A Commentary on the Frat Boys' Lawsuit Against Borat

The other day, I was flipping through the radio stations in my car [sadly, I have yet to install a CD player and my car did not come equipped with even a cassette tape deck] and came across a woman mentioning the recently-released to theaters movie, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Apparently, a few people are in an uproar, namely some included in the film, as they feel duped into believing it was a real documentary.

Two people who appeared in the film have gone so far as to file a law suit against 20th Century Fox as well as three other production companies, according to an Associated Press article entitled "Frat boys sue studio over 'Borat' appearance", which can be found at MSNBC. Having recently graduated from college with a Bachelor's degree in Film and Video Production, I am all too aware of the importance of the release form in the making of any of film. Although I personally feel as though filmmakers should employ an individual sense of artistic integrity when making their projects, this does not, in any way, alleviate those signing the form from responsibility.

Verbal statements account for practically nothing in our legal system, and if you are going to sign a contract, the simple use of your brain sparks the idea to ensure that you are, in fact, signing a contract that details accurately what has been described to you. (We all know the outcome of the story about the innocent man who can't read and the cop who draws up a statement of guilt.) This all relates to a handshake. Some people shake hands and never dream of going back on that deal. Others feel as though until the form is drawn up and signed, the deal is subject to change. But the ultimate outcome is the same in both cases - once you sign, the deal is set. The important thing is to be aware of the deal itself.

So the story is that the production crew or whoever brought a couple of fraternity boys to a bar and bought them some drinks, which they, in turn, drank. These frat boys [please note that I am purposely refraining from terming them "men"] now claim that the alcohol made them act in a way that is uncharacteristic of their true identities. My reaction? "Oh, please." College teaches everyone that alcohol is truth serum. I can't count the number of times I have heard comments made about wanting to get drunk in order to work up the courage to complete some act. Though those situations are not quite identical to this one, the premise remains. If certain feelings did not lie within you on some level, then nothing, not even alcohol, could bring them out of you.

The greatest part about being a human is having your own free will. The boys drank the alcohol and acted accordingly within the realm of their personalities. Not exclusive to the frat boys, it isn't the fault of the production crew that the people featured harbored racist, sexist, or classist thoughts. At some point, people need to learn how to accept responsibility for their own actions. In this respect, I can only congratulate the crew in their casting decisions, and move on to my actual review.

Borat, a film directed by Larry Charles, is a new genre of mockumentary in that it employs the use of both scripted and unscripted scenes. Sacha Baron Cohen plays the title character, and has since had to defend the premise behind the movie. One of the main points I have taken out of film school is this: It doesn't matter what you intend your film to be. What matters is how others interpret your ideas. Two people can watch the same film at the same time and take out of it two distinctly different views. This is the beauty of individual thought. One can only hope that obvious gestures of humor are taken as such. Having said this, the following is what I took away from my viewing of Borat.

Basically, the film is a commentary on the social state of this country. In opposition to the claims of various other reviews, this film isn't about bringing attention to the ways of third-world countries. It's about bringing to the attention of the citizens of this country how absurd these views are.

The story begins in Borat's home country, decidedly , and follows Borat through his introduction of this civilization. After presenting these views in the setting of an apparent third-world country, he then arrives in the , and interviews various citizens about social topics. [There is a really great article at salon.com which details each scenario of the film, so check that out if you want to learn more about the real people involved.] In doing this, the so-called "third-world view" of society fits conveniently within our own. Surprised? I'm not.

And then of course, there is the outline of the humorous side of the and the question of whether we really can take a joke as well as we might claim. You might think it is a comedy, and laugh at the misfortune of those involved, but my laughter was out of shock. Perhaps I should have expected it. A main point to be taken out of this film is the fact that we belittle those in other countries for not being as advanced as we ourselves are, but upon closer inspection, we are the same.

Grade: B+

(Explanation of Grade: Beginning with the faux story line of finding true love in Pamela Anderson, I have to immediately draw the line below an A, but not too far. They needed a way to travel across the country, and although this wasn't the most innovative idea, it also wasn't the worst, and it does portray the false sense of hope in this country. Notice how the most beautiful woman was also the most stereotypical American woman. Is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, large-breasted woman who is also in the public eye still the epitome of beauty to us? And even if it is, why is it that we expect everyone else to think the same way? A possible comment on how we expect to appear to citizens of foreign countries.

Next, although I understand the reasoning behind the suspicious manners of the producers (they needed honest reactions and therefore could not divulge their intentions), I have still taken points off for their alleged lack of integrity. I am, however, more sensitive to the reasoning behind quality of picture, as high-tech equipment could have easily given away their objective.

Then of course, the societal aspect of the film, and what I believe the film to be telling us, brings me to the final grade of B+.)