Borat Tame Compared To "Brüno"

In Sacha Baron Cohen's next film (release scheduled July 10), Cohen/Brüno adopts a baby and names him "a traditional African name -- OJ."

We should start seeing lawsuits enjoining the film's release now that trailers are being aired. ...Read more

Chaos Continues in "Brüno" - TRAILER

The next installment of Sacha Baron Cohen/Borat's filmography, currently referred to "Brüno," debuts July 10. In the trailer, the film is described as "lavatorial."

via videosift.com ...Read more

Visit Borat's well-designed official website. It contains a link to "cast and crew." The only three names listed are:

Sacha Baron Cohen

Ken Davitian

Pamela Anderson

It's probably fair to say that many of the unwitting participants would object to being referred to as "cast" members. It's also fair to expect that some of them might be pleased to have been named. Would they have a right to demand recognition? ...Read more

Appeal of "Dinner Party"/Etiquette Plaintiffs

Filed February 20, 2009 in the Second Circuit of Appeals by New York attorney Adam Richards.

Analysis to follow. ...Read more

Appeal of Driver's Ed Plaintiff

Filed February 20, 2009, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by New York attorneys Peter Levine and Diane Krausz.

Responding Brief of Defendants/Appellees Borat and Twentieth Century Fox expected April 10, 2009. ...Read more

Borat's "Mankini:" Available For Purchase At Cannes and Amazon

Borat's "Mankini:" Available For Purchase At Cannes and Amazon. ...Read more

Borat's Back -- As "Bruno"

Sacha Baron Cohen will repeat the Borat formula by bringing another of his TV personalities, "Bruno" to the big screen. The film is due for release July 10 of this year.

Bruno's goal is "to be the most famous Austrian since Hitler."

MTV deems the Bruno film "squirm-worthy" and suggests that it makes the Borat film "look like child's play."

Fans attending the South by Southwest Film Festival in Texas watched the flamboyantly gay Austrian storm Milan fashion week. Ron Paul is also caught in Bruno's web. In the film, Ron Paul is duped into appearing with Bruno in a dark hotel room in what is sure to be a controversial scene.

For a sneak peak at the new film, showing how Cohen succeeds in pranking yet more college kids, see preview of "Bruno." ...Read more

NY Case No. 1: Complaint of Running Man

Lemerond v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 2008 WL 918579, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1219 (S.D.N.Y.)(dismissed March 31, 2008)(Preska, J.)

...Read more

Running Man Complaint - Analysis

A man filmed without his consent asks the court,

“Are there really no limits on Borat’s ability to pluck otherwise anonymous citizens out of a crowd and subject them to public ridicule for profit in the name of the ‘public interest’?”

(See Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, left). In his complaint -- see .pdf file above -- Plaintiff sued for damages and to prevent further distribution of the film, citing New York’s Civil Rights Law § 51, which prohibits the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name, portrait, picture. In the trailers for the film, Plaintiff's face was scrambled, but when the film aired, any pixellation was removed.

The 13-second "running man" scene shows Borat as he approaches Plaintiff on a Manhattan street corner, extends his hand, and says, "Hello, nice to meet you. I’m new in town. My name a Borat [sic]." Plaintiff runs away in apparent terror, screaming "Get away!" and "What are you doing?"
...Read more

Dismissal of Running Man Complaint

Lemerond v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 2008 WL 918579, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1219 (S.D.N.Y.)(dismissed March 31, 2008)(Preska, J.)

...Read more

Analysis of Running Man Dismissal

(Held, “bizarre and offensive” behavior is a matter of public interest)

The federal judge granting dismissal -- see .pdf file above -- ruled that the film was not a “commercial” use because of its “newsworthiness,” broadly defined as including “social trends or any subject of public interest.” She also noted, “what is one man’s amusement, teaches another’s doctrine.”

She referred to the 13-second scene in which the plaintiff runs in apparent terror as the "culmination" of a series of scenes in which New Yorkers express understandable revulsion and surprise at Borat’s antics, which include washing his over-sized underpants in Central Park, and relieving himself (No. 2) outside of the Trump building. ...Read more

Borat Serves A "Public Interest"?!

Acknowledging that the movie’s brand of humor “appeals to the most childish and vulgar in its viewers,” Federal District Court Judge Preska elaborated upon the “teachings” of Borat:

"At its core, however, Borat attempts an ironic commentary of ‘modern’ American culture,

contrasting the backwardness of its protagonist with the social ills [that] afflict supposedly sophisticated society. The movie challenges its viewers to confront, not only the bizarre and offensive Borat character himself, but the equally bizarre and offensive reactions he elicits from ‘average’ Americans. Indeed, its message lies in that juxtaposition and the implicit accusation that ‘the time will come when it will disgust you to look in a mirror.’ Such clearly falls within the wide scope of what New York courts have held to be a matter of public interest."

Bizarre and Offensive Behavior Goes Two Ways.

Judge Preska, in her opinion, went so far as invoking the film’s contribution to our philosophical notion of “otherness.” She implicitly answered plaintiff’s question about the limitations on Borat’s unauthorized use of private persons: So long as the challenged use advances the film’s theme – i.e., that Borat’s behavior is no more “bizarre and offensive” than our own reaction, the use serves a public interest that trumps our privacy and publicity rights. Plaintiff allegedly suffered public ridicule, degradation and humiliation after he was filmed “fleeing in apparent terror, screaming for Mr. Cohen to ‘go away.’ ” Plaintiff, however, did not justify his extreme reaction upon being approached by Borat, and Judge Preska pointedly noted that it was unwarranted (“without further provocation”). Based on this opinion, the odder our reactions to Borat’s provocations, the more the balance of interests weighs against our individual privacy rights and in favor of the rights of media producers to expose us. ...Read more

New York Case No. 2A: Driver's Ed Complaint

In his complaint, Michael Psenicska, a high school mathematics teacher and driving school instructor, alleged that he was tricked into agreeing to the use of his image in a largely unscripted scene in which the plaintiff attempts to give Borat a driving lesson, with hilarious—although obnoxious -- results.

Unlike Lemerond, Psenicska did not demand injunctive relief to prevent further distribution of the film, or claim humiliation. Instead, he claimed that the paltry $500 paid to him pursuant to his contract with the defendants was insufficient because he had been “set up.” Psenicska claimed $100,000 in damages. The basis of his lawsuit was his allegation that he was fraudulently induced to sign the contract after defendants misrepresented to him that he would be participating in a legitimate documentary about “the integration of foreign people into the American way of life.” ...Read more

New York Case No. 2B: Borat Comes To Dinner

The driver's ed case, above, was consolidated with two other cases, both of which involved Alabama etiquette teachers who had agreed to give lessons to Borat. Borat was allegedly represented to them as “a Belarus dignitary” needing etiquette and dining skills training.

The lessons were allegedly to be filmed for a National Geographic-style educational documentary for Belarus television, the purpose of which was to teach “cultural diversity and to learn about Southern traditional values and Southern-style living.” In exchange for pay, plaintiffs shared their Southern hospitality in a filmed dinner at a plaintiff’s home. As always in the film, a seemingly ordinary event degenerates into a hilariously offensive fiasco, including a scene in which Borat hands the plaintiff a bag of feces.

When the plaintiff gently accompanies Borat and his bag to the toilet to instruct him in polite bathroom behavior, Borat suggests that her hostess’ duties include “wiping” him. The plaintiffs not only suffered the alleged humiliation of being tricked into appearing in a R-rated film “celebrating racism, child pornography, sexism,, nudity, anti-Semitism and vulgarity.”

Plaintiffs claimed that by manipulative editing, they were made to appear racially insensitive. For example, the dinner scene was preceded by an establishment shot of a street sign, suggesting that the dinner was taking place at a fictional “Secession Drive.”

Moreover, the dinner scene culminated in an appearance by Borat's dinner date, Luenell Campbell, an American comedienne and one of the few actors in the film. Borat introduces Luenell as "a prostitute." The film was allegedly edited to show plaintiffs quickly escorting Borat and the African American Luenell out the door, which plaintiffs said was far from what actually occurred. Instead, the hostess claimed that she took aside Ms. Campbell to let her know that they were all victims of Borat's practical joke. ...Read more

Analysis of The Disputed Agreement

Unlike Lemerond (Running Man), Psenicska (Driver's Ed), Streit, Martin and the other Dinner Party plaintiffs had all signed a release, a version of which is posted at left.

On writ proceeding, the Alabama court required the Dinner Party plaintiffs to litigate in New York pursuant to the agreement's forum selection clause.

Both the Driver's Ed and the Dinner Party plaintiffs have appealed the New York Federal District Court's dismissal on the pleadings, arguing that the release was a) ambiguous and b) procured by fraud.
...Read more

Other Contract Litigants

Romanian villagers also brought suit in New York, claiming that they were tricked into signing the releases and that the film was defamatory and incited antiziganism (hostility to Roma or Sinti people, often referred to as "gypsies").

Judge Preska required the plaintiffs to better plead their complaint, which the plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed. ...Read more

Dismissal of Driver's Ed/Etiquette Teachers Lawsuits

Psenicska v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et al., Streit v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et al.; Martin v. Charles, et al. (2008 WL 4185752)(S.D.N.Y. dismissed September 3, 2008) (appeal pending) (Judge Preska)

...Read more

Freedom to Defraud?!

The early dismissal is dependent on the court's upholding of some pretty egregious fraud allegations, based on the alleged written disclosure of those very frauds, and the presence of a merger clause. Does this ruling mean that New York law permits a contract defendant to avoid fraud claims merely by disclaiming in writing the very fraud that defendant has committed?

Both the Driver's Ed Plaintiff and the Etiquette Plaintiffs have filed appeals to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. ...Read more

If No Evidence Suggests Plaintiffs Are Racist

...Is It Still Public Interest To Make Them Appear To Be So?

The site of the dinner fiasco, Alabama's Magnolia Springs Manor, is not located on "Secession Drive" -- That was an invention of the producers.

In the name of "public interest," is a producer free to edit a scene in which a person's image appears to show the person apparently behaving badly or without explanation, when in fact, omitted footage explains or justifies the behavior? Perhaps the ruling will be limited to situations where plaintiffs have thrust themselves into the public eye by agreeing to be filmed. ...Read more

Frat Boys Complaint

Doe 1 et al. v. One America Productions, et al., No. SC091723 (Cal. Super. Ct. dismissed Feb. 16, 2007) (Judge Biderman)

...Read more

Analysis of Anti-SLAPP Motion of Borat

Analysis coming soon. ...Read more

Dismissal of Frat Boys' Complaint

Doe 1 et al. v. One America Productions, et al., No. SC091723 (Cal. Super. Ct. dismissed Feb. 16, 2007)

More Analysis coming soon. ...Read more

Dismissal of Rodeo Doe's Complaint

Doe 3 v. One America Productions, et al., No. SC092103 (Cal. Super. Ct., dismissed June 21, 2007) (Judge Biderman)

...Read more

Analysis of Rodeo Doe Complaint and Dismissal

Man With Cap Brings Lawsuit. ...Read more

What is Borat?

Borat is the title character of the mockumentary, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” Cohen’s work in the film was recognized with a Golden Globe (“Best Actor in a Comedy or Drama”). In the film, Borat portrays a fictional Kazakh reporter making a documentary about American culture for the fictional Kazakhstan Ministry of Information. Believing the fiction, chaos ensues when ordinary Americans are duped into portraying themselves on the film in an unflattering light. The ad-lib film, made for only $18 million, was originally expected to flop. Instead, the film earned $260M at the box office and picked up a 2007 Oscar nomination for “best adapted screenplay.” ...Read more