The artistic career of Sacha Baron Cohen has almost always unfolded under the banner of satire and extreme provocation. His characters – Ali G., Bruno and Borat – have always been at the center of controversy, especially from those who found themselves as the targets of these elaborate pranks, facing individuals who, despite the evident absurdities, believed them to be real. And among the victims, let us remember, there is also Donald Trump. The actor has never limited himself; indeed, he has always sought the big target, often crossing the boundaries of good taste and decency, bringing to light, through the contrast that emerged, the hypocrisies of the so‑called decent people and, above all, of the powerful (since Cohen’s characters pushed to the extreme the “principles” proclaimed by these people). Now he has revived, after 24 years, the first of these incarnations, the fake rapper Ali G., and announced the October release of the film Ali G. Who Iz I? Let the heavens open! After all, we are in the era of political correctness and there are immediately calls for boycott, based, moreover, solely on the trailer that you can find below.
37,000 mail di protesta contro Ali G. Who Iz I?
Ali G. Who Iz I? is a mockumentary, in which the rapper, seeking a relaunch of his career, is followed by cameras as he meets and puts various people in difficulty. NewsCord, a British site that monitors with universal intelligence the potential spread of controversial content, launched a boycott campaign against the film on the grounds of its supposed racism. They received as many as 37,000 responses, with people writing emails to cinema chains asking not to distribute it. The reason: “English black comedians have defined the character as ‘an alibi for racism in the 2000s’ (it seems there was really only one comedian, editor’s note). The writer Jeanette Winterson asked what distinguishes him from the Blackface Minstrels: Kazakh and Arab organizations have documented the harm of the list (we assume stereotypes, editor’s note) that it hides. The English Sony Pictures promotes it with the line ‘He’s back. We’re not responsible.’ The cinemas belong to chains and showing them is a choice.” But that’s not all: in the usual way, swapping the parody of a white rapper trying to pass himself off as black, born 24 years ago, the English writer
Then, as Hollywood Reporter rightly points out, what in this case escapes the author is precisely the sense of the character: it is a parody, Ali G. must come across as ridiculous. He is a white English man who does not realize how embarrassing his attempts at cultural appropriation are, while those who deal with him do not know how to behave toward him. One can obviously discuss whether the character is now outdated and whether the film comes too late compared to the first one, but that does not make it offensive per se. The person directly involved, anyway, had already anticipated these reactions, having written, presenting the poster on X, “In an era when a comedian’s career can be crushed by a single non‑politically correct joke, I decided to play it safe and bring this guy back into the spotlight.”
The response from the Danish cinema chain NFBIO
For the moment, however, none of the cinemas contacted have replied to the boycott request, and NewsCord has published an email from the Danish cinema chain NFBIO which, in our view, expresses better than any other statement what is meant by freedom of speech and choice:
We understand very well that Sacha Baron Cohen’s satire and his methods and characters have sparked discussions over the years and that a figure like Ali G. can be perceived as offensive, problematic, or provocative by a single individual. As cinema, however, it is a fundamental principle for us to present a broad and diverse program of films. Cinema is an art form that ranges from mass entertainment to sharp and controversial satire. Cinema is a space for many different kinds of films, and here one will inevitably encounter works that provoke, challenge, or repel. We do not consider it our duty as cinema to practice censorship or to refuse films that are legally distributed and directed to an adult audience, based on discussions about their moral or satirical justification. Here, Sacha Baron Cohen is precisely an artist who divides opinions: where some see every limit crossed, others see a form of satire in which no one is spared. Still, we see no reason to refuse his film, just as we do not refuse other films that some individuals or groups might think we should not show. We trust that our audience is capable of navigating on their own and making an informed choice about which film they want to see or reject.
Comments