Reflections on Borat; 2006's Biggest Coup

Reflecting on Borat's invasion of our theatres last year here is a new interview with Sasha Baron Cohen for NPR's Open Air. (Via Zigzigger)

And if that isn't enough, here is a rather interesting take on the impact of the Borat Film within the Balkan Countries.

Given that Borat plays off ricocheting notions of national and cultural identity among Americans and non-Americans, watching the Borat phenomenon from another country provides the opportunity to explore one region's take on Americans and transnational interactions.

Daniel Marcus dissects how the jokes are directed at, perceived by and reacted to both in America and beyond. He argues that in Slovenia, arguably more Integrated in the European culture than most of the Balkan States, cinema-goers were more able to appreciate the racist, sexist and anti-semitic humour, while the anti-Gypsy humour he worried might have been a bit too in line with popular sentiment.

Baron Cohen straddles that tenuous line between exposing racism and sexism through humor and using racist and sexist attitudes to make his jokes work. Slovenian fans stated that they felt confident that Slovenian audiences would laugh at the anti-Semitism displayed in the film, rather than with it, because anti-Semitism is not particularly active in the national culture (and perhaps because some may know Baron Cohen is Jewish). They also asserted that they laughed at the anti-Gypsy attitudes, but could not be so confident that other audience members were laughing at those remarks rather than with them.

Figuring out who should be most offended by Borat is a tough task indeed. Marcus suggests it may be fat people who are the only ones not getting a tongue in cheek lashing. The hotel room wrestle is an eye opening experience into fat people naked from all angles. Although Cohen in the buff is no pretty sight either. Even the hooker, draws sympathy as a tragic clown figure. The main target of the film is of course the isolationism of American societies from the rest of the world. You may be a country of racist, sexist, homophobic, red-necks, but that all could be forgiven. The fact that you would take this person who is blatantly off the wall bigotted as an educated journalist from a foreign country with his backwater manners (not knowing how to wipe his arse) as real, or indeed, that the audience is left doubting the farcical character's reality, is the

In the Slovenian context, however, the true target of the film's ire is the American people in the Age of Bush, while the film is also useful in furthering Slovenian feelings of belonging to the advanced civilization of Western and Central Europe (a civilization that has produced, in Baron Cohen's act, the British dimwit Ali G and Austrian fashion slave Bruno). Do American Blue State viewers (a recently expanded category!) exhibit the same attitude toward the Southerners and Westerners in the film as Slovenians do to representations of Kazakhstan?

If so many people were so offended by the film. How come it was such a success? Kristen Thompson is discussing how Borat has made such a splash by capitalizing on the power of the net. She compares the success of Borat with the modest failure of Snakes on a Plane. Where Borat Producers utilized Youtube to the best of its ability, Snakes gained a great deal of press through parodies and homages to its daft name.

Snakes was a deemed a failure. New Line said that its opening gross was typical for a low-budget genre film. Snakes cost a reported $33 million. million in the domestic market and a total of just under $60 million internationally.Ultimately it took $34 I suspect that New Line spent a great deal more on advertising that it ordinarily would have, hoping in vain to expand the enthusiasm. The film’s box office takings would certainly not bring in a profit, but doubtless New Line hopes for better things on DVD.

Where Snakes faltered, Borat soared; from the modest budget of $18 Mil it amassed $126 million domestically and $241 million worldwide.

This brings forward a debate around why people would put so much effort into online interaction and not head out to the cinema. My argument would be that people like to interact with lots of popular culture, but aren't necessarily interested in spending money on consumption. I also think that people still probably use traditional thought processes in deciding whether to see a film. They have trusted review sources, traditional media and friends. Perhaps, new methods of online interaction will take time to influence consumer action at the cinema. If you look at the big examples, Blair Witch and Borat, both films used web buzz to get known but perhaps benefited greatly from traditional promotion through strong reviews. But, perhaps Borat in its nature is better suited as a film for audience's to watch, where Snakes lends itself better to viewer adaptation for enjoyment. Thompson states;

Borat’s full, unwieldy title was also an attention-getter, but no one could possibly predict much about the film from it, let alone parody it. Here the focus was primarily on how funny Cohen was as Borat and how funny the film was going to be. What circulated were samples that seemed to prove exactly that. People would go to this film and have more fun than they could possibly make for themselves by messing around on the internet with its title. The words “snakes on a plane” could inspire just about anybody with a creative bone in their body, but only Cohen could do Borat.

It seems the fervor the internet can produce does not a blockbuster make. A film must have content that can sustain huge amounts of exposure and analysis and remain inspiring for people to purchase tickets. Snake's and others before it have blown their wad before reeling in the punters, while Borat had the substance that demanded people see the antics for themselves.