Talk:Borat

Coincidences, not popular culture

This article has references from other movies as almost purposeful, yet they are clearly EXTREMELY coincidental. In any case, these do not in any way belong in this article as they add nothing to the movie.

Example: "The King and I. Borat's translated line upon learning that Anderson has written a book, "A woman has written a book?" echoes that (as does his reaction) of the King in The King and I, upon learning of Harriett Beecher Stowe's writing of Uncle Tom's Cabin."

 - this is nothing more but a coincidence stemming from both characters in both movies being misogynists/ignorant of women's intelligence, completely separately from one another.

  I don't think that section has any relevance to the movie either.  Just coincidences - I don't think Sacha Baron Cohen had any intention to make allusions to popular culture like that in the movie.

It's impossible to source or verify. I agree, delete the whole section--Wehwalt 16:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Successor to Ali G in Da House?

Isn't this film "preceded" by Ali G in Da House? OK, that film didn't have Borat in it, but in most people's eyes the new film is the sequel to the Ali G film.213.254.90.177 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali G in Da House DID have Borat in it. 60.242.25.74 08:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I see them as entirely different.

I want to know if it's just actors in this film, instead of real people.

71.56.237.70 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a mix of both but mainly real people, Borat's producer is an actor, and Pam Anderson is an actor but mainly its just real people he interviews. And this movie is not a sequel to Ali G in Da House, if anything this flick is preceeded by Da Ali G Show. J-Axe

It is absolutely not a sequel (though, to correct you, Borat did in fact appear in Ali G Indahouse). They are entirely different characters; a sequel would imply that it was the continuation of the story of the same characters and their struggle (new or old). Just because they exist in the same world doesn't mean they are sequels. (--Great Scrivener 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

Isn't Don't be a menance to south central while drinking your juice in the hood a longer title?

---

How exactly do you grow your eyebrows for a movie role? I'd like to know, as mine are dandy, but not yet ~spectacular~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk • contribs)

The eyebrows just like his mustache would be all done as part of his make-up before the shooting. Mathmo 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Scaled-back U.S. release"

In this section it list Southeast Texas as a region where the film was not shown. I live in Houston and saw the movie, so I don't think this is entirely accurate. It is also currently playing at multiple theaters in the city. It might be true that surrounding areas of Southeast Texas did not show the movie (I honestly don't know). Regardless I think this needs to be clarified.

"Leaked onto YouTube"

I'm pretty sure it was not leaked on to YouTube; it's only four minutes, it's high quality and was on the sponsored section of the front page. Also, the user (BoratMovie) has deleted scenes. It's a promo. Nothing big, just thought we may as well be accurate. 80.47.117.15 08:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I just watched it on YouTube 67.158.70.191 02:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I love you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Some idiot uploaded the shitty cam recording of the movie.

I have not yet seen a link for this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because it was removed soon after it was posted.

IMDB Controversy

The film (as noted in the Wikipedia article) reached 232 in the IMDB top 250 on Sunday 8 October 2006. Strangely, the next day it dropped out of the top 250, and has not since reappeared in the list, while maintaining the same 'raw' arithmetic mean score, 9.4 out of 10.

Strangest of all, according to IMDB, the votes of 150 women up to Monday 9 October produced an average of 9.1, but 24 more female voters on Tuesday brought this average down (according to IMDB) to 6.5.

150 x 9.1 = 1365 total female points on Monday

174 x 6.5 = 1131 total female points on Tuesday

So 24 extra voters somehow managed to REDUCE the points accumulated by 150 female voters up to Monday.

It has been claimed that IMDB has actually interfered with the 'democratic' mechanics of user's votes. President Bush had expressed his displeasure at the film, and Kazakhstan is an oil-rich frontline state in his 'War on/of Terror'.

Isn't democracy wonderful in Kazakhstan, IMDB and the US and A?

Um. The IMDB is a british website. BlackTerror 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Um." The IMDB has been owned by Amazon.com since 1998. Amazon.com is an American electronic commerce company based in Seattle, Washington. --Susurrus 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Alt Country Releases

What is the significance of Belgium in the release dates? Archibald99 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

or any other country... could be deleted. Medico80 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre Screening

I saw the movie at a pre-screening last night. I have to say, it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, and I've followed Sasha since his Channel 4 days. Ridiculous.

"Let us play game... we still a piece of cheese between khrum-hole, and have little mouse come and eat it"

I also did not notice two scenes that were in the trailer but not in the movie... where he is running with the civil war guys and where he takes a picture of a man standing in front of the urinal.

Yeah I did notice this too, however alot of movies seem to show clips in trailers but they never make it to the actual movie (maybe these deleted scenes will show up on DVD)

Controversy

I think we should have every detail of the Controversy section here, I think many Kazakhstan Americans are boycotting this movie.

Yes, I think both of them were very upset.82.10.182.37 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good one, 82.10.182.37. Well in. EmpComm 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it now, and was disappointed. Much of it seems to have been cut out because of the lawsuits. Can anyone verify this? For instance, the much-hyped "Throw the jew down the well" country song scene was not in there, three weeks after the opening. Are they taking bits out? Chris 06:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The throw the jew down the well bit was on the original Ali G show, it was never ever to be included in the movie.

Mattjblythe 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Screw you guys...I'm goin' home!" - The last line in the movie.

Is this confirmed? Seems doubtful that the film would borrow (or that the character would reference) a South Park catchphrase.

- If true, anyone consider this a spoiler? - Not true. --BDD 09:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm...did you even see the movie? The last line in the movie is (SPOILER!) the farewell phrase in Polish (Chjenkue I this is how it's spelled) (/SPOILER!).

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are listed as producers in the final credits also.

Category: Da Ali G Show

I'm adding this article to Category:Da Ali G Show because Borat was a product of that show. I realize that Ali G himself does not appear in this movie, but it's still relevant to the show. (p.s. I've been to Kazakhstan, there's nothing there, thought'cha might like to know.) Paul 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Cohen film all the Borat scenes in America at once? Or did he make several trips over years developing the character and the concept as he went? Are any scenes from the Ali G show included in the movie? It would be nice to have more information about how the character developed from a minor subsection on the Ali G show to it's own film. Maybe such a description should be/is? under Borat, but it would be nice to mention/reference it from here. ChristineD 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Azamat the producer

Template:SpoilerI saw and enjoyed the movie last night. But at the end when Borat is back in the village with everyone, is Azamat the cameraman with him?Template:Endspoiler I forget if he was or not. Thanks. 68.190.212.208

I don't think so. The cameraman was just following him around throughout the whole movie. I don't remember any reference to the cameraman's identity in the movie, though. Nishkid64 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Azamat was the producer, not camera man. and I don't know. probably.

In the opening credits, some one is referred to as operating "the camera machine"

Anybody else notice that Azamat's last name (Bagatov) is the same as the film company in the beginning (when it says Kazakhstan Ministry of Information in association with Bagatov Films) does anyone know if this film company actually exist and if so is this guy the actual owner of the film company?

subtitles

The subtitles not always accurate. For example when Azatmat tells Borat that he scheduled a meeting with feminists, he refers to the feminists as "whores" in Armenian. The English subtitles didn't have that as far as I can remember. I wasn't reading them very carefully though, since I could understand Armenian.

I don't think they were supposed to be accurate. They were talking two totally different languages in the first place. Do you think they would actually do correct subtitles lol? I would doubt it. Nishkid64 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Box office

I can never work the referencing system on wikipedia - someone want to incorporate some of the stats from this into the box office section? http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1555093_1_0_,00.html

--Charlesknight 12:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What was real?

I didn't see this anywhere in the Borat page or the movie page - evidence of particular scenes being staged or not. Wouldn't this be interesting information?

Facts

• Pamela Anderson scene

Pamela reports on her official website: "Of course Sasha and I planned this years ago." Plus, there is a big Borat picture on her homepage.

• Fraternity RV scene

It seems that the RV part itself was contrived, but the fraternity brothers were not actors.

Once there are a bunch more facts, we should move this section to the full movie page.

I would also suggest that we focus more on the facts than random opinions about the likelihood of a scene being staged or not. Pamela's admission on her site is a clear indicator that something fishy was going on at least, however.

The Borat board has some sourced facts on it, but I'm not going to list them all here.

SkepticVK 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well OF COURSE the Pamela Anderson scene was staged. Do you think he'd have absolutely gone up to her in public and tried to carry her off without vetting it in advance? (Unsigned).

My response to this is that some scenes (including Pamela's) might be obvious to some people, but there are a lot of unbelievable things in this movie, so I'd prefer to put sources down before making judgments about a particular scene. SkepticVK 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Luenell states that the bag contained real feces.[3] Badagnani 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

alot of the scenes were actually not in the geographic location they were described to be in. The confederate memrobilia shop was not in Texas but in Alabama.

Are the family members in the village actors?

It needs to be checked whether any of Borat's "family members" in the village were actors. I read that one of them was an actual woman from Kazakhstan brought there. The two who might have been actors are the one Borat kisses (his sister?), and the one who yells at him (his wife). Does someone know? Badagnani 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They were Romanian villagers who are now suing. See the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't really say anything specific about those actors, it just talks in general terms about various villagers.--71.35.109.198 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I read that at least one of the two women (maybe the one Borat kisses or the one who yells at him) was not a villager, but was a Kazakh woman brought into the shoot. 24.93.190.134 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in Rolling Stone says there are only four actual actors in the film, plus the porn star who portrays Borat's son "Huey Lewis" in the photos he shows to the etiquette coach. Badagnani 04:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

This article is currently at "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan". Shouldn't it be at "Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" - the opening sentence suggests this is the film's title.

All the trailers for this movie exclude the exclamation mark, I believe. Gdo01 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Although appearing in some of the early promotional art for the film, it really seems evident that the exclamation mark following the abbreviated title was more a bloc-style flourish in some promotional art than an intended punctuation in the title. The mark is omitted -- or the title abbreviated as simply Borat -- in virtually all written media, and the exclamation mark does not appear in the film's logo on its official site or 20th Century Fox's, nor in its current trailer. --Incomplet 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it should have been Borat (film) instead of Borat! (film), so I did a page move to what I believe should be the proper movie title. Like Incomplet said, I don't think it was a punctuation mark. It wasn't used at all in the movie promos or in the actual movie. Nishkid64 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Try to keep in mind that each page move also results in a bunch of double redirects, which have had to be fixed roughly three or four times apiece now. --Wafulz 18:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus for that hasty page move. The long title is the correct one. Badagnani 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the current page title omits a space preceeding the subtitle.

The correct title was apparently already "taken" due to whatever mischief was worked earlier. Badagnani 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay to move it back to its correct name (Borat:[space]Cultural...)? --DCrazy talk/contrib 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I only moved the page in response to a previous incorrect page move. I thought there was some consensus on that page move, but I guess there wasn't. I'm all for keeping the current title. Nishkid64 15:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To add

• The film is leading the Kazakhstan embassy in Washington to receive about a dozen calls inquiring about tourism per day.[4] A Kazakhstan tour company, Sayat, is launching anti-Borat tours showing the real Kazakhstan.[5] Badagnani 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional Source for Controversy section

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=289827 I found this as I was eating my cereal. I hope you find it useful :)NinaEliza 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Luenell

Oh, it looks like Luenell (according to IMDB) has gone by her first name only, in all but her very first film. I suppose we should describe her simply as Luenell (not Luenell Campbell) in the article, then. Badagnani 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed that up. She only goes by Luenell so there's no point in having her full name. If people want to see the full name, they can click the link. Nishkid64 22:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NY Times

The New York Times wrote a blistering editorial of this movie today, basically speaking about how making fun of other people has become a sad national pasttime. I'm not sure I can effectively write this into the article, but I noticed no mention of domestic criticism outside the participants; I think this should be included. The article, which requries registration on the NYTimes site, is started here. Any help (or opinion) would be appreciated. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Although that relates to a theme in the movie, it doesn't relate to the plot itself. I'm not totally sure either if a section entitled "Response in United States" is useful or appropriate. Nishkid64 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Awareness for Film

I can't believe that only 27% or so of the US knew about Borat's release. I'm sure that anyone who had a TV in the Atlanta market or saw a movie in the last 4 months knew it was coming out. Then just days before the film was released, they scaled it back here and moved it 45 minutes from my house. Some entertainment companies can be really stupid. That's my rant for the day. --Dleav 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your rant? Anyway, the 27% was probably a poll conducted by Nielsen or some film agency, and may not tell the exact truth to the whole situation. Statistics are always tricky. Nishkid64 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Donation to Glod

Cohen's producer says that both Cohen and his production company each donated US$5,000 to the village of Glod. Is it true? Badagnani 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Today's LA Times said $10,000 that was used to buy computers for a village school. Brentt 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The villagers told the British newspaper that they didn't see any computers go to the school, just some notebooks. Maybe someone in the village embezzled the money before the computers were even purchased. Badagnani 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Releases

If everyone appearing in the film signed a release, how, for example, does this explain the appearance of people who are obviously unhappy to be on camera or filmed with a hidden camera, as for example the hotel employees that kick Borat out when he walks in with his pants pulled down? Badagnani 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They all signed the release forms before the filming. Slate.com [6] has made the release forms public, in case you haven't seen them. Basically, the production crew didn't tell them the true nature of the film, and by signing the release form they supposedly agreed to waive any claims including "intrusion", "defamation", "allegedly deceptive business or trade practices", "false or misleading portrayal of the subject", etc. There are people questioning whether it is legitimate to waive one's right to these claims, particularly the deception part, and whether the allegedly false pretenses which influenced them to sign the contract constitute fraud. [7]

In the case of the hotel employees, the hotel's PR manager was told it was to be a "travel documentary" and showed the film crew around the hotel so they could photograph it before the host arrived. [8] --Dforest 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Language

In response to the Poster containing Cyrillic letters:

Wouldn't the "B" in the poster for 'Borat' resemble an upside-down Cyrillic "Б"? I would input this in myself, but I'm unsure about this.

It looks like a normal "B" to me. Badagnani 10:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

languages other than English which Borat is speaking

Borat speaks (other than English) with Azamat in Hebrew - but doesn't he also speak some other language to him? May be it is Armenian, because that is what Azamat (supposedly, don't know Armenian from Albanian...) speaks to Borat? Anyone know?--Soylentyellow 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from "jagshemash" and "chenquieh," which are Slavic, not Hebrew, he does appear to echo a few of the Armenian words that Azamat says, presumably for believability's sake. But I'm sure Baron Cohen he doesn't understand more than a handful of Armenian words. Badagnani 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the so-called Kazakh village, Borat's wife, Oxana curses him in Romanian "futu-ti pizda ma-tii..." (meaning "f*** your mother"). Aslo while he is leaving the village to go to the U.S and A., a villager wishes him the best in Romanian. The pulled by horse blue car is a Dacia 1300, a Romanian car manufactured in the 80s. I am not a language expert but some words such as "děkuji" mean "thank you" in Czech, Slovak and maybe Polish.

No cyrillic letters!

These are just decorative elements employed by the graphic designer in the poster. Hell, in this case it's not even in the title card of the film, which should really be considered the "official" title. – flamurai (t) 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Becoming too long

I feel as if the plot section is virtually a script to the movie! (as if there were a script and none of it were improvised) Wikipedia's policy on movie pages is that any plot summary not be a virtual subsitute for watching the movie itself. And some of the other sections are becoming so long I would feel they warrant their own articles (such as how all the different countries are reacting to it) I didn't make any edits without making mention of this in the discussion page, of course, but I did add the "toolong" tag (it more than exceeds 32 KB). Mount Molehill 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous summary (before the insanely long one) was sufficient, I agree. Film summaries always, for obvious reasons, leave some of the film's contents to the imagination. Badagnani 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Right hand wheel

Why the ice cream van has the wheel on the right? Is that typical in America? Is it a British van? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) .

---I'm actually not sure about this either, when i saw it I assumed it was probably a Mail truck made to look like an ice cream truck. (American mail trucks have the steering wheels in the right hand sid)

Motoieni

If I read it right, the Romania location appears as Motoieni in the credits. The Glod, Dâmboviţa article says it is in Moroeni. Which is right? Template:Substunsigned

Transit worker to sue

The transit worker who says "F--- off!" has stated that he didn't sign a release form and will sue. Article here. Badagnani 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To add: Baron Cohen nominated for Kazakh culture award

"[Kazakhstani] Novelist Sapabek Asip-uly called on the Kazakh Club of Art Patrons to give Cohen its annual award, according to a letter published by the Vremya newspaper Thursday."[9] Badagnani 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of "irony"

It is not in the least bit ironic that the official film website contains a link to the Kazakhstani Information Ministry website. It's funny, not ironic. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS INTERESTING DOESN'T MAKE IT IRONIC, PEOPLE! STOP MISUSING THE TERM!!!

Type louder; I can't hear you.

Generally people writing on Wikipedia get a lot of things wrong: that is an inevitable outcome of a project of this kind, ie input given by people who want to contribute rather than those who are knowledgeable or literate. Within those parameters I think that the Wikipedia project works quite well. Dr Spam (MD) 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic on map

This article says that the Cyrillic in the film, "especially" geographical names, are mis-spelled or nonsense, but when I saw the film I was positive that there was accurate Cyrillic spelling on the map showing Borat's progress, unlike the gibberish Cyrillic displayed in the screen overlays and on the show. Can anyone confirm this? --DanyaRomulus 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looked like Los Angeles was properly spelled using Cyrillic. But the map was shown so briefly--we may have to await the DVD.--Wehwalt 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

It should be noted that the scene when Borat tries to buy an attack dog which will defend him against jews was not deleted in the Israeli version. (I saw the movie just last week and it had it) 80.178.23.7 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Woman in elevator wants money

The woman stuck in the elevator with naked Borat and Azamat now wants to be paid.[10] 131.123.122.56 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently it isn't semi-protected, go right in and add it. :-) oTHErONE_(Contribs) 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Church scene

Any info on that scene? --219.74.97.2 11:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hotel where Borat receives the telegram

According to the trivia section, "The hotel in which Borat is notified of his wife's fatal mauling by a bear is the Wingate on Harbison Blvd, in Irmo, SC." I'm pretty sure I remember that the manager of the hotel who came to Borat's door was wearing a nametag that said Courtyard by Marriott (or some other large hotel chain). It's possible that the hotel's name has changed since filming, but this should be made clear in the trivia section. A citation would also help. —Crashintome4196 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The bear

I note that the article now states that the bear's decapitated head was seen in a refrigerator. Is that accurate? I thought the bear ran away from Azamat.--Wehwalt 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've seen it, and I would have to assume the room the head was in was Azamat's. I don't remember anything about the bear running from Azamat. --User:Lenin & McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that explains Borat's shock when he finds out that Pamela is AGAINST cruelty to animals! I'll take your word for it and watch the DVD when it comes out!--Wehwalt 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a bear's head in the fridge in Azamat's room, I can confirm. It's rather odd... 213.202.140.63 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Azmat tells Borat that the bear ran away, then you see Azmat open the fridge, and you then get a quick glimps of the severed head on the top shelf.

It's definately there. :PBrotherEstapol 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

top ten lists

Are the top ten lists in the Awards section really important or relevant? --User:Lenin & McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YESxx little anna 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are. Films always tout their credentials as being on top ten lists or doing well at film festivals, and this movie is no different. When you're named ne of the ten best films of the year by TIME and Rolling Stone, you're a pretty big deal. -- Kicking222 16:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't think there's much more of the Trivia section that can be brought into the article. Shall it be deleted? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is too much in the "Trivia" and "Allusions" sections. They should be hevily trimmed (leaving only what is both verifiable and notable) and integrated into the main text (or, at least, merged into one short section) or, as suggested above, deleted. -- Kicking222 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the trivia section seems to have been deleted. Here's a verifiable tidbit from http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117957938.html?nav=news&categoryid=1985&cs=1. "The 71 letters, collected into 12 words, appears to make "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" the longest title of a film ever nominated for an Oscar. In the fiction category, it easily topples the 54 letters of "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" and in the land of docs, edges out the 65-letter "Forever Activists: Stories from the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade" from 1990."74.99.213.103 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Luennel and the messenger

where exactly do they say that these people were in on the joke? Was it in the Salon article? My computer wouldn't let me see the link to the rest of it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Luenell is an actress and comedienne. It's rather obvoius that she's in on the joke- she is in the last scene, which was filmed in Albania, so I doubt she didn't know about the whole deal. Also, she's done interviews since the movie came out, discussing what it was like to shoot the film. -- Kicking222 02:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, obviously Luenell was in on it. Nuff said. As for the messenger, I can find no reference that says he was in on the joke. I would think, given the way the movie was made, that he was not. After all, if Cohen didn't get the reaction he wanted from the first guy, he could move on to a new hotel and do the telegram again until he got what he wanted.--Wehwalt 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin?

If I recall correctly, Azamov was wearing a moustache and was impersonating Charlie Chaplin, not Hardy. If someone confirms this, I'll edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.75.115 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

No, it was Hardy. Who also had a mustache. Due to Azamat's size, he would be unlikely to be hired to impersonate Chaplin. The Hardy impersonation is why the "That's another fine mess you've gotten us into" line was used. --Wehwalt 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Online Film Critics Society

I have been unable to find their own page listing their nominnees. Would this page be an acceptable source? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Given that they don't seem to have a proper web site OR a WP article, I would say ax the reference in the article as not notable.--Wehwalt 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also got rid of the US Weekly Top 10 I couldn't find any references for --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Few things before GA

I'm thinking I might nominate this for Good Article status, but before I do there are two things I know of that should be sorted:

1. The thing about the guy from the hotel is still unsourced. Would someone please find a source for it?
2. Someone needs to find a way to work this review by the Irish Social Democrats into the article mores smoothly.

Perhaps at some point the languages in the production section might need some more sourcing as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did #2 and also posted a couple of refs about the languages. Do we really need to mention every related Slavic language? The fact that, say, Tishe means quiet in Russian is enough, we don't also need to know similar words mean the same thing in other Slavic languages.--Wehwalt 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not coming up with anything on the telegram guy . . . in fact this site says (he may be assuming) that Borat sent himself the telegram and the guy just read it.[11] So I am deleting for lack of verifiability.--Wehwalt 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All references need to be placed after punctuation. I changed a few of these problems, but others probably need to be fixed (and I'm too lay to do it). Otherwise, I completely support this article for GA status. -- Kicking222 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just nominated. Will try to fix the references. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Support GA Nomination, looks like it meets the WP:GA? criteria. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Language 2

Misspelled

About the Cyrillic used in the film, the article says: "words written in it (especially the geographical names) are either mis-spelled, or make no sense at all. The promotional posters also spell "BORДT" with a Cyrillic letter for D substituted for the A." I have two remarks. The type of writing of "BORДT" is called faux Cyrillic. The word "mis-spelled" should be without a dash, if applicable at all in this sentence. - Ilse@ 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kusek

In my opinion, this sentence: "with the name of Borat's hometown of Kusek being reminiscent of a Hebrew slang word for vagina" should be sourced or removed. - Ilse@ 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotten the first section taken note of. Hopefully someone will have a source for the second, otherwise I'll remove it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm from israel. the word is "kus" is slang for vagina (pretty much like "pussy" in english). the begining of the name "kusek" is "kus", but it didn't seem to me in the movie that there is any connection. he uses hebrew in the movie but doesn't change the words like that. just like if it were named "pussiek" would anyone relate it to "pussy"!? i think it should be sourced, explained or removed. --itaj 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Promote GA

I've promoted this to GA. Everything appears sufficiently sourced; the language is comprehensive; it appears to cover the topic (at least it contains everything I'd like to know); and it contains image where relevant. There are -- in my opinion -- still some clear flaws in the article, but for GA i think it meats the criterias sufficiently.

I react to the lead section, which appears to be focused on in U.S release; not up to the recommendations of WP:LEAD, that says that the lead should summirize the article. However, I deem it OK for GA :-) The next step would be a peer review. Good luck.

Fred-Chess 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fair use rationale of this image Image:Boratmoi.jpg is too general. - Ilse@ 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't this article get a peer review before this promotion? I believe things like my comment on the fair use rationale would have been discovered earlier. - Ilse@ 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote the rationale for the pic. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead and moved the material on the release well down in the article, and taken care of a few phrasing problems I found. Let's get a peer review. I think that this is going to be a FA. Lenin & McCarthy has done great work.--Wehwalt 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article wasn't peer reviewed because that's not how the GA works! / Fred-Chess 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for peer review in prep for working on it to become a featured article, though frankly I am not sure it meets the stability criterion.--Wehwalt 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

two things

1. Is it just me, or were there not a lot of accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against this film? I went to look it up, and I could really only find the ADL thing.
2. Perhaps this talk page should be archived soon. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Anderson nitpick

I'm a bit lost on how to appropriately incorporate it into the article without weasel words, but this article shouldn't categorically state that the Pamela Anderson scene was staged (however obvious it is) without mentioning the particularity that neither Anderson nor others connected to the film have admitted it. --Ezeu 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me give it a try. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

War of Terror

One editor keeps putting a reference to the War on Terrorism where the article mentions Borat applauding, at a jingoistic rodeo, Bush's "war of terror". Undoubtedly Borat thinks he is using the term "War on Terror", but Cohen, in his sardonic way, obviously is not. In addition, I disagree with the editor who says supplying the link would explain the joke for people who might not get it. I doubt that. They either get the joke, or their grasp of English, like Borat's, is so confused they will not even understand that there was a joke intended. I say take the link out.--Wehwalt 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase U.S. and A. links to United States of America, the word vazhin links to vagina, and the similarly mangled phrase war of terror now links to War on Terrorism. It's not that controversial. By the way, User:Lenin and McCarthy does not object to the link; he reverted the link accidentally.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK,but how does the edit help people get the joke? And I think you are mistaken when you say "war of terror" is similarly mangled. "U.S. and A." is nothing more than mangled English, but "war of terror" expresses a viewpoint which is held among some about Bush and his activities. --Wehwalt 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the link. Borat was clearly referring to the War on Terrorism. Any wiki readers who want more information on the real-life war the character "supports" may then click on the link to the article. So far, you and I are the only one who seem to have an opinion on the inclusion of this link, so I'm inviting others to weigh in.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote the darn thing to eliminate the joke. It is ridiculous to argue over such a fine point. Best just to remove the bone of contention.--Wehwalt 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Borat: vs. Borat!

Vote which one should be in the title.

I vote for !, as it is the title on the poster Superior1 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just whatever means less work for me to fix the redirects. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than posters, what is on the official website and the Academy Awards site?--Wehwalt 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising is NOT censorship

The decision of the Israeli movie distributor to not use a poster of Borat in his swimsuit IS NOT censorship. Advertising is ALWAYS customized to sensitivities of different markets. The person adding this comment is either: 1) ignorant of censorship and advertising, 2) trying to bad mouth Israel by making up some rubbish.

Reaction of anti-semites

Andrew Johnson's article contains anti-semitic comments: "This Jewish background perhaps provides a clue to the most notable aspect of Borat’s sexism, his habitual assumption that every woman he meets is a prostitute."

It is more than likely that this anti-semitism clouds his judgment on the movie review.

Moreover, my original comment remains: Why is the view of an Irish socialist/Trotskyist politican considered at all worthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.39.241 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Before we go into accusations of anti-Semitism, let me first say that I was not the first to add the second thing you removed. Really, I don't care what happens to it.

Second, you're still removing information from the page. I've restored that bit on the poster again, but it's been altered. You don't happen to have a source confirming the film went uncensored in Israel? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that a less risque poster was used in Israel. However, this is NOT censorship. Maximedia is NOT a government department. It is a national billboard company which knows the sensitivities of its market. It is absurd to claim it was censorship. Why not put it under a different category of "Borat advertising around the world"? I'm sure there were other countries where a less risque poster was used -- why is only Israel deemed worthy of comment?

Please sign your posts. And if you can think of other countries where similar things took place, use them! I do not think censorship necessarily implies government action. If you think it does, think of a better word.--Wehwalt 11:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just dealt with it. It is now in the previews section, wiithout any statements warranting a fact tag. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that censorship is not always a government action. However, it is more widely understood to be a government policy, and the use of the term here strongly implies that the Israeli government pressured Maximedia into using a different poster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.18.27 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

DVD

What exactly are the changes to the dvd release mentioned in the article? --Nemissimo II 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say March 5th as the release date? I got it only on the 6th. --WestJet 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Added DVD info

Per the note at the top -- Add information from the DVD (what scenes were cut, anything important on any commentary tracks or documentaries, and what happened to the porno scene) -- I added info about the deleted scenes appearing on the DVD. There are no commentary tracks, at least on the rental version, nor any mention of the porno scene. There are no documentaries per se, but quite a few segments from real appearances by Cohen as Borat -- these are called "Propagandas" on the DVD -- on programs like The Tonight Show (where he gets into a bed made by Martha Stewart and takes of his pants and underwear). 4.232.195.249 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How disappointing. I was really hoping for more information on the DVD. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to bet in a few months, there will be a deluxe edition, with commentaries and everyhing, to make people buy it twice! By the way, I watched it and you were quite correct on the bear's head. It was such an underplayed shot that I missed it in the theatre. And it is right after Azamat lies to Borat and says the bear ran away. Instead, Azamat has obviously been eating it!--Wehwalt 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things

1. Should the awards section be turned from list to prose in preparation for a Featured Article nomination?
2. Should this talk page should be archived soon? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. The full title appears to be widely used in English language sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan → Borat! — The article's name seems too long IMO. I propose we change it to Borat! per WP:COMMONNAME. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Not entirely sure about "Borat!" being the common name. When I googled "Borat" I saw in the first four pages that the IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Yahoo Movies all use the full title. I guess I would offer a weak oppose on the question. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support idea of move in favor of Borat without the exclamation mark. When the full title is not used, it seems to be the most common usage and considering the discussions over at WP:MOS-TM it probably best to keep the title as simple as possible. 205.157.110.11 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Borat per previous post and as "Borat!" sounds like the musical version.--Wehwalt 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case shouldn't it be moved to "Borat (film)"? Unless there are plans to move "Borat" to "Borat Sagdiyev". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That actually makes the most sense. 205.157.110.11 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, that's the name of the movie. Talladega Nights is under Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby just like it should be. We don't change article titles because we don't like the title of the suject matter. --TheTruthiness 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not changing the title. It is using a well known alternative title that even the Academy Awards used when announcing the nominees for Adapted Screenplay. We did the same thing for the Fiona Apple album When The Pawn. That one stretched the technical limits but it is the same principle. 205.157.110.11 03:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, although I dislike how long the title is, and it goes over 10 words as recommended by MOS, it is a proper noun, and a redirect from Borat is good enough. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasoning. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Kiss me! • I'm irish!}} 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The very long title and the broken English is part of the quip. --Ezeu 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's the official title and is often referred to as such, and I don't think WP:MOS should trump the official title in this case. --- RockMFR 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Oppose'. It is the official title of the movie and should remain such.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilgohan2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Featured Article Nomination?

This article is looking like potential FA material. Is there anything anyone wants to bring up prior to a nomination? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that we each need to go through the article and look at it for style. I spent an hour this morning getting rid of stylistic problems. I don't expect to catch everything.--Wehwalt 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just nominated. Here goes. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

DVD case

As a play on Borat's Kazakh heritage, the packaging mimics a foreign bootleg DVD. The slipcover is in English but the case itself has all-Cyrillic text (a majority of which is in legitimate Russian, not faux Cyrillic) and is made to look poorly photocopied.

We've got the DVD, and the inside case is not in "all-Cyrillic." It's exactly the same as the slipcover. As for "looking photocopied," aside from the fake creases on the front of both there's nothing that would suggest that intent. Is it perhaps that only the UK version is packaged this way? Octan 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)