Can This Be Comedy?
Borat is Offensive and Lowbrow

Since the early days of television there has been a tradition of creating comedy by pranking real people. In the days of Candid Camera, it was something as innocuous as duping a child into believing that animals could talk. Years later, MTV took it up a notch with Ashton Kutcher "punking" celebrities, showing them at their worst while laughing at them. Now comedian Sacha Baron Cohen has taken the joke too far, trading humor for cultural illiteracy in his new film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
At a Roanoke, Virginia rodeo, Borat mangles the National Anthem - and the rodeo fans aren't happy about it. (20th Century Fox, 2006)
Directed by: Larry Charles
Written by: Sacha Baron Cohen & Anthony Hines
Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen, Ken Davitian, Luenell, and Pamela Anderson

Rated R (for pervasive strong crude and sexual content including graphic nudity, and language)
Running time: 84 min.

FilmGuru's Rating : 0 out of 10.

The premise behind Borat is that a third-world television reporter (Cohen) is going to America to investigate life and bring back information to his native country of Kazakhstan. Along the way, he becomes obsessed with Pamela Anderson and convinces his producer (Anthony Hines) to drive across country to visit California. Along the way, they discover life in "real" America.

Cohen plays Borat as a stereotypical backward foreigner who doesn't understand life outside of his country. He is boorish and crude, and his fictionalized country is filled with Jew-hating bigots. He washes his laundry in Central Park, he carries a chicken in his suitcase, and he doesn't understand indoor bathrooms.

However, the true focus of the film is not Borat. The eye of the camera is actually examining those around him, documenting the uncomfortable reactions of those who must tolerate this intolerable man. If anything, the film is an interesting exploration of the social interactions of strangers. But is it comedy?

The government of Kazakhstan is offended by what it sees as a defamatory depiction of their country (although Cohen claims his Kazakhstan is a fictional one). Newspapers have been running articles about the controversies for weeks, resulting in more publicity for the film.

The ordinary men and women who were duped into appearing on camera have varying opinions about the film. Some see it as funny, others as offensive. Those who were the victims of his comedy were often unsuspecting. In his wake, he has left a number of unhappy people who feel used and mischaracterized by the film.

The problem is that it is difficult to know when something in the film is staged or when it is real. It reminds me of the comedy of Andy Kaufman, who delighted in making his audiences uncomfortable. The joke was always on the people who didn't understand what he was doing. Likewise, Cohen's fictional reporter is merely a catalyst to spark outrage or show people being horribly offensive.

This, to me, is not funny. For most of the film I squirmed in my seat as Cohen and others made remarks that were off-color to say the least, racist and hate-mongering at worst. Watching Cohen and Davitian wrestle naked became a new low-point in cinema.

That this film was made, let alone distributed by a major studio, is an indictment of our culture. People should not see it, for fear that it might spawn a sequel or -- worse -- imitations.