I'm actually more offended that they took out the MJ-related scene. It just shows that they don't have the balls to own up to the offensive-humor schtick. I mean, if you're going to be offensive, be offensive! Own it! Pull out all the stops! But deciding that an MJ joke is just "too soon" kind of reveals a lack of... I dunno, dedication or something.
@meritxell: Indeed. It makes the "NOTHING is sacred" thing into a huge lie. You can walk all over homosexuals and their allies, but MJ and his fans need kid gloves.
I think the variation between these reviews spells out one thing for me more than ever: I'm just going to have to see it myself to decide. I'm torn on whether I'll wait until the DVD comes out, but I'm going to see it, if only to make up my own mind and make myself uncomfortable in the process.
"Many critics were shocked that the film was only rated R, since Brüno is shown pantomiming oral sex in great detail and using a fire extinguisher and a Champagne bottle while having sex with another man."
I wonder if Brüno was a straight man pantomiming oral sex with a woman or a straight woman pretending to perform oral sex on a man, would it really shock critics that the film was rated R instead of NC-17? Probably not, but if it envolves teh ghey sex we must protect the children!
I'm not planning to see this, but I have to say: every time the commercial comes on, I snort/laugh at the "Darfive" line. It's perfection, and makes me think that a half-hour version of this could be really, really good.
I'm trying to figure out whether or not I agree with the NYT quote. On the one hand, yes, in order for the movie to work it has to play on dated, potentially offensive stereotypes.
But at the same time, I do think it's clear to any viewer (as it was with "Borat") that the targets of ridicule are not really Baron-Cohen's characters (which are obviously caricatures) but the people he interacts with. And if that helps to reinforce the idea that homophobic = ignorant, bigoted, and ridiculous...in my mind that's not a bad result.
That said, I've been a fan of Da Ali G Show since it began, and I accept that while the treading-the-line-between-funny-and-deeply-offensive brand of comedy may work for me, it's definitely not for everyone.
@heykoukla: To be fair, he's become much more widely-known since the release of "Borat," so to some extent yeah, I can see how the only people who would definitely not be familiar with his schtick would be people who would never have paid attention to it.
I thought the NYT got it right: "Lampooning homophobia has become an acceptable, almost unavoidable form of homophobic humor"...
It's supposed to be funny because its intended viewers are in on the joke. Some of my best friends are gay, so it's all in good fun, right?
Wrong. This movie gives viewers the opportunity to indulge in their own thinly-veiled homophobia and feel better about themselves because they're not as blatantly homophobic as the rubes on the screen.
@FashionShowAtLunch: Bingo. I saw Borat, and there's that one particular scene where he's in an RV with some frat boys and they're making joke about not calling a girl after sleeping with her because "she doesn't have my RESPECT!" and I get the feeling I'm supposed to think it's funny, like, "lol he's a douche!" but it just makes me sad, because there's an undercurrent in that scene that isn't just about the kid being a douche, but also about the girl being a whore so of course he wouldn't call her back.
I don't know, this all just rubs me the wrong way.
@FashionShowAtLunch: Yes. In making fun of ridiculously homophobic individuals by presenting himself as an over-the-top homosexual, SBC is creating a joke out of the homosexual character, a stereotype to be laughed at by homophobic audiences.
@FashionShowAtLunch: Excellent point. It allows people to indulge in these bad behaviors, but still feel comparatively proud of their tolerant sensibilities, if that makes sense.
@Zombie MissSkittles: I didn't get that (the girl being a whore) at ALL in that scene. I personally was laughing my ass off at the idiot dudes. But, now that you say that, I can imagine how someone might be laughing at that aspect too, and that is really sad.
What irks me is knowing that for the next 8 months we'll have to hear straight, white, fratty guys doing lispy, fey homophobic impressions under the auspices of imitating this.
@andBegorrah: i am once again SO GLAD i have graduated from college, and my interactions with the aforementioned straight, white, fratty guys are now few and far between.
In regard to the headline, I personally think that 'funny' and 'offensive' are far from mutually exclusive terms. As far as Bruno goes, I'm sure I'll see it and find it funny - if it's anything like Borat, and it seems to be. However, I have a feeling that I'll get annoyed really quickly with folks claiming that it 'exposes' some essential uncomfortable truth about America. Beyond the fact that the scenarios are extremely contrived and controlled, I think that most of the targets of Cohen's gags are exceptionally polite to him, considering his behavior. There was a really good write-up of this in Salon yesterday: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2009/07/09/bruno_rakoff/index.html
@thegogglesdonothing: yeah, the whole "it exposes some harsh realities" line is something i dont necessarily buy- i think that it's pretty damn obvious to anyone that our culture has issues with racism, homophobia, sexism, and all sorts of other isms and phobias and hatreds. i think everyone's real clear on that- exept perhaps some people who are going to go to this movie. but will it open anyone's eyes to these problems? if you're homophobic and you go see this movie, are you going to walk out sympathetic? or are you going to feel justified? or just miss the point entirely, and spend the next few days, weeks, months, and YEARS quoting this movie ad nauseum and being even more offensive and comfortable with your own hatred and alienation of gay men?
i just dont know if this is the right medium or has the right tone to have it be justified as "illuminating" the social ills of america. the same shit could be said about "dont be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood", and that movie was just straight up offensive. just because it's a parody doesnt mean it's quality.
@southernbitch: "Just because it's a parody doesn't mean it's quality." Yes yes yes yes yes!!!
This is my biggest issue with these films - I feel like I should appreciate them because lord knows I love a good satire, but the fact of the matter is that they are just not good movies!
I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon with some friends - not because I really want to, but because I feel a sense of entitlement as a "parody appreciator". I know I won't enjoy it - it'll be crass, vulgar, over the top, and embarrassingly unfunny - but I feel I must.
I have been thinking about this movie far too much and trying to figure out why it puts me off so much. Is it the ambush comedy stuff? Is it the meanness of it all, the staged aspect? I think it's also the feeling that, if I don't laugh, I am somehow stupid or uncultured or just as bad as the people the movie purports to mock.
I like The Daily Show, and you could argue it does similar stuff, but it doesn't' seem quite as mean-spirited and "we're trying to shock you just to get you to react." The Daily Show actually seems to be making a point.
But I have a co-worker who thinks SBC is a genius, and I can't even talk to him about this, because I just don't see it. It seems like he's being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
Full disclosure: one of the scenes happened not too far from me. Not to me, but in my neck of the woods.
I couldn't even sit through Borat. I suspect I won't be able to sit through this one. I understand that the point is the expose homophobia, but it makes me uncomfortable to do it this way.
Instead, I'll stick to exposing homophobia other ways.
(1) His humor comes across as smug, as if he feels he's better/smarter/more cultured than his targets and subjects. With regard to his subjects, it's the same old *ironic* and *outrageous* hipster humor - people who are offended *clearly* are too uptight and stupid to understand that he's actually trying to save them!
(2) His humor comes across as mean-spirited. In Borat, many of his targets were kind to him, and reacted in part because of his outlandishness. Not saying that they didn't have ignorant attitudes, but many of them seemed like decent people.
(3) His humor isn't particularly innovative. It rehashes the same stereotypes for laughs (he seems to especially like the "dumb Southern hick" one), and doesn't tell us anything that we haven't heard before.
I thought Newsweek had a pretty good take on the problems with the movie here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/205835 Among other things, Bruno's sexually predatory behavior sounds very troubling to me. It seems like that is most likely to have the effect of 1) confirming people's belief that gay people cannot control their sexual urges and/or 2) making people feel like homophobic behavior and language is okay because of that predatory behavior.
@Dodgergirl: I think what that's actually addressing is the common misconception and homophobic believe that all gay men are predators, out to try and seduce straight men. Not that Cohen actually supports or condones that attitude.
I mean, I haven't seen it yet so I don't know how it will read. But I do believe that's the intent.
The thing is, homophobic people are not going to "get" anything that points out or pokes fun at the stereotypes they perpetuate. And though this may not be the movie to do it, I think film is one of the great ways to do cultural critique that reaches a wider audience. Will everyone "get" it all the time? No.
It's like...Boys Don't Cry had a transgender character who lies, steals, and engages in sexual activity without identifying their biological gender. And eventually, he is raped and killed for being transgender. The movie is not, in any way, saying that's justifiable just because he was a flawed person. But there are plenty of people who would read it that way.
Sascha makes me roll my eyes a *lot*, but he gets a big pass this time for letting that baby give the best BISH PLZ face I've seen like ever. Any chance we can sic that lil' bit on Jason Whitlock when he's done?
I am not sure if I want to see this movie because I have truly grown tired of Hollywood exploiting stupid. I caved and saw both Year One and Transformers II. I left both of these movies feeling insulted that anyone would find such crude, obvious stereotypes to be appealing to the public. I have a feeling from seeing previews and reading these reviews that if I watch Bruno- I am going to be left feeling the same way. I feel like this is a point you are making, Margaret, by posting these reviews. Am I correct?
@Zombies make the heart grow fonder: The difference I would say, and this is just my opinion, is that the intent is entirely different. Cohen is not using these stereotypes casually. It may not to be to everyone's taste, and it's definitely mean spirited...but it's meant to poke fun at the stereotypes and cliches.
I can't speak to Year 1, but Transformers is casually, horrifically racist...and is entirely unaware of it. Which makes it worse, to me. Because it's not trying to make a cultural point in the slightest.
It would've been bad enough if it was just 2 hours of pointlessness...but it had to add really awful racism to the mix, and for that it fails.
That baby is sort of giving off the "Bish Plz" vibe. I kind of feel the same way about going to see this tomorrow with my friend who is OVERLY excited for this movie. I am NOT interested.
Edited by KathrynwithaY loves Joan Collins at 07/09/09 5:32 PM
KathrynwithaY loves Joan Collins was starred
KathrynwithaY loves Joan Collins was unstarred
The lyrics urging North and South Korea to stop fighting since they both look Chinese haunt me still.
And my decision to see this has been made. (I won't be seeing this.)
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
I wonder if Brüno was a straight man pantomiming oral sex with a woman or a straight woman pretending to perform oral sex on a man, would it really shock critics that the film was rated R instead of NC-17? Probably not, but if it envolves teh ghey sex we must protect the children!
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
But at the same time, I do think it's clear to any viewer (as it was with "Borat") that the targets of ridicule are not really Baron-Cohen's characters (which are obviously caricatures) but the people he interacts with. And if that helps to reinforce the idea that homophobic = ignorant, bigoted, and ridiculous...in my mind that's not a bad result.
That said, I've been a fan of Da Ali G Show since it began, and I accept that while the treading-the-line-between-funny-and-deeply-offensive brand of comedy may work for me, it's definitely not for everyone.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
It's supposed to be funny because its intended viewers are in on the joke. Some of my best friends are gay, so it's all in good fun, right?
Wrong. This movie gives viewers the opportunity to indulge in their own thinly-veiled homophobia and feel better about themselves because they're not as blatantly homophobic as the rubes on the screen.
07/09/09
I don't know, this all just rubs me the wrong way.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
As far as Bruno goes, I'm sure I'll see it and find it funny - if it's anything like Borat, and it seems to be. However, I have a feeling that I'll get annoyed really quickly with folks claiming that it 'exposes' some essential uncomfortable truth about America. Beyond the fact that the scenarios are extremely contrived and controlled, I think that most of the targets of Cohen's gags are exceptionally polite to him, considering his behavior. There was a really good write-up of this in Salon yesterday: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2009/07/09/bruno_rakoff/index.html
07/09/09
i just dont know if this is the right medium or has the right tone to have it be justified as "illuminating" the social ills of america. the same shit could be said about "dont be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood", and that movie was just straight up offensive. just because it's a parody doesnt mean it's quality.
07/09/09
nevermind. i figured it out. i am so smart! s-m-r-t!
07/09/09
This is my biggest issue with these films - I feel like I should appreciate them because lord knows I love a good satire, but the fact of the matter is that they are just not good movies!
I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon with some friends - not because I really want to, but because I feel a sense of entitlement as a "parody appreciator". I know I won't enjoy it - it'll be crass, vulgar, over the top, and embarrassingly unfunny - but I feel I must.
07/09/09
I like The Daily Show, and you could argue it does similar stuff, but it doesn't' seem quite as mean-spirited and "we're trying to shock you just to get you to react." The Daily Show actually seems to be making a point.
But I have a co-worker who thinks SBC is a genius, and I can't even talk to him about this, because I just don't see it. It seems like he's being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.
Full disclosure: one of the scenes happened not too far from me. Not to me, but in my neck of the woods.
07/09/09
I couldn't even sit through Borat. I suspect I won't be able to sit through this one. I understand that the point is the expose homophobia, but it makes me uncomfortable to do it this way.
Instead, I'll stick to exposing homophobia other ways.
07/09/09
(1) His humor comes across as smug, as if he feels he's better/smarter/more cultured than his targets and subjects. With regard to his subjects, it's the same old *ironic* and *outrageous* hipster humor - people who are offended *clearly* are too uptight and stupid to understand that he's actually trying to save them!
(2) His humor comes across as mean-spirited. In Borat, many of his targets were kind to him, and reacted in part because of his outlandishness. Not saying that they didn't have ignorant attitudes, but many of them seemed like decent people.
(3) His humor isn't particularly innovative. It rehashes the same stereotypes for laughs (he seems to especially like the "dumb Southern hick" one), and doesn't tell us anything that we haven't heard before.
07/09/09
Among other things, Bruno's sexually predatory behavior sounds very troubling to me. It seems like that is most likely to have the effect of 1) confirming people's belief that gay people cannot control their sexual urges and/or 2) making people feel like homophobic behavior and language is okay because of that predatory behavior.
07/09/09
07/09/09
I mean, I haven't seen it yet so I don't know how it will read. But I do believe that's the intent.
The thing is, homophobic people are not going to "get" anything that points out or pokes fun at the stereotypes they perpetuate. And though this may not be the movie to do it, I think film is one of the great ways to do cultural critique that reaches a wider audience. Will everyone "get" it all the time? No.
It's like...Boys Don't Cry had a transgender character who lies, steals, and engages in sexual activity without identifying their biological gender. And eventually, he is raped and killed for being transgender. The movie is not, in any way, saying that's justifiable just because he was a flawed person. But there are plenty of people who would read it that way.
07/09/09
07/10/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
I can't speak to Year 1, but Transformers is casually, horrifically racist...and is entirely unaware of it. Which makes it worse, to me. Because it's not trying to make a cultural point in the slightest.
It would've been bad enough if it was just 2 hours of pointlessness...but it had to add really awful racism to the mix, and for that it fails.
07/09/09
07/09/09
And my decision to see this has been made. (I won't be seeing this.)