TDR Goes to Kazakhstan

By Jeremy Teicher and Zachary Gottlieb | Tuesday, November 28, 2006

In what was undoubtedly one of the cheapest movies to hit theaters this year, Sacha Baron Cohen and his character “Borat” found a comfortable niche in American cinematic hearts. That is—the hearts of everyone who can appreciate good humor and is not offended by everything. Although most of the press surrounding Cohen’s film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan has focused on its incredible popularity, some people are angry. This vocal minority with fragile senses of humor insist that Borat promotes anti-Semitism, reveals how racist Americans are, and humiliates the poor country of Kazakhstan.

The only reason that Kazakhstan is making such a big fuss over Borat is because this is the most press attention the country has gotten since the Llama Ownership Accord of ’87—and we all know how that ended. In fact, Kazakhstan’s embassy purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times in an attempt to shed some light on the “real Kazakhstan.” (This was an especially big deal for their embassy, as the price of the advertisement burned 1/5th of their defense budget). Cohen’s reaction to this ad was a mix of surprise and amusement:

I was surprised, because I always had faith in the audience that they would realize that this was a fictitious country and the mere purpose of it was to allow people to bring out their own prejudices. And the reason we chose Kazakhstan was because it was a country that no one had heard anything about, so we could essentially play on stereotypes they might have about this ex-Soviet backwater. The joke is not on Kazakhstan. I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist -- who believe that there’s a country where homosexuals wear blue hats and the women live in cages and they drink fermented horse urine and the age of consent has been raised to nine years old. (Rolling Stone Magazine).

In essence, Cohen overestimated his audience’s capability to “get” the joke. Kazakhstan could have just as easily been any other little-known country; people should not take Borat so literally. In fact, people should stop taking everything so literally.

Some people, especially those from the Jewish community, found Borat’s jokes to be anti-Semitic. The “Running of the Jews”, an event held in Borat’s native country, was loved by all the viewers. And by all, we can assure you that at least two Jewish boys and their blond, blue eyed German friend were laughing. The friend even finished his laughing with his old catchphrase, “I told you so, Jew-rats.”

In fact, Borat’s humor, which often attacks Jews and Gypsies, does not foment racism. It simply exposes it. Nevertheless, many do not see the humor in unhealthy paranoia or hatred of another race; they write editorials about it in the Daily D instead.

Some viewers see Borat as a tool used to expose the crass racism and intolerance inherent in the average American. The movie, however, is a comedy. It can only be funny if the viewer has transcended such a myopic point of view; if the viewer were racist, he would spend the whole movie admiring Borat’s intolerance. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Cohen explains Borat’s function: “Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it’s anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism.” Once again, another case of viewers making a literal interpretation of Cohen’s humor emerges. Accusing Borat of anti-Semitism is shallow and demonstrates ignorance of the film’s goals. Cohen himself is a practicing, religious Jew; he observes the Sabbath and eats strictly Kosher foods. Why on earth would this man want to promote anti-Semitism? Cohen added: “I think part of the movie shows the absurdity of holding any form of racial prejudice, whether it’s hatred of African-Americans or of Jews.”

Borat’s seemingly racist interviewees were clearly sought for their incongruity with moderate Americans: much of his adventure focuses on the viewpoints of the very Southern and the very religious. Ask a myopic who lives in a grassroots part of the country about gays or blacks and odds are you’ll get a racist answer. Critics say that Borat “exposes the racist underbelly of American society,” but this is an unfair statement: Borat does not look at the overall picture of America, but rather seeks out those who would elicit humorously racist responses. Borat’s route through America does not fairly or uniformly represent American culture. He stuck to places like New York City, where the locals responded angrily to the uncivilized foreign man. He then voyaged through the South, stopping at places like a mom-and-pop antiques shop and a rodeo show. Clearly, this route was not haphazard. Mr. Baron Cohen intentionally and carefully picked these places because he knew he was most likely to get outrageous reactions from certain types of people. Aside from that, who knows how many interviews Cohen held that turned out to be boring because the person he spoke with was not racist or did not get uncomfortable? Nobody wants to see that anyway, it’s the racist or slapstick stuff that gets the laughs.

All right, enough of the political stuff. It’s time to talk about how funny the movie actually was. It was hilarious. There was almost non-stop laughter in the theater; Jeremy had trouble keeping his Junior Mints down. Zach had to even pay for a new seat after urinating all over himself and others during one scene that involved a naked man over 300 pounds sitting on Borat’s face in a hotel room. But we won’t give anything away. Or like the scene where Borat falls over in a Southern antiques store and destroys hundreds of dollars worth of glassware. Oh, crap—sorry. We could go on and on listing each hilarious scene; there were so many of them.

Many of Borat’s movie phrases have now achieved popularity similar to that of Dave Chappelle’s “Rick James” impression or the decade-old South Park “Cartman” impersonation. The ubiquitous quotations from the movie prove its immense popularity and influence with its audience. And, despite what many critics would want us to believe, the most popular and most heavily quoted lines do not come from the “racist” scenes but from Borat’s unique awkwardness. As Zach puts it, “Borat’s just a schlemiel—and the world is his schlemazel.”

Borat’s humor ranges from the slapstick to the political, but no matter how political his material may seem, Cohen doesn’t use Borat to be preachy or push any specific political or social agenda, but rather to poke fun at other peoples’ adamant views. When he declares his approval of George Bush’s “war of terror,” it is not a cheap political low blow: it is a farce.

Cohen’s particular success as a comedian seems to come with his lack of personal input. Many humorists use their own personal point of views to skew their comedy. Borat (as well as Cohen’s other characters), however, focuses attention on people’s responses. This form of passive comedy, where much of the humor is improvisational and unintentional, deviates from much of the scripted physical humor that many find appealing. Borat’s existence as a fictional entity removes Cohen’s own biases, offering a break from Bush bashing and Iraq war jokes.

So just relax. Don’t go trying to squeeze out some kind of deeply racist or anti-Kazakh meaning from Borat out of your liberal minded sphincter mouth, just enjoy it for what it is. Hilarious. Not!

TDR Goes to Kazakhstan

Article Tools

Related Articles