Religion. Popular
Culture. If you are
anything like me,
you’re probably
wondering right
about now how
these two seemingly antithetical
categories fit
together. Religion
is sacred; traditional; reverent. Pop culture is vulgar; ephemeral; profane.
Religion is Jesus; Vishnu; Muhammad.
Pop culture is Madonna.
Or so I thought when I first took a
seat in Professor Dowland’s “Religion and
Popular Culture” class. Together, we engaged in a multitude of contradistinct cultural “texts,” ranging from South Park episodes, to Jay-Z music videos; Mario Puzo’s
The Godfather to footage of the Cameron
Crazies during Duke basketball games.
Soon I realized that although religion
and popular culture may appear to be unrelated fields of inquiry, the two are richly
and complexly interwoven. I found myself
curiously interested in this relationship
and began asking questions: What aspects
of religion are present in pop culture?
Even more intriguing, what aspects of pop
culture are included in religion? What can
popular culture teach us about religion
or contribute to a religious dialogue?
As the semester progressed, I narrowed my interest to a particular aspect
of pop culture—satire. After being
assigned to watch an episode of South
Park for homework, and reading a number
of articles from The Onion, it occurred to
me that this particular form of cultural
commentary possessed a unique ability
to address taboo religious topics, precisely because it’s offensive. South Park
provided a space for certain religious
dialogues which, ironically, couldn’t
even take place in a church or temple.
Yes, you heard it here first; I learned
things about religion from the gang from
South Park, Colorado. And ultimately I
learned things about religion from Sasha
Baron Cohen’s Borat, too.
And so the inspiration for this paper
about religion sprang from the head of
irreverent comedy (not exactly the head
of Zeus…but close).
40
Religious Satire in Hollywood:
How Borat and Saved! Utilize
the Offensive Art to Foster
Interreligious Dialogue
Paul Neal Jordan
Writing 20 (Spring 2010): Religion and Popular Culture
Professor Seth Dowland
D
uring the 2008 presidential campaign,
Saturday Night Live featured a sketch in
which Sarah Palin, portrayed by Tina
Fey, and Hillary Clinton, played by Amy
Poehler, co-host a news conference in
which they speak out against the dangers of sexism in
politics. A dolled-up Fey stands in contrast to Poehler
who wears a masculine military-cut grey business suit.
Among the gems from the “broadcast”:
Poehler “I believe diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy”
Fey “And I can see Russia from my house!”
Poehler “I don’t agree with the Bush Doctrine”
Fey (giggling) “And I don’t know what that is”
Satirical shows, magazines, movies, art, and
other mediums are
tacitly granted a sort
of take-no-prisonerslicense which allows
them to approach the
taboo while protecting
them from much of the
potential backlash.
Fey “Stop using words that diminish us, like pretty, attractive, beautiful…”
Poehler “…boner-shrinker”
A subsequent Newsweek magazine cover featuring Palin sexily clad in a slimming
training top and black spandex running shorts drew intense criticism for being politically insensitive and sexist. Yet the SNL sketch was met (largely) with praise, temporarily boosting the ratings of the show. The disparate public reactions were intriguing. After all, while many attacked the magazine cover as an attempt to belittle Palin,
the SNL skit also clearly reduced her to a Barbie-doll with neither brains nor a substantive political platform. The sketch overtly suggested that Sarah Palin was soccermom sexy but clueless about politics, and that many people hate Hillary Clinton
because they think she looks like a man.
So to what can we attribute these disparate public reactions? It’s simple really —
Newsweek is a news magazine, and SNL is, well, a joke. Whereas a legitimate news
source like Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal could never explicitly call Clinton a
“boner-shrinker,” SNL is not bound by the same limitations. As a satiric cultural commentator it has the freedom to say, and do, things that would be considered utterly
unacceptable in more formal settings. It is understood that satire, as a medium, tends
to attack “pretense and stupidity”1 without regard for political correctness. As a
1 Richard Bridgman, “Satire’s Changing Target,” College Composition and Communica
tion 16 (May 1965): 85
-
dices and biases. As the taboo is removed, all
the subjects of religious satire — the stereotypes, fears, hypocrisies, and illogic — are simultaneously rendered accessible for examination. This transparent atmosphere provides the
foundation for what Bronwen Low and David
Smith call “satire’s power to re-educate.”5 By
looking directly at two cinematic examples of
religious satire in popular culture — Baron
Cohen’s Borat and Brian Dannelly’s Saved! —
we can see satire’s peculiar ability to foster
reflection of and conversation about taboo religious topics, and examine its ability to reshape
people’s religious attitudes, perceptions, and
prejudices.
Because of these two
aspects of satire — the protective shield it provides,
coupled with our culture’s
taste for its acerbic tone—
satiric religious commentary may just be the most
honest and candid mode
Ironic Satire in Borat
of religious commentary
The film Borat depends heavily (though not
exclusively) upon irony to achieve its satiric
thrust. As Low and Smith note, comedic irony
often involves the author saying the opposite of
what he really believes, deliberately making
absurd and inflammatory assertions in order to
provoke and elicit reaction for pedagogical
purposes. This is exactly what Baron Cohen
attempts to do in Borat: the film is inflammatory, but “for the larger purposes of social, political, and cultural critique.”6
Perhaps the best way to begin looking at
this element in Borat is by answering the question posed by Low and Smith in their essay
“Borat and the Problem of Parody”: why do
we laugh at Borat, and what are we laughing
at? Baron Cohen qua Borat is a homophobic,
racist, misogynistic anti-Semite — though here
we will focus solely on his anti-Semitism. As a
prominent television reporter from Kazakhstan,
he comes to America in search of a cultural
panacea for what he perceives to be his country’s three systemic problems: “economic, social, and Jew.” As he and his producer trek
across the United States they commit a multitude of social faux pas. Borat proclaims that
they must drive, not fly, from California to
New York lest the Jews plan another September 11th. They stop for drinks at a countrywestern bar and Borat performs a Kazakhstani
available.
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
result, satirical shows, magazines, movies, art,
and other mediums are tacitly granted a sort of
take-no-prisoners-license which allows them to
approach the taboo while protecting them
from much of the potential backlash.
Satire’s ability to engage in politically incorrect — or maybe more appropriately, politically impolite — conversations is crucial to
the broad cultural discussions surrounding
religion. Like so many other dialogues which
often require a restrained and censored rhetoric — namely ra cial, political and gender
issues — religious dialogues are often treated
with über-sensitivity. Elisha McIntyre argues
that “religious faith has become the last
taboo.”2 This, coupled with the argument that
Richard Bridgman articulates in his essay
“Satire’s Changing Target” — that a poly-cultural America with its manifold creeds and persuasions fosters an “impulse to hospitalize”3
everybody’s opinion — explains the difficulty
our culture has criticizing religion in a public
forum. Often, this impulse is so prevalent that
it suppresses meaningful inter-religious conversation, substituting instead a misplaced sense
of tolerance — a tolerance which stems from a
fear of offending — in lieu of robust and rigorous dialogue. Satire is the lone medium unaffected by this phenomenon. The “shield” which
its biting humor provides is the respirator that
allows these choked conversations to breathe.
Perhaps more importantly, as Bridgman also
argues, Americans, having a taste for the acerbic, tend to embrace this form of criticism. As
he notes, “After years of eating honey, Americans are suddenly finding the taste of vinegar is
sweet.”4
Because of these two aspects of satire — the
protective shield it provides, coupled with our
culture’s taste for its acerbic tone — satiric religious commentary may just be the most honest
and candid mode of religious commentary
available. The “shield” renders authors able to
say exactly what they see, feel and think, and
as a result their product is keen, pure, and
unfiltered. This unadulterated honesty then
allows the audience to examine its own preju-
2 Elisha McIntrye, “Can True Love Wait? Christian Morality Meets Adolescent Sexuality in Teen
Film,” in The Eternal Sunshine of the Academic Mind: Essays on Religion and Film, Sydney Studies of
Religion (2009), 1.
3 Bridgman, 85
4 Ibid.
5 Bronwen Low and David Smith, “Borat and the Problem of Parody,” Taboo 11 (Spring-Summer
2007): 30.
6 Ibid., 28
41
folk song, “Throw the Jew down the well.” While
staying at a bed-and-breakfast they discover that the
patrons are Jewish and flee in panic, throwing
American dollars at the cockroaches who they believe
to be transfigured Jews. After contemplating a return
to New York where “there are no Jews,” the pair resolves to buy a gun to defend themselves. Borat diligently inquires of the salesman, “Which one is best
for shooting Jew?” The final scene of the movie is a
look at how Borat’s “cultural learnings” have reshaped his village in Kazakhstan. Among other
changes, the village adopts Christianity, along with a
conversion process that entails crucifying a Jew.
The irony? Baron Cohen is a Jew. The ostensibly
anti-Semitic plot of the film is indeed not anti-Semitic
at all. Rather, as Low and Smith suggest, Cohen is
“saying” the exact opposite of what he really believes in order to illustrate underlying prejudices to wards the Jewish community. This tactic of “saying
the opposite” is hardly novel: Twain utilizes it when
Huckleberry Finn proclaims that he must be destined
for “everlasting fire” for “helping a nigger.”7 Voltaire
uses it when Candide becomes startled to learn that
there are no priests in Eldorado: “What! You have no
monks…having everyone burned alive who is not of
their opinion?”8 Swift exploits it in his Modest
Proposal by suggesting that “a young child is most
delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food” and as
such should be eaten to prevent the country’s aristocracy from starving.9 In reality, Twain was condemning slavery, Voltaire the Catholic Church, and Swift
the socio-economic inequities of Ireland. In the same
vein, Cohen’s use of ironic satire should be understood not as an engendering of racial and religious
hatred, but as a condemnation of these prejudices.
Cohen’s “jewish-ness,” therefore, serves as a facilitator of this broader goal. If an Aryan Brother were to
ask “Which gun is best for shooting Jew?” it wouldn’t
be funny; it would be racist. But as Christine McMorris
notes in “Borat’s Religious Provocations,” Cohen’s
use of humor “unmask[s] the absurd and irrational
side of anti-Semitism.”10 But it is not only the fact
that Cohen is a Jew which allows him to make such
outrageous statements: rather, the more nuanced matter of intent (as was the case with Twain, Voltaire and
Swift) is also important. Cohen’s goal is to condemn
racial prejudices — if an ignorant audience misunderstands the message, it presents an entirely different
7 Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Puffin Classics (New York: Puffin, 1995), 280-283.
8 Voltaire, Candide, or Optimism, Penguin Classics (London: Penguin Classics, 2006), 47.
9 Jonathan Swift, “A Modest Proposal,” in A Modest Proposal and Other Writings, Penguin Classics (London:
Penguin Classics, 2009), 232.
42
10 Christine McCarthy McMorris, “Borat’s Religious Provocations,” Religion in the News 9 (Winter 2007): 19-21.
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
Cohen is “saying” the exact opposite
of what he really believes in order to
illustrate the underlying prejudices
towards the Jewish community.
quagmire. For instance, if an Afghani Muslim who
sympathized with Jewish persecution had directed
Borat, the film would lose its satiric thrust simply
because people would assume it was intended as
derogatory. So while Cohen’s intentions are vital, his
religious and ethnic identities are what make it possible for him to engage in such taboo dialogue.
The full effectiveness of Cohen’s ethnic identity is
demonstrated during Borat’s performance in the
country-western bar. When Borat first takes the stage
the crowd is skeptical of the Kazakh about to perform. By the time he cycles back through to the chorus of “Throw the Jew down the well, so my country
can be free. You must grab him by the horns, then we
have a big party,” the now boisterous crowd joins in,
forming a spirited chorus of hate directed at a nameless Jew 9000 miles away. Borat begins the song as
the only overt anti-Semite in the crowd. But as soon
as Borat begins to sing, he awakens some dormant
sentiment in the crowd. As McMorris notes, “By himself being anti-Semitic, [Borat] lets people lower their
guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it’s
anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism.”11
Cohen, referencing Ian Kershaw’s remark that ‘the
path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference,’
explains, “it’s an interesting idea that not everyone in
Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just
had to be apathetic.”12 Borat simply starts the song,
and everyone follows — whether or not they harbor
individual prejudices towards Jews is immaterial. The
scene forces insightful viewers to reflect, then, not
only upon their own prejudices toward Jews but also
upon how Americans tend to tolerate prejudices and
thereby provide fertile soil for intolerance.
Satire’s salutary features notwithstanding, this
form of didactic critique cannot be undertaken without intrinsic risk — namely, what happens if the audience doesn’t “get it”? McMorris raises this question
when she comments (referencing the Anti-Defamation League’s statement) that “the audience may not
always be sophisticated enough to get the joke,”13
and Low and Smith echo this concern by noting “the
risk that the satire might actually back-fire.”14 This
ADL released this statement in 2006 saying:
We hope that everyone who chooses to see the film
understands Mr. Cohen’s comedic technique, which
is to use humour [sic] to unmask the absurd and
irrational side of anti-Semitism and other phobias
born of ignorance and fear. We are concerned
however, that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to
get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry.15
If this is in fact the case, then religiously satirical
works like Borat are not only rendered irrelevant but
are, in fact, damaging to the inter-religious dialogues
and tolerance they intend to catalyze.
Another danger associated with ironic satire is its
potential to “inflame bigotry further.” In other words,
what happens if the audience actually identifies with
those being parodied — in this case, the patrons of the
bar — and as a result find their dormant racist sentiments aroused? What if the audience actually is bigoted? Vidamar and Rokeach argue for the pedagogical
function of racist satire, stating that “mixing humour
with bigotry releases tension, and this catharsis reduces
prejudice.”16 However, if they’re wrong, films like Borat
may actually make the prejudiced more prejudiced.
While these trepidations are noteworthy, for the
vast majority of audiences this form of parody effectively accomplishes its aim to “unmask the absurd.”
Most educated viewers can’t help but come away
from the film with a sense that the ridiculous nature
of the movie ultimately points at something greater.
This form of parody effectively accomplishes
its aim to “unmask the absurd.” Most educated
viewers can’t help but come away from the film
with a sense that the ridiculous nature of the
movie ultimately points at something greater.
Sure, one could argue that theaters full of teenageguys laughing unabashedly and howling throughout
some of the cruder moments of the film (the hairynaked wrestling scene in the hotel room, for example), suggest that Borat is nothing more than a crass
comedy, whose outrageousness is intended primarily
for shock value, rather than reeducation of racial
prejudices. But even this audience comes away with a
visceral reaction to the film — perhaps one they can’t
articulate — which suggests that real anti-Semitism
isn’t funny, and that’s why the movie is funny. Simply,
the over-the-top anti-Semitism is just too ridiculous to
be taken seriously, and if people don’t understand
that they’re probably a lost cause anyway.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Low and Smith, “Borat,” 32.
15 Anti-Defamation League. Statement On The Comedy Of Sacha Baron Cohen, A.K.A. “Borat,” 28 September
2006, available from http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4898_00.htm; accessed August 8, 2010.
16 Low and Smith, “Borat” 32.
43
Exaggerated Satire in Saved!
MGM
In contrast with Borat, which exemplifies what
Low and Smith label “ironic satire,” Saved! provides
an illustration of what they deem “exaggerated satire.” This mode of satire tends to exaggerate stereotypes to the point of caricature. The result is a sort of
hyper-magnification of the specific traits the satirist
intends to ridicule, critique, or comment upon.
However, while this strategic approach differs from
the wry irony discussed above, the function is the
same: it provokes an analogous form of reflection and
evaluation of religious perceptions, biases and stereotypes, thereby providing the audience with a chance
to “re-educate” themselves or reshape their perceptions and opinions.
Saved! is set at the fictitious American Eagle High
School, an über-conservative fundamentalist Christian
school, presumably located somewhere within the
Bible belt. Outside the school a massive representation of Jesus (over 20 feet tall) stands erected with its
arms stretched out wide — ostensibly indicating the
openness and loving-kindness of the Christian community that it symbolizes. Inside the school’s main
auditorium, large placards which read “Love one
another” and “Judge not and ye shall not be judged,”
hang behind the stage.
The audience immediately encounters the narrator
and main character, Mary, as her voice seeps softly
through the opening credits. “I’ve been born again
my whole life… Accepting Jesus and getting salvation
is a big decision, especially for a 3 year old.” While
her still faceless voice speaks with conviction, the
audience is struck by this peculiar phrasing. The audience next learns that Mary’s friend Hillary Faye, the
primary subject of the film’s caricature, is the self-pro-
claimed president of “the Christian Jewels,” an elite
and exclusive clique who, even by the standards of
American Eagle, are characterized by their “righteousness” (they even don gold pins to identify themselves!). Hillary Faye’s license plate reads “JCGIRL,”
and on the opening day of classes she leads her classmates in a comically histrionic rendition of “Holy,
Holy, Holy” complete with raised hands and synchronized swaying, which eventually devolves into cultish
sounding chants of “Jesus rules! Jesus rules!”
The drama begins when Hillary Faye’s best friend
Mary — her name no doubt an allusion to the Blessed
Virgin — finds out that her “perfect Christian boyfriend” Dean is gay. A devastated Mary irately asks
God, “why has he been stricken with such a spiritually toxic affliction?” Hillary Faye remarks to Mary,
“What if you had married him? The gayness would
have been passed on to your children,” before resolving to start a “P-Circle” (prayer circle) for Dean’s “faggotry.” Mary, ironically, resolves to have sex with
Dean to restore his heterosexuality, convinced that
“You’re not born gay, you’re born again.” Of course,
Mary gets pregnant from the encounter and Dean’s
parents subsequently discover his secret and ship him
away to Mercy House, a “degayification center” that
also treats alcoholism and drug abuse. Mary is henceforth stripped of her title of “Christian Jewel” and castigated by the community (specifically by Hillary Faye).
As this brief introduction to the film illustrates,
much of the “exaggerated satire” is manifested in the
rhetoric used by Hillary Faye and other members of
the fundamentalist community. When Mary refers to
Dean’s homosexuality as a “toxic affliction” and his
parents send him to Mercy House, the film implies
that being gay is tantamount to being an alcoholic or
44
a drug addict. In another scene, Mary prays
that her pregnancy test comes back negative
and that instead her symptoms can be attributed to cancer, as if that would somehow be a
better alternative. In this way Saved! intends to
shock, confuse, and even outrage its viewers.
As I watched the scene I was incensed: Are
there really people who are this hopelessly narrow? Mary would rather have cancer than
have a child? Really?
Still, though the attitudes of Hillary Faye
and others like her may seem intolerant and
antiquated to most, they would at least be
defensible if it weren’t for the dissonance between Hillary Faye’s façade of “righteousness” and her actual behavior throughout the
film. The real satiric sting comes not, then,
from her “holier-than-thou” attitude, but
rather how secular she appears when juxtaposed with other characters in the film. Her
real crime is hypocrisy. In contrast to the compassionate posture of the oversized Jesus
whose open arms overarch American Eagle,
Hillary Faye is the first one to reject Mary
when the students learn of her pregnancy. Unlike the Jesus who she claims to represent — a
Jesus who let a prostitute bathe his feet —
Hillary Faye closes her arms to her own best
friend. In the climatic confrontation between
the two, Mary challenges Hillary Faye that
“You don’t know the first thing about love!”
Hillary Faye responds by hurling a Bible
at Mary’s head, shouting, “I am filled with
Christ’s love!”
In subsequent scenes Hillary Faye adheres
to the archetypal image of “the popular girl”
as portrayed in other secular “teen” films —
snobby, catty, and condescending. In one scene
she berates one of her “friends” for speaking
out of turn — “Do you want to go back to
being invisible girl with bad hair?” Film re viewer A.O. Scott writes that Hillary Faye is “a
kind of mean girl for Jesus” and that “a religious high school is high school just the
same.”17 In other words, while she is ostensibly a “perfect Christian,” she appears shockingly similar to her secular counterparts. If
anything, some of the secular characters seem
more “Christian” than HillaryFaye. For example, Cassandra Edelstein — the school’s only
Jew — is one of only a few characters who
remains loyal to Mary.
Cumulatively, these images illustrate the
inconsistency between fundamentalist rhetoric
about “loving thy neighbor” and the manner
in which some ultra-conservative Christian
groups actually interact with society. Many are
aware, for example, of fringe “Christian”
groups who protest the funerals of fallen soldiers and the weddings of same sex couples,
proclaiming God’s hatred for the involved individuals and predicting their everlasting damnation. While the characters in Saved! stop short
of such vitriolic proclamations, the message
within the satire is the same — namely, “how
has the message of Christ become so contorted
that his gospel is now being used for violence
and hate?” The question evokes a famous
remark by Gandhi; “I like your Christ; I do not
like your Christians. Your Christians are so
unlike your Christ.”
The visceral lesson for most audiences
might best be summarized by the concluding
conversation between Pastor Skip, the school’s
principle, and his skateboarding son Patrick
who gradually evolves to ally himself with
Mary and Cassandra.
Pastor Skip: “This is not a gray area,
Patrick. The Bible is black and white.”
Patrick: “It’s all a gray area, dad”
What Patrick conveys is that, as Scott writes,
“religious morality should be tolerant of
human fallibility and difference.”18 It is important to note that Patrick’s plea for moderation
and compassionate sensitivity does not require
an amorphous a-morality, nor does it preclude
the audience from bringing discernment to
bear upon questions concerning the Good.
Such a reaction would confuse civility with ideological agreement, and sacrifice the opportunity for robust, rigorous, and potentially transformational dialogue within society and
among various religious groups. Still, Patrick’s
insight is correct in realizing that the strictest
and most orthodox religious rhetoric risks
becoming so polarizing to the secular world
that it is rendered inaccessible and thereby
irrelevant. Christians aren’t going to get anyone Saved! by preaching a message of intolerance and living lives of self-righteous hatred.
Therefore, the film seems to say, regardless of
the intellectual or theological beliefs held by
certain religious groups, their policy for interacting with secularists and members of other
Saved! intends to shock,
confuse, and even outrage
its viewers. As I watched
the scene I was incensed:
Are there really people
who are this hopelessly
narrow? Mary would
rather have cancer than
have a child? Really?
17 A.O. Scott, “In a Teenage Movie, a Religious High School is High School Just the Same,” New York
Times, 28 May 2004, E13.
18 Ibid.
45
faiths must be dictated by values such as temperance, love, and a willingness to engage with
civility in interfaith dialogues.
Regardless of the intellectual or theological beliefs held by
certain religious groups, their policy for interacting with secularists and members of other faiths must be dictated by values
such as temperance, love, and a willingness to engage
with civility in interfaith dialogues.
Like the dangers associated with ironic
satire, however, one must also be wary that
exaggerated caricature, in an attempt to draw
attention to the ridiculous, may lose some of its
integrity in portraying a subject accurately. As
Bridgman notes, “no one can be satisfied by
generalizations on such a large subject.”19
Likewise, Elisha McIntyre notes that religious
satire has a “tendency to see religious as synonymous with fundamentalist.”20 Of course,
the two terms are not synonymous and there
are many Christian groups — and Jewish
groups, and Muslim groups — who value interpersonal and interfaith relations above exclusive and dogmatic interpretations of doctrine.
In fact, most religious people are less concerned with orthodox teachings than they are
with living out the broader values that these
19 Bridgman, “Satire’s Changing Target,” 85.
46
20 McIntyre, “Can True Love Wait?”
creeds point to — such things as love, generosity, humility, acceptance, forgiveness, and charity. These qualities, which are widely practiced
among adherents of all the world’s principle
religions, tend not to be conspicuous or ostentatious in their application. It is the extremists
who often skew our understanding and perception of religious groups. While there certainly are Hillary Faye’s flinging Bibles out
there somewhere on the fringe, most Christians don’t bomb abortion clinics, and most
Muslims don’t detonate explosives in their
undergarments.
The Trick Mirror — How Satire Helps Us
See Things Anew
Two conclusions emerge from these examinations of religious satire in film. First, satire
does allow our culture to approach the taboo
more candidly. Cohen’s backwards humor and
the caricatures of Hillary Faye seamlessly draw
audiences into dialogues which otherwise remain culturally “sticky.” It’s difficult to reflect
on our cultural prejudices or the nature of our
strict religious dogmas, but these films encourage deliberation on these themes in ways
a less disarming cultural pulpit could not.
Second, however, intentionally using inflammatory rhetoric of prejudice tends to entrench
and harden opposing opinions and offend
those who might not understand the use of
satire as a tool. Exaggerated caricatures may
lead to misrepresentations of, and misconceptions about, certain religious groups. These
caricatures may ultimately result in propagating ignorance of their own, as well as offend
the adherents of those sects.
But maybe that’s exactly the point: If satire
is indeed intended to be the The Offensive Art,
as Leonard Freedman christened it, then perhaps offending is exactly what makes it so
effective. Perhaps the offensive element of satire is in fact the element that allows satire to
bypass the formalities of political correctness.
Perhaps the offensive element provides a sort
of grandiose misdirection — while the audience
fixates on the outrageousness of the satire, the
author’s pointed arguments are casually brought
into focus, and the taboo is seamlessly integrated into the discussion. Sure, there will be casualties among those who can’t see past the
offending blows, but the result for the majority is a unique sort of reflection that only satire
can foster. Satire, like traditional film, holds
a “mirror” up to our culture, but the image
which satire provides is unique. Satire’s reflection resembles that of a trick-mirror. Yes, it
reflects an image of our culture, our ideas, our
perceptions, prejudices, beliefs and biases; but
it does so in a refracted fashion. The trick mirror admittedly distorts certain elements, uses
light to create illusions, and renders an image
with parts disproportionately sized and not
entirely believable. But by virtue of the distortion, wrinkles and blemishes that would otherwise escape scrutiny are brought into disturbing prominence. Satire thus provides us an
opportunity, provided we can exercise the requisite discernment, to see ourselves with greater
objectivity and transparency. And satire’s trickmirrors retain one particularly redeeming feature: if we don’t like the reflected image, we
can change it by simply moving into a different
posture. Bibliography
Anti-Defamation League. Statement On The
Comedy Of Sacha Baron Cohen, A.K.A. “Borat,”
28 September 2006, available from http://www.
adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4898_00.htm; accessed
August 8, 2010.
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make
Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Dir.
Larry Charles. With Sacha Baron Cohen and Ken
Davitian. 20th Century Fox, 2006.
Bridgman, Richard. “Satire’s Changing Target.”
College Composition and Communication 16.2
(1965): 85-89. http://jstor.org. Web. 29 Mar. 2010.
Cowan, Douglas E. “South Park, Ridicule, and the
Cultural Construction of Religious Rivalry.”
Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 10
(2005), n.p. http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/. Web.
29 Mar. 2010.
Freedman, Leonard. The Offensive Art: Political
Satire and its Censorship around the world from
Beerbohm to Borat. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers, 2009.
Hamner, Everett. “Damning Fundamentalism:
Sinclair Lewis and the Trials of Fiction.” Modern
Fiction Studies 55.2 (2009): 265-289.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_
studies/toc/mfs.55.2.html. Web. 29 Mar. 2010.
The trick mirror admittedly distorts certain elements, uses light to create
illusions, and renders an
Low, Bronwen, and David Smith. “Borat and the
Problem of Parody.” Taboo 11 (Spring-Summer
2007): 27-38.
image with parts dispro-
McIntyre, Elisha. “Can True Love Wait? Christian
Morality Meets Adolescent Sexuality in Teen
Film.” The Eternal Sunshine of the Academic
Mind (2005): 65-72.
entirely believable. But by
McMorris, Christine M. “Borat’s Religious
Provocations.” Religion in the News (Winter
2007): 19-21.
Religulous. Dir. Larry Charles. Perf. Bill Maher,
Steve Burg, Francis Collins. Lions Gate, 2008.
DVD.
Saved! Dir. Brian Dannelly. Perf. Mandy Moore.
MGM, 2004. DVD.
Scott, A.O. “In a Teenage Movie, a Religious High
School is High School Just the Same.” New York
Times, 28 May 2004: E13.
portionately sized and not
virtue of the distortion,
wrinkles and blemishes
that would otherwise
escape scrutiny are
brought into disturbing
prominence.
Swift, Jonathan. “A Modest Proposal.” In A Modest
Proposal and Other Writings, Penguin Classics.
London: Penguin Classics, 2009.
Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,
Puffin Classics. New York: Puffin, 1995.
Voltaire. Candide, or Optimism, Penguin Classics.
London: Penguin Classics, 2006.
47