Ron Paul in the new Borat movie? (Bruno), page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:25 PM by _Phoenix_

reply to post by mr-lizard

Yes for example as borat, he could get away with so many stupid things, because of some peoples ignorance, "oh he's foreign, that must be normal!"

Or he would get people to do or say silly things based on his act.

If people don't get it, they see borat as a stupid silly act, but if they get it, they see the intelligence behind the comedy!

I'm sure the views people have on gay people and borat's over the top gay act is going to be hilarious!

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:46 PM by triplesod

Originally posted by mr-lizard

(Oh and if you cannot understand Sasha Baron Cohen, then i dread what you'll think about Chris Morris's up and coming 'four lions' movie)*

www.independent.co.uk...

* 'who' I hear you say.... Yeah go back to watching friends at least there's a laughter track you can be prompted to react to.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by mr-lizard]

Hmmm. I always wondered if your nickname was a tribute to Morris' Jam sketch, "Mr Lizard".

www.youtube.com...

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:48 PM by BlackOps719

Of course I am a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I also love SBC and his extreme brand of off the wall humor.

I have watched him since the Ali G days on HBO and of course Borat, which had my ribs hurting in the theater when it came out from laughing myself sick.

I think it is odd and maybe unfortunate that he would target Dr. Paul for some type of gag, but as long as it isnt demeaning or trying to portray him in a really bad way then it isnt a big deal.

And for anyone who thinks Ron Paul doesnt have a sense of humor, how else could he have made it through 30 years of being in US government if he didnt have the ability to laugh at the absurd?

Cant wait to see the Bruno film, Im sure it will be hilarious.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 02:55 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by BlackOps719

Good points re: Ron Paul, BlackOps. It could be as simple as, Dr. Paul (or really, someone on his staff), was the most convenient to fall unsuspectingly for the gag. Others may have been asked, and declined for various reasons....maybe wise to SBC??

Anyway, I agree that he is Cohen is brazenly funny.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 03:30 PM by triplesod

Originally posted by BlackOps719

I think it is odd and maybe unfortunate that he would target Dr. Paul for some type of gag,

I know very little about Ron Paul, all I do know is that he is a known racist, or at least very right wing. Would that be true? If so, it doesn't seem too extraordinary that SBC - a vocal anti-racist, liberal left winger - would target him, does it?

If I have misunderstood and Ron Paul isn't racist or right wing, I would be very grateful if someone who knows about him properly would share some knowledge with me.
Thanks.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 06:27 PM by badmedia

Originally posted by triplesod
I know very little about Ron Paul, all I do know is that he is a known racist, or at least very right wing. Would that be true? If so, it doesn't seem too extraordinary that SBC - a vocal anti-racist, liberal left winger - would target him, does it?

If I have misunderstood and Ron Paul isn't racist or right wing, I would be very grateful if someone who knows about him properly would share some knowledge with me.
Thanks.

He is not a racist. There was a thing that had racial undertones that was published in his name. And even the part that was so called "racist" was actually a quote from a government study in itself. It happened like 20+ years ago or something, and was rehashed during the election in order to try and kill his support. Even though the person who did that flat out admitted he knew Ron Paul wasn't a racist. It was so frivolous the MSM wouldn't even touch it, outside saying "so and so reported that".

But here is what Ron Paul has said about racism. Probably the truest words I've ever heard on the subject.

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Sound like a racist?

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 09:49 AM by badmedia

I found a movie review that pretty much sums up what I think about.

Sacha Baron Cohen's celebrity spoof 'Bruno' quickly goes out of style

Bruno is a one-joke character in a one-joke movie, and it's a joke Baron Cohen beats into the ground. He's a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion correspondent who repeatedly shocks people with his flamboyant gayness. The end.

In small doses - on the TV show and at the film's high-energy start - he can be a hoot. Here, big laughs come intermittently, and the longer "Bruno" drags on, the more apparent it becomes that there's nothing to him. He's as vapid as the celebrity culture he's stridently spoofing - which makes it hard to care about him.

...

He copies some of the tactics he's seen other celebrities use to achieve and maintain a place in the spotlight, such as adopting an African baby or making a sex tape - seriously easy pickings. When Bruno undresses and hits on Ron Paul in a hotel room under the guise of interviewing him for a talk show, the former presidential candidate reacts to being ambushed by a stranger the way anyone would - male or female, gay or straight. No real revelations to be found there.

Pretty much what I've been saying. Maybe I should become a movie critic

They gave it 1 1/2 stars outta 4.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by badmedia]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 04:41 PM by triplesod

reply to post by badmedia

Thanks for that, mate!

It really seems that Ron Paul really sends people to either side of an extreme. From what I have managed to pick up from Americans over the internet, he truly is either loved or hated. I have seen hundreds of Americans speak about him as though he is some sort of messianic figure. I have never known Americans to take to a politician in such a way. Not since before I was born anyway, after the Kennedy clan and contemporaries were seen almost with movie star-esque glamour.
Since John F's death, Americans have seen corruption, thousands and thousands of body bags, greed, plots and ugly deeds, so now, quite rightly, politicians in America are seen as they have always been seen in Britain and Europe, as not to be trusted and not without the selfishness of any human being.

That is why I have been very surprised to see your countries reaction to Dr Paul. Not even Obama has separated the people and seen such fervent support as Ron Paul.

Your elections were incredibly fascinating this year and I'm glad that you have a reason in politics to be proud again.

Thanks again for the information!

EDIT: Regarding the review, I'd wait and watch it yourself before coming to any definite conclusion. At least check out some more reviews. The one you linked to is the only negative review I have seen so far.
I'm not too sure what upsets you so much about Bruno. Surely it can't be an emotion taken on on behalf of Ron Paul? I'm sure he would look down on such passion by proxy.

I don't think I read your earlier post that you allude to, so I will see what you said there.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by triplesod]

reply posted on 4-7-2009 @ 06:26 PM by badmedia

reply to post by triplesod

Ron Paul is just honest about things and has common sense. It's sad that he is so "special", it should be the norm.

I have nothing against SBC or anything. I watched and liked Borat and thought it was funny. I actually was hoping for something funny with Ron Paul, but just like that review says I seen the clip and it just wasn't funny. No punchline. Gay guy starts undressing and hits on old straight man. Straight man walks out of the room. Where's the joke?

The other clips I seen were kind of "blah" as well.

I dunno, it's just not the same. In Borat, it was more like making fun of peoples assumptions on foreigners. The clips I've seen are like he's trying too hard. He is constantly creating the situations, rather than letting them create themselves from the people he is around. He does it a few times in Borat, and those scenes weren't really funny. But when it flows with the people he is dealing with, pure comedy. Like when he's dealing with the car salesman, in that dinner for proper manners and so forth. That was good stuff. The stealing Pam Anderson at the end, not so much.

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:25 PM by Kevin_X2

When i saw this, and i was in Toronto, the theater was outraged. people were saying "oh, not Ron Paul!" and i felt the same way. It was disgusting, not funny, nobody laughed, it was unnecessary, and i say it was a shot at Ron Paul in an attempt to hurt his credibility.

Bruno was a weird movie. Funny, but weird. Too weird for me.

and now every degenerate who thinks that kind of thing is funny is going to look at Ron Paul with nothing but dismay.

When i first saw it, i figured it was orchestrated by a higher up... but that's my conspiracy-oriented mind ticking away.

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:26 PM by getreadyalready

I hope this isn't off-topic, but wouldn't it be self-defense and justifiable homicide if one of these "victims" killed Borat, or Bruno, or Sacha or whatever its name is?

Ron Paul is a well-known and controversial figure with many enemies. He surely has security. He was lied to, and tricked into entering a made up hotel room where a severely unstable character approached him. I think his security could have shot this guy dead and done us all a favor without any repercussions!

He was essentially kidnapped and should have feared for his own welfare.

It is bound to happen eventually. All these "Scare Tactics" "Punk'd" and other quasi-reality shows are going to get someone killed!

Real examples from these shows:
I am always armed, and if some bloody little midget pops out of cabinet and growls at me, I am shooting it immediately!

If I am ever jostled through a busy set and into a hotel room, told to sit on a bed, and some overly-flaming character approaches me, I am shooting it immediately!

If I am ever on a desolate road and my car mysteriously stops, and my passenger is taken away by strange beings and begins to scream, I am shooting everybody immediately!

Phew! I feel better now!

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:32 PM by Foppezao

I must say i like them both and i think i would have reacted in the same manner[and still not being homophobic]..Still though i think it is strange why he took Paul? to test him? He always picks on the older people cause they dont see his [older] movies, but why not some other republican ?
I dont know a lot of congressmen but i do know Paul, and he is one of the last sincere and honest politicians i know, i guess he should've taken another PR frontmen or secretary...

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:36 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Foppezao

I hope my post didn't come across homophobic either. That is not the case, but his character is designed to elicit that response. In most cases, I like all sexualities of people. I have some homo-sexual acquaintances that I am fond of, but if I were cornered in a bedroom in an overtly aggressive fashion, my response would probably be violent. It would not matter if this were a homosexual actor or a heterosexual gorilla! I just don't play a victim too well!

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:48 PM by Foppezao

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Foppezao

I hope my post didn't come across homophobic either. That is not the case, but his character is designed to elicit that response. In most cases, I like all sexualities of people. I have some homo-sexual acquaintances that I am fond of, but if I were cornered in a bedroom in an overtly aggressive fashion, my response would probably be violent. It would not matter if this were a homosexual actor or a heterosexual gorilla! I just don't play a victim too well!

no man, we're all good! and you're right his character is designed to elicit that response, so thats why i think its too bad he took on RP and not some CFR/Trilateral gangmember.
But its the same thing with the gay prides[parades] across the globe, i can dig gay people but what they all show on those boats [here in the canals of Amsterdam or streets of Antwerp] is just too much too extravagant, and a reason for the haters to take on them[for instance Russia where the police watched how people cracked down the parade].
Thats a thing i dont get, why not a little more subtle?

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Foppezao]

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:53 PM by breakingdradles

It was all great until they showed him PISSED at the end calling Bruno a Queer.

I didn't like that part and thought it was funny enough without putting Dr. Paul in hot water.

reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 04:05 PM by computerwiz32

I didn't know they had a skit making Ron Paul a bad guy.

I hope Ron Paul runs in 2012. I would seriously vote for him.

I never voted so far and I am 20 years old. I didn't even vote for this 2008 election. My family did voted for obama. I perosnally wanted to vote for ralph nader but I knew he would lose. So I thought it was pointless to register to vote. I am not even a registered voter.

So I really would for the first time vote if Ron Paul runs in 2012. I am hoping he runs independent cause I think if he runs as a Rep. He will get controlled. He will get threats if he become president.

I really do think builder burge has alot of power that is aboves the presidents power.

I personally think Ron Paul is our only hope to get back this country from the powerful crooks.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^