Borat

[nomadologist]

Borat can only have as much power as we allow it to with our inevitable partcipatory assent or dissent. At very least, we should not be worried about engorging the fantasm with our rage, which is not erotically charged, somehow, although everything else in racism's wake is.

 

[D84]

Re your exhaustive study of Stanley Kubrick--why is it that those most concerned with fantasmic confabultion and inflation spend entire lifetimes writing and talking and writing in the service of institutionalizing the power of such filth as A Clockwork Orange. Interesting how this film manages to create Brechtian "distanciation" or whatever you said using mere mise-en-scene, yet Borat, with its moronically over-the-top performance and obnoxiously obvious narrative fictionality and unreality, can't.

Easy there. I for one don't think A Clockwork Orange is filth.

I was just using it as an example of a film about bad people doing bad things; there have been many films like that before and since. There's a technical term for such stories which I can't remember at the moment. I love watching these movies as I'm sure many other people do. We are all sinners to a greater or lesser degree. I was trying to make the hypothesis that Borat may be one such film.

Well... that remains to be seen.

 

[tate]

No, he's saying that Political Correctness is a (ridiculing) label that the American Right throughout the 1990s, using all manner of hysterical provocation, [so effective that liberals eventually joined in on all the fun] coined ironically to describe, demonise and ostracise (and depoliticise) anti-racism. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Not quite. The term wasn't devised and deployed only to neutralize "anti-racism," as you say, but to "demonise" simultaneously a wide range of issues perceived by the right as "liberal" causes or interests.

 

[nomadologist]

Easy there. I for one don't think A Clockwork Orange is filth.

I know you don't, D84. That was some much too hyperbolic language I was using to connote the pornographic nature of the ultraviolence in the film as interpreted by others here.

I think you put it better in your post, Tate, but I don't think PC and liberalism are in a direct relationship. It was actually a rhetorical device used to brand any perceived opposition evil--a way of defining oneself in opposition to whomever one's political opponent happened to be. It was the idea that if you only believe the right things, and follow a set of prescribed rituals based on a completely empty discursive principles, you can take the moral high ground against anyone, which of course, is discursive suicide. PC is so damnable and damning because it is so context unspecific, not because it was just a tool of the right. Rush Limbaugh used it to make all feminists feminazis while oddly enough at the same time, the (I suppose you'd say Marxist or post-structuralist) left in academia were using it to describe how deconstruction"ism" had corroded all discourse into PC platitudes. That feminists had become feminazis. That queer theorists completely depoliticised sexuality. That sociologists weren't "scientific" enough. That a brazen disregard for formalism would be the end of the institution.

Political correctness can never be employed against racism. It *is* the strawman. The left and the right used it to say the same exact stupid thing.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Iwas just using it as an example of a film about bad people doing bad things; there have been many films like that before and since. There's a technical term for such stories which I can't remember at the moment.

Movies?

Not quite. The term wasn't devised and deployed only to neutralize "anti-racism," as you say, but to "demonise" simultaneously a wide range of issues perceived by the right as "liberal" causes or interests.

Yes. Whatever its use or history, the phrase "political correctness", originating in academia, conjures something in peoples' minds. The following items are among the more widely-cited as symptoms of PC.

1. Campus speech codes, usually directed at suppressing "hate speech";

2. Codes of conduct for dating and sexual activity on campus (most famously, those of Antioch College);

3. Discussion and support of feminist, gay and lesbian issues;

4. Marxism, socialism, and the presence of political radicals in academe;

5. Certain literary and cultural theories, most notably deconstructionism and postmodernism;

6. Efforts to include Third World writers and artists in college curricula, ostensibly at the expense of "Western" writers;

7. Various theories of history and science, usually termed "ethnocentric";

8. Affirmative action programs for college admissions and faculty selection;

9. Certain euphemisms and recommended phrases (such as "physically challenged").

10. Something called "victimology."

I'm sure I've left out quite a few others: the list of activities variously promoted as "politically incorrect" has included smoking cigars in restaurants, voting Republican, enjoying Rush Limbaugh's shows, denouncing women on the Internet, or shouting racial slurs at passersby. I've tried to keep out these colloquial uses of the term, but the Top Ten list above perhaps captures the main themes. I'm sure Borat would come up with a different sexynice list.

 

[nomadologist]

PC is what killed political discourse in the US and ushered in infotainment as crass as Fox News and its binary, the dred-locked, shoeless, brand new Jeep-driving trustafarian.

 

[D84]

_D84:
Iwas just using it as an example of a film about bad people doing bad things; there have been many films like that before and since. There's a technical term for such stories which I can't remember at the moment.

Movies?

Nope - found it: it's called Picaresque.

Interestingly that wiki reports a literary controversy quite similar to the one we have here:

Francisco de Quevedo's El buscón (1604 according to Francisco Rico; the exact date is uncertain, yet it was certainly a very early work) is considered the masterpiece of the subgenre by A.A. Parker, because of his baroque style and the study of the delinquent psychology. A more recent school of thought, however, led by Francisco Rico rejects Parker's view, contending instead that the protagonist, Pablos, is a highly unrealistic character, simply a means for Quevedo to launch classist, racist and sexist attacks. Moreover, argues Rico, the structure of the novel is radically different from previous works of the picaresque genre: Quevedo uses the conventions of the picaresque as a mere vehicle to show off his abilities with conceit and rhetoric, rather than to construct a satirical critique of Spanish Golden Age society.

.

 

[petergunn]

i'm not being a dick, but why wasn't it withdrawn in the US then?

i had heard he had no problem with the film itself...

How do you know this, or more pertinently, how can you make such internally contradictory claims?

I'm basing it on the 60-odd books and hundreds of articles I've read over the years on SK and his films, and on the opinions of his wife Christiane, his daughters Vivian, Anya and Katharina, his nephews and colleagues, and many others in an actual position to know. Dispute all this if you like, but at least try to make some - consistent - sensein your response.

First, to repeat, the film was not banned. On the contrary, John Trevelyan, the then Chairman of The British Board of Film Classification (from 1956-71), passed the film with an "X" certificate and said it was "...an important social document of outstanding brilliance and quality". It opened in Britain in January 1972 soon provoking a great deal of controversy - to the extent that it only ran in one cinema (the Warner West End in London) for over a year. After the controversy seemed to have filtered away, the film then went on general release for a number of weeks - so unleashing a new, more determined hysterical hate campaign. On Kubrick's request, Warner's quietly withdrew the film from circulation, nobody even being aware or noticing, until many years later when a cinema tried to show the film ... Nobody imposed anything on anyone, it was Kubrick's own choice, albeit in a heated, seemingly threatening environment. Ya think a racist fuck like Borat/Cohen is going to withdraw his moviefilm because a few people in the medja expose it as racist shite? He's lapping it up.

Secondly, are you suggesting that there was no connection between the film's content and the controversy surrounding it?

Maybe he should have tried to ban the controversy instead? Ban people's views, however ridiculous, instead? [The film medium being innocent and neutral and harmless but the print and broadcast media eeeevil?].

 

[D84]

Check the wikipedia entry Peter Gunn - esp. here.

Re UK withdrawal, although not definitive - I hope hundredmillionlifetimes will be back with better quotes, the wiki says:

At the time, it was widely believed that the copycat attacks were what led Kubrick to withdraw the film from distribution in the United Kingdom. However, in a television documentary made after Kubrick's death, his widow Christiane confirmed rumours that Kubrick had withdrawn A Clockwork Orange on police advice after threats were made against Kubrick and his family. (The source of the threats was not discussed.) That Warner Bros. acceded to Kubrick's request to withdraw the film is an indication of the remarkable relationship Kubrick had with the studio, particularly the executive Terry Semel.

Whatever the reason for the film's withdrawal, it could not easily be seen in the United Kingdom for some 27 years. The first video and DVD releases followed shortly after Kubrick's death.

 

[ari]

How do you know this, or more pertinently, how can you make such internally contradictory claims?

I'm basing it on the 60-odd books and hundreds of articles I've read over the years on SK and his films, and on the opinions of his wife Christiane, his daughters Vivian, Anya and Katharina, his nephews and colleagues, and many others in an actual position to know. Dispute all this if you like, but at least try to make some - consistent - sensein your response.

First, to repeat, the film was not banned. On the contrary, John Trevelyan, the then Chairman of The British Board of Film Classification (from 1956-71), passed the film with an "X" certificate and said it was "...an important social document of outstanding brilliance and quality". It opened in Britain in January 1972 soon provoking a great deal of controversy - to the extent that it only ran in one cinema (the Warner West End in London) for over a year. After the controversy seemed to have filtered away, the film then went on general release for a number of weeks - so unleashing a new, more determined hysterical hate campaign. On Kubrick's request, Warner's quietly withdrew the film from circulation, nobody even being aware or noticing, until many years later when a cinema tried to show the film ... Nobody imposed anything on anyone, it was Kubrick's own choice, albeit in a heated, seemingly threatening environment. Ya think a racist fuck like Borat/Cohen is going to withdraw his moviefilm because a few people in the medja expose it as racist shite? He's lapping it up.

Secondly, are you suggesting that there was no connection between the film's content and the controversy surrounding it?

Not at all, I was merely implying that the controversy was generated by tabloid media and Britain’s moral guardians. My impression was that Kubrick had the film withdrawn because he got fed up with the constant harassment he was receiving at the time. That does not mean he had he had a problem with films content, it just means others did and they gave him a hard time over it. That’s only my impression though and I stand corrected if it’s not true.

Don’t be so defensive, hundredmillionlifetimes, I wasn’t attacking you. I was merely seeking clarification re your claim that Kubrick had regrets about the films first 20 minutes. I didn’t know this and I was hoping you’d expand on it a little more. For instance what was the exact nature of his concerns?

 

[ari]

No, he's saying that Political Correctness is a (ridiculing) label that the American Right throughout the 1990s, using all manner of hysterical provocation, [so effective that liberals eventually joined in on all the fun] coined ironically to describe, demonise and ostracise (and depoliticise) anti-racism. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Not quite. The term wasn't devised and deployed only to neutralize "anti-racism," as you say, but to "demonise" simultaneously a wide range of issues perceived by the right as "liberal" causes or interests.

The political correctness phenomenon is little more than a reflection of changing social values. The backlash against it is largely a reflection from those who still adhere to the dominant values of the past and resent the untimely intrusion of new modes of thought and language.

Political correctness is about generational change and different community values. To suggest, as many right wing reactionaries often do, that these changes in community values amount to an enormous conspiracy against free speech is facile. Human expression has always been governed by social context and formal and informal constraints. The political correctness phenomenon is merely a reflection of changing community attitudes on a wide range of issues.

 

[Guybrush]

"The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook" (an essential processed tree carcass companion if you ask me) suggests one should avoid the use of the term "politically correct" and instead opt for:

Culturally sensitive; multiculturally unexceptionable; appropriately inclusive. The term "politically correct," co-opted by the white power elite as a tool for attacking multiculturalism, is no longer "politically correct."

The above is partly true, I would say, but Ari is right in that:

Human expression has always been governed by social context and formal and informal constraints. The political correctness phenomenon is merely a reflection of changing community attitudes on a wide range of issues.

I think "community" is the operating word here. An utterance or sentiment can be deemed both politically correct and incorrect at the same time depending on the context (a preacher debasing homosexuals in front of a fundamentalist audience is PC, for example, but him doing the same thing in front of a liberal gay-community is not). Therefore I think "politically correct" is for the most part a pointless fluff-word when it is used for describing opinions; it is useful, however, for describing a person (a politician?) whose sole goal is to always take the least offensive position on any given subject with regards to a given community.

 

[nomadologist]

I think "community" is the operating word here. An utterance or sentiment can be deemed both politically correct and incorrect at the same time depending on the context (a preacher debasing homosexuals in front of a fundamentalist audience is PC, for example, but him doing the same thing in front of a liberal gay-community is not). Therefore I think "politically correct" is for the most part a pointless fluff-word when it is used for describing opinions; it is useful, however, for describing a person (a politician?) whose sole goal is to always take the least offensive position on any given subject with regards to a given community.

hallelujah

 

[Woebot]

what i find i find intriguing about borat is that there must be some subtle shift in his character when the camera rolls. i'd like to see some footage of borat as he preps his victems

like before he got this two to fess up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6136944.stm

been loving all these

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=borat&search=Search

my favourite moment when he says his hobby is

"shooting dogs"

just slips it in there

 

[baboon2004]

I think "community" is the operating word here. An utterance or sentiment can be deemed both politically correct and incorrect at the same time depending on the context (a preacher debasing homosexuals in front of a fundamentalist audience is PC, for example, but him doing the same thing in front of a liberal gay-community is not). Therefore I think "politically correct" is for the most part a pointless fluff-word when it is used for describing opinions; it is useful, however, for describing a person (a politician?) whose sole goal is to always take the least offensive position on any given subject with regards to a given community.

I'm suspecting 'PC' must have different connotations in the US (if indeed that's where you're from) from those the UK, cos it's not a definition that I recognise.

 

[Guybrush]

I'm suspecting 'PC' must have different connotations in the US (if indeed that's where you're from) from those the UK, cos it's not a definition that I recognise.

No, I'm from Sweden. I think "PC" has different denotations depending on who you ask -- regardless of country. What's your definition?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

I think "community" is the operating word here. An utterance or sentiment can be deemed both politically correct and incorrect at the same time depending on the context (a preacher debasing homosexuals in front of a fundamentalist audience is PC, for example, but him doing the same thing in front of a liberal gay-community is not).

That's not political correctness, that's populism.

As in a Hegelian reversal, the propaganda has now come full circle: political correctness is now politically incorrect, while political incorrectness is now politically correct. Contradiction is now asserted, in blissful ignorance and apathy, to be non-contradictory: Orwellianism revisited - racism is anti-racist, violent movies are anti-violent, illegally invading another country is peacekeeping, burning the village in order to save it, and reason is forthwith abolished! The Id rocks (as Borat and Bono mutter), and schizophrenia now rules the day!

[I read recently where someone asked during a talk what was the difference between ignorance and apathy, when a bright-spark heckler in the audience quipped, "I don't know and I don't care."]

 

[lazybones]

agree with mr k punk's thoughts.

hundredmillion , i just had a lecture given by a very pleasant lady from the BBFC regarding censorship - exactly what you said about kubrick... saw bits of "the devils" and all sorts of video nasties .... made me think alot about the current state of cinema, will perhaps post on thoughts later. i felt reassured that some of our censoring is in the capable hands of a very funny and clever person... the antithesis of a mary whitehouse-esque character!


re Borat - all i hear on campus is wasps taking the piss out of jews - seems like its okay to be racist now - its just "ironic." upon trying to engage people on the matter all i get is - its "subtle"... subtle like a fookin sledgehammer i say. i think when eastern europeans have a more marked presence in english culture, the borat movie will be looked upon in the same light as minstrel addled variety shows... it just isn't funny, this racist thing, have we not learnt that by now?

 

[nomadologist]

That's not political correctness, that's populism.

Whose definition of populism are you using here? I could be unaware of a British definition or political ideal or something, but in the U.S. populism was a very historically specific political party. Is this some kind of theory I haven't read? Otherwise, I'm confused by this.

I would challenge you to find an American who disagrees with the idea that the PC culture wars were NOT univocally in the service of the left before being co-opted by the right, but that the discourse (or lack of it) surrounding the notion of the "politically correct" was hysterical and counterproductive from the start. If you could, I would read with great interest whatever they had to say.

 

[nomadologist]

That's not political correctness, that's populism.

As in a Hegelian reversal, the propaganda has now come full circle: political correctness is now politically incorrect, while political incorrectness is now politically correct. Contradiction is now asserted, in blissful ignorance and apathy, to be non-contradictory: Orwellianism revisited - racism is anti-racist, violent movies are anti-violent, illegally invading another country is peacekeeping, burning the village in order to save it, and reason is forthwith abolished! The Id rocks (as Borat and Bono mutter), and schizophrenia now rules the day!

Is there any room for the subversive in your ideology, Hundredmillion? If not, I'd say it's too bleak for me.