[Warning: Further Borat movie spoilers lie ahead.] Some of those "How'd they do that?" tricks up the sleeves of the crafty team responsible for making the Borat movie have already been revealed, including, "How'd they get those Polaroids of our hero within spitting distance of his supposed teenage son's sprouting chram?" (Answer: Hire a dark, twinky-looking gay porn star), and "How'd they get Pamela Anderson to give a semi-convincing performance?" (Answer: Actually, we still have no idea). The small matter persists, however, of that RV full of wasted, University of South Carolina frat boys, and just how their loudly voiced philosophical alignments with the faux-Kazakh on subjects such as women, Jews, and the lamentable abolition of legal slavery managed to make their way into the final cut. Now, an anonymously filed lawsuit seems to reveal, at least in part, yet more behind-the-scenes Borat movie magic:
The plaintiffs — listed as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 — were allegedly assured the film would not be shown in the U.S. and their identities would not be revealed.
They were both selected to appear in the movie and, according to the suit, taken "to a drinking establishment 'to loosen up' and provided alcoholic beverages." They claim they signed the movie releases after "heavy drinking."
The suit claims both men were then taken to a motor home where they were filmed, all the while "encouraged to continue drinking."
The plaintiffs claim they suffered "humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community..." because the movie was indeed released in the U.S.
The suit asks for unspecified damages.
Attaching a solid number to the anguish and distress the film's collegiate stars will be forced to endure in the coming months, years, and, in all probability, decades is a difficult proposition: How does one really put a price on, say, the prospect of relinquishing all hope of ever being invited to single Passover seder ever again, or, for that matter, getting laid by a girl? Still, while a Los Angeles judge might be unswayed by the suit, the plaintiffs' sad story of an alcohol-induced anti-Semitic tirade rendered humiliatingly public could manage to play the heartstrings of an anonymous and greatly sympathetic benefactor, who might pluck John Does 1 and 2 from obscurity and give them development jobs at the offices of a Santa Monica-based production company.