NFT: Watch Borat 2 a day early

Actress is 24, he’s not married, and she didn’t even allude to the fact she was underage in the film either to him.

Without the exchange of money but people have weird things occasionally.

In comment 15017366 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

Actress is 24, he’s not married, and she didn’t even allude to the fact she was underage in the film either to him.

Did you watch it?

...to claim it was actually Jeffrey Tambor in the scene.

In comment 15017394 halfback20 said:

Quote:

In comment 15017366 Zeke's Alibi said: Quote: Actress is 24, he’s not married, and she didn’t even allude to the fact she was underage in the film either to him. Did you watch it?

No, I don't think anyone has yet for the most part. Just what I gathering from what I've read on how it went down, which they seem to be buried in articles. I mean it sounds like a gotcha on a guy trying to fuck. Im not sure why I should care about that.

in....which I could see too. I saw the picture of him on my bed, old people fix their pants like that all the time. Honestly if this is some cheap publicity ploy, I'm prepping myself to be dissapointed and I was excited for this to come out.

TV and film professional I can tell you one never has to stick ones hand down their pants to remove a microphone, but I'll watch it with an open mind.

In comment 15017500 Producer said:

Quote:

TV and film professional I can tell you one never has to stick ones hand down their pants to remove a microphone, but I'll watch it with an open mind.

It's not about removing a microphone, its about retucking your shirt pants. If you know any super old dudes you'd be familiar with the tucking shirt in on the bed move because pants are hard when you got all gut and no ass. Many just go suspenders at that point.

In comment 15017042 DanMetroMan said:

Quote:

who have seen the movie have said there is an "absolutely insane" scene with a major public figure.

Yes, but the major public figure is saying it's a major misrepresentation of him doing an everyday thing, albeit in a way no one ever does this everyday thing.

In comment 15017836 santacruzom said:

Quote:

In comment 15017042 DanMetroMan said: Quote: who have seen the movie have said there is an "absolutely insane" scene with a major public figure. Yes, but the major public figure is saying it's a major misrepresentation of him doing an everyday thing, albeit in a way no one ever does this everyday thing.

Sure.. what's he gonna say? I laid down on the bed in front of a pretty girl and used one hand to open my trousers and the other to rub my crotch for several seconds..

I imagine SBC's measurement of success is how funny the scene is and not how genuinely gotcha'd the public figure is. That being portrayed as easily had comes at a brutally coincidental time for the public figure, seems to be his burden, not Borat's.

In comment 15017864 christian said:

Quote:

I imagine SBC's measurement of success is how funny the scene is and not how genuinely gotcha'd the public figure is. That being portrayed as easily had comes at a brutally coincidental time for the public figure, seems to be his burden, not Borat's.

I think you're assuming too much. There are definitely conversations inside a production such as this that relate to the reality of a scene. First there is an ethical obligation to present it as generally what it is, when it includes a real person, not an actor. There is also a legal obligation, and this was certainly poured over by rights attorneys. Finally, there is a commercial consideration. Cohen can't just, without reason, present an innocuous action as something offensive and defamatory. He risks losing credibility, even with his core audience. Now it may be that the production really doesn't know what RG was doing, and doesn't know whether his behavior is innocuous or offensive, and as long as they don't overcode the meaning of his action and tell us he's caught masturbating, then it doesn't matter. I'd have to see the scene to have an opinion.

He’s a comedian. He and his editors test their cuts on one criterion: what makes an audience laugh. They are very precise and disciplined about it, and they don’t care much about any other agenda.

In comment 15017921 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

He’s a comedian. He and his editors test their cuts on one criterion: what makes an audience laugh. They are very precise and disciplined about it, and they don’t care much about any other agenda.

Sure, but they definitely seem to prefer to elicit laughs based around public figures embarrassing themselves via actions or remarks that expose their unsavory or hypocritical side.

I for one didn't laugh at "Throw the Jew Down The Well" just because Borat looked funny up there playing and singing the song.

this particular politician the benefit of the doubt, but I think what's been obvious following him in recent years is that he's a bit eccentric and has odd mannerisms (on top of being old and unhealthy). My opinion may change after actually watching the scene, but my expectation is that whatever he was doing was edited and exaggerated for comedic effect.

In comment 15017921 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

He’s a comedian. He and his editors test their cuts on one criterion: what makes an audience laugh. They are very precise and disciplined about it, and they don’t care much about any other agenda.

and you don't think they have their edits vetted by an attorney? yea, that's not how film/tv works. everything gets vetted, even non-controversial content. Something like this, you bet your ass they have a legal opinion before locking the cut. period. end of story. that's how things are made. I don't care what he may have said in an interview. he's leaving that part out. You can't release a movie w/out these legal opinions because you cant get insurance without them. Now he may have an attorney that has a loose opinion about what is permissible. There are rights and clearance attys that specialize in pushing the limits, but the producers, prodn company, network and distributor would all have to sign off on such an opinion.

I don’t think anyone is arguing the end product doesn’t go through legal rigor and review. If the edit is deceptive, the public figure will have cause for a legal action.

The only point I was initially making is that Cohen’s motive is to be funny, and does so at the expense of public figures with whom he disagrees.

I’d imagine Cohen would be very satisfied if he creates a very funny moment in the film, even if nothing really bad comes out of it to the public figure.

Of course the suits have their say, including the lawyers. The question was whether Cohen has a political agenda. He may, but it never takes precedence over the need to be funny.

Avoiding litigation is an obvious imperative, but you go ahead and pound your desk about it if doing so makes you feel superior.

In comment 15018027 christian said:

Quote:

I don’t think anyone is arguing the end product doesn’t go through legal rigor and review. If the edit is deceptive, the public figure will have cause for a legal action. The only point I was initially making is that Cohen’s motive is to be funny, and does so at the expense of public figures with whom he disagrees. I’d imagine Cohen would be very satisfied if he creates a very funny moment in the film, even if nothing really bad comes out of it to the public figure.

Well as I said above I think it is entirely possible that the producers and editors don't know what RG was doing and they just play it straight and have no editorial point of view on the scene, and it's just weird and comic, and they never cross the line saying he is being inappropriate - other than going to a hotel room and having drinks with a young woman and laying flat on the bed.

But for sure they had the following conversation:

What is RG doing here? Is he masturbating or doing something innocuous? I am sure this question consumed them for a while. And I'd bet many weighed in. If they decided he has masturbated i think you would see it in the press releases and public statements. If they decided it's just an odd bit of behavior they probably played it to make him look pathetic. And if they don't know, more of the latter.

But when it comes to a major public figure and an uncomfortable circumstance, for sure they have the conversation about who it is and how to play it. Just playing for "comedy" doesn't quite capture the gravitas of the scene. They targeted RG. They do have an agenda - to humiliate a high profile public figure. The level of the comedy hinges on who the target is.

.

I loved that show when I was a kid. It basically consisted of putting innocent people into sham situations and filming their reactions without their knowing it (until the end of the scene where the TV folks would say "Smile, you're on 'Candid Camera.'" I always wondered if they ever got sued. I expect they had to get releases and pay a little to use the footage.

In comment 15018192 Del Shofner said:

Quote:

I loved that show when I was a kid. It basically consisted of putting innocent people into sham situations and filming their reactions without their knowing it (until the end of the scene where the TV folks would say "Smile, you're on 'Candid Camera.'" I always wondered if they ever got sued. I expect they had to get releases and pay a little to use the footage.

there were lawsuits connected to candid camera. nothing huge.

should try and be more cynical of initial internet reports instead of making yourself into the useful idiot and perpetuating unseen videos and characterizing them as "absolutely insane" and people then reaching conclusions about the unseen content. Pretty sure most conclusions were reached site unseen and won't be changed. That's how disinformation and social media works.

people still will see what they want here and that is partly why our country is so fucked.

Unless there is more there not in this clips..
This is it? - ( New Window )

In comment 15021985 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

should try and be more cynical of initial internet reports instead of making yourself into the useful idiot and perpetuating unseen videos and characterizing them as "absolutely insane" and people then reaching conclusions about the unseen content. Pretty sure most conclusions were reached site unseen and won't be changed. That's how disinformation and social media works. people still will see what they want here and that is partly why our country is so fucked. Unless there is more there not in this clips.. This is it? - ( New Window )

Well put. He certainly came off as creepy. But, the way some of the reports read (and have been interpreted) you would expect a lot worse than what was on screen.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

...very creepy.

And why exactly did they retreat to the bedroom again?? :)

In comment 15021990 Matt M. said:

Quote:

In comment 15021985 pjcas18 said: Quote: should try and be more cynical of initial internet reports instead of making yourself into the useful idiot and perpetuating unseen videos and characterizing them as "absolutely insane" and people then reaching conclusions about the unseen content. Pretty sure most conclusions were reached site unseen and won't be changed. That's how disinformation and social media works. people still will see what they want here and that is partly why our country is so fucked. Unless there is more there not in this clips.. This is it? - ( New Window ) Well put. He certainly came off as creepy. But, the way some of the reports read (and have been interpreted) you would expect a lot worse than what was on screen.

What exactly in terms of more did you expect to see?

And he "tucked his pants" in a way where there could be some deniability. Masturbation is way over the top but I think he was definitely making himself available in a way that is considered very inappropriate by today's standards. Doubt it goes anywhere.

Btw when I need to retuck I stand up.

with the reporter. He didn't think she was 15, of course, and she's not. So just a powerful creepy old dude doing what they do. Not a political scandal, just personally embarrassing.

But I can't imagine anyone believed or should believe the "I was tucking my shirt" line.

It was fucking hysterical. Rudy... LOL!

she wanted to bang him. Once your dick is involved, critical thinking tends to go out the window. The most telling is these politicians are so good as self preservation his first move after he realized he got had was to make the call to the cops or hotel or whatever is was to cover his ass.

In comment 15022231 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

with the reporter. He didn't think she was 15, of course, and she's not. So just a powerful creepy old dude doing what they do. Not a political scandal, just personally embarrassing. But I can't imagine anyone believed or should believe the "I was tucking my shirt" line.

I mean is it even creepy? She puts her hand on his knee and is all super apologetic and then invites him into the bedroom for a drink! Can't believe his bullshit meter didn't immediately go up, but I guess he's thinking maybe she has some weird fetish who am I to question lol

The whole premise of that part of the movie was that the girl wanted to offer herself up to him to try and save Borat's life (not apologizing for that spoiler). She lured him. The girl was presenting herself as a professional journalist, so there was no reason for him to think she was underage. But still really, REALLY bad judgment on his part though.

The scene was cleverly shot and edited into the film. It’s really, really funny. What a total doofus. It’s not a political tragedy. Just a funny comedy and sneak peak into what a dopey old man did in a silly situation.

Part was pretty underwhelming to me. Way overhyped.

That said the random stuff is hilarious.

In comment 15017118 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

underrated and misunderstood. he's the liberal project veritas. Only because he's liberal and does what he does under the guise of "comedy" and he's exposing people "on the other side" normally, he's revered.

holy shit what a horrendously awful post

In comment 15022864 Sonic Youth said:

Quote:

In comment 15017118 pjcas18 said: Quote: underrated and misunderstood. he's the liberal project veritas. Only because he's liberal and does what he does under the guise of "comedy" and he's exposing people "on the other side" normally, he's revered. holy shit what a horrendously awful post

There are some fucknuts on this site, eh?

The last 15 minutes saved it as did the segment with Qanon.

Borat is a lovable character and part of the fun is watching him draw people in by being so disarming. (The audience happily singing along to "Throw the Jew Down the Well" is classic.) But because he's so I recognizable that character does not appear as much.

Still a fun watch.

the first one was a lot funnier. I wanted to like it more. It was ok. The girl is pretty talented though. I'll give it that.

In comment 15022864 Sonic Youth said:

Quote:

In comment 15017118 pjcas18 said: Quote: underrated and misunderstood. he's the liberal project veritas. Only because he's liberal and does what he does under the guise of "comedy" and he's exposing people "on the other side" normally, he's revered. holy shit what a horrendously awful post

No surprise you disagree with my opinion. I am sure I disagree with most of yours, but for the most part I have the class and confidence to either ignore yours (like most people do) or I have the balls to tell you why your opinion is wrong (I usually don't waste my time, but sometimes I feel pity for you and decide to invest some time - rarely, but not never).

Have a great day.

In comment 15022911 oghwga said:

Quote:

The last 15 minutes saved it as did the segment with Qanon. Borat is a lovable character and part of the fun is watching him draw people in by being so disarming. (The audience happily singing along to "Throw the Jew Down the Well" is classic.) But because he's so I recognizable that character does not appear as much. Still a fun watch.

Yeah this about sums up my thoughts. The scene after she ate the cake behind the dumpster was great too.

In comment 15023020 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 15022864 Sonic Youth said: Quote: In comment 15017118 pjcas18 said: Quote: underrated and misunderstood. he's the liberal project veritas. Only because he's liberal and does what he does under the guise of "comedy" and he's exposing people "on the other side" normally, he's revered. holy shit what a horrendously awful post No surprise you disagree with my opinion. I am sure I disagree with most of yours, but for the most part I have the class and confidence to either ignore yours (like most people do) or I have the balls to tell you why your opinion is wrong (I usually don't waste my time, but sometimes I feel pity for you and decide to invest some time - rarely, but not never). Have a great day.

well there are obvious differences that make them not really comparable. Project Veritas, if memory serves, is a partisan political project - first. Borat is entertainment - first. Now I could see that you can draw parallels. Both use hidden camera as a device to embarrass people and make a point. And I could see why you would say both are partisan. But there are crucial differences that make them not comparable. Project Veritas is not a movie and likely will never release a movie. They will never have the vetting a movie undergoes, and therefore the likelihood that it is completely dishonest in its portrayal of people and events is much higher. And maybe most importantly, Project Veritas will never be a movie because it can't make it in that marketplace. SBC can get millions to watch because he is talented. Project Veritas only gains traction when certain media outlets give it play.

In comment 15023020 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 15022864 Sonic Youth said: Quote: In comment 15017118 pjcas18 said: Quote: underrated and misunderstood. he's the liberal project veritas. Only because he's liberal and does what he does under the guise of "comedy" and he's exposing people "on the other side" normally, he's revered. holy shit what a horrendously awful post No surprise you disagree with my opinion. I am sure I disagree with most of yours, but for the most part I have the class and confidence to either ignore yours (like most people do) or I have the balls to tell you why your opinion is wrong (I usually don't waste my time, but sometimes I feel pity for you and decide to invest some time - rarely, but not never). Have a great day.

It's not about "balls". One is a comedy film, and is overt about it. The other is selectively edited misleading and false bullshit designed to spread misinformation for political purposes and political aims.

You really need that shit explained to you?

I actually think you're generally a very good poster about everything except politics, where you feign centrism and both-sides-ism while plainly wearing your political biases on your sleeve and contorting facts to fit your worldview, whether you realize it or not.

There is no comparison in any way between Borat and Project Veritas trash.

feigned anything in my life. I have never claimed to be centrist or playing both sides, I am just tolerant of other people's views and I recognize their views might be different than mine and more importantly I acknowledge their right to have differing views. I also acknowledge openly point of views and opinions come from my life experience which is limited to my education, experiences, and innate biases and I might be able to learn from others. So I do try and keep an open mind when someone disagrees with me (respectfully).

If that seems feigned to you or playing both sides, well therein lies part of the problem with society today, that should be the normal everyday discourse and IMO how everyone should behave.

If you have ever listened to or read Cohen talk about Borat he will 100% tell you he targets specific people or groups for their beliefs and views, tries to get them comfortable in a deceitful way, so they expose and/or humiliate themselves and he records the interaction to perpetuate his intended goals.

Project veritas also does exactly that (even if the purpose for one seems to be comedy and the other political gain). Cohen's Borat character does it for comedy purposes but I think as adults we can acknowledge his comedy routines generally target a specific political lean. Just like Project Veritas.

If their medium is different, that's really a distinction without a difference when comparing them at a high level.

I know people will go through some fact twisting and mental gymnastics to differentiate the two, and I never intended to suggest at the minute level they were the same, just similar in practice.

The other is McCarthyist lynch mobbing.

but Eric Andre Season 5 started this weekend too, also Tim Heidecker's comedy special is on youtube and apparently hilarious

In comment 15023137 adamg said:

Quote:

The other is McCarthyist lynch mobbing.

lol

In comment 15023189 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 15023137 adamg said: Quote: The other is McCarthyist lynch mobbing. lol

The first part of adamg's statement is 100% true. Project Veritas is nakedly political propaganda, and not even accurate or truthful.

SBC gives people the opportunity to expose their own innate awfulness

exposes a lot of stupidity. China LMAO

James O’keefe routinely targets private citizens, frequently and demonstrably presents lies as facts, gets sued and loses and apologizes.

Both sides are out to expose something. Cohen just happens to be good at his job.