Question by Lorenzo: Why did Ari Emanuel’s talent agency exploit and denigrate the Roma (gypsy) people in producing “Borat?”?
I figure that this is the correct category for this question, as the Endeavor agency run by Rahm Emanuel’s brother is blatantly continuing their efforts to influence American public opinion.
I like many others accepted the propagated premise that Sacha Baron Cohen was an independent filmmaker with few resources. A little research into Cohen, who is indeed talented, unfortunately proved very revealing.
I had assumed that minimal availability of resources caused Cohen to avoid union costs, etc. by choosing to use the impoverished and disenfranchised people of an Eastern European village as extras. These people, including a man that would be categorized as a “special needs” individual in the United States, received very little money from Hollywood in exchange for being the butt of jokes.
Perhaps Cohen and Emanuel should consider that these “extras’ would not have been living in such cinematically picturesque conditions if they had had the resources to emigrate.
shut up brown. hypocrite.
city of the blind: So do you think it would have been OK to use the residents of an impoverished shtetl for the same purpose, to cut costs? Same thing. Wasn’t “Borat” used to convince Americans about how insensitive they are?
Jacob, do you know the scene in “No Country for Old Men” in which the criminal intimidates a service station owner? I have watched screenings of this with general public and with industry people, and guess who audiences laugh with and think is cool. Disturbing.
Answer by brown9500v3
Is it possible to gyp a Gypsy?
What do you think? Answer below!