Frat Boys v. Borat

[Jared]

i'd like to see them have to pay some of these people off, cause in the end it was pretty underhanded of them to trick people into siging things for money.

but look at how cheep the movie is, with all the money thre making and the expenses the probably had, they could afford to give each of theses guys a few million each.

i really hope we get to stay updated with this

[NewRider]

Jared you just want them to pay because you ARE one of those frat boys!

[Jared]

no but i knew it was you after you shaved your dreads, i knew i could reconigise the voice,

[Hartamophone]

The guys said some completely indefensible things' date=' the context of which shouldn't matter. FULL STOP.

That being said, if they were, in fact, told that the documentary would not be shown in the US, I can't blame them for being pissed.[/quote']

According to the link they were told it would be shown outside the US. This does not mean it would not be shown within the US. It's a play on words which I believe is perfectly legal and proves once again how ignorant they are.

From what I've learned, to be deliberately misleading in a contract is definitely not legal. If you hand someone a contract and anticipate that they will either not fully understand all of its terms and provisions, or misinterpret at least any part of it, that contract can be thrown out in court. Granted I'm referring to Canadian law, but I would imagine the American law is similar.

[faoy]

The guys said some completely indefensible things' date=' the context of which shouldn't matter. FULL STOP.

That being said, if they were, in fact, told that the documentary would not be shown in the US, I can't blame them for being pissed.[/quote']

According to the link they were told it would be shown outside the US. This does not mean it would not be shown within the US. It's a play on words which I believe is perfectly legal and proves once again how ignorant they are.

From what I've learned, to be deliberately misleading in a contract is definitely not legal. If you hand someone a contract and anticipate that they will either not fully understand all of its terms and provisions, or misinterpret at least any part of it, that contract can be thrown out in court. Granted I'm referring to Canadian law, but I would imagine the American law is similar.

I haven't read anything through the first link that would suggest this was in a contract. From what I read it was a verbal agreement and they should have known better. Always get it in writing.

Even if there was a contract that indicated it would be shown outside the US that wouldn't void rights to show it in the US. It seems like they simply misunderstood what they were told.

[Hartamophone]

From what I've learned' date=' to be deliberately misleading in a contract is definitely [i']not legal. If you hand someone a contract and anticipate that they will either not fully understand all of its terms and provisions, or misinterpret at least any part of it, that contract can be thrown out in court. Granted I'm referring to Canadian law, but I would imagine the American law is similar.

I haven't read anything through the first link that would suggest this was in a contract. From what I read it was a verbal agreement and they should have known better. Always get it in writing.

Even if there was a contract that indicated it would be shown outside the US that wouldn't void rights to show it in the US. It seems like they simply misunderstood what they were told.

There's a link on this page to the full lawsuit (which, incidentally, looks like it was written by a grade 10 English student). Page 5 states that the frat boys were told that the film would never be shown in the United States. While this is difficult to prove, if it's true it constitutes misrepresentation, which can nullify the contract.

[faoy]

From what I've learned' date=' to be deliberately misleading in a contract is definitely [i']not legal. If you hand someone a contract and anticipate that they will either not fully understand all of its terms and provisions, or misinterpret at least any part of it, that contract can be thrown out in court. Granted I'm referring to Canadian law, but I would imagine the American law is similar.

I haven't read anything through the first link that would suggest this was in a contract. From what I read it was a verbal agreement and they should have known better. Always get it in writing.

Even if there was a contract that indicated it would be shown outside the US that wouldn't void rights to show it in the US. It seems like they simply misunderstood what they were told.

There's a link on this page to the full lawsuit (which, incidentally, looks like it was written by a grade 10 English student). Page 5 states that the frat boys were told that the film would never be shown in the United States. While this is difficult to prove, if it's true it constitutes misrepresentation, which can nullify the contract.

Fair enough and thanks for pointing that out but there still doesn’t appear to be a contract. I may be wrong but I think signing a movie release is much different then a contract that stipulates where and how the movie will be shown. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Looks like they’re shit out of luck.

[faoy]

From pg. 9 - “...purportedly entered into a written contract whereby PLAINTIFFS would each receive $200.00 for the opportunity to appear in DEFENDANTS’ film.â€

That tells me they don't have a copy of said contract and without one I think they're screwed.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This story's been great all week, letting me tell my English students to always read things very, very carefully, to see how they might be misconstrued .

[Hartamophone]

From pg. 9 - “...purportedly entered into a written contract whereby PLAINTIFFS would each receive $200.00 for the opportunity to appear in DEFENDANTS’ film.â€

That tells me they don't have a copy of said contract and without one I think they're screwed.

Yeah, I would say they're definitely screwed regardless of the fact that there may have been some shady dealings. I would find it hard to believe that the makers of this movie wouldn't have their asses covered.

Either way, I would not want to be one of those frat boys right about now, looking forward to a lot of nights without female company for the next little while.

Peace,

Hart

Edited November 15, 2006 by Guest

[bouche]

And now some identification of one of the Fartboys...

thank's smoking gun!

[Hartamophone]

Funny, of the three frat boys who were in the scene, I would have thought he'd be the one not suing, as the other two came across much worse than he did.

Gotta love the smoking gun.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

And then the cards are down -

Cohen defends 'racist' Borat film

BBC News

Last Updated: Thursday, 16 November 2006, 10:13 GMT

Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen has defended his controversial creation Borat, saying he is a tool to reveal racism.

Baron Cohen dropped his alter ego for the first time since the Borat film was released, for an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

"The joke is not on Kazakhstan," he said. "I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist."

The film has topped the box office for a second week in both the US and UK.

The film, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, has a naive yet enthusiastic Kazakh reporter meeting with people across the United States.

Prejudice 'absurd'

It has upset some because of Borat's anti-semitic, sexist and racist comments. A pair of US students are suing the film studio, 20th Century Fox, claiming they were duped into appearing in the film.

But Cohen - a practising Jew - said the film ridiculed what people were prepared to believed about other cultures.

"Borat works essentially as a tool," the former Ali G star said.

"By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it's anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism."

He added: "I think part of the movie shows the absurdity of holding any form of racial prejudice, whether it's hatred of African-Americans or of Jews."

Edited November 17, 2006 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Can anybody in the Ottawa area do some babysitting soon? I don't know how much longer I can read commentaries on this movie without us actually going out to see it!

Borat "Best Film of Year": Kazakh Reviewer

Last Updated: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | 5:05 PM ET

CBC Arts

A newspaper reviewer in Kazakhstan has called Borat "the best film of the year," even though it stars a comedian pretending to be a sexist, racist, homophobe from the Central Asian country.

Karavan, a leading weekly tabloid, sent a correspondent to Vienna to view Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

The Kazakh government has told local cinemas not to run the film, saying it was "offensive." It has pitched a year-long battle against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen for making the country look backward and rampantly racist and misogynistic, even threatening to sue at one point.

"Cultural Learnings is certainly not an anti-Kazakh, anti-Romanian or anti-Semitic.… It is a cruelly anti-American movie. … It is amazingly funny and sad at the same time," reviewer Andrei Shukhov wrote in Friday's paper.

"I think this is the best film of the year."

The comedy has been embroiled in controversy.

Cohen, who is 35 and a devout Jew, developed the character of Borat for his immensely popular British television show, Da Ali G Show.

As part of his schtick in the film, Borat interacts with ordinary people who supposedly aren't aware that he is bogus and not a real Kazakh journalist undertaking a supposed "fact-finding" trip through the U.S.

The film starts with scenes in what is presented as Borat's hometown in Kazakhstan. The villagers are portrayed as stupid, crude, incestuous folks who let cows live in their homes, have sex with their sisters and engage in an annual tradition similar to the running of the bulls in Spain — except it involves giant, racist portrayals of a Jewish man and wife.

The scenes not only upset Kazakhstan's government, but people in the remote and impoverished Romanian village that stood in for a Kazakh village in the film. Those villagers have threatened to sue the filmmakers, accused them of falsely describing their purpose and putting the villagers up to contrived stunts.

Some of the Americans caught in Borat's elaborate hoax have sued the producers and Cohen. They include two fraternity brothers who were caught on film making racist comments.

Reaction hurt Kazakhstan more than satire: politician

The Kazakh government had threatened to sue but then backed off, saying it understands the film is a satire. As Borat, Cohen has revealed that Kazakhs drink fermented horse urine and don't allow women to drive.

Dariga Nazarbayev, a politician and the daughter of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, says the government's reaction hurt the country's image much more than Cohen's satire itself.

"We should not be afraid of humour and we shouldn't try to control everything, I think," Nazarbayev told Karavan in an interview in April.

Cohen recently told Rolling Stone magazine: "Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice.

"The joke is not on Kazakhstan. I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist."

The comedian also said Kazakhstan was chosen because it was "a country that no one had heard anything about."