– Surbhi
While one can find political satire in many contexts and movies, in my opinion, none comes to par with those produced and acted by Sacha Baron Cohen. His films like “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan”, “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan”, and “The Dictator” are brimmed with political satire and witty humour, which resulted in them being called mockumentaries, so much so Borat was banned in almost all Arab world as it was declared full of offensive stereotypes and behaviour by the titular character.
So what does Sacha (and the directors) do in these movies that makes them so offensive for some? Borat, which came out in 2006, was considered to be released during a ‘sensitive time’; only 15 years after Kazakhstan, the home country of Borat, gained independence from the Soviet Union, when the nation was ‘still finding its identity’. The film, it was alleged, produced a negative image of the country internationally. The controversial mockumentary starts with a traditional Kazakh song. It later shows primitive and backward images of houses, hence such the view of Kazakhstan, and the main character as a racist, sexist person with ‘demeaning’ views on feminism and some really wrong biological facts, such as the male brain being larger and the female brain being the size of a squirrel, and a very prejudiced man. With very casual references to rape, incest and antisemitism, with “Running Of The Jew” as a popular game and risky dialogues like ‘he (the Jew) nearly got the money there), one would argue that it is an attempt to portray Kazakh culture as obscene and backward. Still, as counterargued by Cohen himself, it was a joke on Americans themselves because when American politicians (later in the film) conversed with Borat, they found him ‘relatable’ and shared his prejudices. The portrayal of the primitive oriental images meant not the real Kazakhstan or Asia but instead the Western version of the East.
The story darkens further in “Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm”, where top political leaders like Trump and Michael Pence are shown as obscene men with very questionable interests, indirectly evolving into anti-republican propaganda. Further, support for Nazis on Holocaust Remembrance Day is another risky statement by Borat. Many people did not find it amusing when such bold comedy was done in the context of a sensitive issue like the Holocaust, which, in their words, ‘contains real lives, real people, and real pain’. According to Cohen, the blatant, casual sexism and racism was the point of the movie. By showing America’s perception of other cultures, especially the Eastern, the producers wanted to signify Uncle Sam’s ignorance and downright narcissism. However, it backfired when these two films gained hate from the East and acceptance from the West, signifying how most of the world population isn’t witty enough to actually get through the facade of such nuanced and subtle messages that these mockumentaries had as objectives.
In another movie of Cohen’s, The Dictator, most of the audience chuckles at Aladeen’s ( the name of Cohen’s character) last extensive monologue, where he eloquently describes the present government state in most countries – “Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship. You could let 1% of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes. And bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group, and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests.” While many people compare this with the government in the USA and India, it’s up to the viewers to either laugh about the satire or turn it into a conflict of opinions. The film has also been accused of promoting Islamophobia, but co-writer David Mandel counters. “Technically speaking, the dictator is North African. But he is not Muslim. There is no mention of Muslims or Muslim humour.”
All in all, it can be concluded that while political comedy can be amusing, but when a certain line is crossed, like antisemitism, racism, and sexism in this case, it is no longer funny. There are many motion pictures, cartoons and whatnot out there based on and portraying political satire, but to what extent do they have the freedom to ridicule real dignity, lives, and towns? To what extent can they be censored? Can mockumentaries ‘mock’ anything they please, at anyone’s, anything’s expense, just to make money out of humiliation? Does satire actually work through the audience’s minds the way producers want it to? These are questions to probe deeper into. Such movies are light entertainment to the commoner but a nightmare for a dictator. While the producers and writers have done an exquisite job with the film, including the Hebrewian accent of Cohen, they also face components just not acceptable to people.
Edited By Amirtha Varshini V C
Article 19 