Borat; Side-splitting comedy, biting satire or contrived stupidity?
Matthew:
November 10th, 2006
The revelation that two fraternity brothers featured in the controversial film are suing the production company is somewhat predictable, though their arguments may cast an unpleasant light on the comedy.
The anonymous plaintiffs appear in the film picking up Borat in their RV, plying him with beer, and making various remarks that could be considered racist or misogynistic, and almost certainly wouldn’t have been made at all if the plaintiffs were aware that they would be topping the box office in their home country.
If this were a genuinely spontaneous occurrence, then it would seem like a legitimate exposure of remarkably bad behaviour. However, it emerges that that the students were taken to a bar by a producer beforehand, who encouraged them to drink as much as they could and be as controversial as they like, as the film wouldn’t be shown in the US. There are similar reports of the feminist artists at the beginning of the film being duped by a production assistant and a set of more credible interview questions, before Borat exposes his more provocative side.
So where does this leave the film? If its comedy comes entirely from Borat himself, then it is intact. However, it is more likely that the audience are laughing at the supposedly genuine reactions of everyday people to Borat, so the revelation that these people may have been encouraged to act in a certain way damages the humour. Similarly, can a film really be considered satirical if it goes out of its way to create the behaviour it seeks to ridicule?