“…and, in Cohen's view at least, this comes from a source of general American ignorance and (in his view, undeserved) feeling of cultural superiority.”

I read a quotation in the Wall Street Journal recently, in a brief article about Cold War Literature. It was in regards to 1984 (the number one on their list) and the final quote was “The Cold War was won by insisting that the values of Western Civilization were non-negotiable. Is that still our stance today?” And if Cohen thinks that the U.S. and (as you pointed out) the U.K., two major leaders in Western Society, have undeserved feeling of cultural superiority, I would have to disagree with him.

I fear how this makes me look, it seems to put me in the Limbaugh camp if taken at first glance, and God knows that's the last place I want to be. But Western Civilization has flourished for a reason, and I don't have to think all cultures are equally good. The word elitist has become joined at the hip with arrogance, but I think the relationship is unfounded.

This is a digression, but I've noticed that as I look through the different artistic eras, the relationship between mankind and the world around it has changed. We live in a post-modern (or perhaps a post-post modern) period in history, and it has come with aspects I see as good and bad, like all the others. There has been a great equalization of all and viewpoints, of all cultures and societies. How dare we say the Western Culture is better than culture of the small African tribes? But further then this, there is a distinct apologist's aura around the human condition as a whole. Threats of climate change have exacerbated this problem, and people are now wary to say humans are a better species, or even a force for good. There are two upcoming movies, District Nine and Avatar, that make humankind an enemy, as we are seen as a pillaging, prejudiced viruses. It isn't the same as the old “man vs. his own nature” story, either; this vilifies Man. What does this have to do with Bruno? Very little. End digression.

“But I think Cohen's real nationalist critique is in his construction of the character itself, as it embodies general American confusion between cultures, or a lumping together of everything outside one's country as “foreign” or “everything else.” I think in Cohen's view, it is okay to love one's country, but the line is drawn where that love turns into an ideological bubble or comes at the expense of world interests.”

This, I think, is important, but I will still disagree with that last statement. We do know very little about world affairs (we're do busy with Jon and Kate…), I try to be SOMEWHAT informed and still find myself disgustingly ignorant at times (at least I didn't think the Russians were invading Georgia to get to Alabama). But this is, what I believe, the “Blind Nationalism.” Though I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting the ideologies of Western Society. What I think we'd both agree on is that just because we have a lot right doesn't mean we can't find something to improve from other societies. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't think Western Society is paramount.

And I think we both agree that we can't really fault someone for not being aware that Borat is, in no way, Kazakh. As you said, it's an 'obscure' choice.

I too would have LOVED to have seen Bruno at Prop 8… I bet you are right, his face is too recognizable. That's a shame. What i'd love to see him do is produce the next movie with a new comedian in the role, and I'd like him to take on the role of a southern blind conservative. I think it could be great to show some of the prejudices, fears, and ignorance that comes their way (believe me, I've seen it) from the left (he'll never do this, I know). But one great thing about Cohen is he does poke fun at the characters he imitates and those that he interacts with.

I'm all about moderation here, and the world will be at real peace when we can laugh at our differences without anyone feeling personally attacked.

I think your point is valid regarding Borat, that the source of humor is often at the character's own expense rather than the people he's interacting with. But I still think, despite our personal views on nationalism, Cohen's intention is to show how ready people are to believe that such an absurd character exists, and, in Cohen's view at least, this comes from a source of general American ignorance and (in his view, undeserved) feeling of cultural superiority. I think our respective views on nationalism differ quite a bit, but I do think it's valid differentiating between Cohen's critique of purely symbolic blind nationalism (like in Borat's singing of his national anthem at the rodeo) and other types of nationalism. I would hesitate to label Cohen anti-American, since he also comes from a western superpower, and the UK version of The Ali G Show acted as a similar mirror for his country's culture as well. Also, since he's a satirist and not, say, a policymaker, his criticism, in my view, is far more welcome.

But I think Cohen's real nationalist critique is in his construction of the character itself, as it embodies general American confusion between cultures, or a lumping together of everything outside one's country as “foreign” or “everything else.” I think in Cohen's view, it is okay to love one's country, but the line is drawn where that love turns into an ideological bubble or comes at the expense of world interests. The fact that Borat is not actually characterized by anything Kazakh–portraying a Kazakh village with a cast of rural Romanians, creating a Kazakh “language” that is a mishmash between Yiddish, Polish, and gibberish–feeds the Chomskyian interpretation that America has the least amount of world news coverage of any major superpower (interestingly enough, Ali G actually interviews Chomsky in the 2nd season). Of course, Cohen frames the interaction to fit his thesis by choosing such an obscure country.

Also, with regards to the S&M thing, Cohen's comedy does indeed work largely because of shock value, and there's nothing homophobic about getting shicked by two people in S&M gear walking in public or to see a singing, dancing penis, as the intention is obviously to shock. As Cohen illustrates with the swingers, there are shocking forms of sex in any orientation. However, straight S&M has been a “legit” source for humor for quite some time; even Garry fucking Marshall made a movie about it. The question here is whether or not the fact that it is gay rather than straight (rather than the simple fact it is S&M) is part of the shock value, and either that is what Cohen is trying to illustrate or where his message gets confused. For me it's muddled.

And yes, I also wanted to see more. I wanted to see more criticism of the fashion industry and celebrity culture, and I wanted the movie's politics to be more biting. I heard that Bruno went to the pro- and anti-Prop 8 rallies around election time. I would have loved to have seen that incorporated into the movie. But I think this go-round was harder for him because his face is now that much more recognizable. I was surprised he even succeeded as much as he did with the Paula Abdul thing. Anyway, thanks again for reading and responding.

…Also, one correction: in the fourth to last sentence, I wrote Borat but meant Bruno.

1. Sacha Baron Cohen is, first and foremost, a comedian. He wants to make you laugh, and he wants a paycheck to do it. This means he will use a blend of tactics, and social commentary is only one of them. It's also the most controversial, because we can then engage in debate on what he is trying to say, and if we even agree on that, if he is correct in his assessment.
What I think is clear is that Cohen is anti-american. This bothers me, for many reasons. America has become an apologist's country, and it might be foolish to say we've been perfect, but I don't see much wrong with bringing people into western thinking (this naturally includes Europe). Our liberties, our knowledge, and our levels of wealth are highest in the world. And those countries that have embraced these ideals are starting to grow (namely, India). But Cohen acts like, in trying to teach Borat Western culture, we are pompous and arrogant.

2. You say, “Borat encouraged the American desire to assimilate foreign cultures, trying their patience with Borat’s lack of understanding while his pranked “victims” seemed never to be surprised at the fact that Borat was incapable of understanding even the most basic American customs while they remained completely oblivious to his inaccurately depicted Kasakh culture. Borat’s victims revealed troubling tendencies toward elitist nationalism and superiority embedded within the American psyche as they remained infinitely polite, sustaining a belief that the most generous thing they can do is assimilate Borat into American culture rather than the other way around.”

Firstly, should we really expect Americans to be familiar with Kasakh culture, having never been there? Second, should they try to assimilate to that culture? Why? What reason would an American have for that, particularly when the person that claims to embody it is Borat? Why does their being 'infinite polite' put them in a bad light, an elitist light? It's those people that were so polite that were the GOOD people in that movie, who realized this 'Borat' lived completely differently, and were not quick to judge him. These people were not the butt of the joke. I wasn't laughing at the scene where he goes to the feminist's meeting because it was biting social commentary, or because these were 'elitist American's forcing their way of life,' especially when women are treated as chattel all over the world. I laughed because he told this group of women that his scientists had proven women were dumber than men. It's just a funny gag. This was not an attempt at commentary. That came from other places in the movie (frat guys, cowboy, etc.) Though I say again, what is wrong with nationalism? I'm proud to be in the United States, why is that bad? Now, Borat and Bruno might show problems with BLIND nationalism, but not all his 'victims' were blind nationalists.

3. Bruno and Borat both are both stereotypes, made for comedy, and for this reason at times their forays into social commentary fail. There is a difference, as South Park so eloquently taught me, between toleration and acceptance as good. Bruno is a cartoon, who puts gerbils in his ass and walks down main street chained to his lover in S+M fashion. It's funny, especially when in front of the “God Hates Fags” crowd, but does it really teach tolerance? As you've said, perhaps this harms more than helps. I accept homosexuality, I think it's fine, but do I think it's okay, or normal, to do some of the things Bruno does? Absolutely not.

This is getting very long and cumbersome. There's a lot to discuss here. Bruno failed, for a few reasons I believe, in the social commentary realm. One, he was too bizarre, too much of a cartoon. Two, too much of the movie focused on actions Cohen himself did (singing a song to the two leaders in Israel, mimicking blowjobs of a ghost), putting the focus on him, making the jokes about him, and not about the people he was 'tricking.' Yes it's funny to hear that religious nut say “these lips are for praising Jesus,” but only to those of us who laugh at that stupid asshole anyway. As you also said, this will convince nobody who thinks otherwise to see the light. They will still at that priest to moral guidance, and applaud him for trying to sway such a person in need.

But a major point, is it homophobic to be shocked and appalled when two dudes walk through the mall in S+M? NO! Tolerance of homosexuals is not the same as accepting that particular act as good. People would be shocked to see two heterosexual people in such an embrace as well.

I wanted to see Bruno tease the vapid celebrity culture more, and I wanted to see him do more with people who want the government to “stay out of their life,” while still outlawing things like gay marriage. I wanted to see him hit Arkansas for taking 400 adopted kids away and putting them back into orphanages/foster homes because their parents were gay. The social commentary just didn't work here.

But it was funny as hell, no doubt.

Really.