Friday, March 16, 2007

Borat

Borat is a movie that has been written on extensively. Ever since it was released, I have wanted to see it to find out what the whole hype was about. I got to see it last week on DVD and was disappointed. The funny moments become quite repetitive(and tiring) as the movie proceeds to its conclusion.

Borat is a reporter from 'make-believe' nation of Kazakhstan who is sent by its ministry of culture to america to study its culture and provide a clue as to why they are so successful. In america, his cluelessness about contemporary culture mores makes him stick out like a sore thumb. He somehow manages to find americans who think like him and empathise with him. He happens to catch a picture of Pamela anderson and decides to make her his wife. The movie ends with his aborted attempt to kidnap her so he can marry her.

The movie is not fit for consumption in a family setting. The movie is made in the style of a documentary so that Borat is captured setting scenes where he tries to learn from americans about their culture. It provides the moviemaker with latitude to pick and choose which aspects of american culture to focus on. The moviemaker uses it to pick on societal ideas that americans have arrived at(unofficially) a common consensus. As consensus implies some kind of a compromise, there are always going to be people who are not happy with the status quo.

As a clueless kazak, he revels in ignorance and backwardness of his culture. The 'running of the jew' and 'town rapist' are some examples. However, it is only backward when it is contrasted with modern standards of equality of people regardless of colour, creed, sex, sexual orientation. Since he has been exposed to only kazak culture, Borat doesnt realize it is backward and is quite proud of it.

When he comes to america and meets americans, he is exposed to a culture that prides itself at being the opposite of kazak culture. His interactions with americans shows through exceptions that the pride might be misplaced. The exceptions seem to have been chosen for maximum effect. Sacha Baron Cohen has masterfully exploited the desire of most americans to portray themselves as following the common consensus on most issues. Given that this is a commercial venture made with the aim of making money, it is not surprising Borat's character milks the uncomfortable situations for all they are worth. So, when he lets loose inappropriate comments, americans around him are caught trying to figure out the appropriate response. Some respond enthusiastically like the car dealer trying to make a sale and the beer guzzling fraternity guys. Some are lukewarm in their empathy like the driving instructor and the comedy coach. Some are livid like the feminist group and the dining etiquette group and abruptly terminate the discussion.

His interest in Pamela anderson is shown as becoming serious only after he receives news of his wife's demise. So, even if he is portrayed as a native bum of a backward country, the moviemaker has enough sense to know that the implicit agreement with the audience(which is the source for all the laughs) might not appreciate his serious interest in Pamela anderson when his wife is alive.

I lost whatever remaining interest in the movie after the prolonged nude wrestling scene between Borat and his producer. While I can see the point of including the scene in the movie, to have it go on for that long as it does, made it lose the message. Showing a fat guy in nude rolling around with another guy is funny when it is shown for a short time. The funny aspect comes from the implicit agreement between the moviemaker and audience that such a scene is gross in a politically incorrect sense. If it is shown for a long time, the audience might start thinking maybe the grossness has to do more with their idea of fatness(and correspondingly with thiness) than with the character in the movie.

The movie does educate you in the idea that Borat revelling in sexism and a fraternity guy revelling in sexism are not that far apart even if they belong to cultures that are completely different in sophistication, knowledge and achievements. That education has to come with a caveat that the movie has been made to exploit politically incorrect responses for all they are worth.

Borat is similar in its underlying structure to tamil movies that have been made on the storyline of a rural character coming to urban sorroundings and feeling like a fish out of water. Replace Borat with rustic characters played by Sivaji/MGR/Rajni/Kamal in countless movies. Given the different audiences they target, the flow of those movies diverge after some point. But the underlying idea seems to be similar. The rural population make up a major portion of the tamil movie audience and hence, the hero character starts out being clueless but ends up marrying the urban heroine(usually after a lecture on culture as if rural tamilnadu has a hold on the culture and urban tamilnadu does not) and shows off how comfortable he is in that environment.