Reassessing the racial stereotyping in 'Borat'

워싱턴 At a moment when people are reassessing racial and cultural casteand reexamining their insensitivity toward othersit’s worth revisiting the legacy of Sacha Baron Cohen’s errant, mustachioed character, Borat, who returned in a sequel on Friday.

동안 (서부 사람) 비평가 largely embraced Larry Charles’ 2006 mockumentaryBorat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” about a fictional Kazakh reporter played by Baron Cohen, many Kazakh viewers denounced the movie’s cartoonish portrayal of their country, which covers swaths of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
Their reading was that Baron Cohen, who co-wrote and produced the film, “just randomly pointed his finger at a map” 과 “took the name of our country and our symbols, and that’s it,” Zarina Smagul, 28, CNN에 말했다.
물론이야, the responses fromBorat’sKazakh audience weren’t monolithic.
    Serik Sharipov, 33, saw the movie in 2006, when he was studying at the American University in Bulgaria.
    On campus, there were students of many different nationalities, including many Kazakh students, and a group of us went to see ‘Boratin the theater,” 그는 말했다. “It was a bit of a sensation.
    Sharipov recalled some of his classmatesdefensiveness, how it made sense. 아무튼, 당시, Kazakhstan was still figuring out its identity and how to communicate to the wider world that it had arrived. It was only in 1991 that the nation declared its independence from the Soviet Union.
    To a number of people from Kazakhstan, it felt like a punch in the gut thatBorat,” with its crass, Western stereotyping of Central Asians, Arabs and Eastern Europeans, essentially became international viewersintroduction to the young country.
    Take the opening scene. Borat mirthfully presents his hometown to viewers by acquainting them withthe town rapist,” “the town kindergarten,” where kids tote guns, 과 “아니오. 4 prostitute in all of Kazakhstan,” his sister.
    Yet as a believer in the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, Sharipov said that his experience with the film was much more positive.
    On learning that I’m from Kazakhstan, classmates would ask me lots of questions about the country,” 그는 말했다. “확실한, the first few questions would be silly, and people would want to know how close to reality ‘Borat’ 이다. But then we’d go into interesting discussions, and I’d share information about Kazakhstan’s history.
    Political realities shaped Sharipov’s response toBorat.
    I’m from a country with heavy censorship. I don’t want my opinion or anyone else’s opinion about what is or isn’t proper comedy to limit what we see,” 그는 말했다. “I don’t think that ‘Boratis really about Kazakhstan. But our reaction to the movie is.
    아직도, while some of the jokes inBorat” 작업, others don’t.
    The titular character’s antisemitism, misogyny and racism make for important, if easy, targets of ridicule. The same goes for the Americans who indulge Borat’s situationist slapstick; their morally questionable behavior is there for the audience to skewer. 과연, “Boratis at its best when it’s punching up.
    예를 들어, 한 지점에서, several White Americans comment to Borat that it’s a shame that there’s no longer slavery in their country. In their ugliness, such lines are reminders that bigotry still thrives in America.
    At other times, 그러나, “Boratseems to be punching down.
    With ‘Borat,’ Baron Cohen reclaimed for ‘First Worldersthe ‘rightto mock foreigners from developing nations,” the journalist Inkoo Kang wrote for Slate in 2018. “Only with the Borat accent are the phrases ‘my wife!’ and ‘very nice!’ punchlines we all remember.
    그녀는 덧붙였다: “Baron Cohen’s view of Borat isn’t too dissimilar from how White nationalists here and in Europe view immigrants and refugees: ignorant, violent, prone to sexual assault, unable or unwilling to assimilate. … ‘Boratcontinues to illuminate. But now what it lays bare is the xenophobia we were willing to embrace while pointing fingers at the bigots on-screen.
    Kazakh movie-goers echoed these sentiments, underscoring the film’s uneven power dynamics.
    We were just starting to be proud to be Kazakh. Can you imagine what a slap in the face it was to see a movie that doesn’t show anyone who even looks like you?” Smagul told CNN. “I love comedies. We have a lot of movies in which we, Kazakh people, laugh at parts of our culture. But I also love when research was done before filming.
    와 “Borat,” 그녀가 말했다, it felt as if Baron Cohen had arbitrarily chosen aforeign-soundingcountry in order to say something profound about faraway America. 그 동안에, those from Kazakhstan were left to deal with the cultural course-correction that attends a film such asBorat.
    Aysana Ashim, 29, was equally direct in her criticism of the movie.
    As a journalist and activist, she said that she wants to shine a light on the issues beleaguering Kazakhstan. 에 따르면 Human Rights Watch, “Kazakh authorities routinely break up or prevent peaceful protests criticizing government policies,” 과 “impunity for torture and ill-treatment persists.
    그러나 “Borat,” Ashim explained, warps the attention the country receives.
    While the world laughs, we struggle alone with our problems,” 그녀가 말했다, adding that it’s frustrating to hear people defend the movie by noting that it makes fun of America and European countries as well. “That claim is weak becausewhat do you know about these countries? A lot. You know their culture and history. You can name their famous artists, scientists and politicians. But Kazakhstan isn’t that well known.
      The argument is thatBoratuses Kazakhstan as a prop, as a means of illustrating issues in America. But the prop itself is discarded.
      아마도 “Borathelps viewers get to know America a little bit better. But nobody walks away with a deeper knowledge of Kazakhstan. Some might even read that last sentence and laugh. 어느, 물론이야, is part of the problem.

      답장을 남겨주세요

      귀하의 이메일 주소는 공개되지 않습니다. 필요 입력 사항은 표시되어 있습니다 *

      *