27
votes
What do you guys think about Sacha Baron Cohen's "Who Is America?"
So far I haven't been able to see anything except what's visible on YouTube. Like all of his content, the show has SBC put people into bizarre situations. But it seems to me this show is more about the bizarre world we're already living in than it is how strange SBC can act.
On one hand, he is deceiving his interviewees and probably us, the audience, as well.
On the other hand, its important that we get to see what government officials are actually like. If he can convince a politician to drop his pants and shout racial slurs, then imagine what a malicious actor can do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI is a clip of charlie brooker breaking down how editing makes some reality tv shows deceptive. Could be what he was talking about, and it's always a valid concern imo
I find it hilarious. I really don't think there's any groudbreaking social commentary or anything going on, it's just some well done satire, like Borat and Bruno. When he asked Cheney to sign the waterboarding kit, I was in tears.
Most surprising is how civil some people can be. I fully expected him to be able to trick people into doing stupid shit. I didn't expect so many people to remain so calm and civil while he acted so outrageous (eg: art gallery lady, republican+rapper, republican family at dinner)
Probably a more controversial view on it, but just from that teaser I think it's abhorrent and will only serve to further the divide between Americans. Nothing was amusing or entertaining about that.
I assume he will be covering an array of topics, but just going off of that one on guns;
There is already a massive divide between American gun culture and those uneducated about it. Mocking that divide will only serve to further it and only lead to more instability between the American people. He is clearly deceiving his guests, showing things out of context and subsequently deceiving his audience. Gun culture is a massive part of American culture and the average gun owner is fairly normal, not politically extreme and just as frustrated with gun violence (if not more) than non gun owners. It is not fair to his viewers to be intentionally deceptive in that manor with the intention of pushing a political agenda.
On a side note, I also find the Jewish persona that he is taking incredibly racist. Not only is he misrepresenting the Israeli people he is doing in a way that is very disrespectful and tasteless.
The fact that there are so many comments in the youtube comment section praising it for being hilarious and very well done is horrifying to me.
I'm not sure I agree that "lack of education" is the reason some people would prefer a less heavily armed society, but that's probably a different discussion.
I think the point of the deception is to expose the ridiculousness of the people being involved. You can't just walk up to someone and say "in public you act one way but what are you like when you think you're around people like you?" but you can put them in a position where they think they're 'safe' and drop their public-facing masks. It's not like he picked out some random idiot off the street and tricked them into saying something during a 20 second vox pop. That's easy, anyone can do that. But that's not what happened - long before anyone in this show appeared on camera they'd have known the topic and content - and they still agreed to do it.
Someone who is "fairly normal" - and I'm sure many gun owners are - when presented with the opportunity to endorse a "guns for kids" project would say "no, that's batshit insane, I'm not putting my name to that, get out of my office" - and we can probably assume some people did say that - but the people Cohen has on his show are the ones who chose not to do that. That's his point. He's showing us who these people really are.
I don't believe at any point he pushes any kind of political agenda, does he? All he really does is suggest letting children have guns. I'm going to say that again - he suggests letting children have firearms, and people agree with him, and not just in a "ha ha if I nod and smile this guy might leave" kind of way, they do it enthusiastically and repeatedly. That's not normal. That's insane. That's the kind of person I want to know about so I can avoid them and certainly never vote for them. These people know it's not OK to say "it's not rape if it's your wife" in public but in private are happy to laugh and agree His second show features equally ridiculous stuff.
I think there's definitely a place for this kind of "deception" in modern world - I want to know who my social leaders and politicians really are when they think they're among friends, not just the carefully curated persona they present in public. It's like the old saying, "you can't con an honest man" - a decent, honourable person on any side of the political fence won't fall for Cohen's schtick, because they're a decent, honourable person. There were, if I remember rightly, a number of celebrities and politicians who didn't fall for this setup when Chris Morris did it in the UK in the 90s.
I also have Israeli family, just because you are a member of said race does not somehow make the racism you are committing justified.
He's not taking a Jewish persona so much as an Israeli persona. That's not racist, it's analogous to a Russian person mocking Americans by taking up an exaggerated, overweight, food-addict persona. It's making fun of stereotypes of a country's citizens, not their faith and or race.
EDIT: added a missing word because English is hard.
I am not sure defining it as stereotyping makes it any better. I find it kinda messed up and highly disappointing if that is were we actually are as a society. Racism and stereotyping are both wrong, neither should be socially acceptable on this level.
I appreciate your distaste for SBC but you clearly are unaware of his "hook" or type of comedy, which is fine but does not warrant your hyperbolic pearl-clutch or convincing. If you don't like him, don't watch his show. If you do watch this show, it is likely because of SBC's bizarre and surreal stereotypes (e.g., Ali G, Borat, Brüno). It's his stock and trade.
"Neither should be socially acceptable on this level." Just re-read that. Exactly whose standard of social acceptably should be enforced? Is comedy not socially acceptable? Some believe that satire is the first instrument of social change. In the Middle Ages, often only the jester could ridicule the King without being executed.
Careful before you start issuing decrees. Not everyone shares your perspectives. We live in a plural society. Make choices; respect others.
To be fair, I found Borat and Brüno pretty tastless as well.
The big difference for me is that now he is using that style for political commentary. Sure, it shouldn't matter, but that somehow makes it worse for me.
I know this will come across as hypocritical but I am fine with stereotyping in the form of a comedic device, platforms like stand up and SNL do a great job utilising this. I do not think its ok in a form where people will take it seriously, I find what he is doing here incredibly deceptive and misleading to his viewer.
Did you ever watch The Colbert Report? Stephen spent nine seasons portraying a character he honed on The Daily Show - a "self-important right-wing commentator" who would regularly gain access to political figures not aware that his persona was a ruse, only to trap them in awkward interviews. In fact, an aide to George Bush Jr. invited him to host the White House Correspondent's Dinner, completely unaware that Colbert was not actually a right-wing pundit. Jon Stewart and Colbert have created an entire genre of comedy now based on this premise.
I guess my point is that often the only way to communicate injustice and inform the public is via satire and info-tainment. SBC definitely appears on the sharper, more edgy end of that spectrum but he is virtually playing the same game as Colbert and it's often the most effective way to hold a mirror to the public / political discourse, regardless of how ugly the reflection.
I watched Colbert and Stewart as they aired during the prime of both of their shows, for over a decade.
It was never a ruse, everyone always knew it was satire and it was (and is) much more obvious than what Sacha is doing.
Sacha's stuff seems like he is serious and for most views will be taken as genuine. It's not obvious satire like Colbert, Stewart or SNL, it's not even remotely in the same category as them.
I'll try to find some clips. There were many instances where Colbert's interviewee thought the persona was authentic.
I agree that his act is not nearly as cutting at SBC's but, at its heart, satire is satire.
Sorry for the delay.
Instead of clips, here's an article from The International Journal of Press/Politics that most conservative interviewees believed that the character, Colbert, was aligned with their own views.
It's far from definitive, obviously, but an interesting perspective.
I'm sorry if this feels like I'm putting words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong here. Are you worried that some ignorant person will watch this show and think "Ha ha, look at how dumb gun owners are. SBC has shown us how ignorant all conservatives in America are."? I can see that happening, certainly from many of the teenagers that this edgy humor attracts.
But as @mat points out, this show takes the behavior of individuals and records it for a different context than they think it's for. These toddler-arming heroes act like this when their guard is down. It would be wrong to generalize and then jump to the conclusion that anyone who is pro 2nd amendment has no concept of responsible gun use. All we can do is conclude that SBC's victims are fucked up people.
This is my main concern with it yes.
What do you propose to reduce gun violence while retaining American gun culture?
Most people would immediately jump on gun control and I, as a firearm owner, do agree that there needs to be more done. I tend to think most people within the gun world agree on this.
But for me a major point that needs to be covered and is often ignored is mental health.
Now I am not talking about mental health in terms of gun control, I am talking about overall mental health of the nation. There have been more school shootings in this current generation than in the last 4 generations combined. Why are these kids resorting to this? It's not like firearms are more available now than there were 40 years ago, if anything they are more restricted now. So why is an entire generation of kids resorting to shooting up schools?
My generation (millennials) has the highest recorded percentage of depression and mental instability. Part of this is mental health becoming more of a mainstream topic, part of it is a systemic and very real issue.
Obviously school shootings are not the only form of gun violence in the US, but for me it's the most important issue facing the gun world.
I do think there needs to be more gun control, most gun owners do. But... you have to understand that most of the gun control legislation currently on the books or being proposed is just ridiculous and has been done for political reasons, not for actual productive reasons. A lot of gun control is done to look good politically and appeal to the media, while being 100% ineffective and only really hurting responsible gun owners.
More than anything, the nation needs to be educated. I have a really great example of this;
When my stepfather graduated highschool in 1983 he was required to do a senior project for shop class. He chose to restore a 100 year old rifle that he had found in non working condition. He restored the metal, rebuilt the firing mechanisms and built a custom had made stock for it (out of a maple tree that had fallen in the yard of his childhood home the previous winter, which he milled himself). All of this was done on his high school's campus in the shop room, he didn't even bring it home until the project was finished and it was normally just left sitting in the shop room. For his final the shop teacher had him prove that it was in working condition and the class (of about 15 kids) took a field trip to a local shooting range to have it tested, it of course passed and he received an A. There was never a fear of him shooting up the school, it was just a project that he had chosen to do for class. No big deal.
I think the fact that that entire story would be socially unexceptable basically anywhere in the nation now is really sad. Like really sad.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but most people outside of the gun world are ignorant of it. They know little to nothing about firearms and fear what they do not understand.
The biggest thing needed for gun safety in the US is education. I know this is something that gets said regularly by Alt-Right nut jobs, but it is true and its unfortunate that its legitimacy gets taken down a peg by extremists.
People that have grown up with guns, have guns regularly in their lives and have proper firearm education are not the people committing mass shootings (the majority of the time, yes there has been a couple but its a very low percentage).
I was given my first rifle when I was 8, it was a Henry Lever Action Youth .22 that had belonged to my grandfather. I learned to shoot with it, learned gun safety and learned to respect firearms and not misuse them. My father kept it locked in a gun cabinet, it wasn't like I could just randomly bring it around town. But it was mine and whenever I wanted to use it I was allowed ( with supervision). I still have it of course, my son is currently 4, when he turns 8 I will pass it down to him, just like my father and grandfather have done before me. My son will not grow up fearing firearms, he will see them as a tool and a hobby. He will understand their dangers and will respect them.
That's something I think a lot of people outside of gun culture don't understand. We don't see them as big scary weapons, they are tools, hobbies and yes often used for defence. They are to be respected and not misused, but there is no more reason to fear them than you would a powertool.
People fear what they do not understand, children should be educated on firearms. I am not saying every kid should own a gun, but it is something every American should be exposed to so at the very least they do not fear it.
There is far more reason to fear them than a power tool. If someone brings a power tool somewhere, it has a main job that is not murder. Sure, it could kill. You could kill with your bare hands. But a power tool is designed to do something else.
My problem with guns is exactly what you say in your ending paragraphs. It is a tool used exclusively to kill and you want it as a hobby. When you break down all the arguments, what is more important, having this kill tool used safely as a hobby, or vastly restricting it's use to save lives? I can't imagine a reason for the former.
But there isn't. Regardless of their purpose they are nothing more than a tool. They should be respected and handled properly, just like any other tool. Fear of them, ignorance of them and glorification of them as anything else is what makes them dangerous in society.
Your problem with my last couple of paragraphs is kinda what I was trying to point out, the divide culturally between gun culture and the uneducated. You cannot imagine a reason, because it's not something you have in your life and were exposed to (I assume). People outside of the gun world tend to have ethnocentric views on gun culture.
It's asinine to think that having a gun as a hobby is more important than giving them up to save lives. They are not a tool, they have one use, and it is to kill. We should fear them, they are weapons that are deadly from very long distances and are accessed and used with ease.
Spoken like someone with very little understanding and education with firearms. The hard bias you have against them is exactly what I am talking about.
Then explain what I'm not understanding. Give a counterpoint. You suggested they are like power tools, I explained how they are not. Stop acting like you know my level of firearm understanding and make an actual point. Yes I have a hard bias against them, you have a hard bias for them. That does not matter. I will reiterate. Guns as a hobby is foolish because it reinforces the idea that recreational gun activities are more important than saving the lives of people who have been and will continue to be harmed by people unfit to have guns. I also attest that most people are too unfit and irresponsible to own guns. Sometimes even trained police officers fire their guns without discretion.
I literally just typed a massive comment explaining my view. You have not said anything constructive in rebuttal.
I get what you're saying, but I can't remember the last time somebody took out an entire kindergarten class with a sawzall.
Sure, obviously that's a good point. But isn't it more of a problem that people are in a mental state where they are going to misuse a firearm, than it is that the firearm exists? I hate to use the guns don't kill people, people kill people mantra, but to a certain extent it does hold weight. We need our people to be healthy mentally, even going to the extreme of taking away firearms entirely wouldn't fix the larger issue.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
I personally disagree with some of your assertions, but I respect the fact that you can calmly and rationally lay out your thoughts.
Thank you, I was worried about posting the opinion here (I am definitely a minority on tildes) and I appreciate you taking the time to read.
If you actually watch all of it (and not just the segments that get the big coverage, like Jason Spencer) you will find something interesting: how incredibly polite some people are, regardless of who is in front of them.
While a lot of interviewees' reactions to SBC is abhorrent, there's also some light there, in that others are willing to listen no matter how wild SBC's character is.
I just watched the first episode last night and I think the dinner scene was awesome, purely because it humanized the two Republicans in a way I've never seen (never been to the South myself). They stayed polite and heard SBC out despite what he was saying. Like you mentioned, moments like that do have potential for reconciliation (which, sadly, then got thrown out the window with the whole "insane gun folks" segment).
For me, the real "genius" of SBC isn't what's being shown on screen; that's just the end result. When we only see these heavily-edited segments, it's easy to think of his "victims" in uncharitable terms because without the context that led them there, and with judicious use of selective editing, they just seem to fall head first into very obvious traps.
But to get to that point, SBC relies on a team that relentlessly deceives the intended victims, that create a web of false identities to convince their would-be interviewees that the interview they're about to go through is legit. We also don't see just how much SBC himself encourages them into outrageous behavior, for instance, by doing it himself, or by encouraging them repeatedly.
So although I have no sympathy for the idiots who decide to talk about gun-carrying children or who run backwards with their exposed asses, I still distrust the nature of what I'm seeing as much as any other reality show. A lot of it is people reacting to someone they feel is utterly legit, and being peer-pressured into it.
In other words, it feels like a hit job, and I feel manipulated by the end product, even though there's no denying that what the victims end up doing is utterly reprehensible.
Do you think you could be duped into doing something like this given those means?
Trick me into meeting someone whom I think is an important person with proper credentials, film me for two hours, then make a 3-minute hostile edit of what happened, and I bet you can make me look like an ass.
I highly doubt I would run at people ass-first threatening to make them gay, but I probably won't look great either way.
There's a show on Netflix called The Push by Derren Brown. It's an experiment to see if someone can be socially manipulated enough to commit murder.
Setting aside skepticism of how much of it may or may not have been staged, you'd be surprised how far one might go through simple peer pressure and manipulation.
Like most comedy it's absurd and contrived - but it still kind of makes a point.
It's also quite funny to watch how ridiculous it gets.
I fully believe the interviewees are not just dumb, for one sfx makeup is not that good that you can't tell up close when someone is wearing it. My guess is they thought they could get something from the transaction, or have more control over the final message. The deception happed way before they even got on camera, I think so at least.
I've been mostly surprised with how little people of high esteem think about what they say or do before doing it. Even a cursory hesitation would prevent most of these scenes in the show. Hilariously cringey to watch.
It seems like this Larry Pratt guy is reading from a screen -- but why? While the statement is funny, the context is missing... he could have been paid to read that but the viewers don't know. I'm not sure that these interviews are conveying the entire exchange vs. using the funny parts that prove a point.
He's the director a gun lobbying group. The context is that he was advocating that children aged 4 and older should be taught to use guns to protect their peers from school shootings (dubbed "Kinderguardians), and he was tricked into reading some made-up scientific mumbojumbo full of terms like that.
What I don't get is how people still fall for Sacha Baron-Cohen's tactics. He's been posing as various outrageous characters since 1998, starting with Ali G and Bruno Gerhard, and it doesn't look like he's put much work into evolving his methods.
Well certainly some people aren't falling for it. They don't make it onto the show.
The methods are the same, but his disguises (particularly the Israeli secret agent) are getting more intricate. Serious facial prosthetics involved there.
i have been enjoying the show, it's very funny but i think he went too far in episode 4 against the anti-porn guy. It felt cruel, bullying.
Most segments are basically silly pranks, but there are a few that expose the real intentions of some folks. Especially the yacht dealer from last night's show: very willing to sell a militarized boat to a dictator intent on electrocuting refugees & trafficking prostitutes, all the while the 'customer' is getting head from some model under a blanket.
That, and he's poking holes in the ideologies of most all Americans, not just a single side. However, the segments targeting conservatives are making the headlines.
I like this review: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jul/16/who-is-america-review-sacha-baron-cohen-frightening-funny
...