Borat
-
What I find offensive is the deliberate and intentional deceit they used to entrap those being filmed. It really shows no character or ethics on the actors or producers part. I will not support it.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
to entrap those being filmed.
if by "entrap" you mean "allow fools to think that their biggoted ways wouldn't be found out by the general populace" then yes, they "entrapped" them. But here's the catch: The "idiots" that were "entrapped" had a film production crew, complete with cameras in front of them. If they don't to appear to be biggotted idiots, then don't act like one in front of a film camera. BTW, I voted you a 1.
Mike Poz
-
My girlfriend and I saw the movie 'Borat' last night. It was hilarious! If you aren't offended by completely vulgar/vile/disgusting/racist/sexist/un-PC remarks, but find them funny, then that movie is for you. If you are offended by them, sucks to be you! ;P
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
I like movies like this as it challenges our conventions. In terms of what offends us and for what reasons. Usually it just exposes how seriously we take ourselves. And how much importance we place on social constraints. Picking your nose in public is a good example. Is this really offensive? Or is it just the idea of it that is. Everyone is most likely doing it when your not looking, so I'd still be cautious when shaking hands. Heh. For example, my wife is asian. Clearly I'm not racist, as I'm from European descent. Class A Mutt. But white. But anytime I say an asian joke, like "Confucious say: Man with itchy butt wake up with smelly finger" Its usually the Americans that take offense to it. Not my wife. She just laughs. So I think that a large part of the offended is false.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
yet more counter balance
Thanks. I just irks me when people want to whine just because someone doesn't agree with them. Talk about babies. His post wasn't annoying or tasteless, and yet they do that.
Jeremy Falcon "It's a good thing to do and a tasty way to do it." - Wilford Brimley[^]
I've gotta call you on this one. A vote of 1 is disagreeing.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I just irks me when people want to whine just because someone doesn't agree with them
Now your whining because the one votes which display disagreement... heh.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
His post wasn't annoying or tasteless, and yet they do that.
Is there a rule for voting? I thought it was a direct reflection of what you think of it. If you disagree with it, then a 1 vote seems valid. I 1 voted him, but not you, as I don't disagree enough with you to give you that vote. But his statement while being a valid opinion, was kinda pointed and implied that anyone who liked the movie lacked character, that includes me, so 1 vote.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Brussel sprouts are tasteless.
Oh, I beg to differ. They have plenty of taste, it just not good taste.
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven WrightHey! Don't knock 'Fairy Cabbages' - that's how Mum got me to eat them as a youngster. Here's an article on the people in Romania he p..d off making the film ... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/D8LCSROO0.html [^] If you thought the film was funny, the making of it will give you a giggle.
It wasn't me, It was the Others. It was the Others, Not Me.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
to entrap those being filmed.
if by "entrap" you mean "allow fools to think that their biggoted ways wouldn't be found out by the general populace" then yes, they "entrapped" them. But here's the catch: The "idiots" that were "entrapped" had a film production crew, complete with cameras in front of them. If they don't to appear to be biggotted idiots, then don't act like one in front of a film camera. BTW, I voted you a 1.
Mike Poz
Mike Poz wrote:
The "idiots" that were "entrapped" had a film production crew, complete with cameras in front of them.
And those idiots had been told (lied to or entrapped) that this was to be a documentary on American culture and had signed the film release prior to the actual filming. How would you or most any one initially react following the setup they had been put into? Keep in mind many/most are simply common honest folks who trust their fellow man (well up tell now.)
-
I've gotta call you on this one. A vote of 1 is disagreeing.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I just irks me when people want to whine just because someone doesn't agree with them
Now your whining because the one votes which display disagreement... heh.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
His post wasn't annoying or tasteless, and yet they do that.
Is there a rule for voting? I thought it was a direct reflection of what you think of it. If you disagree with it, then a 1 vote seems valid. I 1 voted him, but not you, as I don't disagree enough with you to give you that vote. But his statement while being a valid opinion, was kinda pointed and implied that anyone who liked the movie lacked character, that includes me, so 1 vote.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
implied that anyone who liked the movie lacked character, that includes me, so 1 vote.
That was not my point. My comment was not about the content of the movie or any statment about liking it or not. It was about the manner (setup of the filmed subjects) in which the movie was made.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
implied that anyone who liked the movie lacked character, that includes me, so 1 vote.
That was not my point. My comment was not about the content of the movie or any statment about liking it or not. It was about the manner (setup of the filmed subjects) in which the movie was made.
Fair enough.. and the vote wasn't towards the person, but the post. Dunno, voting seemed to have become a touchy subject.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Fair enough.. and the vote wasn't towards the person, but the post. Dunno, voting seemed to have become a touchy subject.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
the vote wasn't towards the person
I never took it as towards the person. No problems from my end.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
voting seemed to have become a touchy subject.
Hey that is life, to many assumptions on what people mean by what they write. In my case usually in a hurry and too little time is spent thinking on how the post will be interpreted. Do not worry about it.
-
I like movies like this as it challenges our conventions. In terms of what offends us and for what reasons. Usually it just exposes how seriously we take ourselves. And how much importance we place on social constraints. Picking your nose in public is a good example. Is this really offensive? Or is it just the idea of it that is. Everyone is most likely doing it when your not looking, so I'd still be cautious when shaking hands. Heh. For example, my wife is asian. Clearly I'm not racist, as I'm from European descent. Class A Mutt. But white. But anytime I say an asian joke, like "Confucious say: Man with itchy butt wake up with smelly finger" Its usually the Americans that take offense to it. Not my wife. She just laughs. So I think that a large part of the offended is false.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Its usually the Americans that take offense to it.
We Americanos are ensconced in PC drivel. It's that influence which makes people feel that a statement which has absolutely anything to do with race/religion/etc must be improper and, somehow, morally objectionable. Total bullsh*t, if you ask me. So, a gay Chinese retard with AIDS walks into a bar and the bartender says... ;)
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
Mike Poz wrote:
The "idiots" that were "entrapped" had a film production crew, complete with cameras in front of them.
And those idiots had been told (lied to or entrapped) that this was to be a documentary on American culture and had signed the film release prior to the actual filming. How would you or most any one initially react following the setup they had been put into? Keep in mind many/most are simply common honest folks who trust their fellow man (well up tell now.)
This is turning into a soapbox issue. Anyway, the film is basically a theater based version of Candid Camera[^], execpt that it's not Allen Funt and his cast of co-hosts doing the scam.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
And those idiots had been told (lied to or entrapped) that this was to be a documentary on American culture
What you wrote above only enforces my point. Not only were they stupid enough to be blatantly prejudice in front of a camera, but they felt it was *proper* to do this on film that they thought the rest of the world would see. They thought it was a documentary after all. To tell the rest of the world that this behavior was typical of Americans and accepted by all of us, which it's not, is wrong. So I, and many like me, have zero sympathy for them and those idiots deserve all the scorn and disrespect that the rest of us Americans who aren't like this feel for them.
Mike Poz