- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
While I usually enjoy Stephanie's column, her take on SBC's style of humor (along with other prominent reviewers such as A. O. Scott) is mystifying.
Cohen is the high school clown who's part of the cool kids clique; he makes his friends laugh by ridiculing kids from the wrong side of the tracks, especially those who are slow, inarticulate and unlikely or unable to fight back.
While occasionally he'll do something nervy, such as mock a teacher or principal at an assembly, he is essentially a bully who picks on kids who because they are so unpopular, few will dare to stand up for them.
Likewise, the Kazakhs are out of luck if they hope to gain any real sympathy, or at least that is what SBC can count on from the majority of his audience. Ditto the rest unfortunate 'players' who were punked in Borat. SBC has correctly bet that no one who considers themselves sophisticated (one of the cool kids) will be bothered too much if the unwitting participants end up feeling abused and humiliated.
Admittedly, I have not seen Bruno but from what I gather, it follows much the same premise; SBC makes as many innocents look as foolish as possible, all while playing the idiot himself to soften the meanness of the joke.
Although I'm probably too sensitive for this kind of humor, I wonder why the cultural bias has flipped in favor of putting down the less fortunate and ignorant among us, as opposed to the Chaplinesque style of making fun of the rich and powerful who make the little guy's life a misery. From the cop with the truncheon to the fuming boss, those are figures that are fun to laugh at, because in real life we don’t dare. With SBC and other contemporary comedians, it is the hapless schmuck that’s the target. And while we might feel superior for a moment, it is an illusion.
