I haven't posted in a long time, but b/c of outlining, I don't have time for my usual biting commentary and satire, so you instead get random links! (which this blog is basically about anyway).
Borat Spoof-- I sorta agree that the depiction of the Romanian village was pretty despicable. While watching the film, I had thought that the people in the village knowingly participated in the filming. But, I later read a news article about the village suing, essentially claiming that they were going to be duped, and basically because of economic desperation, they allowed the Borat crew to trash their homes and strap on various sex toys on their persons.
Specter and Habeas Corpus-- My contribution to your FedJur studying.
Lou Dobbs, mini-O'Reilly-- The CNN answer to populistic blow-hardism, it is actually quite frightening how similar Dobb's positions are to that of Sherrod Brown and many of the incoming Democratic freshman.
The Wii is Whee Worthy-- Nintendo pwns for making a game console rather than a buggy, non-functional media "hub."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Some may wonder what value the Mediadump has added to what can be obtained by simply going to newyorker.com.
The answer: The New Yorker doesn't use "pwn."
On the topic of Cohen's treatment of the villagers, I am deeply saddened. I haven't seen the film yet, but have seen many clips, and I have found them all quite amusing. But what he did in Romania sounds a lot like paying two homeless guys to fight or engage in other degrading behavior for one's entertainment. While I do enjoy a good hobo fight, I recognize that taking advantage of desperate poverty for entertainment is generally a bad thing.
I haven't seen Borat, but the more and more I read about the movie, it just makes me queasy.
Don't you think there is something to be said when there is too much "PC"? Give me a break, Borat was good for a laugh. Quite frankly it took advantage of the desperate stupidity of US conservative jingoists much more so than it did the poverty of that village. And if anything, the movie gave those villagers an outlet and loads of media attention which will surely lead to some kind of cash-in that would never have resulted without Hollywood exploitation. Let's look at this as the glass being half full.
Its interesting that the expectation that we should treat people with dignity, especially those who have less privilege and power than us, can now be so easily dismissed as being "PC."
i.e., Cohen and Co. duped an uneducated, handicapped man to strap on a sex toy to the stump of his amputated arm. It is one thing to ridicule "conservative jingoists" who are in positions of status and power, but it is quite another thing to stomp on people just because they are weaker than you for a cheap laugh.
Well, no one is forcing anyone who objects to the treatment of the villagers to watch the movie. If you find it morally objectionable, don't support the behavior by buying a movie ticket. Though I will point out that Cohen and Co. didn't do anything to anyone that they wouldn't have already done themselves. But, I guess it's alright to rank the weight of a person's feelings based on their place in society. Because, you know, conservative jingoists (while terribly annoying) don't have feelings or anything, so it's ok to make them look like asses.
However, what I really find interesting is that it appears to be ok to be appalled by how these villagers in country x are treated, but let's be honest, when was the last time any of you treated the desperate situation of our domestic poor with any dignity? Maybe strapping a sex toy to an amputee is insensitive but the everyday indifference and even contempt directed at many of our homeless is really just as bad. I'm not pointing fingers here but I can say for a fact I know at least one poster here hasn't exactly been emptying his pocket change or volunteering in any soup kitchens. At least the publicity Borat gave to this village will likely lead to some kind of financial benefit to these people.
First, my "status" argument wasn't really about the "feelings" of the villagers being more important than the feelings of a conservative jingoist. My main concern is that one shouldn't use leverage and bargaining power to exploit someone financially desperate, especially when it is simply for one's own amusement. I don't see this how this position to be particularly controversial.
Furthermore, I don't know who you are referring to, but I think I can safely assume that the poster who didn't donate anything to charity recently also didn't go out of his way to degrade this country's domestic poor for his financial benefit and amusement either. Though it is certainly laudable for someone to devote themselves to public service for the poor, I don't see why it would be "hypocritical" to find it objectionable to exploit poor people even if you don't choose to pursue public service.
However, I do agree. Holding the poor in contempt is deplorable, be they domestic or foreign. Too bad Cohen doesn't agree.
Post a Comment