Sacha Baron Cohen and the lost accent.

Sacha Baron Cohen, as most of you probably know, is an Englishman, who bills himself as a writer, comedian and actor. Now, I have reason to question one of those billings, as anyone with an attentive ear, would have.

Last night, I saw Sacha Baron Cohen on the Conan O'Brien show. Amazingly, we actually get this show in Singapore, on one of the many cable channels available. It is quite fun to watch since Conan O'Brien manages to entice a wide variety of interesting people on to his show. Not all of them are A listers, but many of them are, perhaps, more interesting because they are not. Sometimes, it is good to watch people who are less famous and less familiar, since they may bring something new.

Sacha Baron Cohen appeared, last night, as Bruno. He was introduced as Bruno and interviewed as Bruno. He arrived wearing silver trousers and a dark sleeveless top. He was, as expected, rather camp. Sacha Baron Cohen, as Bruno, proceeded to "act" in character, throughout. He made jokes and observations as Bruno. He interacted as Bruno. He pretended to an attraction to Conan O'Brien, as Bruno. This was all very well, if not very convincing. At no time, for instance, could anyone watching Sacha Baron Cohen, as Bruno, conceive the understanding that this was a "real" person. He didn't come across as a real person, at all. He came across as a rather overdone caricature of a gay man, given to an excess of flamboyance. This, in itself, was rather disappointing, since I had understood that the whole point of Sacha Baron Cohen's work was to fool people into believing that his creations were real, so as to secure, from them, reactions to this supposed reality. That, however, was not what was happening on the Conan O'Brien show. What was happening was that an Englishman of rather limited acting ability was attempting to portray what he thought to be an over the top gay Austrian.

Now, why do I say "rather limited acting ability"...well, quite simply because at no time was he able to create a coherent reality for this character, Bruno. The actions of the character were not done convincingly, in any way. In fact, they came across as a painting of a gay man "by numbers"...meaning he was going through a routine: "now I do this, then I say this, then I do that..."...it just felt lifeless, like a man going through empty motions, that had no meaning for him. The actions did not seem motivated by any genuine inner drive, at all. This was not a gay man expressing himself, rather loudly, on a tv chat show. It was an Englishman giving a very slipshod caricature of his idea of a gay man, in such a way that none of the individual actions were convincing and the whole just did not hold together, in the least.

I was very disappointed, since, after all the hype surrounding this man (Sacha Baron Cohen)...I rather expected a higher degree of acting skill.

Now, I must come to the real failing of Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal of Bruno: the accent. Bruno is supposed to be a young gay AUSTRIAN man...and so, presumably, he is supposed to speak with an Austrian accent. Yet, that is not what I heard, last night, on the Conan O'Brien show. The accent was only very occasionally remotely akin to an Austrian's. Most of the time, Bruno - an "Austrian" - spoke with an upper crust ENGLISH accent. His accent kept slipping in and out of a well spoken English accent. Presumably, given his Cambridge University background, that well spoken English accent is, in fact, Sacha Baron Cohen's own. When his accent wasn't clearly an English one, it was most often not an Austrian one, either: it was a confused mix of many influences that just didn't convince one that it was from anywhere in particular.

A talent for accents is not universal among actors. However, almost all actors are able to be consistent with the voice that they use, for a role. Sacha Baron Cohen's biggest failing was not that he can't do an Austrian accent (he can't...he really can't), but that he can't keep his accent consistent. Every few words, he would slip into a different accent. His voice was just all over the place.

The fact is, that if Sacha Baron Cohen's performance on Conan O'Brien had been an audition for any acting job, there has ever been, in the history of acting, he would NOT have got the job. His performance was simply too poor, too amateurish, too hammy and just plain unfunny to persuade any casting director, or director, at any level, to give him a job. The funny thing is, of course, that Sacha Baron Cohen has a job...Bruno. He is just not doing it very well. In fact, he is doing it very badly.

The most embarrassing thing about the Conan O'Brien show, for Sacha Baron Cohen, was that he was followed, on the show, by a real actor. By this I mean that the actor could actually act. The difference between them was stark. He was an English actor from True Blood, a show presently popular in the US. He did something that made Bruno look excruciatingly bad: he used accents, perfectly. He slipped from a standard English accent, to a Cockney, to a Somerset accent, to a Deep Southern accent from the US...all in moments. Each accent was absolutely convincing, stable, didn't drift, was perfectly accurate in its rendition and seemed to be accompanied by a character, too. The voices were different, interesting and truthful. There was just one thing he could have done to make Bruno look even worse: an Austrian accent. Thankfully, for Sacha Baron Cohen, he didn't do that...though, if he had been mischievous, he could and should have done.

I think the problem with Sacha Baron Cohen is that he is too successful. No-one is telling him: "Hang on Sacha, but you know that accent you have got, is just not working...in fact, I am not sure what accent it is that you have got. You should get a voice coach or failing that, don't bother with the accent."

No-one, basically, is telling him the truth. The truth is, he is able to think up characters that have some comic potential. However, those characters are sometimes beyond the range of his abilities as an actor to portray effectively. Bruno, for instance, appears, from the evidence of that interview on Conan O'Brien, to be way out of Sacha Baron Cohen's range. From my point of view, he failed in every respect with that character (except possibly the costume design, which was probably someone else's work). Thinking up an interesting character is not enough, if you are going to be the performer of it: it has to be within the range and ability of the performer. An Austrian accent is not within Sacha Baron Cohen's ability range. In fact, the stability and conviction of any accent he gives, is doubtful, given the performance last night. Thus, Sacha Baron Cohen should steer clear of doing accents. He shouldn't even try. Then he should consider the range of actions required of him, by the character: he should ask whether he can actually perform those actions convincingly. Bruno was not a convincing gay man, in many ways. Thus, if he was ever intended to be convincing, he failed to do so.

I note, from articles written about him, that Sacha Baron Cohen is often praised for "keeping in character"...well, maintaining an accent is part of keeping in character, and this Cohen was unable to do for more than two or three seconds, in last night's interview. So, it would seem that there is a difference between the PR surrounding Cohen and the actual abilities of the man.

It will be interesting to see what Sacha Baron Cohen does next. If it involves accents, I hazard to think just how unconvincing it will be. We will see.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals.If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Why can't the PAP find talent?

The PAP (People's Action Party) of Singapore (in fact, it seems the People's Action Party IS Singapore), has a problem: they can't find new talent. The leaders of the PAP are always bemoaning the great shortage of talent in Singapore and repeatedly state that, despite looking high and low, they can't find anyone to replace themselves, in time to come. The question that comes to me is: why?

You see mathematically, the PAP's complaint is more than a little strange. It is, for instance, a local myth that you need to be particularly talented to be an MP, in fact, Members of Parliament SHOULDN'T be particularly talented. The reason for this is simple, some research that I read long ago, but would have to source again to reference, stated that a leader should be no more than 30 IQ points above the led, so as to preserve the ability to communicate with their constituency. If the leader was too bright, there would be a disconnect with their people and communication would break down. Now, this leads us to a very interesting conclusion: there is no shortage of talent in Singapore for the PAP, or at least, there shouldn't be.

To have an IQ 30 points above the norm is not particularly rare. In fact its theoretical rarity is one person in 44. Thus, one person in 44 in Singapore is at the limit of brightness permissible in an effective leader. This means that among Singapore's 3.16 million citizens (the last time I read a figure in an article), there should be 71,818 people with IQs 30 points above the norm (or about 134 IQ points). That is a very telling result, for all those who have believed that Singapore does, indeed, have a PAP talent shortage. There are 89 PAP MPs. This means that Singapore has enough people of the right IQ to make 807 PAP parties. Furthermore, this is a gross under-estimate of the situation, for it excludes those people whose IQs are less than 134 (who are far more numerous) and who could also do a good job and communicate effectively to the people. It also excludes those whose IQs are slightly above 134 but not so far above as to have a disastrous communication gap.

Thus one can conclude that there are, in Singapore, enough people, with enough "talent" to produce thousands of political parties the size of the PAP. (For the numbers of people with adequate IQs less than 134 is far more numerous than those with IQs of 134. Note the figure 134 comes from the fact that the average IQ in Singapore, according to some studies, is 104).

So, given this super-abundance of appropriate talent, why does the PAP protest the lack of talent for their succession?

There a number of possibilities. Firstly, is the possibility that the PAP has, in its recruitment procedures decided to try to maximise the intelligence of its MPs, to the extreme limit, such that there really are only 89 candidates. This would be a startling scenario, for it implies that the IQs of these MPs is at a rarity of 89/3.16 million. That would be one person in 35,506 people. That means, given Singapore's mean of 104, that the PAP MPs must have IQs of about 168, on average. I find this absurd in the extreme, since the average IQ of Nobel Prize Winners in Science is only 159, according to the Sigma Society.

Are we really expected to believe that PAP MPs are nine IQ points smarter, on average, than Nobel Prize Winners in Science? If so, Singapore would truly have to be run remarkably well. I will leave it to your own opinions to decide whether that is so.

If, however, it is, in fact, so that PAP MPs are as smart as 168 IQ points, each, on average, then that explains something about the way government is conducted locally. People that smart cannot lead ordinary people, because they cannot communicate effectively with them. Thus, if it is so, that the PAP have set things up like this, then it is not surprising that many people are unhappy with them.

Yet, I do not think it is so. Few people who are aware of what a person of an IQ of 168 is like would confuse such a person with local MPs - at least, not from the evidence of their public utterances. Also, it would be reasonable to expect close to perfection from them, in their decision making, were they as smart, as a cohort, as this.

Thus, given the fact that the optimal IQ of a Singaporean MP is only 134 IQ points and that there are 71,818 such people in Singapore, one can conclude that another force must be at work. Quite simply Singaporeans must not want to be PAP MPs. There are over 807 times as many good candidates as there are MP jobs, yet, still the PAP has difficulty with recruitment. This means, basically, that the chance of someone wanting to be an MP is 807 to one (0.001239 of the acceptable population). In fact, of course, this is an underestimate of the unlikelihood of someone wanting to be an MP, since there are many more viable candidates who don't have the exact IQ in question. The true figure would be several thousands to one.

This analysis, which has been guided by numbers and logic alone leads me to ask a question: does the government really believe that the problem is a lack of talent? If so, this would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the electorate. There is no lack of talent. However, there does appear to be a strong desire, among Singaporeans, NOT to become involved in politics. This could be because of the way politics is conducted in Singapore. For those overseas readers who don't know, the government of Singapore is the PAP and they have a habit of crushing all nascent opposition with every means possible. This makes Singapore effectively a one party state. Perhaps the people of Singapore are uncomfortable with this way of conducting politics and wish to stay out of it.

The tale of the numbers are clear. There are only two evident explanations. Either the PAP has made a fundamental error in selection in thinking that only supersmart people should be MPs, (and the evidence of their public images is against this interpretation) or the people of Singapore simply don't want to be politicians.

The PAP explanation that there is an absence of talent is proven to be false, by these numbers. The talent is there: but perhaps the willingness to be involved is not.

I wonder if the PAP allowed other parties to flourish (which they have not) whether Singapore would discover an abundance of talent, where before there was none? It seems to me that Singapore, which has always justified its one party system on the basis that there was not enough talent to support two parties or more, has more than enough talent, statistically, for a plurality of parties. What it lacks, however, is the willingness of the government to allow any opposition within its shores.

Now, I have written this post, without any interest in the politics of the situation at all. Singapore is not my country. I am merely an observer of it. However, curiosity led me to analyse the IQ distribution and the consequences of that, to see what the true tale of the underlying talent would be. I report the results, much as a scientist does, with no opinion of the results other than to say these are the results. So, let no-one think that I have any political motive in writing this post. I have no interest in the politics of Singapore at all (it is really too dull a subject to have much interest in). I do, however, have a scientific interest in the truth - and the truth is that Singapore has an abundance of talent adequate to the task of being an MP, in Singapore. MPs don't need to be geniuses - in fact they shouldn't be. Given that, Singapore has more than enough talent to run the nation. The big question remains, of course: why is the PAP, then, having such difficulty with recruitment and succession?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)