The Bruno-Bashers Have Missed The Point
Sacha Baron Cohen's new baby, Bruno, is a shrieking faggot who embodies every prejudice ever thrown at gay people -- that we are shallow, callow, and perverted. He buys a black baby from Africa -- the price? an i-Pod -- to mimic Madonna. He preys on straight men by charging into their tents naked. He penetrates his pygmy boyfriend with massive dildos powered by exercise bikes. Oh, and the staggering success of the film is a stride forward for gay people.
The Bruno-bashing backlash -- swelling yet further this week -- has profoundly missed the point. Baron Cohen -- one of the great satirists of our time -- is taking a prejudiced position to its logical conclusion, in order to expose its absurdity. It's how satire works. When Jonathan Swift wrote the greatest satire in history -- A Modest Proposal, in 1729 -- he suggested the starving Irish were failing to show any initiative. Obviously, they should eat their own babies. There were many contemporary readers who took it as another attack on the barbarian Irish hoardes.
During the last US presidential race, the impeccably liberal New Yorker magazine published a front page cartoon showing Barack and Michelle Obama as Islamist terrorists, fist-bumping amidst turbans and machine guns. Some critics shrieked: you are reinforcing the right's demonology! But the New Yorker was obviously exposing it. By taking those myths literally and setting them down on paper, they were saying: this is what you think the Obamas do behind closed doors? Really? Look at it. Now tell me with a straight face that you think it's true.
Baron Cohen is doing the same. The joke isn't on gay people; it's on the bigots who, when confronted with this creation, believe he is real, and typical of gays. Baron Cohen literally risked his life to make the point. He went to some of the most homophobic places on earth -- the refugee camps of the Middle East, and the Deep South of the US -- and behaved as a gargoyle drawn from the subconscious fears of homophobes.
For example, in the middle of a bare-knuckle wrestling ring in Arkansas, he appeared as "Straight Dave" and incited a drunken mob to chant "My asshole is only for shitting!". Then he started a fake fight -- and after some half-hearted grappling, he starts to make out with his rival, while the mob rages and begins throwing bottles and chairs into the ring. Would anybody be surprised if he had been shot?
Of course some people will simply see the babbling fag and chuckle, but you can't judge a satire by the reactions of the stupidest members of the audience. If you did, every satire ever written would die a cot-death. Many more will be subliminally shocked to see people take the caricature as real and ask -- would I have done that? What's wrong with my assumptions?
It's a shame that some gay organizations are focusing their fire on Bruno, when there is a real problem with gay characters in comedy elsewhere. The character of the mincing fag has returned to mainstream comedy for the first time since the 1970s, without Bruno's reflexivity. Horne and Corden have a gay war correspondent who spends his time shrieking about Dolce and Gabbana. Al Murray has a pink-clad gay Nazi who squeals: "I love to go undercover with the boys, Mein Fuehrer!" Similarly, in the US, the film The Hangover has a lisping Chinese pansy as its villain, and ewwww-I'm-not-gay gags are the stock gag of the new genre of bromances.
How are they different to Bruno? The judo throw of shifting the butt of the joke onto the homophobes never happens. They never make their gross caricatures interact with real people, where they can be exposed as absurd. They are presented -- if you'll excuse the pun -- straight. The joke really is, here, on the gay guy: Look at his triviality! Look at his dirty lusts!
I am sure these comedians aren't consciously homophobic. Living in their liberal showbiz bubbles, they believe we're so beyond bigotry that we can safely caricature each other, the way we all tease our friends. As the writer Adam Sternbergh puts it: "It's a pose that says, 'We're so past things like racial and sexual epithets that we can use racial and sexual epiphets at will."" It would be great if this was true: universal po-facedness isn't a victory for anyone. But we don't live in that world: gay kids are still six times more likely to commit suicide than their straight siblings.
This kind of stereotyping does real psychological harm -- not just in encouraging bigots, but in shaping how gay people see themselves. I remember when I was a kid in the 1980s and slowly realizing I was gay, seeing Mr Humphries or Larry Grayson or Frankie Howard on TV -- and no other gay people, ever -- and becoming convinced this is what being gay meant. It's not just about fancying your own gender; it's about being effete and shallow and empty. It was depressing, because I didn't want to be like that. I wanted to go to warzones, not catwalks; I wanted to talk foreign policy, not shoes.
The problem isn't camp itself. It's the implication that all gay people are camp, and that the two are inextricably entwined. Of course some gay men are naturally effeminate -- but so are some straight men. They absolutely should be free to express themselves without being jeered at or bullied; but they're not our only face.
The ongoing association of camp with homosexuality is only due to a historic accident. Before gay people could be open about their sexualities, they had to develop an arch style to signal to each other who they were. This style expressed the values of the group at that time -- aristocratic disdain for the straight world they were shut out of, a fetishization of the artifice they were forced to practice every day, and so on.
It had an important role then. But camp represents the values of the nineteenth century closet, preserved in glittery aspic. Now the closet is gone, gay people are increasingly like everyone else, and the out-dated caricature can at last be given an honourable burial.
Bruno has started to lead the funeral cortege, by making the people who still believe in the stereotype look like fools -- and getting tens of millions of people to laugh in their faces. Mince on, Bruno -- you are mincing homophobia.
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here . You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com
To read Johann Hari's latest article for Slate magazine - about the life and death of the Asian babe - click here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The reason the ticket sales plummeted after Friday night is simple: the movie is awful. It appeals to 14 year old boys. It's not funny; it's just crude and mean-spirited.
It's funny how two people can view the same movie but see different things. Did the movie have some crude and mean spirited points. Yes. Were they the entire crux of the movie designed only to appeal to 14 year old boys? Uh, don't think. I'm not 14 and did have to look away at some parts . Had I not been willing to look past those scenes I would have missed the bigger picture.
Bruno evolved during the course of the movie. He started out as the cliche and ended up having what everyone wants in this life... someone to share their lives with in a meaningful way. I think one of the most poignant scenes in the entire movie is when Bruno and Lutz are tucking little OJ into bed. Bruno reaches over and take Lutz's hand as the voice over talks about how happy they were as a family. Remember before, Bruno was using OJ as an accessory and Lutz as his slave.
Another scene not talked about are the two scenes where Bruno endures TWO 'gay converters'. Where is the outrage that these people actually exist and are 'helping' people more confused and less strong willed as Bruno. I have yet to see many people commenting about this most offensive practice.
This movie was very much a journey vs. destination type of picture. If you focused on the wrong things you missed a very nice evolution of Bruno in-spite of himself.
Thank you Johann!! I now cannot wait to go see Bruno, probably this weekend.
More importantly, when are we going to get to the point where sexual orientation doesn't matter?
Right after we get to the point where looks and money don't matter.
Wildly funny movie...highly recommend!
Personally, I think SBC's comic lineage traces back to Andy Kaufman much moreso than to Jonathan Swift. Although the Borat & Bruno characters have a certain political angle to them, they're not really ABOUT politics. The whole purpose of the characters is to bring unwitting participants into a comedy routine.
Just like Andy Kaufman, Baron Cohen inverts comic expectations by making his audience the butt of the joke.
I haven't seen Bruno yet, but I'm excited for it :)
Yeah, I still get called "F@G" everyday...by the older generation...but even they are starting to get it. After I watched Bruno, I had a family come up and ask if I ever had people do some of that stuff...and I said yeah, sometimes. They then said that they never realized what it was like and even apologized.
So, if you think Bruno is bad and doesn't help people realize somethings....well, You're Wrong....and you're probably old or getting there. lol.
I think this whole thing is the difference in generations. To be honest, I see a bunch of older people on here and a few other sites I get my news from, complaining how it is so horrible that this movie is made, and I proved my point on one of those other sites. The majority of the ones complaining are not under 25...even more not under 30.
This generation is so much different than others. I live in red country PA (central PA). Very Conservative. Yet, homosexuality isn't THAT big of a deal anymore. I mean, yeah you have those few people that will say stuff to you at school...and the older people, well, you know. Anyways, in schools across America, it's not anything new to see two guys or two girls kissing...even the straight people do it...for fun. It's not a big deal.
My boyfriend and I were talking about how my allies group has been talking about how tired of the older gay generation we are. I'm sure I'll get an ear full for saying it...but this is NOT the 1960's anymore. My generation laughs at stuff like this....because, guess what, it's funny...because it's so bogus. That's why I and many other younger people don't support the HRC and GLAAD, because "they are just a bunch of old queens that do not get it."
While I have yet to see "Bruno" and plan to do so soon, based on the clips and comments I have read about it, it has the same biting, 'look in the mirror' satire as Borat conveyed. On the issue of this film's worth, I have read many of the remarks supporting Mr. Hari's opinion, that Burno is an example of grand satire, as well as those who condem the effort. Mr. Hari compared Baron Cohen's intent to that of Jonathan Swift's; however, I believe that this film and the controversay following it is more akin to Shakespere's "Merchant of Venice." Shakespere, who wrote for both the elites and the "groundlings," created a play which both feed into the basest Anti-Semitism of his day and one that exposed Shylock's tormentors as devout, Christian hypocracy for committing sinful acts of betrail; theft; conspiracy to alienate a daughter's affections for her father; forced conversation; and false pride. Borat accomplished what the Merchant of Venice did and I'm quite confident that Bruno does the same and more.
Sacha Baron-Cohen is EXHAUSTING. Alright! We get it, you're funny. Now quit creepin' into every nook and crevice of our lives like you're lighting or something.
Honestly, the studio's excessive marketing of Bruno/Cohen suffocated any semblance of novelty left from this entertainer.
It's like he's 'prescribed' or something for our enjoyment as well as conditioning.
Enough.
The problem with the movie is it ain't very funny. Super-crude, too.
Bit by bit, America is being dumbed down. Reality TV, movies that are 90% explosions, 10% plot, and 1% meaning, attempts to create Idols through a show that should be called "Contest Winner" since you can't force idolatry. Point being, satire's fine, but how much of the population even gets satire anymore? I teach theatre workshops to high school kids. In a group from a respected private school with above average students a girl not only didn't know that Boston was a city, but thought it might be a continent. We are no longer raising the best and the brightest. I would bet that a good portion of the people who enjoy Cohen think he's just doing a hilarious, accurate imitation of a gay man, just as he did a bumbling foreigner. They don't watch it for the satire--they embrace the stereotype and when he "reveals" the bigots, the crowd only appreciates it because someone is being embarrassed. You're not likely to teach anyone anything with this type of satire in this climate. Before springing it on people, it might be a good idea to hit them with some education first.
"you can't judge a satire by the reactions of the stupidest members of the audience. If you did, every satire ever written would die a cot-death." You make assumptions based on a small sampling. However, Id have to agree this country and world is full of ignorant folks. I still wouldnt change the art to adjust to the landscape. Let them be dumb and enjoy it for yourself, its comedy. I dont think Austin Powers was funny at all, but I wont tell everyone they shouldnt like it either, like some posts here. The Train Wrecks are hilarious.
Not saying you pitch to the slowest catcher. I'm just saying that the film maker has a choice. Cohen made the choice to assume the audience is going to get it. This is a pivotal moment in the gay community with gay marriage being voted down across the country. Right now, this assumption is not exactly what our community needs. It could have been handled in other ways that would have had the same effect while remaining clever.
Oh--another thing. The writer of the article is British. The British seem to have a much firmer grasp of satire.
As a person who has not watched a single reality tv show in her life but loves the movie, I call BS! I call the news my 'reality tv' and even then I know it's skewered and influenced by corporate interests and is NOT reality in many instances. Personally, I was not going to a Sacha Baron Cohen movie to learn about the plight of gays or be exposed to stereotypical homosexual behavior. .
I went (four times) to see him do what he does best. Take controversial and sensitive issues and combine them with humor and satire to start a discussion. He's not offering answers or solutions. That is not his job as an entertainer and perhaps why he's not becoming a politician or running for public office, Ali G aside.
Hes' simply holding up a mirror. What each of us see is what each of us CHOOSES to see. There is as much depth, or lack there of as each of us, wants to take away from his work. But please don't paint those of us, who take him to be a genius for asking the questions and making our gut split at the same time, as some vacuous air heads who can't seem to find the difference between reality and reality tv.
What are you talking about? First of all, a documentary holds up a mirror--to a point. An engineered comedy built mostly on planned pranks isn't a mirror. It's a stunt. You're ridiculous--and not just because you spent the money to see this movie 4 times. Did you really read what I wrote, or because you're a rabid fan did you just freak out at what you saw as criticism? I have no problem with people thinking he's a genius, though I do not, and I didn't say that makes you an airhead or anything else. I stated a fact--I teach kids and it is easy to see the difference between the ones that exist on junk and those who don't. I didn't say that Cohen's work is junk either. I actually think he's very talented, though genius is pushing it. However, if a person has no concept of satire because of the forms of literature and entertainment they have been exposed to, this movie isn't going to provide that. My comment had nothing to do with his talent--just with the value of satire in general. I'll stop now. I don't want to keep you from building your unauthorized SBC fansite.
You'd have a point if it were funny, but it isn't.
You'd have a point if any of the people whom he has managed to get on camera actually had any sort of epiphany or moment of clarity, but they don't.
Instead, it's nothing more than a series of train wrecks set up specifically to watch the carnage and run away before any blowback can reach you.
ya and the train wreck is friggin hilarious. But alas, everyone has their own taste with comedy. For example I think the Mike Myers Austin Powers movies suck, not funny at all but hey thats my opinion and Im not gonna say it as if its gospel.
I think that's a good point--the moment of clarity. Back in the 40's and 50's, if someone committed a crime in a film, they had to be punished. It was a Production Code rule. I don't think it's necessary to have rules like that and of course that limits the film maker. Still, audiences today are becoming much less sophisticated because so many films are all about explosions, etc instead of meaning. A good portion of the viewers probably need satire to be spoon fed to them a little.
I think: If you are not gay, you have no right to be offended by this movie. That is one thing that annoys me more than anything is people being offended that really have no right to be. A white male has no place being offended by the n-word. A Christian has no place being offended by an antisemitic statement. A straight man has no place being offended by an overly flamboyant gay character.
That is my opinion as a Jewish gay woman.
Yes, but a white, straight male (me) CAN be offended by the n-word, anti-semitism, gay characterizations...because, I'm accepting and empathetic to my fellow women and men. by the way, I think it's a great movie and classic satire. Exposing the bigots for who they are!
HuffPost's Pick
I understand what you are saying but I disagree. We do need all people to be offended by the n-word, homophobia and antisemitism because we need people to be offended by bigotry in general. I hope your real friends (which may include straight and non-jewish) are offended when some ignorant idiot expresses antisemitic and homophobic remarks because they know you and they care for you and support you, right?
Many times (most times?) phobias are pointed or directed at minorities and changes can only happen when those minorities count with the support of members the majority who are sympathetic to their cause and offended by blatant bigotry and discrimination.
I'm straight, white and christian yet I'm offended by bigotry whether it be homophobia, antisemitism, racism etc etc. You do not need to be the target of discrimination to be disgusted by it.
There, my two cents
"The joke isn't on gay people, it's on the bigots who, when confronted with this creation, believe he is real, and typical of gays". And this helps the gay rights movement how? Bruno is a disgusting caracature, and a disgusting person. Made me sick to watch.
What a great and thoughtful article. Thank you!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
