Borat Exploitation

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so i guess these days humiliation == "i want a bigger cut of the $"

Possibly so. You might do things for 6 months of pay that you wouldn't do for one day of pay. The question at hand is whether he negotiated an unfair contract by not truthfully informing them of what he was doing.

i don't have the contract to read

they are certainly entitled to seek redress if they feel the contract was illegal or whatever the terminology is. that is what courts and judges are for

this guy has been doing this for many years now <shrugs>

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Cohen's a smart man. He's making millions on Borat by relying on old-fashioned comic-genius. No special effects, no big names, no fancy equipment. Good for him.

No.
W.C. Fields was comic genius.
Abbott and Costello were comic genius.
The Three Stooges were comic genius.

Note that none of the above resorted to racist jokes that disparaged an entire country, nor did they deceive people into appearing in their bits, nor did they try to get people to sacrifice basic dignity for their amusement.

Cohen, and his fans, are an excellent example of the sadder side of human nature.

ZV

 

[pulse8]

There's a lot of uptight people in this thread.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Stuff like this makes me furious. I wasn't going to see the film anyway but this makes me feel like the film should just be pulled from the theaters.

Agreed, they should have been paid more, but really- pulled from theaters? Let's be serious for a minute, please.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: fs5
Disabled Nicu Tudorache said: This is disgusting. They conned us into doing all these things and never told us anything about what was going on. They made us look like primitives, like uncivilised savages. Now they,re making millions but have only paid us 15 lei [around £3].

So is the problem that they were made to look uncivilized, or that they think that the price of their "dignity" should have been higher. It sounds a lot like the latter in which case I feel no sympathy. The only reason they want more money now is that they realize they could have gotten a lot more. It's unfortunate that they didnt get more, but it's not like Cohen knew how big of a hit this movie would be. It easily could have lost money instead.

I also don't know why everyone is so quick to assume that he did lie to them. The first question I ask is if all the people suing have any reason to lie, and the answer is yes. They all believe they can get more money out of the deal, and they also feel bad at how they looked on screen. The money by itself is more than enough reason to scream fraud.

You can't tell me that the villagers thought it was a documentary as he was bringing cows into people's homes. He was manipulating events, and telling them what to do, it had to be obvious at the time that he wasn't simply filming about their lives.

 

[homercles337]

Jebus christ, what is wrong with you people!? Was Borat supposed to be a blockbuster when they were filming? Nope. Were the villagers "exploited?" Nope. Did they know the full story and now cry foul when the movie made so much? Yep. Did the movie makers cover themselves legally by disclosing intent and paying the villagers? You bet your a$$ they did. This lawsuit will go nowhere and it never would have arisen if Borat was supposed to make what it was expected to when filming--very little.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: dighn
typical insensitive atot responses. these people were lied to and exploited. disgusting.

i think they shouldve been paid a bit more. half a year's salary wouldnt even be peanuts to the producers

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant


This isn't about the amount of money involved, it's about exploiting a village of people who had no idea why they were being filmed. If they had been properly informed about what they were doing, they certainly wouldn't have sold their dignity for £3.

oh, it totally si about the money involved. lets be real, given their circumstance, its all about the money. wouldnt have sold their dignity? they live in a 4th-world shanty where theyll never even get to see the movie. to be portrayed in a movie for 2 minutes for a years wage... hell yeah they would do it. and all it would cost is 100 british pounds

 

[FoBoT]

i think it is about the money , the £3 is mentioned in the 4th paragraph and then they mention the amount of money the film has made. and then it talks about how much money they make in a month. sounds to me like it is all about the $$$

Villagers say they were paid just £3 each for this humiliation, for a film that took around £27million at the worldwide box office in its first week of release.

so if they had been paid £300 or £3000 would we even be discussing this?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: thesurge
I don't understand why he taped in Romania.

Romania != Kazakhstan

Kazakhs looks almost East Asian.
Romanians do not look East Asian.

its part of the joke.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: dighn
typical insensitive atot responses. these people were lied to and exploited. disgusting.

welcome to the real world. Everyone is lied to and exploited on a daily basis. I got some bandaids around here for your bleeding heart.

Truth is nobody cared about these people before the movie and nobody cares about them now, only difference is now they are 3 pounds richer than before.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i think it is about the money , the £3 is mentioned in the 4th paragraph and then they mention the amount of money the film has made. and then it talks about how much money they make in a month. sounds to me like it is all about the $$$

Villagers say they were paid just £3 each for this humiliation, for a film that took around £27million at the worldwide box office in its first week of release.

so if they had been paid £300 or £3000 would we even be discussing this?

Even £3 is relatively chicken feed, since the article quoted a monthly salary of £70.

People have a price to sacrifice their dignity. £3 isn't even a days pay. Add that onto the fact that they didn't know that they were sacrificing their dignity, that they weren't aware of the manner in which they were going to be portrayed, and that plain false information was going to be given about them in the movie, and it becomes an issue.

For example, all the other people in the movie said what they would have said even if the cameras weren't going to be around. However, these people thought it was going to be a documentary, didn't have any actual lines, didn't know what was going on, and were instructed to act in certain ways. I see a stark difference between the two.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: dighn
typical insensitive atot responses. these people were lied to and exploited. disgusting.

These people were NOT lied to or deceived. Some lawyer saw an opportunity to make some money off a high grossing film--one that is WAY in the black by now--and is grabbing at it. Jebus christmas, what is wrong with you?! Have you lost touch with reality? Even so, you fools seem to think that Borat had some huge budget during filming--hello!? This film wasnt supposed to do sh!t and had a crazy meager budget from day one. You think Sasha is wealthy off his C3 and HBO shows?! Sheesh, get a life. Really. :roll:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: HotChic
It's the deception that bothers me.

The entire movie was about deception and exploitation. That's why it was so funny.

BINGO!

Originally posted by: HotChic
Yeah, the quote is an illustration of how they (gipsy [sic] community) are something of an oppressed minority within their own country.

Yes, gypsies are oppressed by the very same villagers who are now whining about being so portrayed!

Be it Texas or Glod, Sacha Baron Cohen has done a bang-up job of exposing bigotry and ignorance, using the twin weapons of satire and irony (please look this word up, all of you in high moral indignation) to do so! :thumbsup:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i think it is about the money , the £3 is mentioned in the 4th paragraph and then they mention the amount of money the film has made. and then it talks about how much money they make in a month. sounds to me like it is all about the $$$

Villagers say they were paid just £3 each for this humiliation, for a film that took around £27million at the worldwide box office in its first week of release.

so if they had been paid £300 or £3000 would we even be discussing this?

Even £3 is relatively chicken feed, since the article quoted a monthly salary of £70.

People have a price to sacrifice their dignity. £3 isn't even a days pay. Add that onto the fact that they didn't know that they were sacrificing their dignity, that they weren't aware of the manner in which they were going to be portrayed, and that plain false information was going to be given about them in the movie, and it becomes an issue.

For example, all the other people in the movie said what they wouldn't have said even if the cameras weren't going to be around. However, these people thought it was going to be a documentary, didn't have any actual lines, didn't know what was going on, and were instructed to act in certain ways. I see a stark difference between the two.

Well now they will think twice the next time a camera crew comes to town.

 

[mordantmonkey]

what kind of idiot watched that movie and thought that that was really an incestuous village of rapists and murderers?!!?? are people in america that F'ing retarded?!!!?!
it was a movie people, you know, make believe! not a goddamned documentary!!!!!

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so i guess these days humiliation == "i want a bigger cut of the $"

Possibly so. You might do things for 6 months of pay that you wouldn't do for one day of pay. The question at hand is whether he negotiated an unfair contract by not truthfully informing them of what he was doing.

The ironic thing, and part of the reason you should immediately dismount your high horse, is that if Cohen or his producers had offered to wipe out a nearby gypsy settlement, the villagers would have done this movie for free.

Yo, Paige, do you think all those American rednecks who gleefully and enthusiastically sang along to Throw The Jew Down The Well should also sue, since they, too, were tricked by Cohen into singing along, since Cohen, who is Jewish, doesn't really believe in the sentiments of that song?

Well?????

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so i guess these days humiliation == "i want a bigger cut of the $"

Possibly so. You might do things for 6 months of pay that you wouldn't do for one day of pay. The question at hand is whether he negotiated an unfair contract by not truthfully informing them of what he was doing.

The ironic thing, and part of the reason you should immediately dismount your high horse, is that if Cohen or his producers had offered to wipe out a nearby gypsy settlement, the villagers would have done this movie for free.

Yo, Paige, do you think all those American rednecks who gleefully and enthusiastically sang along to Throw The Jew Down The Well should also sue, since they, too, were tricked by Cohen into singing along, since Cohen, who is Jewish, doesn't really believe in the sentiments of that song?

Well?????

It seems like the people they used in the film were gipsies.

It's a feeling Glod is used to. The village, like others in the Dambovita region of Romania, is populated mainly by gipsies who say they are discriminated against by the rest of the country.

Indeed, when local vice-mayor Petre Buzea was asked whether the people felt offended by Baron Cohen's film, he replied: 'They got paid so I am sure they are happy. These gipsies will even kill their own father for money.'

 

[dbk]

capitalism at its best

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so i guess these days humiliation == "i want a bigger cut of the $"

Possibly so. You might do things for 6 months of pay that you wouldn't do for one day of pay. The question at hand is whether he negotiated an unfair contract by not truthfully informing them of what he was doing.

The ironic thing, and part of the reason you should immediately dismount your high horse, is that if Cohen or his producers had offered to wipe out a nearby gypsy settlement, the villagers would have done this movie for free.

Yo, Paige, do you think all those American rednecks who gleefully and enthusiastically sang along to Throw The Jew Down The Well should also sue, since they, too, were tricked by Cohen into singing along, since Cohen, who is Jewish, doesn't really believe in the sentiments of that song?

Well?????

It seems like the people they used in the film were gipsies.

It's a feeling Glod is used to. The village, like others in the Dambovita region of Romania, is populated mainly by gipsies who say they are discriminated against by the rest of the country.

Indeed, when local vice-mayor Petre Buzea was asked whether the people felt offended by Baron Cohen's film, he replied: 'They got paid so I am sure they are happy. These gipsies will even kill their own father for money.'

Doesn't add up, that this village of "mainly gypsies" would have elected a rabidly anti-gypsy vice mayor, don't you think?

 

[Injury]

This is ridiculous. They were paid as actors. They wouldn't be bitching if the film tanked. Just goes to show that it's not just America that is fueled by greed.

If they really cared, they would be suing to get it removed from theatres.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so i guess these days humiliation == "i want a bigger cut of the $"

Possibly so. You might do things for 6 months of pay that you wouldn't do for one day of pay. The question at hand is whether he negotiated an unfair contract by not truthfully informing them of what he was doing.

The ironic thing, and part of the reason you should immediately dismount your high horse, is that if Cohen or his producers had offered to wipe out a nearby gypsy settlement, the villagers would have done this movie for free.

Yo, Paige, do you think all those American rednecks who gleefully and enthusiastically sang along to Throw The Jew Down The Well should also sue, since they, too, were tricked by Cohen into singing along, since Cohen, who is Jewish, doesn't really believe in the sentiments of that song?

Well?????

It seems like the people they used in the film were gipsies.

It's a feeling Glod is used to. The village, like others in the Dambovita region of Romania, is populated mainly by gipsies who say they are discriminated against by the rest of the country.

Indeed, when local vice-mayor Petre Buzea was asked whether the people felt offended by Baron Cohen's film, he replied: 'They got paid so I am sure they are happy. These gipsies will even kill their own father for money.'

Doesn't add up, that this village of "mainly gypsies" would have elected a rabidly anti-gypsy vice mayor, don't you think?

Considering we don't know anything about the system of government there, who knows how he came to power. For example, in South Africa during apartheid (and well before), the whites controlled everything while an overwhelming majority of the people of the country were black, and continued to make laws to make sure they stayed in power. Could be the same thing here.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The villagers should count their blessings. That's £3 more than they would've earned.

Cohen's a smart man. He's making millions on Borat by relying on old-fashioned comic-genius. No special effects, no big names, no fancy equipment. Good for him.[/]


So your uneducated person and do not know any better. Some gives you a couple dollars and makes an ass out of you while they reap millions. You say this is alright? Many of these people opened their homes and trust to Cohen. All he did was exploit them for a few dollars. If I lived off nothing like these people and someone waved some cash in front of me,that to me looked liked a fortune, then I would take it but not if I knew I would humiliated in front of the world.

They have no idea how the rest of the world works and Cohen should have told them what the movie is about. I am not saying they should been giving a million dollars. Just told upfront what the movie was about and a decent wage.

What he did shows what a lack ethics this man has. I for one will not go to see this movie.

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: dxkj
A bunch of lazy slackers on welfare looking to cash in on someone elses success?! Where is Glod located, AMERICA?!

,

Read the article more carefully, there is no work. Remote mountain village is a not a shining beacon for industry. Did these people asked to born and raised there? No I think not. Can they move to some where to seek gainful employment? Maybe but without some sort of education who would hire them.

:disgust:

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Cohen's a smart man. He's making millions on Borat by relying on old-fashioned comic-genius. No special effects, no big names, no fancy equipment. Good for him.

No.
W.C. Fields was comic genius.
Abbott and Costello were comic genius.
The Three Stooges were comic genius.

Note that none of the above resorted to racist jokes that disparaged an entire country, nor did they deceive people into appearing in their bits, nor did they try to get people to sacrifice basic dignity for their amusement.

Cohen, and his fans, are an excellent example of the sadder side of human nature.

ZV

:thumbsup: