| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
 Posted - 11/21/2006 : 05:04:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
There's an article in the LA Times today about how the residents of the town where they shot the Kazakhstan scenes in Romania are trying to sue 20th Century Fox because they did not know they were being made fools of.
This is a recurring theme, I've noticed. It seems all the Americans were told it was a travelogue to be shown only in Kazakhstan before they signed releases agreeing to be in it. Some have a sense of humor about it and others are a bit upset. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 09:33:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
There's an article in the LA Times today about how the residents of the town where they shot the Kazakhstan scenes in Romania are trying to sue 20th Century Fox because they did not know they were being made fools of.
This is a recurring theme, I've noticed. It seems all the Americans were told it was a travelogue to be shown only in Kazakhstan before they signed releases agreeing to be in it. Some have a sense of humor about it and others are a bit upset.
People tend to sign releases without reading the fine print, and then they're screwed. It isn't right. My question about the Roma is, how many of them could actually read the release forms? (Yes, this sounds racist, but remember I've been working with Romania for 19 years and I know of what I speak.) If not, and they were told one thing and signed another... they have a case.
As for the Americans, if they were told one thing and it was used for something else... they have a case.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 15:33:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
My question about the Roma is, how many of them could actually read the release forms?
Judging by those featured in the film, I'm wondering if this wasn't the case with the Americans too  |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 15:39:59
|
| Some people are claiming he got them drunk before presenting them with any paperwork, too. |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 20:40:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
There's an article in the LA Times today about how the residents of the town where they shot the Kazakhstan scenes in Romania are trying to sue 20th Century Fox because they did not know they were being made fools of.
This is a recurring theme, I've noticed. It seems all the Americans were told it was a travelogue to be shown only in Kazakhstan before they signed releases agreeing to be in it. Some have a sense of humor about it and others are a bit upset.
People tend to sign releases without reading the fine print, and then they're screwed. It isn't right. My question about the Roma is, how many of them could actually read the release forms? (Yes, this sounds racist, but remember I've been working with Romania for 19 years and I know of what I speak.) If not, and they were told one thing and signed another... they have a case.
As for the Americans, if they were told one thing and it was used for something else... they have a case.
The Roma were all told that they were playing characters in a fictionalized version of reality, which, I assume, is accurate enough for legal purposes. On the other hand, the "town mechanic and abortionist" was told that he was playing a "welder" while the make up department was painting fake blood on his hands (to imply that he had just performed an abortion). The LA Times reported that he said that the "actor's" religious beliefs deny abortion and had he know what was happening, he would never have participated. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 21:04:01
|
| Hmmm, sounds like they're playing with fire. So they tricked someone into appearing in a movie as an abortionist? I'd say the actor has a good case. Now all he needs is someone to fund him and to be able to prove it.... |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 21:12:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
There's an article in the LA Times today about how the residents of the town where they shot the Kazakhstan scenes in Romania are trying to sue 20th Century Fox because they did not know they were being made fools of. The article says they were all Roma (aka Gypsies) that were paid a mere $4.00 per day to appear in the film. 20th Century Fox says that this was twice what the Romanian film commission recommended! The man that played the "town mechanic and abortionist" was especially insensed as was the amputee that gained a new "prosthetic arm." The residents said they were under the impression that they were acting in an American documentary on Roma life and culture, but 20th Century Fox says that the contracts they signed made it clear that they were not.
Of course, the Roma are going to lose the lawsuit. The law is probably on the side of 20th Century Fox, but it seems to me when I read the article that the producers acted unethically. In situations like this, my grandfather (who also comes from Romania) says, "Its kosher, but it stinks!" What do you all think?
If they really thinking that a huge wobbly arm, even if they didn't realise what it was for, could possibly feature in a documentary about their culture, they would have to be insane. Same with a car being towed etc. etc. However, I can imagine that they have been exploited, especially with regard to pay. That said, that was their choice. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 21:13:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
The Roma were all told that they were playing characters in a fictionalized version of reality, which, I assume, is accurate enough for legal purposes. On the other hand, the "town mechanic and abortionist" was told that he was playing a "welder" while the make up department was painting fake blood on his hands (to imply that he had just performed an abortion). The LA Times reported that he said that the "actor's" religious beliefs deny abortion and had he know what was happening, he would never have participated.
O.K., this sounds pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 22:07:27
|
Right, about time to say what I thought of the film. I think I had more to say which I have now forgotten.
I previously commented that it was very unfair to hijack a real nation for a satire like this. However, by the time it came out, the Kazakh embassy had changed their tune and were claiming to see the funny side. It will raise people's interest in the real Kazakhstan (from virtually nil), so that will be good for them. Another thing is that Kazakhstan is more sexist, homophobic and probably antisemitic than average, and thus I'm not too sympathetic about its being picked on and it means there is some chance that it will improve in these respects. Importantly, the film features a fake Kazakh national anthem. This (if subtly for many audiences) defines it as not being about the real country, so I also think that is good enough as a get-out clause.
I found it hilarious, neither less funny nor funnier than I expected. The whole screen laughed a huge amount, and so there was clearly a willingness to do so. As such, I laughed at most of the moments that I had already seen repeatedly in trailers. As I've mentioned, the sports stadium scene is not nearly as funny/terrifying as the programme's Throw the Jew Down the Well scene. I also found the wrestling scene horrific, as I don't like gross-out humour. Other than that, it was pretty much continously hysterical.
My reservations about some of the American stooges are much stronger than for the Kazakh nation. (Also perhaps for the villagers now; I had assumed they were all extras in on the joke.) Ali G worked very well because he targeted authority figures (from quite important ones to the police etc.). This played very well on their desire to come across as politically correct and down wiv da yoof in parallel with their poor ability at both. These figures had a responsibility to be socially aware, and also to not be led into saying anything they did not mean. This does not apply to ordinary people in the same way. They can be camera struck, and go along with what the crew says, as they are the authority figures in such scenarios. Further, Ali G's character is annoyingly, but less intrinsically bad than Borat's. (He is just somewhat sexist and somewhat homophobic.) People taking Borat seriously have a lot more they need to counter. This especially applies to anyone representing organisations, such as the veteran feminists. They had a responsibility to not risk assuming that it was a joke. However, they came across fine, and at least one of them has laughed about it. The driving instructor also came across fine; he went along with the kissing while not pandering embarrassedly to a perceived cultural difference. The college students did not come across too well. Drunkenness is not much of an excuse, since alcohol does not induce lying. However, ironic-or-is-it sexism is so prevalent amongst young men that I can imagine that they would go along with something to a level that they did not realise was coming across and that they did not mean. The stadium came across very badly ("War of terror" and all that awful whooping; only saying that Kazakhstan was the best country in the world seemed to upset them). However, they responded so enthusiastically to the first part, in a context where anyone could just be silent, so S.B.C. holds little responsibility there. The dinner guests also did not come across well. Talking about how someone could easily be Americanised does not come across well in other countries. However, I can imagine that the producers could have told them that the film was about Borat fitting into America, so that may slightly exonerate them. The people angry with Borat on the tube and running away in the street came across as too hostile/suspicious. While that still reflects badly on those individuals, I bet that they filmed loads of times and used the most extreme ones. Was it in this or the programme that someone was blaming Jews for everything? That was the worst single case.
Sorry that that's all a bit disordered. I felt at the time that there were more innocent-ish cases of the camera-struck type. Perhaps I have forgotten some. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 09:05:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
There's an article in the LA Times today about how the residents of the town where they shot the Kazakhstan scenes in Romania are trying to sue 20th Century Fox because they did not know they were being made fools of.
Since they were portrayed as hicks, yokels and red-necks I was inspired to submit:
Sacha's Romanian village's Deliverance.
Hopefully the MERPs will like it.
Thanks MERPs.  |
Edited by - Conan The Westy on 12/03/2006 10:45:03 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Borat
