Borat

Loved watching Borat in class yesterday. I always discover new things watching. This time, I found myself wondering why Sasha Baron Cohen didn’t just create a fictionalized country to avoid the legal fallout. It’s easy enough and has been done often. The story is not about Kazakhstan specifically, but about a foreigner from a ‘backwards’ country coming to America. I’ve actually studied Borat from a sociological perspective in some of my other psych classes. In reality, Borat is about the existence and enforcement of cultural norms. Wherever Borat goes, he violates these norms and makes us question their legitimacy. Perhaps he really was trying to make a political statement rather than just entertain. As a comedian, he represents an agent of chaos – not necessarily maleficent himself, but rather just enough to stir up the dark-side of society so he can sit back and watch people tear themselves apart. When it comes down to it, anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny all represent deeply rooted issues of the human-psyche that we tend to repress. Sasha Baron Cohen can make just about anyone look bad, forcing us to acknowledge these issues in an entertaining light. It’s actually quite genius and particularly effective. I don’t know about you, but watching Borat again made me realize how much more its focused on America’s nation branding over Kazakhstan. It also made me realize how incredibly diverse this country is – not only in races, but also in cultural norms. People in the South seem like a completely different nation then the people in New York! Instead of questioning Borat’s cultural norms, I found myself questioning more of the American’s.

I found a really interesting article on whether Borat should be considered a documentary. Check it out: http://www.jonathanlack.com/2014/06/essay-day-borat-cultural-learnings-of.html. I personally think Borat should be considered more of a social experiment with a plot than a documentary.

I’m very fascinated by Saunder’s article on re-branding Kazakhstan. The concept of nation-nation branding has reduced deeply integrated political, social, and economic traditions into objects of advertisement. Is this a product of capitalism or technological advancements? Surely nation branding did not exist hundreds of years ago. Or has it always, and it’s just become more apparent in the 21^st century?

The documentary was very refreshing. However I didn’t find it particularly effective in re-branding Kazakhstan’s image. Carmen was merely a background character to narrate an unrelated B-story about her boyfriend, while her father was the main driver of the events, most likely a product of their gender-established roles. If there was anything I took away from this documentary, it’s to never trust anyone with a camera.