What is the movie of the year?

[Bergomillosy]

Well, I think there are at least two movies deserving this title. These are Terminator 4 and Transformers 2. What do you think?

P.S. To moderators: sorry for possible writing to a wrong category but I didn’t find any other category for general chat.

Topic

[Andrew]

> Is a man who thinks Jews are scum, for example, actually a hateful person if he keeps his opinion to himself and it only exists inside his own head?

Yes.

You think quiet prejudice doesn’t perpetuate? Through social interaction, though behaviour, through hiring and firing choices, through the raising of children? Who is this mythical being who hates a group yet never, never indicates it in any way whatsoever?

(For the record I found Bruno clumsy but amusing. Borat was better.)

EDIT: I guess it’s worth pointing out that the hypothetical silent biggot being discussed wouldn’t feature in a Cohen film anyway, since everyone who’s shown up that way in the movies does so from their own behaviour and speech.

[Carlito]

I was elaborating on the previous post. A hidden prejudice exposed to the masses is less satisfying than an open and active prejudice exposed to the ridicule it deserves.

Although I wonder if it possible to ridicule those who apparently have no shame. Or indeed, sense.

[Andrew]

> I was elaborating on the previous post.

I know. I saw that bit – ‘t’was at the top of your post!

> A hidden prejudice exposed to the masses is less satisfying than an open and active prejudice exposed to the ridicule it deserves.

I disagree. A wide-open, public prejudice is easily countered (“Yes, I hate them. I said so all the time. And?”), and has nothing to expose. Insidious prejudice, by its nature, is more complex, more shrouded, potentially more effectively perpetuated and arguably more dangerous.

Guy doesn’t get a job because the man hiring is an active, public member of the KKK. No more questions, your honour; compensation due. Guy doesn’t get a job, but doesn’t know it’s because the boss hates black people quietly, at home, on his own time…then what? Chances are, it happens again, with another applicant.

Just because it’s unspoken, doesn’t mean it’s not acted upon. And surely that’s exactly the kind of behaviour that warrants exposure? The kind of people who think that ‘not using the N word’ is enough, so carry on the prejudice, just not the vocalisation.

Aside from anything else – and I’m not holding Cohen up as a great artist or anything, merely a decent and ballsy satirist – these are public entertainment movies. As such, they’re going to be seen by a wide collection of people – which means some who think ‘hiding it’ is the same as ‘not doing it’ might see them and recognise themselves reflected back. That moment of pause, of potential realisation, alone is worth the humiliation of a couple of xenophobes, homophobes and armchair biggots.

God Hates Fags sit down and watch Bruno. What happens? They feel same going out as when they went in. Office homophobe who’s been passive-aggressively making his gay colleague’s days at work less pleasant sees the same thing…?

Rare it might be, but maybe he thinks twice.

> And when Cohen manipulates it out of him to feed his own gain, is it the closet Anti-semite or the puppet master who is at fault?

Just to go back to this: Newspaper satirists are paid, doesn’t make the jokes being made any less heartfelt. Saying ‘his own gain’ doesn’t invalidate the points being made, not unless you can prove those perspectives can be bought; not unless the next Cohen flick takes a wholly counter position.

There are easier ways to make money than pitching a faux documentary starring an English comedian to Universal. Who’s at fault? The anti-semite. Still. Being led to self-exposure by someone being paid doesn’t automatically invalidate the exposure.

[pfm]

Ease down, Ripley, ease down!

Personally I don’t think the Bruno film was half as effective at exposing people’s insecurities as the TV scenes were, particularly when you know half of the reactions are staged. When he’s showing the execs his TV show teaser that’s not about exposing homophobia, it’s plain that the execs would have been pissed off at ANY show like that, regardless of the homosexual content.

The film was much more of a general comedy and Borat was the same. There’s no way they would be allowed to be as biting as on Da Ali G Show. The most extreme scenes in the two films are the cock in Bruno and the naked hotel fight in Borat. They are just out-and-out physical comedy scenes with no message, only the funny.

[Andrew]

> When he?s showing the execs his TV show teaser that?s not about exposing homophobia, it?s plain that the execs would have been pissed off at ANY show like that, regardless of the homosexual content.

Well no, the gag was about focus groups being asked to think for networks who really should be capable of their own judgement. It’s a dig at both the system, and the small number of people whose tastes are asked to represent an entire country.

> They are just out-and-out physical comedy scenes with no message, only the funny.

I submit that The Running Of The Jew is as biting as anything Da Ali G Show attempted. The rude stuff may be the loudest, the thing that makes it all a little more accessible to a mainstream crowd, but the films aren’t exactly short of teeth. You need to balance popular appeal, though, to reach an audience – a pure polemic doesn’t get much of anywhere.

Like I say, I found Bruno to be pretty clumsy, and the whole thing’s clearly run its course (more ‘faked’ stuff, shorter scenes since people cotton on faster, a more scattershot approach in general) but the targets aren’t invalid.

[pfm]

And where does Sacha go from here? Is it the end of his characters??

[Carlito]

> Just to go back to this: Newspaper satirists are paid, doesn?t make the jokes being made any less heartfelt. Saying ?his own gain? doesn?t invalidate the points being made, not unless you can prove those perspectives can be bought; not unless the next Cohen flick takes a wholly counter position. There are easier ways to make money than pitching a faux documentary starring an English comedian to Universal. Who?s at fault? The anti-semite. Still. Being led to self-exposure by someone being paid doesn?t automatically invalidate the exposure.

I didn’t specify financial gain, I meant artistic gain. As in, Cohen gets a great scene for his new movie at the expense of a real person, never mind how instrumental he was in creating notoriety for said person.

Everybody has preconceptions (or misconceptions). Not even neccessarily of a racial or sexual theme.

They don’t HAVE to manifest themselves in active hatred, but if pushed and coerced and agreed with, you might find yourself admitting to these to a man who apparently passionately holds that opinion. A small minded guy may think “hmm… I’m a little wary of Jewish people”. Not to the extent that he wouldn’t employ one, or that he would ever actively engage in anti-semitic behaviour of his own accord. But if a guy comes up to you, is apparently a famous TV star or documentary maker and is strongly of the opinion that Jews are evil, you might well be inclined to say “hmm yeah I’m a bit wary of them myself to be honest”, just to fit in… in much the same way stuffy politician-types would try to act “yoof” when confronted with Ali G and his TV camera. Under normal circumstances, they wouldn’t try to be “down with the kids”, but feel a pressure to adhere to the environment they find themselves in.

Hmmm, I’m only trying to induce debate on the subject, I don’t necessarily agree completely with what I’m saying, but I think there’s *something* to it.

You can’t excuse the outright bigots who blatantly and aggressively extoll their preposterous beliefs, but I think some of it is maybe stretching credibility. I’m mainly talking about Borat here, I haven’t seen Bruno yet.

[Andrew]

> I didn?t specify financial gain, I meant artistic gain. As in, Cohen gets a great scene for his new movie at the expense of a real person, never mind how instrumental he was in creating notoriety for said person.

The same applies, though, I think. The scene’s only good if (assuming that’s the target) the person’s reactions reveal a too-phobic core. Otherwise it’s rarely a good scene. If the values held are negligible, they come over as negligible. Which is truthful, still, and generally don’t get a big enough laugh to justify inclusion in the film.

Mind you, I still struggle with the hypothetical of a man who’s wary of an entire race but doesn’t let it influence his workaday life one iota. Two candidates for the job, identical save for one being Jewish…how can his opinion not come into play?

> Hmmm, I?m only trying to induce debate on the subject, I don?t necessarily agree completely with what I?m saying, but I think there?s *something* to it.

No question people sometimes vocalise a perspective to bond to a peer group, or for other appearances. But the “I’m a bit wary of Jewish people” example you’ve suggested is still based on on a basic, idiotic prejudice. They’re not just saying it to agree, they think it in the first place and it’s being revealed. Which means the film is accurately representing people. And being accurately represented in a film isn’t much of a charge.

These are adults and they can see the camera, they know what they’re saying. So what if the interviewer professed to hold those views too? If Borat were a real person, if the whole thing were a documentary not a comedy set-up, would that make their anti-semitism in the interview okay? “I thought this would only be shown to audiences who agree with me, like the interviewer” is a rotten defence.

Whether you think those views are okay to hold onto or not is where the line gets drawn, I guess. The scene ain’t really about the person in it so much as it’s about the representation of a wider bias and an audience’s chance to view themselves reflected. And I didn’t see much in Borat that – when the aim was to reveal a bigotry – didn’t justify the attempt.

I’m not saying it’s all fine, that any truth is a viable target. I totally take your point that it’s exposure of a risky kind. You don’t con someone into revealing their (fully legal) sexual tastes for a cheap laugh, say. But I don’t see these films doing that. The real people taken on generally dig themselves in, and with real-world, truly-held views. (Where ’embarrassment’ is the result of Borat’s efforts, that’s not always revealing anti-semitism, but rather illustrating how indifference and social niceties can be dangerous, too, when it comes to perpetuating existing problems. Standing idle can be as bad as concurring.) The fake ones…well, that’s fair enough anyway, isn’t it?

[Carlito]

I agree with the “if you do the crime, you do the time” philosophy… if you said it, then the buck stops with you.

But I wonder if they would have said it, were they not confronted with the issue by Cohen in the first place.

I guess what I’m saying is, having an ill-founded opinion and acting on it are two completely different things.

[Andrew]

> I wonder if they would have said it, were they not confronted with the issue by Cohen in the first place.

Depends on who they met. But it’s a rare person who holds belief and never, ever, EVER expresses it or acts upon it.

In fact, I don’t believe that person exists. Anywhere. If they’d say it to Borat, they’d say it to some other anti-semetic chatterbox in a bar, surely? That’s the bare minimum; and still unlikely to be the end, since – short of moving to a white-Christian-only commune – you’re still going to have to deal with people you feel hostile towards at some point.

The idea that a Borat interview is literally the only circumstance that would bring that perspective out of a person – that not one shred of behaviour or conversation would ever reveal it otherwise – I don’t buy.

> I guess what I?m saying is, having an ill-founded opinion and acting on it are two completely different things.

Indeed. But I think that’s a strictly theoretical problem – I don’t think it happens in the real world. Those who hold the opinions we’re talking about can’t exist in a vacuum. Can’t literally NEVER let it alter a reaction, a decision, a discussion, throughout their entire lives.

Plus I don’t think Cohen attacks those who are wholly passive (unless it’s for BEING passive, which is a separate complaint). I can’t think of an occasion where he’s revealed something which, otherwise, would never have informed that person’s behaviour.

When you go looking for subjects for these movies, you go on their behaviour. You don’t send the crew out to talk to someone who isn’t already hinting at something. That’s how you know where to spend the money. If they haven’t said something, they’ve hinted at it; the undercurrent is apparent (and if they’re wrong, the footage ain’t used). Which only beings us back to undercurrents being as insidious and dangerous as things outspoken.

[Author]

Replies