That, friends, is justice. So, too, will be the ultimate disposition of this film: unlike Charlie Chaplin's films, which still have audiences because of his immediately recognizeable humanity, this empty laff-riot will rather quickly fall into the "what were we thinking?" category of comedies, not unlike the endless parade of Adam Sandler masterpieces.

(You can debate the ethics of what the producers did as a separate matter, I suppose.)

The law does not protect a person from stupidity. Stupid to sign a release form without understanding the terms, and even more stupid to act (on camera) as a fool, even while being duped. "I thought he was real" does not excuse the way one acts around Borat, it only makes one's actions more revealing.

I suppose one could make an ethical argument that filming a person under misleading pretenses, no matter what it reveals (comedic or sad), is reprehensible.

But I suppose you'll then have to go after Alan Fundt and Candid Camera, too.

A friend of mine works for a film marketing company, and it is largely her job to see that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed in the legal realm. What I have learned from her experience is that a great deal of the contractual obligations of film production is done essentially on a handshake and often little more. This suffices in most cases (though her firm in fact requires more), but

1) film production companies are often naive regarding (but nonetheless legally culpable for) the actions of their directors and writers.
2) ensuring that the backers aren't on the hook for some kind of misrepresentation is not as easy as it sounds.

That's interesting (and actually, rather refreshing). I work in TV, and for the networks I deal with, it's the exact opposite: releases of every sort are insisted upon before footage being edited, and copies of all releases (categorized, alphabetized, etc) are delivered to the client with the final master tapes.

My guess is that HBO wouldn't allow any sort of fast-and-loose "just a handshake" deals on "The Ali G Show" and I can't imagine them not following similar procedures on this... especially given the nature of the production. But, of course, remarkably stupid things are done all the time by studios, production companies, and producers, so I guess we'll just have to see how it all pans out.

isn't that what the movie was? does the fact that he is playing a character change that?

it is quite possible and even probable that i am missing something here.

that said, i think the movie was hilarious and offensive... which is exactly what it aimed for. they weren't out to make a "citizen kane" or anything.

like most films, you might like it, or you might not. i'll leave the legal matters to those who are more knowledgable on such matters.

Seriously though, it's not like he made them look bad in the editing booth, these were all real conversations he had with people and their responses. Whether they thought they'd be laughed at on the big screen is their own problem. Either way, I could care less about the lawsuits, this was a truly funny movie that is a landmark in cinema. The only way its reputation can be tarnished is if a bunch of people start copying the idea and making the original look passe.

... that was a documentary made for overseas markets.

12 - Geez, what crawled up your butt?

I guess fraud is funny in your book. Who among us has nothing we might be embarrassed to admit to in public? It says more about how antisocial our so-called comedians have become -- and how low the national taste (though I defer to Mencken on that score) -- than it does about some of his victims.

7 No, the Jewish B&B owners did not come across as stupid, nor did I think that they came across as anything other than gracious hosts.

Incidentally, so did the dinner party host, the one who is suing the film. The lengths she went to be culturally tolerant (until Borat really crossed the line), were extraordinary, and I think she came across as really patient and kind. I think my point was more aimed at the implications that there were people in the film who, more than being duped, were somehow humiliated or injured in the process.

And some people did come across looking very bad: the rodeo manager and the fraternity boys, mostly. So my point is: I don't think that having them sign a waiver and putting a camera in their face is inducement for them to act as they did, nor does it injure them. If they didn't want to look that way on film, it was stupid to act that way in front of a camera.

13 Fraud: "intentional deception resulting in injury to another person". Where's the injury? I cringed a bit in the antique shop, since it looked like the shop owner sustained an injury of sorts. I also felt bad for the convention-goers who had to see Borat and Azamat's wrestling match.

But mostly, it seemed a pastiche of parody and harmless, offensive fun.

If for example someone had an embarassing birth defect or they were uncomfortable about their weight and then a TV producer had him or her show this characteristic to a national audience under the pretense that a) they would recieve free medical help and b) no one would see it and furthermore they were held up to ridicule- then I could you reacting in the way you have. Many people have pranks pulled on them, but the only people who come off really badly only do so because they are really bad people. One of those people actually isn't suing because he doesn't think he said anything all that bad and basically agrees with his portrayal (as someone who wants to kill all homosexuals).

In the end I think you sound like a person protesting Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ without seeing them. If you haven't seen the movie how can you be sure that "fraud" has taken place? If I was in the movie I would certainly be tempted to sue just because maybe there will be a big payday at the end of the rainbow... but I hope there isn't.