XX Factor: the blog

Baron Cohen Claims to Have a Profound Purpose

Willa, your question about why I ascribe a "seriousness of purpose" to Bruno's insanity is a good one. I expect Sacha Baron Cohen to be more than just a shock jock for two reasons: because he has been annointed as a cultural genius by some, and because Baron Cohen himself has said he aims to expose prejudice and apathy. There was a Rolling Stone interview with the real Baron Cohen, out of character, around the time that Borat came out. Neil Strauss, who wrote the piece, calls Borat one of the "greatest comedies of the last decade," and asks Baron Cohen about his motivations in creating the film. Here's what he had to say:

I always had faith in the audience that they would realize that this was a fictitious country and the mere purpose of it was to allow people to bring out their own prejudices ... I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist. Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it's anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism. I remember, when I was in university I studied history, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, "The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference." I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but I think it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic.

There's something else that has been bugging me about Baron Cohen, and it's that he pushes all these boundaries in character, not as himself. I agree with you, Nina—it felt fresher in Borat but now has become stale. Say what you will about Howard Stern and his ilk, but the "characters" they play on air are not in costume with different names. They take more responsibility, ultimately, for their actions. "I've been trying to have my cake and eat it, too—to have my characters be famous yet still live a normal life where I'm not trapped by fame and recognizability," Baron Cohen said in that Rolling Stone interview. Time to take his cake away, I think.

Photograph of a Bruno billboard by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images.

Tags: Borat, Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen

Jessica Grose is the managing editor of Double X and the co-author of Love, Mom: Poignant, Goofy, Brilliant Messages from Home. Click here to follow her on Twitter.

Comments

Agreed...

By: JaneS | Mon, 07/13/2009 - 16:06

Very well said, thank you for this. Bruno to me looks like the most un-funny movie ever made, and I can't understand why people are paying $10 for it... The XX blog discussion today helped to make some sense of it for me. Who wants to watch the smartest kid in the class making fun of all the lesser mortals around him? Tiresome and annoying, not funny.

Leave the man his cake

By: rcwilliams83 | Mon, 07/13/2009 - 15:56

I don't disagree with much of what you've written here, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what our motivation would be for "tak[ing] his cake away." Is it just that we think Howard Stern is more "authentic" than SBC, because he espouses his views in his own voice? If so, isn't SBC's authenticity, or lack thereof, his own problem and not ours? And if that's right, then why should we take his personae away from him, unless we're just envious that they allow him to do things more outrageous than the things that we ourselves have the courage to do?

Really, what does it matter to me whether Sacha Baron Cohen is getting away with things that the rest of us are not? I hope that the rest of us don't want to be getting away with those things.

Edit: I guess it's one thing to say that you're put off by SBC's inauthenticity/his ability to scapegoat his personae for actions that are actually his own. That's fine, and it's everybody's prerogative to feel that way if it suits them. But it's something else to say that his personae are our business collectively, and that together we ought to take him down a peg.