I am glad to see you joined this blog as a permablogger.

Let me make one thing clear. Borat is hilarious. Sacha Baron Cohen is a true comedic genius, and this film will be written about and analyzed for decades. It will be considered a true comic masterpiece.

What Kazakhstan needs to do is develop a sense of humor. Mormons should do the same. In their response to this film Kazakhstan has played into the hand of a comedic mastermind time and time again. Along the way they’ve given Cohen’s film so much free press that one must wonder if they’re not a shill and in on the joke. Cohen’s humor is designed specifically to skewer people who take themselves too seriously. A simple press release from Kazakhstan saying they think the film is hilarious, and that Cohen is a genius, would defuse the situation and get Kazakhstan a lot of positive attention. If I was the President of Kazakhstan I would invite Borat and the press of the entire world for a free tour of their version of the White House and laugh my butt off at everything Borat says.

Instead they’ve got their ambassador stating emphatically that Borat is the Anti-Christ because they DO NOT drink fermented goat urine, what they really drink fermented goat milk. C’mon, that’s like teeing things up for Cohen.

Besides, the true butt of the joke in this film is the U.S., not Kazahkstan.

Welcome Amira! So glad you are on board.

I’ve seen the commercials for Borat. He seems like an unusual character but I haven’t figured out yet what makes him so funny.

You guys clearly don’t understand the mindset of the one-time Soviet apparatchiks that run Central Asian countries. To be shown to be funny in any manner not carefully controlled by the state is deeply deeply unsettling. What’s more “being made fun of” is not something allowed within the country, so why should it be allowed outside of it. These guys aren’t western politicians; they are desparately fighting to maintain control within their own country. Part of that control comes from demonstrating to your fellow countrymen that you aren’t making the country the laughingstock of the world.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the average joe on the streets of Tashkent has never heard of the movie. Of course, that might just be crushing poverty, not state censorship.

You’re right; Borat is not mocking Kazakhstan. Some argue that Borat is the Kazakh elite 15 years ago, and that’s where the real conflict is coming from. He’s is a little too familiar. Kazakhstan almost decided to embrace the idea, but couldn’t quite manage it, for exactly the reasons HP states. But how can you take yourself less seriously when you know you’re right?

HP, the average joe on the streets of Tashkent might not have heard of the movie, but many in Astana and Bishkek have. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan aren’t bastions of liberty, but they’re not Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan.

Good point. I tend to paint all of central Asia with the same Turkmenistan-inspired brush (Saparmurat Niyazov is a true fruitcake). However, it doesn’t surprise me that the folks in Kyrgyzstan have heard of it. I would think that your neighbor’s sorrow is your joy in the politics of the region.

I though it was fermented horse urine???

The Kazakh government can’t quite decide what to do about this.

I believe you, but I’d be interested to know your sources.

As for Borat, am I the only one who thinks this film is likely socialist/progressive propaganda masquerading as comedy? Well, I guess #4 Veritas thinks so, but I do think there is such a thing as bad publicity. I wish I could remember *my* sources now, but I read somewhere (in some commentary?) how Borat’s aim was to expose the problems with the conservative right. I certainly get that feel from the clips I’ve seen of the film.

Granted, he is a funny character, at least when he’s not disgusting and crass. (I just hate that obnoxious swimsuit he has.) But there does seem to be the air of something with a hidden agenda, more in the vein of Fahrenheit 9/11. And would the Kazakhstan government such a thing?

Found here:

In September of 2006, the [Kazakhstan] government announced that it is funding distrubution of a multi million dollar movie called “Nomad” about the history of the nation. The movie started in 2003, and has been plagued with multiple development problems, though it is now ‘on track’ for release in 2006-2007. The government has justified this expense as an effort to combat negative international publicity, including the satirical character Borat. The Foreign Secretary has denied that a recent visit by the President of Kazakhstan to the United States had anything to do with portrayals of the country in popular western media.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. It’s humor.

@ annegb, post #17:

Oh, for heaven’s sake. It’s humor. But I’m not sure I get your point.

Rape is funny to some people. So is murder. So is indecency. So is sophistry. So is a slippery slope. So is throwing sticks and stones. So is propaganda and making fun of other cultures.

So when does it become non-funny?

Oh, for heaven’s sake.

By the way, my allusion to rape, murder, and the like was just that, an allusion. I wasn’t trying to say that the movie contained such content. My argument was more about the nature of comedy and what constitutes such, and I question this film’s intent with regards to that.

To illustrate, I picked up this weeks copy of Entertainment Weekly, featuring Borat on the cover, with the following subtitle:

Has This Man Made The Funniest Movie Ever…Or Simply The Most Outrageous, Offensive One?

Two extremes, and probably neither is true. But it does illustrate the point that (even?) Hollywood insiders are aware of the questionable nature of this film.

I painted some extremes, it’s true, which is why I tried to clarify my point. I went back and read my comment realizing it needed the clarification, because it was never my intent to obscure the facts.

I think it’s unfortunate that you feel to question everything I say, when I never intended to have guile. But I do understand the need for clarity and care in what I say.

However, that said, there is certainly some provocative, indecent material in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. His swimwear, for one, is just disgusting and certainly intended to provoke. It would be funny to me (actually, it still is in some regard), if it weren’t so indecent. Unfortunately, it’s not the only thing. If you think I’m too strict about what I think is innappropriate and not funny, so be it. I have no ill will or hard feelings.

It’s been my experience that people who’ve been through a lot in their lives tend to not take things or themselves too seriously. I know I don’t. I also think I tend to laugh at things that are inappropriate to laugh at, but as my family likes to say, it’s either laugh or cry. We’d rather laugh.

That said, I do think there’s a trend in movies/television today to go for the cheap laugh. To be outrageous and offensive. And push the lines of what is acceptable behavior a little bit further out. I don’t know if this movie does that, I haven’t seen it (and won’t see it unless it plays on television eventually).

He couldn’t pick Kyrgyzstan because no one can pronounce it.

“stick to humans” I’m laughing out loud. I am a sick, sick person.

I think Bill and I will go to the movies this weekend. He will go to Flags of our Fathers and I will see Borat and we will meet after the movie. Sort of like when he watched that wholesome movie while I snuck into Brokeback Mountain.

Oh. Maybe they won’t show it here. Dang. I will have to rent it.