Three people who appeared in the viral documentary “What Is a Woman?” told NBC News that the producers misrepresented how it would portray transgender topics.
Not that this is OK. But isn’t this how films like Borat works? They misrepresent what the movie is about, get sign off, do all the stuff.
Don’t know how legal that is, but I would imagine most of that shit would be shut down immediately and not get sign off once they realize it’s a comedy film/show.
But how they present it to the interviewee is as a serious interview, not a comedy movie. Rudy Guiliani didn’t go into that interview thinking “This is a comedy show” He was fooled into thinking it was a “real interview with a republican news group” or something like that (I forget how they presented themselves, but it was as a “real” news organization)
I’d say that’s more of a problem then misrepresenting real interviews by using frankencuts (which has been done that way for decades, but still a scumbag movie when in a documentary)
No. It’s okay when it happens to a far right extremist who support oppressing the masses. Guliani has enabled the far right and provided conspiracy theories about GA election workers whose lives were ruined by harassment.
No one is watching Borat and thinking “see, this is why we need to deny basic rights and decency to a whole group of people.” One is for gags, the other is explicitly made as ammunition to oppress people - mind you a group that has historically already been the target of much hatred.
I feel like people haven’t put their finger on why Borat is different.
In general, the ‘gotcha’ moments in Borat were about getting people to say what they really thought about a topic, then just… showing that. The thing being faked there is who Borat is and what his opinions are, not what the topic is nor the context in which it will be presented.
It wasn’t about getting them to say something they didn’t realize would be applied to a totally different context.
Not that this is OK. But isn’t this how films like Borat works? They misrepresent what the movie is about, get sign off, do all the stuff.
Don’t know how legal that is, but I would imagine most of that shit would be shut down immediately and not get sign off once they realize it’s a comedy film/show.
Borat is a comedy, not a documentary that presents itself as truth.
But how they present it to the interviewee is as a serious interview, not a comedy movie. Rudy Guiliani didn’t go into that interview thinking “This is a comedy show” He was fooled into thinking it was a “real interview with a republican news group” or something like that (I forget how they presented themselves, but it was as a “real” news organization)
I’d say that’s more of a problem then misrepresenting real interviews by using frankencuts (which has been done that way for decades, but still a scumbag movie when in a documentary)
Did you read the original article? It wasn’t just “frankencuts,” they were basically harassed in the interviews.
Also, nothing you can say will make me feel bad about Rudy Guliani getting tricked
Thanks for summarizing your point “It’s ok when it happens to people I don’t like.”
No. It’s okay when it happens to a far right extremist who support oppressing the masses. Guliani has enabled the far right and provided conspiracy theories about GA election workers whose lives were ruined by harassment.
and yet you’re literally doing it right now to defend the film referenced by OP
No one is watching Borat and thinking “see, this is why we need to deny basic rights and decency to a whole group of people.” One is for gags, the other is explicitly made as ammunition to oppress people - mind you a group that has historically already been the target of much hatred.
I feel like people haven’t put their finger on why Borat is different.
In general, the ‘gotcha’ moments in Borat were about getting people to say what they really thought about a topic, then just… showing that. The thing being faked there is who Borat is and what his opinions are, not what the topic is nor the context in which it will be presented.
It wasn’t about getting them to say something they didn’t realize would be applied to a totally different context.