Borat and Barbarism

I haven't yet seen the blockbuster Borat film.
Baron Cohen is a very funny man, and I have been anxious to get a glimpse at his fearless, ingenious mockery of political correctness (appearing at his premiere on a cart being pulled by peasant women, for instance, is hilarious). However, I was given reason to pause a day or two ago when I read a column by Andrew Bolt - a local conservative who makes a living by outraging liberal thinkers - that outlined several reasons Borat's whole premise is on shaky artistic and ethical ground.
Essentially, after seeing and researching some of the background to the film, he thinks Baron Cohen's use of deceit and his eagerness to exploit the goodwill of (real) unsuspecting Americans (in some cases causing them very public embarrassment or ruining their small businesses) in order to make money by releasing the footage in a film is not only base, it should not be applauded as clever satire. While acknowledging the film's intent to expose prejudice and roast political correctness, Bolt insists that Borat's tastelessness is more a justified encouragement of barbarism than ironic social comment.

Though I'm not necessarily a supporter of Bolt's ideas all of this has forced me to stop and think about my notions of artistic integrity. Is it really legitimate to make art (and money) at the expense of others? Is there any real difference between Borat's brand of humiliation humour and the homemade DVD I mentioned in an earlier post that showed a young girl, who was baited into meeting some teenage boys, being stripped and then sexually and physically abused? Perhaps in degree, but is it any different in kind?
Does the artist have any responsibilities to society?

Read Bolt's article.