|
||
Brüno: Satire, Humor and Stereotypes
In April, when the first trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's new movie Bruno debuted online, many of us in the LGBT community were cautiously optimistic about what we saw - and I was among them.
I first became familiar with Sacha Baron Cohen through his Da Ali G Show on HBO, where he played different characters who conducted squirm-inducing interviews with political leaders, media personalities and everyday Americans. The characters' clueless questions - and the actor's impressive ability to never break character - allowed them to call attention to people's hang-ups, biases and intolerance.
One of those characters, Bruno, was a flamboyant gay correspondent for the fictional Austrian TV show Funkyzeit mit Bruno -- itself a satire of programs that feed people's obsession with fashion and pop culture. Bruno interviewed fashion designers, nightclub owners and models - but he also spoke to people with anti-gay attitudes, using the setting to send up the homophobia of some of his interview subjects.
Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 blockbuster Borat made him a household name. Audiences and critics loved the movie. And based on what I had seen on Da Ali G Show, I had hoped that I might be able to say similar things about the forthcoming Brüno.
A little over a month ago, I attended a screening of an early cut of Bruno with a few other GLAAD staff members. Like Borat before it, Bruno is an episodic film that is broken up into a series of loosely connected scenes - many of which are very funny, satirically sharp and on target. Witness a series of interviews with disoriented celebrities early in the film. Or the way Bruno destroys a fashion show. Or the ways he exposes the lengths to which some parents will go to make stars of their toddlers. Or a lesson with a martial arts instructor who coaches Bruno on (among other things) how to detect a gay person. (Some choice advice: "Some of them don't even dress no different than myself or you.") It's scenes like these - and there are a lot of them in the film - where I got a clear sense that Bruno was firing on all cylinders, and the audience was in on the joke.
In one extended series of sequences, Bruno adopts a baby from Africa, giving Baron Cohen an opportunity to take aim at those celebrity parents who seem to treat their children like fashion accessories. What follows, though, shifts the film from smart social satire to something else entirely - a parade of over-the-top stereotypes that, whatever their intent, play to and could affirm troubling attitudes about gay people.
Bruno appears as a guest on a local TV talk show with the baby in tow. Then, following racially insensitive comments by Bruno in the presence of the largely African American audience, that audience is shown photos of what appears to be Bruno in a hot tub having sex with men inches away from the child. Horrified and outraged, the talk-show audience turns on Bruno.
What's disquieting about this scene - and others in the film - is that it doesn't call attention to or unmask cultural homophobia. Let's face it: there probably aren't many people in a real-world setting who wouldn't share that talk-show audience's reaction to a young child being treated this way. And in a country where gay and lesbian parents can still be denied the ability in some states to adopt the children they have raised since birth - and where those children can even be taken away from the only parents they've ever known - the idea of trivializing gay families, making them the butt of a series of crude jokes, and reinforcing pernicious stereotypes about gay men and children didn't feel funny. It felt dangerous.
[There's another fascinating aspect to this scene that emerged in an article that will appear in Sunday's New York Times. The studio appears concerned enough about this particular scene that someone who worked on the film is quoted in the Times as saying that, in fact, the photos were digitally altered and the baby was not actually present. This is going to be a relief to many who watch the film after having read the Times' story, but it raises questions about whether people who walk into this film are going to encounter translation problems with regard to its satirical intent.]
Is this to say that the entire movie, from beginning to end, was this alarming? Absolutely not. In fact, those of us who saw this film agreed that it's not really helpful to try to critique this as a single film. It's really a 90-minute series of sketches - some of which hit their mark, but some of which hit our community instead, and in ways that feel fundamentally antithetical to the intentions of the filmmakers.
We voiced our concerns about a number of Bruno's scenes to the filmmakers, and we have yet to see the final cut of the film. But it was clear that a few trims to a couple of scenes weren't going to be able to fully resolve those concerns.
Some audiences - including, I'm sure, allies and members of our community -- will simply not agree that these images are offensive. Others will find it frustrating to be confronted with demeaning, stereotypical images that feel like they're aimed not at increasing people's discomfort with homophobia, but rather at decreasing their comfort with gay people.
It's really a shame that Bruno ultimately misses the mark, in part because so much of it works. There was an opportunity here for Baron Cohen to move his often-brilliant satire on the reality of anti-gay prejudice beyond HBO viewers to a vast mainstream summer movie audience. I would have loved to have seen Bruno the movie take a few more of its cues from Bruno the character we got to know on HBO - where his skewering of stereotypes rarely, if ever, seemed to get tripped up by the stereotypes themselves. And I hope that our community's discussion of the movie creates opportunities for greater understanding and awareness of the difference.
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
Japan has a similar program called "Hard Gay".
From what I saw of the program, it seems that the underlying message is that being gay is weird and asocial. It reinforces homophobia by making people uncomfortable.
The "out of control" homosexual "throwing it in our faces" thing seems to be part of Cohen's Bruno as well. It makes me uncomfortable.
Notice that in both cases we have a heterosexual male actor playing the role of the offensive gay man. Actual gay men are very much absent from this supposed dialogue about homophobia and homosexuality in culture. Why? Because of homophobia perchance?
I haven't seen Bruno, just many of the ads. I also have only watched two or three clips of Hard Gay. But, I haven't been impressed by what I've seen. I would much rather see a gay man in such roles, frankly -- at this point in time.
This is a question of whether or not people will get the joke. Some will, some won't. Bruno is not a malicious stereotype. Just like the character Borat, Bruno does inappropriate things because he's naive like Forrest Gump except dumber and more hyper-active.
He has to act oblivious to things which are obvious in order to make people state the obvious for those in the audience who are dense. This is how this kind of humor is - it beats people over the head with the joke, most people get it.
The problem is Cohen just isn't very funny, and hasn't the skill to pull off whatever it is he's attempting.
i just don't like the way his humor relies on humiliating the unsuspecting. sure, many of the people who make fools of themselves are repellent in various ways (homophobic, racist, etc), and they humiliate themselves in the trap he sets, but i just don't find the spectacle all that funny. i think its kind of mean, and i am not convinced that humiliation is an effective way to change anyone's mind, either. its like the audience is meant to come out feeling superior to the losers who've been fooled onscreen, rather than questioning their own values.
I caught The Hangover this weekend, and laughed hardest than I have at a movie since Borat. Sometimes, that laughter came at a baby's expense. When Zack is getting into the cop car without realizing that the baby is in his holster (*smack!*) and the baby starts crying, it's just too funny...partly because we're adults and know full well that a baby wasn't just slammed into a car door. It's the IDEA of it that makes us laugh. Not because we're sadistic and WANT to see it happen, but because we would feel horrible if we did it ourselves.
For everyone here saying that Cohen isn't talented, you've already lost whatever argument you're attempting to make. To say that he has a responsibility to any particular group is just as specious. If a senator, let's say, holds up that segment of Bruno to prove that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to care for children, they will be ridiculed off the capitol floor. After all, Cohen isn't gay, and isn't speaking for the gay community on any level. And attempting to silence humor that MIGHT be offensive to a particular party rarely does that group any good. Imagine if the NAACP attempted to boycott Blazing Saddles. Good thing they didn't (or weren't successful if they did...I was pretty young at the time), because I'd be willing to bet that Blazing Saddles did more good for race relations than ill. Just something to consider.
I am straight but not narrow-minded. I support my friends of all persuasions with my respect and my checks and by voting for candidates who support human rights for all humans.
But it doesn't make me less 'tolerant' to be grossed out by the MTV-type stunt, let alone some of the other stuff SBC pulls in the name of enlightening me.
No, he doesn't have to live his life or trim his act to please me. But if his choices literally make me ill, imagine what the already-prejudiced are experiencing by just 'knowing' there's a film a gay men having sex near a child. ("Knowing" is in quotes for a reason, so spare me the flames. Yes, I read the NYT article.)
He's not funny, he's not effective, he's actually hurting the cause. It's just my opinion, but this is a place to post our opinions.
It doesn't make you less tolerant. It probabally does make you more uptight and lacking anything resembling a sense of humor, though.
No, you missed with your little attempt at a cutsey retort (which wasn't warranted in the first place). The issue is neither about "tolerance" or a lack of humor. It's a simple case of a joke falling flat. There isn't anything particularly funny about a scene depicting sexual exploitation of a child. As Mr. Robinson states, there is nothing either revelatory or amusing about showing an audience being upset by a depiction of an adoptive parent having an orgy in front of a child. It doesn't offer any insight into society or human nature, nor is it silly in a slapstick sort of way. It's just sophomoric and tacky at best, and creepy and warped at worst. It also smacks of a bit of desperation. Shock humor can be very funny and very thought-provoking if done well, but when a comic attempts to shock his audience simply because he can't think of anything else to do, it really just seems lame.
Also, the real problem with the movie is it seems that it would be tedious, dull, and WAY too long for what is a rather thin premise. I've seen Mr. Cohen's Bruno character on various episodes of his former Ali G. Show, and his act is mildy amusing in very small doses, but I can understand how it would get real old, real quick. I couldn't imagine having to watch him draw out this tired material to fill the time of a feature-length film.
This is kind of like saying the shucking and jiving in Spike Lee's Bamboozled may increase white people's discomfort with blacks.
In other words, who cares? Isn't it the point that people who are uncomfortable with gays SHOULD be singled out?
But if you're saying instead that gay folks should just be held to the same standard as non-gays, and that this film distorts that, that's a whole nother point, which you haven't made successfully.
"...many of which are very funny, satirically sharp and on target."
So what makes one scene a positive (funny) and the other a negative?
Let me guess, Mr. Cohen is only funny when he's not targeting my tribe?
Stereotypes exist largely because there is at least a nugget of truth in them. If we can't laugh at ourselves, we're lost.
I'm reminded of that offensive sci-fi film "Star Ship Troopers".
Any thinking person could see it as a commentary on dangerous fetishistic tendencies behind hyper-macho militarism. Unfortunately, most sci-fi audiences come in the 'non-thinking' variety and cheered loudest at the very scenes meant to make them squirm the most.
Stupid people do not seem to 'get' cutting mockery.
I find Cohen's "humor" to be bottom of the barrel, crude, offensive trash. First, he took on poor people fro developing nations and promoted virulent Islamophobia. Now he is furthering homophobia and transphobia at a time when LGBT rights are under attack and there is a rise in hate crimes and attacks. Cohen shows no restraint or responsibility in his work and is after one thing: the all-mighty dollar. Some have pointed out to me: but he is Jewish. And their point is what? Can you imagine the outcry if the group so savagely maligned was Jewish people--the kind of outcry that would be produced. But other groups continue to be fair game. Why doesn't Mr. Cohen create a work that spoofs the maniacal hatred that so many Jews, Zionists and Israels have for the Palestinians and the murderous military campaigns that have waged against them for decades? Cohen's "humor" is hateful, bigoted and disgusting. In a time of soaring unemployment and economic despair, he will encourage scape-goating of the poor the perpetuation of cancerous bigtory--something we cannot afford right now. Shame on you Cohen for using your power to create trash and cash in on the suffering of oppressed minority groups!
Um. Have you heard of satire?
Sometimes satire can be funny, and still be offensive and destructive.
Sasha Baron Cohen is a comedian, not a civil rights leader.
BINGO!!! :)))
I have no admiration or respect for Mr. Cohen's work. He is a poor excuse for a comedian.
Mr. Cohen defamed Kazakhstan for no good reason in Borat and I never heard of him giving any profits to schools or charities in Kazakhstan. Why pick on Kazakhstan?
The portrayal of Ali G can be considered bigoted because of its portrayal of a negative stereotype of some white urban youths who identify with the hip-hop sub-culture being ignorant and uneducated.
Bruno looks set to somewhat embarrass Austria, promote the idea that all heterosexuals are outraged by someone being homosexual and re-enforce a negative stereotype about gay men. How is this positive or funny?
I would have so much respect for Mr. Cohen if he used his talents and resources exposing Jewish prejudice against Arabs in Israel or British prejudice against Poles and other Slavic immigrants Britain. That would be would be cutting edge. Mr. Cohen isn't creative; he is exploitative.
It is unfortunate that right now the whole culture of the right seems to be to point out diferences to turn into the WWF of american TV.
Ideas are never discussed or even asked about as far as the GOP goes.
I am almost 60 and straight . this is so crazy to watch, people who look too mean and angry to even remember
what love is .
I am not attending weddings until everyone has the right.
Well, I think it is WAY TOO EARLY to be passing judgment on a film that is still being cut. The last I read in the trades, GLAAD is not one of the producers of BRUNO, so they should take being invited to such an early screening as an exceptional move on the producers' part to begin with.
Also, as OVER THE TOP as Sascha Baron Cohen can, and I most certainly hope will, be, WHO is going to take this seriously? Not to mention, I really doubt is it going to change the minds of those who don't know where they stand (the great "undecideds") on gay rights.
Whatever "negative stereotypes" that GLAAD may be afraid that it will reinforce, I think the key term there IS "reinforce". The people who hate 'us' did not fall over themselves for us after BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, so I am not at all concerned about how BRUNO is going to go over to that crowd, either.
I just want him to make me laugh until I puke! ;)
See Tallulah Morehead's Profile
Waiting until a movie is actually finished to tell artists how they SHOULD have made it in order to satisfy OUR intentions instead of their own is so last minute. I used to think that GLAAD should open a Gay version of the Hays Office, maybe call it The Gays Office, and pre-censor all scripts before they even go into production, the way Joe Breen used to do for straights. After all, GLAAD has, on a number of occasions, have demonstrated a major inability to detect or appreciate irony, so they are perfect to become our new Art Czars.
But now I think that is also waiting too long. We need to censor movies at the pitch meeting level. Knock 'em down before they're even written.
The problem with that damned First Amendment Freedom of Expression thing is people keep wanting to exorcize it. Guys, The First Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights by The Founding Fathers as a GAG! We weren't supposed to take it seriously. It was irony! James Madison having a laugh. Get a clue!
OH, puhleeze! Nobody's saying he doesn't have the right to make the movie, even if it is tasteless and demeaning to gay families. If you want to be a blogger, YOU get a clue. Criticism is not the same thing as censorship. Mr. Robinson is protected by the first amendment, too. I do wish, however, that more movies were knocked down at pitch meetings. Most movies today are remakes of remakes of bad 60s TV, or worse. Don't get me wrong; I loved Agnes Morehead, too. But, we could use a few original ideas in Hollywood.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
