And the satire of the year award goes to...
Wow. I am totally crushed by George Saunders' stunning Borat piece in this week's New Yorker. Holy mackarel. This is why he won the MacArthur award.
It takes the form of a memo suggesting DVD extras for the film:
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
It takes the form of a memo suggesting DVD extras for the film:
LinkSOUTHERN DINING SOCIETY SECTION: Do we have footage of the woman Borat identified as unattractive being consoled in her darkened living room later that night by her husband? Particularly good if, all her life, she’s fought the feeling that she was not attractive, and only recently has come to feel pretty, owing to the steady love of her husband, who does, in fact, find her pretty, in part because of her kindness to him and others in their community—and now all those wounds have been reopened! Also, although she is crying, she tries to cry quietly, so as not to alarm the kids. Super!
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
posted by Jesse Thorn at Monday, November 27, 2006
10 Comments:
Great read! I just went and saw Borat and was very upset at how horrible it was. I couldn't see why this was receiving so many great reviews. All I saw was that New Yorkers are jerks, Southeners are racist idiots, frat boys drink, and fat men naked are funny...is that new and original?
All of the Borat I have seen, mainly from the DVD of his TV show, hinges on him abusing the guest-host relationship. We will be nice to foreign visitors! We will do everything we can to make them feel welcome! We will ignore their faux pas - they never happened! In return, the fish-flopping-on-dry-land foreigner is supposed to be appreciative and submissive. Borat takes what is good in us and twists it to make us seem bad.
George's piece is artfully done and makes valid points, (from what I can gather about the movie, which I haven't seen).
Of course, my initial kneejerk reaction is: Leave it to the New Amsterdamer to find a way to poo-poo the baseness of anything considered "popular" beyond a 10 mile radius of Gotham.
With Borat and Kramer, we have catalysts for some of the most interesting debate about comedy/victimization and performer/audience dynamics which I have seen in a while. Lots of good stuff to kick around.
Well, Chuck, he teaches at Syracuse, so he's not exactly a Manhattanite... unless he's pulling one heck of a commute.
Just a cheap shot at the stereotype of the attitude of The New Yorker and how it is perceived by those outside of its geographic area and readership.
Hey--at least I wasn't crappin' on LA (which BTW, I LOVE!)!
Jesse: I do think this a very good piece of satire and I've thnought a lot about the points he makes, but as a fan of the film (which I assume you are from your posts on the film here), what are your thoughts on some of what he's saying?
I liked the movie, and am prepared to live with the karmic implications of laughing at Borat.
Saunders is pretty spot-on in this piece. The one place he lost me is the observation that the film isn't as tough on gays and blacks as it is on middle-class white folk.
Isn't it only fair that the more secure members of society get a rougher time than the marginal do?
I thought 'Borat' had a pretty sturdy moral framework, which is important for any successful comedy, although there were lapses.
This piece was depressing. Certainly the worst thing GS has ever done considering everything else he has done is top-shelf.
Depressing, yes, but sometimes that's what you get from satire.
Obviously GS has no idea what he is talking about and has never seen sacha baron cohen's other personalities. Namely Ali G and Bruno for the satire on afroamerican and gay culture. Not to mention that the Kazhakstan scenes are not shot in Kazhakstan. Also, lighten up.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home