Salon has a work-in-progress round-up of the stories behind various staged and/or improvised scenes in "Borat." (See Comments discussion below.) Here's one I was particularly curious about:
David Corcoran, the most outspoken of the three [University of South Carolina Chi Psi frat boys], spoke with FHM about the experience. "This guy said they were filming a Kazakh reporter who wanted to hang out with frat guys," Corcoran said. "They met 10 of us and I guess chose the three who wouldn't recognize Borat." The producers paid for the three men to drink at a bar, and then had them get in the RV and "pick Borat up ... as if he was hitchhiking." Once in the RV, he says, Borat showed them naked pictures of his sister and confessed to beating women.Can these guys sue themselves? Will they call Mel Gibson as a character witness?Two of the guys -- identified in court filings only as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 -- are now suing 20th Century Fox and One America Productions, the production company behind the film. The suit claims all three were told at the time that the film wouldn't show in the U.S. and their identities would be kept secret. They're seeking unspecified damages for "humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community."
it seems as if the filmmakers may have been disingenuous here, but these guys are morons. did the filmmakers coerce them into lying? i would think not.
at least mel gibson, if not entirely owning up to his stupidity, isn't suing anyone.
So I guess the fact that it would only air in other countries would make them less of a bunch of chauvinistic, racist pigs? These guys got what was coming to them.
Their lawsuit hinges on the premise that when someone is in front of a camera they are less likely to say racist things if the audience is for an Americans rather than for people of another country. I don't know about anyone else, but if I was to be interviewed by a foreign journalist, I would try to present Americans in the best light possible. Also these guys should come out and just apologize Mel Gibson style because the law suit gives media more of an ammunition to seek them out and publish their real names.
Thanks for the Salon link. I thought the gags were funny whether or not they were staged, but I was curious. I hope they hear about the conference interrupted by the nude wrestling. The conference looked real, but if it were, surely they would have been arrested.
I read this article earlier today, and it made me laugh and quite angry both at the same time.
I've met many a frat boy in my life, and have despised them all, because they are typically ignorant belligerent asses. To be honest (if it had not been for the breaking of Borat's heart) this was my least favorite scene in the film, only because while many of the other people in the film have the best of intentions with what they believe in and how they act ... the three frat boys do not. If nothing else this is good for the women of the world to see, so they know what pricks like this think of them. Notice how Sacha makes no comment to their degrading remarks -- he's joking, these children are not. They deserve every bit of embarrasement laid upon them, because this is how in typical every day fashion, no doubt, they would act.
There are many other articles out there with second rate journalists trying to be the first to say which scenes were real and which weren't... who cares. I enjoyed the film. I don't care how special effects are done either when I watch a movie.
Whatever happened beforehand, if you watch the scene Cohen does very little to prod them—except for talking about some non-racist stuff to move the plot forward. Borat basically sits there, nodding, as the bozos hang themselves.
It's unfortunate that of all the people who found themselves at the butt of a joke in Borat, the least sympathetic ones are getting all the publicity for suing. Is there anyone who thinks those frat boys didn't get what they had coming to them?
But how about the people of Glod? Check this out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415871&in_page_id=1770
There are many other articles out there with second rate journalists trying to be the first to say which scenes were real and which weren't... who cares. I enjoyed the film. I don't care how special effects are done either when I watch a movie.
I'm with you there. I only care what scenes were "real" and what weren't in the sense that I enjoy stories-behind-the-story, how something was arranged and set up, and so on. Trivia, in other words.
Borat makes no claim to be a documentary, or a scathing look into American life, or this or that or the other. It's a comedy. That it manages to skewer people (or give people enough room to skewer themselves) just makes it a particular type of comedy.
It's just funny. And these guys coming out like they are, phrasing things the way they phrase them... they're just digging a deeper grave.
I read the article about the people in Glod as well. Then I read a lot of the bleeding heart sympathetic comments after the article I read.
Things we know about Glod: they don't keep cows in houses, they don't house rapists, they don't have incestuous relationships, etc. etc. So, how is this film taking advantage of these people, when it's all fictitous? It's an interesting argument to have, but no one would ever have known these people were not from Katazhistan if they hadn't decided they wanted to sue. Now everyone knows they are from Glod, and that their life isn't portrayed how it was in the film. I truly doubt that anyone would have seen "Borat" and thought, those people in Glod, what pigs! Cause no one would have known.
Now the filmmakers and 20th Century will make amends since they were caught paying low wages, probably doing what they said they would do, give computers and what not, but how's that going to really, truly help Glod when what they need is a sewage system, and hospitals, etc, etc. Filmmakers can't provide that. If it was a documentarian making a movie about how awful Glod was would the people have made a fuss then? The documentarian wouldn't have given them the 3 pounds Borat's people did.
The frat guys make racist and chauvinistic statements, true, but they also accept a man with a different ethnicity and nationality as one of their own. So what's more important -- the awful things they say about women, or the unfeigned kindness they show to strangers in their midst?
Timothy, you say "unfeigned kindness they show to strangers in their midst," as well as, "accept a man with a different ethnicity and nationality as one of their own."
They were paid and told to pick him up on the side of the road. I think there may have been some coercion at work there. It isn't as if they picked up a random stranger.
I heard somewhere that the fratboys claimed they were drunk when they signed the legal papers for the clip to be part of the "documentary". If this is true, and if the can prove it, then they may have legal ground.