Here’s the full clip, enjoy.
I think people are getting way too defensive over this thing. Sure it was in poor taste, but tell me you didn’t giggle. Why so serious?
I didn’t giggle. Because it wasn’t funny.
Actually seen the movie… tried to forget I did.
All free publicity is good publicity. Remember when the NY Times attacked Tom Woods’ book in a review? His sales shot up straight afterwards. That’s why they’ve ignored Meltdown.
This clip makes Ron Paul out to look like a homophobe or conservative, but it will entice many viewers to google him. Thanks Bruno!
I thought it was funny. I don’t think it was good publicity but I also don’t think it is very important publicity. I mean the RP’s reaction was pretty short lived, Its actaully quite suprising he kept cool as long as he did.
When people behave in this manner, they don’t deserve to be called queers or fags?
Isn’t Ron Paul (as somewhat libertarian) not against gay marriage? Isn’t it ironic that they picked the only guy in Congress that actually believes in liberating gay people from State discrimination?
It got a chuckle from me, that’s about it. Why does gay automatically equal funny? I loved Borat, but if this clip is any indication I’m waiting for Bruno to come out on video. I’m not sure why people are up in arms that Ron Paul said Bruno was “queer as blazes.” The guy is queer as blazes, that’s the premise of the movie, and Ron Paul had every right to be upset seeing as he was on the receiving end of a prank. Some people seem to think that acceptance of a group of people means their actions are beyond reproach.
I heard long ago that RP was in it, and I was ecstatic about it. I knew it wouldn’t show him in a good light, but I was hoping for more publicity. Having seen the movie, I’m actually disappointed. It was probably the least funny and least memorable moment in the entire film, which was otherwise a gold standard of reaction humor. I don’t think it’ll help expose RP and his views.
For those who worry about putting RP in a bad light, look at all the stuff he satires in the movie. Do you think people are going to fundamentally change their opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US Army boot camp, etc etc…? The whole thing’s a joke.
Don’t you have to sign a written consent in order to allow one to use you in a film?
Yes, Cohen must give a pristine air of legitimacy beforehand through staff and I assume gets them to sign-off beforehand. Where he doesn’t get it, he uses it anyway and faces lawsuits. The man is brilliant in this regard. He is still getting high-profile political leaders almost decades after satiring Newt Gingrich and Andy Rooney on his HBO show.
Why? You have no right not be filmed per NAP.
I have gay family members. I have gay friends. I am totally supportive of freedom of choice to choose whoever you want as a partner. I am offended because someone seduced Ron Paul into an inappropriate situation (that he was uncomfortable in) to either seduce a politically unacceptable reaction from him, in order to smear him, or to exploit him otherwise.
I have a gay sister. A prank’s a prank. Cohen doesn’t give a shit about smearing anyone. He just wants the most form of dramatic irony possible. I applaud his efforts. Imagine how light-hearted we’d take it if Kristin Wiig tried to seduce Barnie Frank or something like that. That’s good humor.
I thought the bit was pretty funny, just the fact that he chose Ron Paul.
Did anyone else here religiously watch Da Ali G Show on HBO? I remember thinking “How in the hell does this guy get interviews with these people?!?!?!!?” - he consistently did it for several seasons/years.
Actually he isnt
By giving them state marriage licenses? Oh and they also want special rights too. I think gays are already pretty liberated.
Seriously, I never liked Cohen’s humor, and I probably never will. In many ways, he’s a raunchy version of Ben Stiller (that is to mean, he’s not funny).
Borat had its moments, and some of his Ali G interviews were funny (the Pat Buchanan one - esp when Pat starts to play along with him). But I think Lew Rockwell is pretty correct in that all he does is try to fool the bourgeoisie, whom I guess he has some kind of contempt for.
Paul has said on numerous occasions that gay marriage bans have absolutely no place at the federal level, from a constitutional context. He has gone further and said that the state (local, state, or federal) shouldn’t be involved in regulating personal behavior, and that it should be churches and families and communities using voluntary means to prevent gay unions. So, it’s the exact same policy stance he takes on drugs. I’m fairly sure his personal stance is against homosexuality, but I have never heard him outright say so, unlike drug use, which he has outright rejected as harmful.
That’s true, he did say that. I was referring more to his favoring of the Defense of Marriage Act (which gay activists make out to be something it isnt).
Shaffer presents an excellent analysis of humor in Boundaries of Order where he claims that humor may just be our ability to be humbled by how the complexity of the world allows us to rationalize paradoxes. Punchlines to jokes are funny when we predict a different outcome, but realize that the one offered is perfectly logical.
Similarly, Cohen simply exercises dramatic irony. The audience knows that Borat/Bruno/Ali G are fictional characters. They know that the ignorance is feigned. But those who he is fooling do not. Their reactions to Cohen would make no sense if they actually knew it was all a prank. Yet they constantly try to correct him or educate him or conflict with his beliefs, etc.
I am over-analyzing this, but to be honest the heart of my libertarianism grew from the idea that the state and its formalized rules attempted to take the world far too seriously - to me the state seemed the modern expression of the puritanical teachings of the church to condemn pleasure because it was probably the doing of the devil. I think nearly all forms of humor that don’t involve real harm are blows against the state.