I think, I'm one of the few people, in my demographic cohort, who doesn't get Sacha Baron Cohen. I get why he's funny. Indeed, I think he's hilarious. I just don't think there's anything particularly deep going on. I know there's a whole contingent of lefties who enjoy seeing bigots embarrassed and mocked. I'm not really one of them.
I think there's something bullying in Cohen's whole shtick--the way he gleefully embarrasses Red Staters but then let's Pam Anderson in on the joke. I don't know. It is funny. But I thought Jackass The Movie was funny. (I'm Roflerz for "Rocket Skates," "Ass Kicked By a Girl" and the one where they do a roller derby in a moving truck. Laughing just thinking about it.) So I don't know what that means.
That said, Young Chris, subbing for Sully, points us to Barbara Walters predictably over the top condemnation of "Bruno." Walters claims that if you aren't homophobic, this movie will make you. Right. This is akin to saying if you're not a racist, Al Sharpton will make you one. I think the greater likelihood is that, if you are homophobic, Bruno will give you ammo. The kind of ammo you were looking for anyway.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
To be fair, and I've never met the guy so this is a guess, I don't think Sacha Baron Cohen has a political agenda. I think he's just trying to make us laugh. The reason the victims of his jokes skew red-state is twofold, as far as I can tell. One, conservatives are more likely to produce funny reactions to a flamboyantly gay character than, say, a liberal family from San Francisco. And, two, he needs to go places where his TV show isn't well known. In LA, Chicago, NYC, everyone knows the Ali G Show and has probably seen the Borat movie, Talladega Nights, etc. He can't pull off his stunts there, everyone will know who he is. He needs people who aren't already in on the joke.
That said, some of his best work on the show used liberals as targets. Dan Rather, Ralph Nader, etc. But I think Hollywood knows who he is now and he needs to operate somewhere that just isn't that familiar with Hollywood to get the desired effect.
Haven't seen Bruno yet and I'm not gonna argue Cohen's "depth" or social significance - although I thought there were moments in Borat that went way beyond just making fun of bigots. What I will vouch for is his fearlessness and audacity. In comedy, that counts for a lot IMHO. Maybe it could be construed as bullying - he routinely and aggressively abuses the kindness of strangers - but at his best moments he's actually the person who's most vulnerable. I'd hate to be carrying his insurance policy.
I think at best, SBC exposes the dangers of groupthink/ mob mentality (and saying what Barbara Walters said could be an epilogue to Bruno), but I think at worst, he's a rabble rouser. Like a intellectualized version of Tom Green. Look what I did!? It's TOTALLY INSANE! Great. What's the point?
I think it ties well with what TNC was saying earlier this week about Richard Pryor and BIG. They weren't necessarily great because of *what* they were saying, they were great because of their awareness and execution. By its very nature, SBC's brand of comedy can't have awareness (that's the shtick) and can't rely on execution because he doesn't control it. Maybe it's just the difference between savoring skill in one's craft, and one's ability to shock and expose.
It's apples and oranges with him and Pryor though. You say SBC can't rely on execution. Really? How many people can you actually imagine playing an Eastern European or a gay Austrian and have enough people believe you to produce a 90+ minute film? Twice?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say SBC's comedy can't have awareness either. He seems to be very able to predict people's reactions to his characters, and his characters stay consistent.
I really don't see how your implying that SBC is unskilled, let alone in his craft. That criticism probably does hold up for Tom Green, but not Cohen. I'll get into "the point" in another post.
Ok, well I'll summarize the point: "people are bigoted, and hold views that can't withstand close scrutiny."
When you know and acknowledge this point, I think it's not a stretch to see Borat/Bruno/Ali G as pageantry. Skilled pageantry, yes, but the basic point remains the same, and is at the expense of people who aren't in on the joke.
I think it's easy to see why people admire SBC, the man; clearly, he's a skilled actor, and yes, he exposes himself to tremendous risk throughout his "performances." Those can be thought of as admirable qualities. But I don't think he goes far beyond (if at all), the paraphased point I just mentioned at the beginning of this comment.
I could see arguing its value in the vein of "most people don't acknowledge or realize how prevalent bigotry is." And the point would be taken. But if you know that, I don't see the insight. I'd welcome you showing it to me though.
He's not so much able to predict their reactions, so much as he's willing to keep pushing the same button until he gets the reaction. It is a low-grade kind of bullying.
Oddly, one of the things I took away from "Borat" was how decent and patient - albeit naively and often patronizingly - so many "Average Joes" were in their dealings with him. Another random thought I've had is, in what countries could one successfullly pull this kind of crazy stunt off, possibly even producing a wildly successful mockumentary for local consumption, and where would you get your head handed to you by Day Two ?
@ sans-culottes, How is acting silly bullying someone? If you think Sacha Baron-Cohen is a bully do you also think that Stephen Colbert is a bully? I`d like to see one example of where you think someone was being "bullied" or "harassed" by a character of Sacha Baron-Cohen's.
QFT.
@LCrawfty:
It is low-grade bullying to pretend to be a gay man, and then take off your clothes and crawl into a straight man's tent in the middle of the night, even if the mark is homophobic. I would have reacted in exactly the same way he did. Perhaps that proves Walters' point.
@ sans culottes, he didn't crawl in the guys tent, he opened the flap and talked to him while standing outside, thats kind of rude because it was late at night, but its not really bullying. Also, his explanation that a bear ate all of his clothes is just funny, you can't take him seriously with that explanation. There is a real difference between being kind of irritating or rude, and bullying people. I would say what Bill O`Reilly does to his guests is bullying.
@brucds and TNC, check out the New Yorker review by Anthony Lane that says something very similar. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/07/20/090720crci_cinema_lane
Lane goes further:
"This kind of inquiry, fairly typical of the film, is in every sense below the belt. First, it suggests that Baron Cohen, having sneaked his way into a discussion, seldom has the nerve to keep his side of the bargain, preferring to cut things short with a gibe. Second, his comfort zone of comic reference, predicated on the discomfort of others, begins at the waistline and ends at the kneecaps. In his relentless, unmistakably Anglo-Freudian insistence on the genital and the anal, Baron Cohen takes the double entendre and strips it to a single one, placing in full view what used to be a smirking aside. Forget satire; this guy doesn’t want to scorch the earth anymore. He just wants to swing his dick."
...
"“Brüno” ends appallingly, with a musical montage of Sting, Bono, Elton John, and other well-meaners assisting mein Host in a sing-along. Here’s the deal, apparently: if celebrities aren’t famous enough for your liking (Ron Paul, Paula Abdul), or seem insufficiently schooled in irony, you make vicious sport of them, but if they’re A-listers, insanely keen to be in on the joke, they can join your congregation."
I can't watch SBC's comedy -- not because I disagree with him, but because I have an embarrassment squick a mile wide (I hate watching other people be embarrassed; it turns my stomach big time). So I can't comment on the film itself. But I will say that the whole thing smacks of what the queer community goes through every year regarding pride parades or leather week in San Francisco. I agree with TNC: it won't make anyone homophobic. But it might provoke awkward comments from people who usually know better (or homophobic comments from people who usually hide it better).
I feel you on the embarrassment squick. I saw the movie on opening night in theaters, and wavered between peeking out from under my shirt, laughing uncontrollably, to feeling really uncomfortable and slightly dirty for being part of it. I'm Queer, and the people who press-ganged me into going were all Queer. I saw it in Olympia, Washington, which is safely within the Cascadian blue state bubble, and as a twenty five year old college student, I'm definitely within the "demographic". I dunno, though. Something that kept coming up in my mind was "gay minstrel show", however appropriate that may be. I'm still trying to process that reaction.
My biggest problem with it wasn't the reactions of the people who go to see the movie; he so extremely satirizes every stereotype of gaydom that I don't think anyone would take an anti-marriage political ad that used clips from it seriously. My concern is for the people he's filming. It felt like he was going in expecting a homophobia to just burst forth from people the way people just let loose crazy jingoism and xenophobia in Borat. He didn't get that, though; Tom Green, Jackass, Punk'd, Cops, Reality TV, and of course Borat have given most people a pretty solid awareness about looking like a moron when cameras are rolling. So, he had to provoke people, usually by outright sexually harassing them. That just isn't as funny, or as "deep" as some people were claiming Borat to be. Wow, people don't like it when you crawl into their tent late at night naked. Who knew!
There are several huge differences between Bruno and a Folsom Street Fair or a Pride Parade. The most important for me, though, is that the Pride Parade happens in our own house. It's in our cities, centering usually in Queer neighborhoods, with well-known routes. For people to be outraged at the Parade or Folsom or Market Days, they have to actively come to us to see them. Bruno, meanwhile, went to these people, went into their homes or their wrestling matches or whatever and then provoked them from there. The ending scene at the wrestling match was terrifying. I watched that and said to myself "I hope that someone is outside telling people that this was a prank. I hope none of these people come across some unsuspecting gay couple tonight." That was sort of my overall reaction, too. The people who actually watch Bruno are self-selecting; no reasonable person is going to change their mind about Gay Rights because of a movie with a straight dude who gays it up for yucks. For the people he filmed though, the reaction was a lot more personal. He went into their house and challenged them in mostly obscene ways. I dunno. Maybe I'm overreacting. It just left a funny taste in my mouth.
I`m being a stickler but both you and another person both cite him as crawling into Mike's tent, which he did not do. If you're going to complain about him doing something, please get what he did correct. Why would they audience have to be told it was a prank? Doesnt telling the audience don't worry because its all fake just make them feel better about finding it disgusting in the first place? Also, the point of the movie isnt to satirize every stereotype of gaydom, he was specifically portraying an oversexed, shallow, celebrity obsessed, ignorant, and racist gay person to expose the stupidity of both homophobes and celebrity culture. You're entitled to your feelings about it as a gay person, but reading this I get the impression you're saying that certain types of gay people and gay sexuality should just be limited to gay communities which seems to be against much of the idea of gay liberation in the first place.
I apologize if I gave that impression; it wasn't my intent. I guess what I was going for was context. The leather, feathers, glitter, and skin of the pride parade to me is not supposed to be an implication that this is how we would always live, if only we had the social leniency. It's a festival. As any drag queen will tell you, it's all in the timing. A Mardis Gras Indian can be part of a long standing, fun, and beautiful tradition in context, but notsomuch at Seder. If people are going to a pride parade or a folsom street fair and get offended at what they see, it's frankly their responsibility for going in the first place. However, if you take the Pride Parade and set it up in someone else's living room or campsite, you are just as responsible for the outcome as a party of displaced Mardis Gras revelers would be.
I'm not so liberal as to accept that public sex, gimp gear and dancing penises are a part of someone's "lifestyle" that everyone else has to respect. If someone reacts negatively to being subjected to that in a context in which they had no reason to expect it, then I think they have a right to that reaction.
Haven't seen the movie, but I saw "Borat" & read several reviews of this one. I think the minstrelsy reference is interesting & sounds about right. If this movie "makes" anyone homophobic, it'll be by reinforcing the same stereotypes it pretends to mock, not by flaunting Brüno's "gayness."
Minstrelsy can have subversive effects, but I'm not sure that's really what we're getting with SBC in gayface.
You havent seen the movie, it appears that you haven't seen "Da Ali G Show", how do you know then that it sounds about right?
I think 'minstrel show' is exactly right, insofar as SBC takes tropes that are explicitly that -- tropes -- and strings them together into a character that represents no real queer person, but only a stereotype of what queer people are like (again, I speak as a person who hasn't actually seen the film, only the promos and reactions to it, hence my 'insofar').
The 'not in our house' difference between Bruno and a pride parade or leather week is an excellent distinction, and for me helps solidify several things I'd been thinking about gay stereotypes in media, but had so far not had success articulating. I grew up in the deepest of the deep South (Columbia, SC, essentially). Here, pride parades (even if we don't leave Main St. and stick to the most public and well-publicized-prior-to-the-event routes) are never completely in our house. It's not really 'our neighborhoods', even if it's the most queer-friendly neighborhoods in town. There's always a certain level of discomfort and imposition into spaces that don't want us, because there is no safe space here. The safest space for queer people in Columbia, SC (and we do have a sizeable queer population here; larger than the queer population of nearby Ashville, NC which is known as the San Francisco of the South. We're just by and large quieter and/or more closeted) is not a 'safe space' as straight people would define the term. Safe here means people who would go to the mattress for your right to keep your secret, or who will give you a couch when your family kicks you out.
But EVEN THEN, I think you're right. Even the most out-there parade isn't the same level of personal-space invasion that crawling into someone else's tent represents. So while the film's audience chooses to step into that sphere, its dupes and subjects really don't. That's not an excuse for homophobia, but it is an excuse for being deeply uncomfortable with the person in question when they impose unexpectedly on your space. I understand the value of being out and proud, but I also understand that when you impose on someone's space (especially in the invasive way that SBC uses) they have a legitimate reason to feel uncomfortable.
So in essence, YES. Your comment helped me clarify for my own mind what I'd been thinking and feeling for a while.
I'm not sure if we're in the demographic, but I didn't enjoy Borat, and rented it expecting my husband and I to be in stitches.
Mostly I saw what seemed to be pretty decent people who were uncomfortable and embarrassed by this nutty foreigner, but didn't think it was worth having a tear-down fight with a guy who would be leaving soon. The new gay-themed movie I expect to be similar: confronted with someone who screams every gay stereotype, what do people do? Look vaguely uncomfortable!
I agree,
My takje on Borat was parts were hilarious and parts were just uncomfortable, but the funniest parst were the scripted parts, like the wrestling scene with his manager.
In the "real" parts the simply uncomfortable far outnumbered the funny.
As far as political charged humor goes I thought Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanoma Bay was funnier, the abusurdly over the top FBI agents and portrayal of Bush were both funny and made the political points very well.
I didn't like the Ali G movie, and haven't seen Borat so maybe I'm not qualified to speak on this, but I'm going to indulge my internet privelege and do so anyway.
Personally I don't like humor that attempts to make fun of stereotypes by embracing them. I thought Ali G was an excuse for an upper-middle-class guy to make fun of poor black people. The whole type of humor seems to me to really be blackface of a different kind.
People don't think that Fred Astaire as Bo-Jangles is acceptable anymore why is it OK for a presumably straight man to dress up as a gay fashion designer for the sole purpose of making other people unconfortable? I think the whole art form really reflects badly on the person doing the acting. At a certain point irony stops being irony and starts being merely an excuse for making fun of the marginalized.
Well, I'm not an Ali G fan, but I'd give him more credit than that. The Ali G character isn't an imitation of a poor black person. It's an imitation of a comfortably middle-class white kid who adopts a "gangsta" persona, unironically. Such people exist, in commercial quantities.
Ali G is a "wanksta" ... in this case a white dude from Windsor, UK, who's watched too many gangsta rap videos with too little critical thought, and decided to adopt this persona. So what Cohen is doing is not minstrelsy, but mockery of, well, not exactly minstrelsy, but at least some thoughtless cultural appropriation by white kids.
It still feeds and to a certain type of unreflective person enforces stereotypes that aren't true. It's a visceral reaction with me, apologies, I hate it when people with advantages make fun of the less priveleged. It brings back too many bad memories.
Ali G is mocking the fetishization of crime, violence, and sexism in hip hop culture of the late 90's and early 00's. He is mocking the way that privileged middle class kids think their lifestyle is in any way similar to the lifestyle that genuinely poor people live. He is mocking people who hold up ignorance as a badge of honor.
It just seems so wrong. Like I said I'll give him another look through and rent Borat tonight, but it seems like a nice safe way for well-meaning people to laugh at and even embrace stereotypes in a way that has no negative connotations.
Sorn,
I would encourage you to rent season 1 or season 2 of the HBO show before you rent Borat. It's a bit funnier, and more raw as to what he was trying to do.
"I didn't like the Ali G movie, and haven't seen Borat so maybe I'm not qualified to speak on this, but I'm going to indulge my internet privelege and do so anyway."
The Ali G movie is nothing like his televison show, or Borat. If I had just watched that movie, I would probably agree with everything you wrote. Doctor Cleveland has it exactly right.
Point taken.
I guess this is what happens when I make a generalization with partial knowledge. Suddenly I have a new understanding of Pat Buchannan.
Thanks for calling me out on my B.S. I'll give Cohen another look.
The Buchanan line made me laugh.
Pat Buchanan actually did pretty well with Ali G. Came off much better than a lot of people, and generally seemed to get the joke. Andy Rooney, on the other hand, came off so bad that I've come to despise him...
The Buchanan reference was a joke referencing an earlier thread, and, that's one of the reasons I stayed away from Borat after watching the Ali G. Movie. I know a lot of people who are racist who found Borat Hilarious.
I enjoyed Borat, thought Ali G forced it, and haven't seen Bruno.
But making a a face when a stranger humps your leg isn't homophobia, necessarily.
True enough. I'm not sure why, but this discussion brought back a memory from my shitty fast food job in high school. Sometimes, when I was the only girl working in the back, one of the guys would crank NWA's The Art of Sucking Dick and then just sit back to watch my reaction. My being wildly uncomfortable didn't mean I hated straight guys or wasn't straight myself - at worst, you could call my reaction prudish I suppose. In-your-face sexuality, sexual language, etc. isn't something we're necessarily accustomed to.
That being said, I do think there's more gay panic than plain old prudishness at work in the reactions SBC gets as Bruno.
TNC wrote: "Walters claims that if you aren't homophobic, this movie will make you. Right. This is akin to saying if you're not a racist, Al Sharpton will make you one. I think the greater likelihood is that, if you are homophobic, Bruno will give you ammo. The kind of ammo you were looking for anyway."
Probably true, though I suppose a charitable reading of Walters' comments is that she means something along the lines of "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." In other words, if you're not homophobic, but don't happen to know much about or have much exposure to the "gay community," then this exaggerated depiction of certain sub-cultures therein might leave you with a misinformed and unsympathetic view of the community as a whole.
If you take SBC, a man who is clearly creating a character, as a serious rep of gay people, then you likely have other issues. Blaming SBC for someone else's homophobia seems like a stretch.
This is exactly my problem with some of the hysterical reactions I've read from more than a few self-labeled "normal" gay and lesbian folks.
I'll admit that I don't really dig a lot of Cohen's work. It trades on the "gullibility" of the marks, but as brucds and Deborah say, he's often relying on the mark's tolerance and forbearance, which is less funny. In his best scenes, he's bear-baiting, egging on some hothead.
In a bad Cohen scene, and there are too many, his character does something outrageous and unacceptable and you can watch the other people on the screen put on a polite mask and basically withdraw. They check out of the scene, and just wait for the nonsense to be over. Watching people withdraw emotionally doesn't make thrilling art.
I guess the thing I like most about Cohen - and, yes, there are lots of moments that make me want to turn my head away or that are utterly rude, pointless and disgusting - is his total commitment to his premise. I've got to respect that. I've never seen any other comedian do that, with the possible exception of Andy Kauffman who left me scratching my head as to whether HE was in on his own joke or was just totally nuts. And I don't think he's any more of a bully than lots of comedians who goof on people from the stage. With Cohen, the playing field is actually more level because he's on other people's turf. They can make of him what they will...
His entire shtick is being a goofball/wierdo/asshole and having people go along with it to be polite. I makes sense that there are more people willing to put up with his stuff to be polite in more rural/southern areas since people in those areas tend to be more polite overall.
I think you understate Al Sharpton's affect on people
As someone who has seen "Bruno" and "Da Ali G Show" I`d like to point out a few things, this contains some spoilers. There is something more going on with Bruno than an impression of a ridiculous gay man. Bruno, most of the time is exposing an indifference to human suffering and a fixation on celebrity, whether that means asking people in the fashion industry whether the unfashionable should be put in a ghetto or sent on a train, or asking parents if they would give their baby liposuction to book a modeling job. As the grandchild of Holocaust victims Cohen understands that it is indifference that allows for genocide. Moreover, Cohen is the bravest actor working today. In "Bruno" an entire arena full of people were ready to rip his head off just for kissing a man in a public forum. Gay people have been killed in America for far less. I could say more, but, if all you can get out of Sacha Baron Cohen is a British Tom Green, then you havent really watched enough of him.
I do see some deeper stuff going on:
-First of all, the terrorist interview. I think it's pretty fair to say that Bruno is just about the embodiment of American conservative ideas of what's wrong with liberals. Gay, areligious, european, vapid. Oh, and weak on terrorism. So, to me, I think there's something very bold about taking that stereotype and having it confront a terrorist, let alone mock him. Many Republicans would have us believe that terrorists are animals who will kill at any second, and we shouldn't trust those gay-loving liberals to deal with them.
-The black adopted baby--I'm pretty ok with calling out Madonna for using adoption as a trend. If we want to expound on that, I'd be happy to, but I think it's self-explanatory.
-The sex scenes early on-- To me, this was more about parody of our stereotype of gay sex. I think it was designed at some level to make many straight people think "this can't really be what gay sex is like"--not let's laugh at the way gay guys have sex.
-"Autism is in"--I thought this really brief part was great; why are we letting celebrities be authorities on developmental illness.
I could go on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It seems like some people have jumped to conclusions without seeing the movie; just the feeling I get, but maybe we just don't share the same taste. I do think there's a lot of value in Cohen's comedy, and Bruno did a great job of mocking both liberal ideas (the PR charity people...holy crap) and conservative. There's no accounting for taste, but I do think it's worth a closer look.
"First of all, the terrorist interview. I think it's pretty fair to say that Bruno is just about the embodiment of American conservative ideas of what's wrong with liberals."
Or you could see it this way: Bruno is making fun of straight guys. He just doesn't get why the Israelis and the Palestinians are fighting when they have such bad facial hair.
Actually, there are two iterations of Cohen's characters. The supporting actors and the instigators. In the Ali G show, Cohen's characters act primarily as supporting actors; they do hardly anything at all and incite people to reveal their own bigotry, contempt, or general idiocy. Occasionally they're instigators (Ali G's roundtables with say, three "family values" types and one porn starlet). In the show, which was possible because people weren't familiar with him yet, the skits work almost every time. It's both hilarious and refreshing, in a way. For an example, look at Bruno's best sketch, at a NYC fashion show:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/adcd4716ef/bruno-at-new-york-fashion-week-from-aligshow_fan
In both the Bruno and Borat movies, Cohen pushes the envelope to instigate reactions. I think there are two reasons for this; he's not going to catch many people off-guard and he's trying to push for a wider audience, so he dumbs down the humor, ramps up the bullying, and ends up with something resembling a white-collar version of "Larry the Cable Guy". Occasionally funny, but mostly missing the mark. The movie iterations of Cohen's characters are just a massive step down from his TV show version.
"I think the greater likelihood is that, if you are homophobic, Bruno will give you ammo."
I actually don't agree with this at all. I haven't seen the movie, but I am very familiar with the show. It's clear, to me, that the homophobes come off looking much more ridiculous than the Bruno character. It is so clearly an over-the-top portrayal of a gay man, that no one could ever point to Bruno as a good reason whey people should dislike gays, or be fearful of them.
Not sure if I can post a clip, but this is one where he is a talking to "Pastor Quinn," a gay converter. Quinn actually does all right for the most part, but this shit is hilarious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LazrAzBP_0I
Totally agree. No one could take Bruno seriously, I would hope anyway. Well, those that would probably aren't going to see the movie.
Aw, you can't clip that next sentence--"the kind of ammo you were looking for anyway." The point is that the homophobe is always looking for anything that will justify his beliefs. Not so much that Bruno is egregious.
That's funny, TNC. I didn't intentionally clip off that next sentence, but maybe I did it subconsiously, knowing it would help my point.
Augh, apologies for the crappy grammar and writing style. I've been turning into a lazy mush.
Count me as agreeing with you on Sasha Baron Cohen. I actually liked these characters when they were on the smaller format Da Ali G Show, but the moment he brought Borat to the larger audience (and therefore his targets to wider ridicule) I found the whole thing just plain mean and distasteful.
I have a feeling that I would find Bruno the same way.
As for the homophobic/ammo thing, I think more to the point of the Babs angle, it may be the ammo you're not looking for that is at issue (i.e. that people who don't want to admit how uncomfortable they are with homosexuality, who want to believe that they are of a more progressive, evolved POV will be confronted by what makes them most uncomfortable). Do you know what I mean?
As for the homophobic/ammo thing, I think more to the point of the Babs angle, it may be the ammo you're not looking for that is at issue (i.e. that people who don't want to admit how uncomfortable they are with homosexuality, who want to believe that they are of a more progressive, evolved POV will be confronted by what makes them most uncomfortable). Do you know what I mean?
Like Babs herself apparently was during the movie? Part of her statement about the sex scene was to the effect of "I really don't want to force my beautiful mind to think about how two men actually 'do it.'" I'm sure there are a lot of tolerant straights who are still sort of squicked out by the thought of gay folks doing it. Sort of like I am when I walk into an adult book store and think, "Why are there women in porn? That's just not right."
"Sort of like I am when I walk into an adult book store and think, "Why are there women in porn? That's just not right."
I know EXCACTLY what you mean!
I think that the reason that "Bruno" is too much for Walters, is becase it takes all of the unspoken stereotypes and assumptions and throws it in the faces of viewers. The movie did have cringe-inducing moments (and I've seen J-horror films), but it was intentional to make people realize that no average gay person actually would act like the stereotype character. With Borat, it was about poking fun at American ethnocentrism. So many Americans do feel that a lot of other countries are backward and not as civilized as we are, and Cohen alludes to that by saying that his character came to America to learn from us. So, he put a mirror to America so that we can see some of our stereotypes reflected back.
"Bruno" was about our stereotypes about homosexuality and sex. The most interesting moment in the film (sorry to those that haven't seen it) comes when he's interacting with the swingers. Some of the most commonly arguments that I've heard against homosexuality is that it violates the sanctity of marriage and is unnatural. Yet, trading married partners for sex is not something that people go out and protest against. Even some species of animals mate for life, and some people just don't. I think the film nailed it for that scene. I'm not saying that Bruno was a cinematic masterpiece or anything like that, but if you stop and critically think about it, you'll get some new perspective. I think Walters may need to do that.
Speaking as someone who hasn't seen "Bruno" yet--
There are many things I've liked about Cohen's Borat routine, but one is that he has the audacity to do it at all. Since the days of "All in the Family," admittedly a more daring show than Cohen's, humor about garden-variety bigotry has remained fairly rare. You're much more likely to see humor at the expense of guilty white liberals. Even today, in our supposed age of excesses, most comedians avoid this kind of thing, and it feels like a breath of fresh air when someone actually tackles it.
The "Borat" movie did not, I should add, target only red-staters. I thought one of the most hilariously revealing moments in the film occurred when the etiquette coach tried to shrug off Borat's vile, disgusting behavior as due to "cultural differences."
Yet humor of this sort is a reminder that old-fashioned bigotry is not dead, despite the attempts by so many to ignore or deny its continued existence. Just a few weeks after Cohen in his Borat guise told Alan Colmes that Jews killed the dinosaurs, a couple of Congressman were caught spreading a memo around claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution was a Jewish plot. Old-fashioned right-wing anti-Semitism is one form of bigotry that a lot of people like to forget is still around. It's been drowned out by neocons and pseudo-philo-Semitic Christian fundamentalists.
In that sense, it's similar to what made "All in the Family" so continuously relevant, the feeling that Archie was simply speaking aloud what a lot of white people think but lack the courage to say openly.
I agree completely. Any celebrity with a certain amount of clout, he lets in on the joke. And on the Ali G show, I was always incrediby disappointed when he'd interview someone like Pat Buchannan and be alarmingly apolitical, doing more to make himself appear ignorant than his foil. There were a couple really good segments in the TV show, this one in particular http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnnh4Z5vSsM&feature=related in which he exposes the arbitrary (at best and corrupt at worst) nature of fashion criticism. However, the more time I've spent in journalism the more I feel uncomfortable with his tactics, particularly when they are used on "ordinary people."
I'm gay and I LOVED Bruno. . . saw it 3 times already!
Yes SBC is playing in "gay face" or "pink face." Whatever. He gets it. Its high camp - a style of humor cultivated by gays.
From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style)
Camp is over the top and bitchy. It revels in its tackiness. Its a way for gay people to poke fun at overly-serious heteros. If Bruno tried to make a serious political point from the film, it would no longer be campy.
Think of the scene when Bruno goes to interview the terrorist and says. "Girl, I'm gonna tell you something thats gonna make you REALLY mad and your gonna wanna shoot me for it. . . . Your hair is REALLY sun damaged!" In this scene, he deflates the militant, overly-aggressive straight guy by making fun of his hair. Brilliant!
Yes, Bruno's guerrilla tactics were unfair. I especially felt bad for Ron Paul. But the point was to dramatize the culture clash between gays and straights. He played on straight people's most bizzarre conceptions of gay sexuality. (I've actually had straight people seriously ask me if I put gerbils up my ass!!) Bruno just turned the tables and made it hilarious.
Some people have brought up the scene when Bruno harasses the well-meaning straight dudes in Alabama. Yeah it was unfair but so what! The joke wasn't that the straight hunter guys were homophobic. The joke was that they didn't get the joke.
What some people don't understand is that gay people have to listen to straight people talk about sex *all the time*. I think some straight people don't realize how much they talk about sex and how uncomfortable it makes gay people. For instance, when I'm with a group of straight dudes who don't know I'm gay and they start talking about pussy, I have to immediately start strategizing about how I'm going to handle it. My heart starts pounding and I start thinking: "OK FUCK ACT STRAIGHT." Most of the time it just isn't feasible to come out to them - especially if they are co-workers. (I never come out to people at work.) So I have to start inventing sex stories or talking about my "ex girlfriend" or whatever. It was great to see the tables turned. (BTW: Most of my friends are straight and they are cool with gays, in case you think I don't like straight guys.)
I guess the way I see it is that gay people are so used to being the butt of jokes that we have developed a defense for it. Bruno is brilliant because it just puts out every over the top stereotype and says: Go ahead laugh at the fag. We can take it. But I'm also gonna make fun of you for once!
I share the discomfort with SBC's humor that many have expressed. I saw the Borat movie and laughed hard, but by the end of the movie I mostly stopped laughing, because I really didn't like watching people being humiliated.
This conversation gets me thinking about Alan Funt, who created this genre with the many iterations of the Candid Camera show that aired on and off for decades. I don't think it's just my nostalgia saying that Candid Camera was funnier than the modern Jamie Kennedy/Punk'd/SBC knockoffs, because the focus was never on the celebrity host and his disguises (Kennedy), cooler-than-you celebrity friends (Punk'd) or deliberate humiliation (SBC). The focus was on the gags and the reactions of the marks, and the shows were tightly edited to keep you laughing.
And you could completely enjoy Candid Camera, because it never made you cringe. If anything, you envied the "victims" of the pranks, because they were simply caught being human, and the show gave them an opportunity to prove they were good sports.
Even P.T. Barnum ultimately let you in on his "see the horse with his head where his tail ought to be" jokes. The mean-spiritedness of the new prank shows feels too much like Roman Coliseum to me. I really don't want to see people being eaten by lions.
Maybe all this sounds sappy and prudish for a 500 channel world, but if you haven't seen Candid Camera, it's worth seeking out on DVD. Not because it's safely dull as dishwater, but because it's genuinely funny, the way that the Marx Brothers or Buster Keaton always have been and always will be genuinely funny.