Homer Simpson's words) "funny because it's true" -- but if somebody believes the depiction of racism is the equivalent of an endorsement of it, no matter what the context, then that person is just a moron. I don't contest that America is as full of morons as Borat's imaginary Khazakstan, but I don't think it was a smart move for the ADL to anticipate their reaction to the movie a month before it's released.
As for Kubrick and "A Clockwork Orange": I think you're correct that Kubrick misjudged it. He intended it as a study of morality and free will: Can "good" or "evil" be created or eliminated from human nature by Pavlovian conditioning? If so, what happens to the moral framework implied by the terms "good and evil"? I'm afraid "A Clockwork Orange" was, paradoxically, a little after its time. Maybe if it had been made a bit earlier, around the time of "Strangelove," the violence would have seemed more disturbing and less sensationalistic. (But, of course, it would not have been possible to get the movie made at that time, because the mainstream cinema was not as permissive.) By 1971, youth culture was grooving on the fetishistic display of transgressive sexual and violent images (in the States, "Pink Flamingoes" came out the next year). Although I think "Clockwork Orange" is a failed experiment as a movie, I don't think it was irresponsible or dumb or sensationalistic in the way Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" was years later. That's a movie that has nothing else going on in it, so it serves ONLY to inspire copycat behavior (which it did), because it lionized the killers exactly as Quentin Tarantino's original screenplay satirized. What Stone did was to remove the satire. Kubrick's aim may simply have been too complex for many in the mainstream audience to comprehend at the time (or now). Like I said, point of view is everything, but some people just don't get it...
I appreciate the fact that the ADL understands the humor of this movie. In my opinion, the primary motivation behind making such a statement lies in the possibility that certain audiences would misunderstand what Borat is saying, rather than fully criticizing the film in itself.
The ADL wouldn't need to resort to such actions if there was something like an Anti-Stupidity League in the first place. The goal of this organization: to prevent unprepared minds from aesthetic experiences that might be way over their heads. (I'm kidding, of course.)
My homosexual friend also wears a blue hat.