Borat

Jak sie masz?

Borat is glorious moviefilm about Kazakh journalist names Borat Sagdiyev who travel America for make cultural learnings to benefit nation of Kazakhstan.

Throughout the film Borat breaks most social rules known and even a few that aren’t none until they are broken. These actions can be considered offensive but are in most cases a critique on contemporary culture (him breaking all the stuff in the antique shop would be an example of him just being a jack-ass, no real social commentary there).

One such example of contemporary culture that he critiques is that of the Church. His attendance at an old fashioned Pentecostal revival aside an interesting encounter takes place at the stately home of a southerner who had the misfortune of inviting Borat over to dinner. In attendance at the dinner are Borat, the host couple, a pastor, his wife and another couple. The formal dinner goes well enough until Borat’s guest arrives. She is a short, plump, 40-ish, African American prostitute. Borat ushers her into the living room only to be escorted out of the house despite his protests of, “What about dessert?” (you hear someone say “I’ve called the Sheriff” in the background).

This scene struck me for two reasons.

First, a pastor was one of the people that ushered Borat out of the house. Wasn’t it Jesus that dined with prostitutes much to the chagrin of his Pharisaical hosts (check out the second half of Luke 7). Granted I cannot say that I would not have reacted the same way but it is too bad that we have embraced the social norms of this world so much that we do not react the way Jesus did.

Second, Borat and Luenell leave the fancy dinner and enjoy a wonderful evening together. They go out, they dance, they ride a mechanical bull, at the end of the night, Borat politely walks her to the front door, and they each go home to their own bed. He does not have sex with her and yet they still enjoyed the evening together. Again granted that she is actually an actor and not a prostitute but they really pulled it off in the house and I don’t think the reality or un-reality of her profession changes the story Borat is telling.

Borat dined with radical guests and affirmed the intrinsic value of a human despite their position in society, sounds pretty Christ-like to me. Please also observe the difference between being Christ-like and being a Christ figure, in the first it is a description of actions and in the second those actions lead towards a larger goal which I do not see Borat having.

Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond tells the story of Solomon, a local fisherman from Sierra Leone, and Archer, a white Rhodesian diamond smuggler, and the enormous pink diamond that is their ticket out of the civil war of the 90’s. With its fair share of Rebels, smugglers and violence the film portrays the struggles of an African country in the midst of a bloody conflict. It also does an excellent job of contrasting the conditions in which diamonds are harvested and the world in which they are enjoyed.

The first thing to realize in such a discussion is that each society or culture experiences and interprets suffering differently.

For example one of the subplots of the film is the political and humanitarian struggle to reduce the amount of “conflict” diamonds that are sold around the world to fund violence and oppression. This could be considered the “Western” approach. In it there is a direct link to the money the Rebels receive from diamonds and their ability to purchase arms and fund rebellion, therefore by cutting off the flow of money you also stop the conflict. The shortcomings to this line of argumentation are voiced in the movie when people talk about how “First it was slaves, then it was oil and now it is diamonds”, the exploitation of Africa’s resources is not tied to a single resource but rather the way in which all of its resources are viewed by all parties involved.

In contrast to this the “African” view can be understood by a line that is repeated several times throughout the film, “T.I.A.”. This Is Africa. Or in other words, whatever we have or whatever we do does not mean a thing because this is Africa and people will always be exploited and therefore suffering is not something we have the luxury of living without.

So we have two responses to suffering: the first a rational solution to the problems of Africa, the second a lived response to violence and oppression. One might just site this as an example of how two different cultures view suffering but I want more out of it than a simple both/and. I want to hold the two in tension and I think I can do that when I view the situation in light of Jesus’ ministry and His suffering. In His ministry He came to heal the sick and proclaim justice to the oppressed and yet at the same time these things were not fulfilled without His painful crucifixion. If we only have the ministry than Jesus is a good teacher. If we only have the crucifixion than He is a Martyr. Only when we have both is Jesus the Son of God. In this way Jesus response to and experience of suffering can act like a bridge in situations such as these.