Writers Guild of America Nominations- Page 2

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:07am

Well, as I've learned from all the closeted men I've dated:

Shame is part of foreplay.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:09am

papa---you're SO right.

I seem to forget that shuffling n*ggers is exactly what this country is founded upon.

How DARE I?!?

*hangs head low in shame*

...which is foreplay?!?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:10am

In my experiences with straight men, shame was always a part of clean up.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:11am

if you two are done flirting...

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:17am

You're ALMOST right, best 12--what Cohen is trying to do is show how comfortable we all are in our stereotypes. IF he used our racial attitudes toward black-white relations, he would be met with shock and political correctness, making moot any point he might have about casual bigotry.

But when Americans are met with someone whom they assume is more ignorant than they, they "tutor" him in the ways of "America."

It's that hypocrisy and outrageousness that forms the basis for the comedy.

And while that might not be fodder for a guild nod, it's not quite as facile as you might believe.

TALLEDEGA NIGHTS works in much the same way: social satire masked as populist frat-boy comedy.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:25am

Twelvy--That is how I feel about WHITE CHICKS. It it was the other way around, the NAACP and such would have been all over it. But, since black people impersonated white people, it is okay and some even thought hilarious.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:36am

Anyways....

Nicole Hoferner (sp?) dicked around again for FRIENDS WITH MONEY...she also should have been nominated a couple of years ago for LOVELY AND AMAZING.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:37am

I agree that perceived racial stereotypes and exposing Americans with superiority complexes is great fuel for comedy...

...but I think there are far more clever, highly creative ways to do it than in a full-length, repetitious Candid Camera episode.

The point was made in the first five minutes... in the TRAILER, actually...

...and yet it kept on going, far longer than I did.

Funny you should mention Taladega Nights, lildogs... as I saw that as well (on a plane, so I was stuck and couldn't "leave the theatre," much as I almost considered it)... and it rubbed me the wrong way too.

The problem here is the intent and approach, not the message. The approach is mean-spirited and ugly.

Call me crazy, but I'm not a fan of "mean-spirited and ugly" humor. Never have been.

I don't laugh at someone getting hurt or teased or taunted. Not my style.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:40am

It's okay, hon. There's plenty of movies I don't get either.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:43am

My problem actually has to do with how the film will be read by the frat boys they are marketing to.

It won't be read as a high-brow look into race relations, it will be read as "look at the funny foreigner and how much he doesn't know". The only sections that can't be read that way are the ones that implicate Americans, like the couple of small scenes I mentioned above.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:49am

I'm a card-carrying, voting membe of the WGA (East) and want to point out that we are currently a very fractured union. The east/west split that took place in recent years illuminates that we are as odd a group as Lildogs suggests. This year, I was accutely aware of another division -- of the influence of younger voting members. Most of my friends here iin the East voted for Marber's brilliant take on NOTE ON A SCANDAL. Whatever one thinks of the film, it is an extraordinary adaptation of the novel, and Marber's work is exemplary. And beloved by many writers. But it's not the type of film to be honored by the west coast factions.

For what it's worth, we all got more "screeners" this year than any other. It didn't seem to affect the voting, to my thinking. We didn't get BORAT (at least not the WGA east-ers)

Updated On: 1/12/07 at 11:49 AM

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 11:51am

See, I don't think so--I think they just see him as funny--I remember when I was about 13 and watched PLAY IT AGAIN SAM and roared at jokes I didn't get--I knew Woody was funny--maybe I didn't know WHY just yet, but I still knew.

I'm not worried about the message BORAT sends to anyone...I think there's far worse influences than BORAT could ever hope to be.

It's also a generational thing, best 12. This is a form of comedy that wouldn't have worked in the 50s, much the same way as YOU BET YOUR LIFE worked in Cosby's revival--it didn't.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:12pm

"It's okay, hon. There's plenty of movies I don't get either."



How delightfully superior of you to forgive me for my shortcomings. Bless you.

I will agree to that... if you agree you didn't "get" the film's ugly, mean-spirited, insulting approach, and its repetitive "one-joke" premise.

'k?

Oh, and one thing I must point out that you're "wrong" about (since opinions are neither right or wrong, I'm not referring to that at all)...

I didn't dislike the film out of some fashionable, counter-cultural parade, simply because of the movie's "success."

I've given you plenty of other reasons why I disliked it.

Updated On: 1/12/07 at 12:12 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:14pm

Well, I liked the film. I hope that doesn't make me racist though.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:15pm

I admit that I did wince whenever Borat would make fools out of some of the more well-meaning people in the film, but I also must admit that I took quite a perverse glee in his ability to expose so many people's internal racism, homophobia, sexism, antisemitism, jingoism and patronizing natures -- at the rodeo, at the dinner party, in the church, in the gun shop, in the the redneck bar (where he got them to all sing along to "Throw the Jew Down the Well"), in the RV with frat boys who wanted to bring back slavery etc... It was those moments that I found so funny and to be a revealing and effective satire on so-called "American values." Yes, some of the rest of was mean-spirited and juvenile, but I found most of it to be clever, hilarious and even kinda sweet (his interactions with the prostitute actually helped to briefly almost humanize the character).

Updated On: 1/12/07 at 12:15 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:22pm

Honestly, Margo, Jerby, lildogs, et al,

I don't mean to take issue with your reactions or opinions, or anyone else's regarding this movie or any other.

My reason for the back-and-forth posts here:

1) I was perceived to have been disliking this film simply as a fashionable, counter-approval response, which was wrong.

2) My real issue here is with the film and the filmmaker's intent and approach.

The audience's varied responses to it... I find fascinating, actually.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:23pm

My confusion isn't really over the "screenplay" nomination, but why so many are proclaiming this film "brilliant" and using every superlative under the sun. Cohen is funny, but does he deserve an Oscar nomination? No, that's just silly. Come on. Hopefully the Oscars will take the high road (rather than the low road) and leave them out of the competition.

The film was funny, was so was NAPOLEON DYNAMITE. Come on.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:24pm

I dunno, lildogs. I don't think people just see an unembodied person as "funny". It has implications for how we see people in the future. Especially bodies that resemble the ones they've previously seen as terrorists. And with their history of seeing bodies like that as terrorists, it makes for sort of a "either this guy is ignorant of America or he's a terrorist" reduction. Or, if they read the film like you think they will, it leads to a less-problematic, but still weird "either he's funny or a terrorist" situation. However, I don't think Cohen highlights artifice enough to universally (or, even sometimes)avoid the former interpretation.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:32pm

I never said YOU were a basher, did I? Nope.

Wasn't acting superior either, which is how I figured you'd take that. If you don't get it, you don't get it--it has nothing to do with intellectual capability--you need not be so defensive.

The real problem is, you didn't see the whole movie so any judgements you make are half-baked at best. Would you review a novel that you didn't finish? I wouldn't.



That's the whole thing, touchme, is that Borat ISN'T from a "terrorist" country. But the fact that come, not ALL, of the people he encounters see him that way--much the same way that many Yankees think Texans all have horses and wear boots and have an oil well in the back yard.

Yes, it's not Susan Sontag, but it's a great deal more substantial than most other successful mainstream comedies.

At least several professional screenwriters thought so. And many of the leading critics. And audiences.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:41pm

How can you take issue with the filmmaker's intent unless you KNOW what that intent is?

Because based on your opinion of his intent, I'd say you don't know what it was.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:51pm

How much of a fart do you have to smell before you know you don't like it?

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:52pm

Okay then.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 1:05pm

And scene.

I just question when people claim to speak from such a place of authority on a subject. Have your opinion--by all means we can't all agree on everything. But, don't claim to know what his intent was when you don't.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 1:09pm

A historically, soon-to-be-forgotten film and a little known award ... hardly worth the fuss.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 1:16pm

Is anything we talk about worth the fuss?

The bigger picture is that someone whom I respect would voice an opinion on something he didn't finish--that's all.