i hate having to defend mediocre movies from off-base criticisms, but here i am again. several months ago i expressed some of the reasons why i think new yorker film critic david denby is a really miserable cultural critic.

now i will make a similar argument regarding george saunders based on his recent contribution to the new yorker (let me know when this link changes). after reading this article, two things are immediatle apparent: (1) it's not at all funny and (2) saunders appears to be extremely offended by the new borat movie.

aside:
i thought the movie was ok... nothing new or surprising if you've seen a few episodes of da ali g show. actually, what makes the tv show work better (from my perspective) is that it is split between cohen's three uniquely funny characters.

it's hard for me to understand how this movie could be at all offensive to someone with saunders' credentials and faux-humanitarian sympathies. what i get from the new yorker article: saunders doesn't like it that cohen made fun of eastern european chauvanism, insanity in the name of god, and middle-class white americans; instead he thinks that blacks and gays would have been better targets. (although he appears to share borat's pam anderson fetish.) wtf? this is really new yorker quality writing?

i could write about why i think it's much funnier to harass politically and socially dominant groups rather than using 'racial slurs' to offend ethnic groups that have been oppressed for centuries (as suggested by saunders), but i will try to get my point across by proposing that saunders would truly enjoy the comedic stylings of michael richards (account needed)...?