Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on November 15, 2006 at 16:33:16

In Reply to: Re: You want an argument with duncan? OK posted by sjb on November 15, 2006 at 15:23:39:

"Yes but he does so at the expense of people's trust and general good nature as in the scene at that dinner."

That is true. the vehicle of his approach requires a set up akin to a practical joke. It is a very pure form of improv in that the mark doesn't know that they are in a sketch. Phil Henry does the same thing with his brilliant radio talk show. It is a form of comedy that requires specific skills on the players' part, Sacha Coehn is one of the best at it, and in the end it requires a level of humility and humanity on the part of the mark. If they lack one or the other they are busted for it. Should I feel sorry for the few who were exposed for what they really are?

" It's one thing to expose a racist or serious hypocrite it's another thing to just be insulting to people who are being kind to you."

But he was "just" insulting. That would be shallow. He was outrageous but smart enough to keep in the context of a severe cultural square peg. The bottom line is you can't script those reactions with actors that are aware of the set up. It's uniquely funny, fresh and involving. It also allows for a range of directions that would likely not be found by a single writer. IMO some of the best stuff was the very humane and kind hearted reactions some of the marks gave to Borat's outrageous offerings. You just can't script those geniune reaction to such absurd circumstances.

" So, no invention, just a noting of a lack of basic decency."

That doesn't make any sense. The "invention" I was speaking of was that of Duncan Shepperd. A lack of basic decency? or a lack of basic humility. Some people just can't take a joke. It is interesting that the same folks thought Jackass was just fine. maybe because it was low lifes playing jokes on low lifes and folks like Duncan Shepperd felt safe and above it all. Maybe Cohen's ability to infaltrate the trust and intelect of "highbrows" scared Shepperd and others that find it lacking in basic decency.

"But because Cohen is intentionally provocative, willing to mock whoever crosses his path, he ends up baiting the harmless and playing ordinary people for fools just because they are gullible and had the bad luck to run into him, and it's here that the laughter especially sticks in your throat. The car dealer who doesn't object when Borat makes anti-Gypsy remarks may not be a secret racist but simply someone who decided it was a mug's game to get further involved with an obvious lunatic. And the Southern dining society that gets mercilessly humiliated seems to have committed no sin worse than earnestness, credulity and hospitality."

Again only an afront or threat to those who take themselves far too seriously and are afraid of playing the fool. He doesn't simply mock his marks. That would be cheap and uninteresting. If that is all one sees than I think those folks are simply falling prey to their own fears fo playing the mark themselves. It does seem that most folks aren't too sensitive for this sort of humor. But obviously some are. Oh well.

"With his corrosive brand of take-no-prisoners humor that scalds on contact, Cohen is the most intentionally provocative comedian since Lenny Bruce and early Richard Pryor, with a difference. For unlike those predecessors, there is a mean-spiritedness, an every-man-for-himself coldness about his humor. The one kind of laughter you won't find in "Borat" is that which acknowledges shared humanity."

Interesting that he would cite other trailblazers that were in their time taken to task much the same way as the author takes Cohen to task. Now that is ironic. Maybe he has good reason to fear this sort of humor.