At least it made me spend time thinking about my reaction

Rating: 1/10 (11 February 2007)

It seemed fitting that upon arriving home after I saw this movie I channel surfed past a Comedy Channel "roast" of Pamela Anderson. In that ode to maximizing the ratio of dollars earned per ounce of IQ present, several people - some famous - pulled out all the stops (one surmises there were no stops left to pull) to scrape through the barrel bottom to reach previously unplumbed depths of mean-spirited, profane puerility. It's hard to call it humour.
Borat slides right in to that same vein. Or does it?
When I found myself laughing constantly and often uncontrollably through "There's Something about Mary" I figured then that I could be as caught up in potty humour as much as anyone. Borat, however, goes well beyond "Mary's" silly and simple sight gags (related often to the middle third of the human body). In that movie, the humour is based upon two factors: the reaction to the initial gag, and also the viewer's realization of their reaction to the gag - they laugh a second time at themselves when they realize they laughed at such silly stuff. Monty Python was often similar.
Borat, in contrast, works off a very different premise.
First of all, it is about deception. Sure it "pokes fun" at attitudes towards others. In the global scheme of things of over 6 billion "others", Cohen leaves us with the suggestion that the way to deal with diversity is ridicule. Cohen suggests that the ridicule need not stop when one is invited into anothers house for dinner - it's OK to leave a turd beside your plate on the way out. That'll fix 'em so they can all be like... like.... who? Which of the >6 billion is the correct model that we should all follow?
I don't believe that Cohen and the rest of the production team was out to provide moral guidance or even point out anomalies in our society. I think it's likely that he was simply out to be as ridiculously offensive as possible and choosing the race, moral, religious subjects was simply the vehicle for doing that and, besides, harming animals is against the law.
As for the rating (1 out of 10), I had considered initially rating it much higher. The logic goes like this: It provoked me into thinking deeply about my reaction -> thought-provoking cinema is a good thing -> forces a re-examination of both what I know and my moral foundation -> reinforces (or not) my personal moral beliefs -> I should be thankful to the film-maker.
Ultimately, however, it made me think: What does this really say about our society and how much we value other people and diversity of views and cultures? This is rhetorical but it's not so much even the movie itself that most concerns me but the effusive reaction to it from paid critics and its box-office popularity.
What does it say that we honour a person simply because they have a pathologically low level of inhibition and decency? That we would place such a person in the same league - through awards - as the true cinema artists simply because he pushes the envelope of offensiveness? In our society, we view this as being behaviour to strive for and worth rewarding? Now that I have seen the movie I can question why Cohen was even nominated - much less having won - at the Golden Globes.
Best actor? He has the range of a toddler trying to hit the toilet he is sitting on.
Similarly, that the Academy would nominate anything about this film for an Oscar - best adapted sceenplay...? What screenplay?
For anyone who hasn't seen it... If you must, I suggest stealing it - download it or whatever. Don't pay anyone a cent to watch it.