FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

"The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said Friday that 'Bruno,' the new film starring Sacha Baron Cohen, reinforces negative stereotypes and 'decreases the public’s comfort with gay people.'”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31856995/ns/entertainment-movies/

Red_Vespa said"The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said Friday that 'Bruno,' the new film starring Sacha Baron Cohen, reinforces negative stereotypes and 'decreases the public’s comfort with gay people.'”

I haven't watched the movie (I'm sure it'll be on STARZ or ENCORE or something soon enough), but I agree wholeheartedly with GLAAD.

No matter how campy, outrageous and funny Bruno's jokes are to us as gay men, these ideas and images of gay men like Bruno are what many people around the world still have in mind

The world is not at the place where all of us can laugh at Bruno for the same reasons.

That's how I feel just from the previews.

So someone is upset over some farce on sexuality? Give me a break.

When will people learn, it's a comedy on sexuality, not just homosexuality but heterosexuality as well.

The portrayal of heterosexuals in this movie is one of ignorance, pretty much like his previous film which didn't even need to use sexuality as a precursor.

Overall there are 2 players in the film, a catalyst and society. How does society react with the catalyst? They either are stumped by whats happening unable to comprehend the situation or they turn their back on the situation.

There are scenes of racial tolerance, cultural tolerance, political tolerance and sexual tolerance. Man the different ethics that are attacked in this film are probably too numerous to cover even the most subtle of contexts.

Ironically it's always the smallest of stereotypes that seems to hit home the hardest, making those stereotypes feel like a minority.

And you know what? When you look s at some of the forum topics that come through realjock alone, do you really blame some people for creating that gay stereotype?

If you really are offended by this film then realise that it's not a documentary, but this stereotype came from somewhere - it was never dreamed up.

If you are not a person of that stereotype:

"flamboyantly gay Austrian fashionista" [msnbc]

Then why should you feel threatended?

the professionally offended desperately trying to stay relevant.

Why is there no yawning smiley

If GLAAD was so worried about reinforcing gay stereotypes, they'd be putting a stop to Gay Pride and pushing everyone back into the closet.

If Gay Pride is pushing a Stereotype then something must not quite be right. Surely Gay Pride is about representing Gay people in all walks of life?

Also, what does the "Hetero Alliance Against Defamation" say about all this? ;)

I haven't seen this movie but it does concern me. I teach grade 8 boys who were already talking about seeing this movie. After the borat movie, all i heard from my boys were catch phrases from that movie. I never allowed my kids to make any homophobic remarks in my class...but it took training. I'm worried that i'm going to return to a school in the fall that has the wrong impression of gay people and that will encourage homophobia in my school.

So yeah i'm concerned.

On another note i'm gonna check out transfomers tonight.

Hey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

Zombie you are the BOMB !

Exactly right Bernd !

This is the best movie an eigth grade boy could see all summer !

And Flex I could not agree more, if they are worried about reinforcing gay stereo types.......... BAN FUCKING GAY PARADES !!!!

ARE YOU IDIOTS AT GLAAD LISTENING ????????????

U SHOULD and then engage your brains before your dumb ass mouths and press releases

I hope the idiocy of their statement makes more people go see the movie.
As if go-go boys in pink bikinis and towering drag queens at gay parades increase the public's comfort with gay people

How does the public feel about Ted Haggard or Larry Craig ? they are representatives of the gay community - or maybe we should try to shield the public from viewing them ?

Before Sacha Cohen spoofed homosexual men as Bruno, he spoofed heterosexual men with their infatuations of a pin-up model as Borat. Big deal...


...but it would be refreshing for a masculine homosexual lead character to be featured in a major motion picture some time real soon though.

coolarmydude said...but it would be refreshing for a masculine homosexual lead character to be featured in a major motion picture some time real soon though.

There have been quite a few, but they never made it real big

I know, that's why I said a major motion picture.

I could think of the movie Alexander the Great from a few years ago, but that was controversial and it didn't really apply to today's character types.

MunchingZombie saidHey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

Good reply.

GLADD has become like the Catholic Church for homos -_-

Popular culture can't really be monitored and major organizations saying that a film is insulting only increases viewership. Not saying I'll pay ticket price to watch it but I'll rent it.

Sydney-Cider is giving the americans of the our heartland way too much credit for intelligence. Let me illumine what I mean. They voted Bush into office TWICE!

Sorry, GLAAD, you're wrong. This movie was a good thing.

Caslon11000 saidSydney-Cider is giving the americans of the our heartland way too much credit for intelligence. Let me illumine what I mean. They voted Bush into office TWICE!

Your welcome

But seriously, I think the main message from Sash Baron Cohen is that there is a lot of ignorance out there.

People will block out what they are not comfortable with and look the other way. If it upsets them they then put up a big stink. Well what do you know, sounds just like what GLAAD is doing.

Oh the irony!

offense is what is taken when you can't take argument.

Caslon11000 saidSydney-Cider is giving the americans of the our heartland way too much credit for intelligence. Let me illumine what I mean. They voted Bush into office TWICE!

PMSL

it's satire. just unbunch your panties and deal with it.

The fun police are out again...

If anything, that movie portrays heterosexuals as rednecks. Yes, as a gay guy I cringed at times, but I get the feeling that people who are so close-minded to think that Bruno is real are not the people going to see it.

You know, the same was said about Queer as Folk when it first premiered on HBO.

"It stigmatizes gay men as sex hungry, flamboyant, obsessive compulsive beings." Ummm, duh!

Yes, we all are not the stereotypical homosexual as Sacha portrays. Nor are Asians, Blacks, Women, Children, etc. all stereotypical of what Mad TV, SNL or even Late Night shows portray.

Get over it and move on!

the only problem I have now is the image of Bruno's urethra talking...

and it keeps making me giggle

MunchingZombie saidHey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

hear hear.
perfect response!

sydney_cider saidSo someone is upset over some farce on sexuality? Give me a break.

When will people learn, it's a comedy on sexuality, not just homosexuality but heterosexuality as well.

You forget that customs and traditions determine how people react to others...

Why is it that groups like GLAAD only complain, rather than producing new movies or anything that fight stereotypes?

Bruno is so hot. I want his babies.

I dunno, I think that GLAAD should probably focus its energies on things other than a silly movie. Lets work on getting rid of the DoMA and DADT. I want to see that movie btw... looks funny a hell. Bruno is hot (not really).

and so do gay parades that portray homosexuals as sex deviates, and gays who act like Bruno. Fundamentalists.

I'm going to sent off a copy with every holiday season card this year.

Freddo saidI dunno, I think that GLAAD should probably focus its energies on things other than a silly movie. Lets work on getting rid of the DoMA and DADT. I want to see that movie btw... looks funny a hell. Bruno is hot (not really).

GLAAD's work is with media. So it's fitting that they responded, even if you disagree with them.

Salon published an anti-Bruno review:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2009/07/09/bruno_rakoff/

And Slate published a pro-Bruno review:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222553/

I haven't seen the movie but I've seen a zillion clips, like everyone else. I find the idea that the film promotes stereotypes absurd. Cohen's character is waaaaaay over the top. It's a parody of a stereotype.

i didnt feel that way at all if anything i thought it showed how stupid homophobes are, i thought there was gunna be abunch of ppl in the theatre "ewwing" and being stupid but they were actually laughing so whutev it wasnt that big of a deal to me

the trailer looks too over the top to be confused with anybody in reality....but dont underestimate the great American Hinterland! You couldnt make a whole brain out of the Prairie states and the Southland....oh, what the hell, throw in Alaska, too.

you know....i considered the "parody of a stereotype" point of view while i was watching the movie. I thought, surely he is actually trying to show how absurd the stereotype of gays actually is and thus make people realize that gay people really aren't that bad in real life.

it was a nice thought, and i think it may have been his intention. however, most of america is not that smart and will probably identify with all of the heteros in the movie--including the rednecks. thus, i think this movie is a bit ahead of its time and most people will take it literally defeating its purpose and actually having an opposite effect.

i heard plenty of people "eewing" in the theatre and i'm sure they think that gays really do do the things portrayed in the movie, perhaps minus those who actually know gay people and cringed as much as i did watching it. seriously it was so vulgar that i felt uncomfortable sitting in the theatre watching it.

my take, without seeing it yet, is that YES it's offensive and damaging to our image, but then so was Borat for eastern europeans lol- as a comedian, he TRYS to be offensive- its part of the schtick.

So say, for example GLAAD didn't respond to the movie, how many people would have noticed?

Then again how many people have heard of GLAAD before this announcement?

I watched it and laughed my ass off at it cause sadly enough stereotypes exist for a reason, now I just wish he'd do a movie about the homo dealing with internalized homophobia, THEN guys on this site would really be offended.

sydney_cider saidSo say, for example GLAAD didn't respond to the movie, how many people would have noticed?

Then again how many people have heard of GLAAD before this announcement?

how many people--not in the gay community---even heard the announcement to begin with? lol

ObsceneWish said

Freddo saidI dunno, I think that GLAAD should probably focus its energies on things other than a silly movie. Lets work on getting rid of the DoMA and DADT. I want to see that movie btw... looks funny a hell. Bruno is hot (not really).

GLAAD's work is with media. So it's fitting that they responded, even if you disagree with them.

Salon published an anti-Bruno review:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2009/07/09/bruno_rakoff/

And Slate published a pro-Bruno review:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222553/

I haven't seen the movie but I've seen a zillion clips, like everyone else. I find the idea that the film promotes stereotypes absurd. Cohen's character is waaaaaay over the top. It's a parody of a stereotype.

Hmm... i didnt know that GLAAD was a media group. I still stand by my stance though. It is just a guy acting silly. I think most people in the audience knows that this isnt supposed to be taken seriously and that most gay people do not act like this, sort of like how the "Kazakhstan" portrayed in Borat was nothing like the real country itself.

Bruno does for gays what 'black face' did for blacks -- reinforce the same old tired, derogatory stereotypes. Unfortunately, for the majority of the US population, who is in opposition to gay rights and views homosexuality as some kind of abberration, this film is doing more harm than good.

It may be meant satirically, but the heterosexual majority will use it to confirm their own prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant views about homosexuality.

I won't be seeing it.

HighVoltageGuy saidYou know, the same was said about Queer as Folk when it first premiered on HBO.

"It stigmatizes gay men as sex hungry, flamboyant, obsessive compulsive beings." Ummm, duh!

Yes, we all are not the stereotypical homosexual as Sacha portrays. Nor are Asians, Blacks, Women, Children, etc. all stereotypical of what Mad TV, SNL or even Late Night shows portray.

Get over it and move on!

Agreed. Exactly. Precisely.

Couldn't have said it any better.

I am not concerned that gay people are being seen as the over the top stereotypical portrait of Bruno.
I am afraid that we as a group are being portrayed through the eyes of GLAAD as being humorless.

I think that GLAAD is taking this too personal. Bruno is a satire, it's funny. And why don't they complain about gay pride parades that seem to enforce the stereotype (a stereotype that MADE the bruno character). for shame...

MunchingZombie saidHey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

lol i got that one
niiice

Honestly people. Look up satire.

What you don't like satire? Don't watch it.

Don't expect people to conform to your insecurities either. If people are ignorant and decide to be educated by media meant for entertainment purposes, then this film isn't doing much worse for their impressions of the gay "community."

cherubicdefect saidHonestly people. Look up satire.

What you don't like satire? Don't watch it.

Don't expect people to conform to your insecurities either. If people are ignorant and decide to be educated by media meant for entertainment purposes, then this film isn't doing much worse for their impressions of the gay "community."

just a friendly reminder people: there's no need for anyone on this thread to be hostile towards others' views and opinions on the film

the people behind GLAAD are complete fools.

Where is the organization that boycotts the idiots who base their view of the world and of people based on movie characters?

I'm fully aware of the definition of satire, and how it acts as comic relief, often to poke fun at or acknowledge certain stereotypes regnant about, in this case atleast, a particular portion of the population.

The only problem is that the opinions of the majority and how that majority views us is important in the struggle to gain the same civil liberties awarded to our straight counterparts. You want DOMA overturned, a Supreme Court ruling the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, gays to serve openly in the military, gays to have the freedom to adopt children, and to have the same the exact same civil liberties as do heteros.

Yet, you fail to acknowledge that unfortunately, the "people" and their obvious aversion to all things gay, does have an adverse affect on such legislation. These kinds of movies isn't making it any easier.

We live in a very homophobic society that's fueled by ignorance, arrogance, religious indoctrination, and fear -- tell me, how is a movie like Bruno, contributing to anything but reinforcing the negative stereotypes a majority of the populace already holds against us?

When people continue to hold the view that "the gays" are a largely fashion obsessed, promiscuous bunch, who expose their kids to giant sex orgies and circuit parties, we continue to make our struggle just that more difficult.

That's how I see it.

I initially posted this news article without comment, as being of general interest here, and to generate discussion. The debate so far leaves me still undecided, since I read compelling arguments on both the pro & con sides of this movie (which I haven't seen yet, except excerpts on TV).

But what I'm mostly reading are the viewpoints from a gay perspective, and I'm not sure that was really GLAAD's main point. They seemed more concerned about its impact on the gay image with the STRAIGHT community, and I'm not sure how objectively we can answer that here.

I suppose the only valid way would be to conduct a scientific survey of straights who've seen Bruno, designed to show whether their opinions of gays changed, and if so, for the better or for the worse. If GLAAD's concerns are correct, then the effect on straight attitudes to gays would be negative.

As for gay acceptance of gay humor, we love self-parody. I enjoy "The Big Gay Sketch Show" on the US LOGO cable TV channel, with exaggerated gay stereotypes that ought to generate the same GLAAD objections as Bruno does. But is gay LOGO seen as much by straights as a major theatrical release movie like Bruno, or is it mainly for a gay audience, that is tolerant of laughing at ourselves? I dunno.

That's the thing though -- most straights do not have very favorable opinions of gays to begin with, so I doubt this movie, or any movie for that matter, could actively "change" views. Rather, it just enforces what people already believe.

sydney_cider saidSo someone is upset over some farce on sexuality? Give me a break.

When will people learn, it's a comedy on sexuality, not just homosexuality but heterosexuality as well.

The portrayal of heterosexuals in this movie is one of ignorance, pretty much like his previous film which didn't even need to use sexuality as a precursor.

Overall there are 2 players in the film, a catalyst and society. How does society react with the catalyst? They either are stumped by whats happening unable to comprehend the situation or they turn their back on the situation.

There are scenes of racial tolerance, cultural tolerance, political tolerance and sexual tolerance. Man the different ethics that are attacked in this film are probably too numerous to cover even the most subtle of contexts.

Ironically it's always the smallest of stereotypes that seems to hit home the hardest, making those stereotypes feel like a minority.

--- I totally agree with you. You think outside the box.

I work at a US military installation and the GQ magazines with Bruno naked on the cover are always turned around when I go to the shop and pass by the magazine area. I turn it back around so the cover will show. It shows the ignorance and intolerance of heterosexuals in the military when they want to block out gay images in their area.

It's Sacha Baron's job to make people laugh. He's so open minded that he willing to play a homosexual male on screen, a camp one at that. It just shows how talented he is....I couldn't play camp, I'm not that talented.

Good comment!

GLAAD needs to find something else to spend their time on

Tronik saidThat's the thing though -- most straights do not have very favorable opinions of gays to begin with, so I doubt this movie, or any movie for that matter, could actively "change" views. Rather, it just enforces what people already believe.

There's been a lot of success in changing negative straight attitudes about gays in recent years, and belief in false stereotypes, as polls and election results are showing. We may have lost Prop 8 in California, but it was actually better than previous ballot results in that state. And national US polls are showing consistent improvements in the acceptance of gays and our issues, even if small & incremental.

GLAAD's point, I think, is that Bruno runs counter to this productive effort with straights. Which is why I said above that the real proof of the validity of GLAAD's position would be a survey of straights who have seen the movie.

Red_Vespa said"The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said Friday that 'Bruno,' the new film starring Sacha Baron Cohen, reinforces negative stereotypes and 'decreases the public’s comfort with gay people.'”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31856995/ns/entertainment-movies/

Of course it does. It's also terrible, like the first. But seriously, doesn't GLAAD have better things to do?

MunchingZombie saidHey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

I will come out of hiding to quickly say, "Win."

//scurries back into hiding//

I personally am happy to see GLAAD doing something for Us! They are bloody worthless!! I have added up my partner's and mine financial contributions to them over the past 5-6 years....$11K and for what!?!? Bloody rubbish, that's what! 2009 has been the first time in these past several years that they get NOTHING from us.
-Keith

tronik saidThat's the thing though -- most straights do not have very favorable opinions of gays to begin with, so I doubt this movie, or any movie for that matter, could actively "change" views. Rather, it just enforces what people already believe.

and how do gay parades further this ' mission ' that you and GLAAD are on of asking humorless people to not go see this movie ?

cause guess what ?
people who get humor are laughing at you and GLAAD
If this movie is like " black face " for the gay community,
what the fuck is a gay parade ?
Black face to the hundredth power ?

Actually most straights are already over this issue of gay acceptance - its that 50% of the population that represses their own ability to express bisexuality that creates the ' turd in the punch bowl effect '. Exactly the people who need to see this movie and watch or join in a big wild crazy gay parade

Humor always has a basis in observed reality - no matter how twisted

It doesn't bother me one bit. I think its hilarious.

And I also think its a little sad that as gay men we say we want to be treated equally but then we can't handle being portrayed in a goofy comedy. How often do we sit back and watch comedies about heterosexuals acting stupid? Stereotypical?

I think it all bears the weight that you give it and should you choose to make it a negative thing then it will be. I, however, can't wait to get a chance to watch it and I am sure that no one in their right mind would assume that that is how all gay people act. Not to mention its a bigger crack at pop culture and famous people than it is gays.

And last, I think it is the mentalities like this that hurt so many minorities. So someone didn't like you and tried to twists aspects of yourself around to hurt you. Like for instance I'm african american. So called negative stereotypes for my race is our men can't find jobs, our men don't take care of their children, we love fried chicken and water melon.

Guess what, I couldn't find a job until I joined the military. My father was never around. I love fried chicken and watermelon. And I'm not going to stop because people have tried to use such traits against me.

What I'm getting at is that there are actually gay flamers out there. A lot of people who act like bruno actually. Who love fashion, who are girly, who may be a little clueless even. I see them everywhere. And to me, its nothing negative about it. Its just who they are.

And to fight something as silly as this does not show that the writer of this film is weak, but that we as gays are weak. I hope they just drop it.

peterstrong saidHumor always has a basis in observed reality - no matter how twisted

As a more general, non-gay related observation, Cohen's comedy has long roots. Allen Funt, for one, was doing his "Candid Camera" show on US TV in the 1950s, with elaborate set-ups to trick ordinary people on a hidden camera. This if often what Cohen is really doing, too, though with the same character throughout the film who has a full background story. And he apparently doesn't always tell his "victims" what's been done at their expense.

Funt's premise was usually more innocent and less insulting than Cohen, however, at most embarrassing or startling, and consisted of many short, separate and unrelated scenes. One of the classics was quite benign, with the great Buster Keaton merely dunking a donut into a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.

That greatest master of pantomimed physical comedy did quiet little routines that caught the attention of the diners seated to his left and right, all facing the hidden camera. Their astonished reactions to his antics were priceless, as they tried to watch without being seen to watch. And none realizing who the elderly Keaton really was, seldom appearing on screen in those days. And after a few minutes, Allen Funt would always appear from his hiding place and reveal the joke to them. "Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"

That kind of harmless "gotcha" comedy, especially when raised to the level of art when comic geniuses like Keaton were involved, were a guiltless pleasure to watch. I'm not so sure about Cohen's work, and what it says for us to enjoy what he does to others, on gay topics or otherwise.

One of GLAAD's directors has an op-ed piece in today's LA Times:

http://tinyurl.com/lqvewl

Whatever GLAAD is today, it was very useful during its early years. It basically served as a mediator between the gay community and media, publishing a weekly column that showed the sometimes subtle ways homophobia creeps into reporting.

TxGuyyou know....i considered the "parody of a stereotype" point of view while i was watching the movie. I thought, surely he is actually trying to show how absurd the stereotype of gays actually is and thus make people realize that gay people really aren't that bad in real life.

it was a nice thought, and i think it may have been his intention. however, most of america is not that smart and will probably identify with all of the heteros in the movie--including the rednecks.

As I said, I haven't seen the movie, so I haven't really made up my mind. I do have problems with the idea that a film, or any piece of art, should dumb itself down to accommodate the great unwashed.

Personally, I'm sick of movies like Brokeback Mountain. While nearly everyone praised it for its macho representation of homosexuality (cowboy stereotype), hardly anybody complained that it followed the usual, predictable tragic formula.

In the Bruno clips I've seen, many of the straight people come off as pretty intolerant. That Cohen employs a radical stereotype as a provocateur only heightens the absurdity. That people in the film don't recognize that he's a parody is shocking.

Somebody here compared Cohen's performance to "black face" or minstrel shows. I don't see that at all. Minstrel shows were not about confronting the audience's racism. This film confronts homophobia and assumptions about gender.

But maybe I'll feel differently when I see the film in its entirety.

Sirkit saidGLADD has become like the Catholic Church for homos -_-

Not sure if this has been posted yet......but th e Catholic is homo enough.....maybe more than GLADD.

satire...

Caslon11000 saidSydney-Cider is giving the americans of the our heartland way too much credit for intelligence. Let me illumine what I mean. They voted Bush into office TWICE!

Hehehe, maybe they thought that he couldn't do any worse the second time around. Ooops! Wrong.

I won't be seeing the movie, even if it is satire. Not because of the "negative stereotypes" as claimed by GLAAD, but due to the flashbacks it will generate in my brain. His character comes uncomfortably close to a fair number of gay men I have known over the years.

Its about time. Sure, the movie may be funny.....but so is Aunt Jemima.

We need more movies that cast gay men in a more masculine less outrageous way in order to reflect reality.

I'm GLAD that GLAAD took a stand. Its no longer OK to let the more flamboyant guys be visible and open while silencing the guys who aren't.

Of course, its up to the more manly types to step forward and say."Look, I'm gay too".

At the end of the day, it actually doesn't matter (masc vs fem). Just be yourself..........and be open and public about it.

i saw the movie. it made me cry from laughing so hard. i do not feel that the movie is the problem - the movie is brilliant - but the people who will see it and not understand that homophobes are the butt of these jokes as much as/more than bruno is.

the end sequence in the octagon was particularly disturbing to me, not because bruno is over the top, but because it reveals people as they are. there is a LONG was to go. those of you who think pride is no longer relevant must be living in bubbles. where i'm from the octagon is still a reality.

OBSCENE nailed it, as per usual

Obscene saidSomebody here compared Cohen's performance to "black face" or minstrel shows. I don't see that at all. Minstrel shows were not about confronting the audience's racism. This film confronts homophobia and assumptions about gender.

right on dancerjack !

Although just about everything is capable of a denegrating caché, I think prioritizing is in order. The film Brüno, may be a film that may have obvious conflicting statements, views, and descriptions. However, it is perhaps meant to delineate social limits in terms of its reactions might demonstrate what is to be tolerated and what is not.

Do I perceive the film to be completely harmless? No. Will I argue about the validity of such an obvious satire of gay culture and American society - again, hence Borat? No. If I decided to prioritize my time against every seemingly disparaging comment or dissenting view concerning being gay ... I would be a fool. I cannot tell others what to do with their time, instead I can only attempt to enjoy what little I feel I have concerning my days.

SBC films are all about exposing the ridiculous and ignorant in human beings, gay or straight. I thought Borat was unbearable to watch and I think his Bruno character is similarly unfunny. But it's not Sacha Baren Cohen's job to make straight people comfortable with gay people any more than it is his job to make stupid straight people feel comfortable about other stupid straight people.

Is the movie tantamount to defamation (the "D" in GLAAD)? I don't think so. It's a movie about a clueless and self-absorbed gay cliche of a man - who cares? Most romantic comedies make straight men look like total idiots too, so what's the damage done? There ARE guys like Bruno out there - lots of them. It seems to me that the gays who are in a twist about the movie are the ones who are in a twist about gay guys like Bruno in general.

iiiii thought it was hilarious. . . i couldn't look at the screen half the time, but I thought it was hilarious.

The movie is funny. Bruno had to play up the sterotypes and forced the people who were uncomfortable to deal with it; he baited their bigotry and pulled them into his farce.

Well put, Mr. Miasma.

MunchingZombie saidHey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

He's been very misunderstood over the years.
He didn't say eat them plain, he recommended condiments.

dancerjack saidi saw the movie. it made me cry from laughing so hard. i do not feel that the movie is the problem - the movie is brilliant - but the people who will see it and not understand that homophobes are the butt of these jokes as much as/more than bruno is.

These are the same people who don't realize that Stephen Colbert is joking.

Red_Vespa said
Allen Funt, for one, was doing his "Candid Camera" show on US TV in the 1950s, with elaborate set-ups to trick ordinary people on a hidden camera.

My favorite 'Candid Camera' moment showed a man browsing through a rack of sport coats. Then suddenly, in one of them, a human arm reaches out and shakes his hand. The looks on the mens' faces were hilarious.

Funt may have pioneered the 'gotcha' style of humor, but his gags were gentle.

F*** GLAAD.

I thought it was kind of funny and over the top.

I don't like any of Mr. Cohen's movies and don't plan on seeing. Think Gladd did what it does best is put you on "BLAST". I take offense to any one making money at my lifetsyle expense. If this guy had any real acting skills he would make a real movie and not this crap!

Thank God on Saturday the ticket sales drop by huge numbers.

blind2limits said

I haven't watched the movie (I'm sure it'll be on STARZ or ENCORE or something soon enough), but I agree wholeheartedly with GLAAD.

No matter how campy, outrageous and funny Bruno's jokes are to us as gay men, these ideas and images of gay men like Bruno are what many people around the world still have in mind

The world is not at the place where all of us can laugh at Bruno for the same reasons.

I agree, somehow while looking at an ad that said that 'Bruno was so 2006', I had to think that 2006 was somehow labeled more gay than 2009, yet not offering a good entertainment because I know several children who would have been told to go back inside for wearing those kinds of mismatched clothes... ...besides being an eyesore, it was somehow supposedly aimed at catching the gay populaces entertainment dollar.

I didn't watch the movie - while talking with friends, I did mention 'To Wong Foo' and 'Birdcage' though.

Cheers!

GLAAD is entitled to voice their thoughts of Bruno. I actually agree and I haven't even seen the movie.

However, only a fool would take a movie like Bruno seriously. Did we not learn from Borat? Where we suposed to take that seriously?

Sadly, there are many foolish people out there.
We'll see how this plays out. I plan on asking people about this movie when some time passes and get opinions from them.

Good to know so many of us have not seen it yet agree with GLAAD.

The previews were enough for me.

I didn't get the memo that when someone is engaging in social satire in an attempt to reveal other people's prejudices that they are supposed to engage in mainstream behavior to do so. Funny, I don't remember Kazakhstan getting their panties in a knot over Borat and its "stereotypical" portrayal.

Calibro,

Actually Sacha Cohen was sued because for the negative portrayal.
The matter I believe was settled out of court.

Correction: The matter was tossed out of a New York court. Regarding the cab driver. Portrayal in Borat.

Ducky45 saidCalibro,

Actually Sacha Cohen was sued because for the negative portrayal.
The matter I believe was settled out of court.

Kazakhstan actually thanked him for the film. It was a great marketing influence for them as it got people the start wanting to know about the country.

And everyone tries to sue Sasha Cohen all the time.

This is a work of FICTION.

It's satire. Just like Borat.

I found Borat hilarious for a bit before it got tired near the end. I expect I'll feel the same way with this movie.

I think that Glaad is a great organization that defends gays against all sorts of persecution and defamation, and I will continue to support them. However I think they are jumping the gun a little on this. I don't think most people have even had a chance to see it yet.

Here is an interesting article in defense of the Movie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/in-defense-of-bruno_b_230436.html

Here is an NPR segment about it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106550391
and the audio
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=106550391&m=106550385

I will hold off on saying any more until I see it

dancerjack saidi saw the movie. it made me cry from laughing so hard. i do not feel that the movie is the problem - the movie is brilliant - but the people who will see it and not understand that homophobes are the butt of these jokes as much as/more than bruno is.

Precisely! And for whatever it's worth, I think the movie said more about the reactions of people to gay stereotypes than anything about gay men.

Here is part of the official glaad statement on what they disagree with (click to read the whole thing):

http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=773It's unfortunate that “Brüno” ultimately misses the mark, particularly when there are still far too few positive images of gay people in major studio films. Some members of our community will not be offended by this film. Others, like those of us at GLAAD, find it frustrating and discouraging to be confronted with a movie that wants to increase America’s discomfort with homophobia, but which for much of America, seems likely to decrease its comfort with gay people.”

First off, I found it rather astounding how many of you blindly defend this movie, despite its clear derisive intentions. If you can't stand up for how you're represented and depicted through pop culture, no one will.

I'm not backing down on this one. I continue to assert that "satirical" comedies, which rely on institutionalized stereotypes, are not what creates a bridge of understanding, tolerance, and ultimately unconditional acceptance between groups.

When the satire is directed at an already disadvantaged or marginalized group, such as gays, or blacks, the damage can be even more astringent, often materialized through social and political ramifications (in regards to careers, housing, civil liberties, etc).

Often times, these types of satire encourage and foster ignorance and close-mindedness, and serve as a means to divide, rather than collectively join together to fight prejudice and hatred.

I will agree that GLAAD could be spending its time on something much more worthwhile than a satirical comedy, however, the fact that every recent gay-themed movie (minus Brokeback Mountain) has been satirical in nature, I think contributes to the animosity and fervent aversion many Americans seem to have in regards to homosexuality.

Very excellent point Tronix! SPOT ON!

Had this been a show that has been completely insulting and offensive to Native Americans or blacks, the NAACP, American Indian Movement, ACLU, and whatever racial minority watchdog group would have been all over this, protesting outside the theater, slasing the tires of people going to the movie, boycotting the advertsiers, you name it. My problem lies more with the way that gay men have failed to really do or say anything about this movie. Rather than be a force to be reckoned with, we don't want to appear 'hypersensitive' or 'unsophisticated' or god forbid, we don't want to appear as though we can't handle this kind of humor without claiming 'well, this person certainly doesn't represent who I am, so of course it's hilarious - they're not laughing at people like me, they're laughing at people like him' - THAT is the epicenter of our attitudes now. AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ME. As long as the stereotypes laughed about can never be traced back to me in any way, sure, it's funny. Who cares if some 8th grader who are a lot like this character are teased next fall to thie point where they suicide. Who cares if other gay men are deeply angered and offended by this movie. That's his problem, right? Not mine. The reason why the gay male community will never advance, and I've said this before, is because our attitude has never been as me-centered as it is now. It's all about me, other gay men mean nothing unless they are under a certain age, look a certain way, and are within a certain distance of where you are right now. Otherwise, forget it. Maybe this is a good thing, but it has become more and more clear to those gay men just coming out that YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN - forget about any support from any gay men becasue they care the most about their money, their materials, and their bodies - nothing else. They know nothing about being friends, being a support system and god knows they know nothing about responsibility or accountability - so if you are just coming out, you must understand from day one that these support groups or pride or any of these thigns mean nothing because these guys go to it with the attitude of 'what's in it for me; I will only go if I know what the other guys look like, etc'.

This goes a little further from 'Bruno' so, sorry, but it's a great place to discuss what really goes on in our lives. We have never been more (psychologically) isolated from each other as much as we are now and our friendships/relationsihps are great indicators of that short lifespan.

Duluth,

Wow! Maybe now they will get the point. Because you are sooo right!

Did GLAAD have anything to say against Another Gay Movie? ...talk about stereotyping gays.

I'll watch the movie and draw my own conclusions. Perhaps I'll be as uncomfortable watching it as I was when I saw Borat, or maybe I'll like it as much as Soul Plane.

I guess I'm not gay enough yet, since I don't let GLAAD and Dan Savage speak for me.

Musclequest saidI personally am happy to see GLAAD doing something for Us! They are bloody worthless!! I have added up my partner's and mine financial contributions to them over the past 5-6 years....$11K and for what!?!? Bloody rubbish, that's what! 2009 has been the first time in these past several years that they get NOTHING from us.
-Keith

Are you kidding me???? No one on RJ cares about how much money you donate to GLAAD each year.

Duluth, you make some great points.

I think in the case of many self-appointed "masculine" gay men, who do not subscribe to, or identify with, some of the stereotypical effeminate behavior that is portrayed in this movie, feel as though they are unaffected by such depictions. Wrong.

Sorry, but society does not distinguish between "masculine" and "feminine" gay men. As far as they're concerned, you're still a homo who takes it up the ass -- regardless of whether you're a football fanatic or a bonafide fashionista.

Bottom line, it affects each and every one of us, and until the gay community at large acknowledges this, we will continue to promote the message that it's okay to laugh at, deride, and "satire" us.

Just as long as it's funny.

Tronik saidSorry, but society does not distinguish between "masculine" and "feminine" gay men. As far as they're concerned, you're still a homo who takes it up the ass -- regardless of whether you're a football fanatic or a bonafide fashionista.

Hit the nail on the head. Society doesn't give a rats ass if you are masc, fem, or somewhere in between....you're still a fag, therefore you are pretty much a second class citizen. If we don't stand up to these ridiculous stereotypes, people will continue to be ignorant.

Tronik saidBottom line, it affects each and every one of us, and until the gay community at large acknowledges this, we will continue to promote the message that it's okay to laugh at, deride, and "satire" us.

ugh... have you ever seen anything Cohen has done? This movie isn't a stairization of gay men. It is a satire which focuses on bigotry, just like Borat, just like Ali G.

Here, a straight man, makes a movie pointing out just how homophobic people are and GLAAD and others get cranky because they don't pander to their little views on how gay men should be portrayed on the screen. They should only be committed families with kids, screams GLAAS. They should only be masculine, says some RJers.

For Cohen's next flick he should uncover homophobia in the gay community.

Has anyone from GLAAD actually seen the movie?

I thought the film was about how some sections of straight society react to a flamboyant (if incredibly ignorant) gay man. It's also a film that shows the strangeness of straight people - the swingers party and the christian straight converters for example.

Personally i thought the vast majority of the movie was making fun of celebrity culture and the antics of the rich and the famous which people are so obsessed with knowing about.

He is constantly emulating all of the celebrity stupidity and fakery - using adopted children as accessories, talkign abuot how charity is their life while being millionares (and using mexican workers as chairs, very apt).

Bruno being gay actually felt secondary, incidental almost throughout a good chunk of the movie.

at first i thought the same thing but the movie is offensive to everyone not just gay ppl so ppl really should just take it as a comedy

Teacherguy saidI haven't seen this movie but it does concern me. I teach grade 8 boys who were already talking about seeing this movie. After the borat movie, all i heard from my boys were catch phrases from that movie. I never allowed my kids to make any homophobic remarks in my class...but it took training. I'm worried that i'm going to return to a school in the fall that has the wrong impression of gay people and that will encourage homophobia in my school.

So yeah i'm concerned.

On another note i'm gonna check out transfomers tonight.

this is what my biggest concern is. After Borat the plethora of negative stereotypical slurs against people that were from the middle east/eastern EU or anywhere that fit a persons idea of "over there" was all over the place and thankfully has now gone away - besides that it was just so annoying on the level of "wasssuuuuup?" to hear it everywhere.

This movie doesn't really break any new ground in the way it covers making fun of people that are ignorant. It also doesn't really educate anyone either. IMO It fails on that level. You'll either get it or "still think all fags are like this. no argument".

I don't really like Sacha Baren Cohen anyway since he's been hawking this one horse trick since Ali G and before and that's over years ago now.
Like M Knight Shalmayan it seems he has but one techinique.

YAWN!

Comments by previous posters referencing Jonathon Swift are spot on. Cohen is not nearly as clever, but the type of satire he is going for is identical. I can see where he was going with this, but at times he crossed a line and became offensive. That said, subtlety is usually lost on most Americans so he probably felt he had to go there to make his points...

I was never drawn to any this Bruno hype from the beginning. It's too over the top. I find it all a bit annoying. I just don't bother.

RedHeadMat said

Teacherguy saidI haven't seen this movie but it does concern me. I teach grade 8 boys who were already talking about seeing this movie. After the borat movie, all i heard from my boys were catch phrases from that movie. I never allowed my kids to make any homophobic remarks in my class...but it took training. I'm worried that i'm going to return to a school in the fall that has the wrong impression of gay people and that will encourage homophobia in my school.

So yeah i'm concerned.

On another note i'm gonna check out transfomers tonight.

this is what my biggest concern is. After Borat the plethora of negative stereotypical slurs against people that were from the middle east/eastern EU or anywhere that fit a persons idea of "over there" was all over the place and thankfully has now gone away - besides that it was just so annoying on the level of "wasssuuuuup?" to hear it everywhere.

This movie doesn't really break any new ground in the way it covers making fun of people that are ignorant. It also doesn't really educate anyone either. IMO It fails on that level. You'll either get it or "still think all fags are like this. no argument".

I don't really like Sacha Baren Cohen anyway since he's been hawking this one horse trick since Ali G and before and that's over years ago now.
Like M Knight Shalmayan it seems he has but one techinique.

YAWN!

oh and i mean't to add: what if his next project centered on the Black/Hispanic/or, Muslim communities to "expose" and "draw a light on" the intolerance or satirize ignorance directed at them? I think it would draw a shit storm of negative controversy given the three incredibly delicate subject matters im hypothesizing. my point is why is it always ok for The Gays to be up for satire and ridicule. Can you imagine him with his face blackened out and an old Minstrell outfit on would not cause widespread outrage? Tell me why portraying that Gay stereotype as seen in bruno is not on the same level? I'm just really over seeing shit like this; it's really boring and not progressive at all for any community, not just the Gay community. for some reason we put up with it as: "the gays are good for a laugh or two still, they party and have fun right? ok let's greenlight this..."

Meh.

jrs10k6 said
Although just about everything is capable of a denegrating caché, I think prioritizing is in order. The film Brüno, may be a film that may have obvious conflicting statements, views, and descriptions. However, it is perhaps meant to delineate social limits in terms of its reactions might demonstrate what is to be tolerated and what is not.

Do I perceive the film to be completely harmless? No. Will I argue about the validity of such an obvious satire of gay culture and American society - again, hence Borat? No. If I decided to prioritize my time against every seemingly disparaging comment or dissenting view concerning being gay ... I would be a fool. I cannot tell others what to do with their time, instead I can only attempt to enjoy what little I feel I have concerning my days.

I agree, and I'd like to add an addendum to this:

when me make a joke about sexuality or gender, the joke resonates because of our own perceptions of sexuality. For example if I say "Real men don't eat quiche", it's an obvious joke on what we've constructed as a "real man", but at the same time in laughing at the joke, we acknowledge it as a fact on some level, and this has negative consequences. So while Cohen's humor is poignant in mocking how we, or at least the heterosexual community perceive homosexuality, it at the same time produces an image of homosexuality that we implicitly acknowledge to be true on some level, be it exaggerated or not.

So while I don't think Bruno is a threat to the gay community, nor do I feel the need to boycott the film, I still feel as though we should acknowledge that its satire attacks homophobia with one side of its mouth while re-enforcing an image of the gay male with the other.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so, I don't want to get spoiled by the comments here, but, I'd bet anything that if I were to read them all, I could sincerely say "that's such a Samantha thing to say" to just about all the posters here. I've never seen and never will see Sex in the City either but I'll surely see Bruno and I'll get the joke. I suspect that people pretty much come out of the theater with exactly what they expected to and no minds are changed by the movie about anything.

I think SBC is a comic genius, and perhaps an all around genius.

MunchingZombie said

Tronik saidBottom line, it affects each and every one of us, and until the gay community at large acknowledges this, we will continue to promote the message that it's okay to laugh at, deride, and "satire" us.

ugh... have you ever seen anything Cohen has done? This movie isn't a stairization of gay men. It is a satire which focuses on bigotry, just like Borat, just like Ali G.

Here, a straight man, makes a movie pointing out just how homophobic people are and GLAAD and others get cranky because they don't pander to their little views on how gay men should be portrayed on the screen. They should only be committed families with kids, screams GLAAS. They should only be masculine, says some RJers.

For Cohen's next flick he should uncover homophobia in the gay community.

I've never seen his work, and quite frankly, have no desire to. He's not funny, nor original, and I find him rather distasteful. Look, semantics aside, bottom line is, the movie portrays a flaming gay man partaking in stereotypical behaviors which many Americans associate with homosexuality.

Remember, this is America, where over seventy percent of the population still believes in Adam and Eve and rejects the notion of evolution -- we're not dealing with the smartest bunch here. Your average American can barely spell "satire", let alone distinguish between it and their own prejudices.

That said, I think this movie does nothing. For the select few that actually "get it", it will act as comic relief as a way to mock the bigoted majority. For the bigoted majority, who overwhelmingly view gays as menacing abnormalities, it will serve as a means to laugh at and ridicule something they already hate.

"Look, semantics aside, bottom line is, the movie portrays a flaming gay man partaking in stereotypical behaviors which many Americans associate with homosexuality."

For the very first time in cinematic history, other than in porn, such a thing has happened. If only Priscilla, Queen of the Desert had gone so far.

Andy Kaufman with relevance.

Tronik saidI've never seen his work, and quite frankly, have no desire to. He's not funny, nor original, and I find him rather distasteful. Look, semantics aside, bottom line is, the movie portrays a flaming gay man partaking in stereotypical behaviors which many Americans associate with homosexuality.

Remember, this is America, where over seventy percent of the population still believes in Adam and Eve and rejects the notion of evolution -- we're not dealing with the smartest bunch here. Your average American can barely spell "satire", let alone distinguish between it and their own prejudices.

That said, I think this movie does nothing. For the select few that actually "get it", it will act as comic relief as a way to mock the bigoted majority. For the bigoted majority, who overwhelmingly view gays as menacing abnormalities, it will serve as a means to laugh at and ridicule something they already hate.

It is astounding that you are suggesting that the way gay men are portrayed on screen should be confined by what bigots think. We aren't turning the tide in public opinion just because we limit our collective public persona to butch men. Just because the majority of Americans is assumed to not get the movie, doesn't mean that we should therefor limit satire, limit film, limit ourselves. The GOP has been pandering to the lowest common denominator for a decade and they should not be a model for raising public consciousness.

What sort of gay men in film would you prefer to see? Because no one is going to go see it. Cohen has made a movie that talks about biggotry that people are going to see. That is freakin' awesome.

Just to be an ass, I am going to make a movie about black stereotypes and bigots. I will do all of the black stereotypes that people have, make it into a film, and see if it is seen as comedic genius and how the various communities will act.

Balljunkie saidJust to be an ass, I am going to make a movie about black stereotypes and bigots. I will do all of the black stereotypes that people have, make it into a film, and see if it is seen as comedic genius and how the various communities will act.

You're too late.

It's called Ali G.

flex89 saidIf GLAAD was so worried about reinforcing gay stereotypes, they'd be putting a stop to Gay Pride and pushing everyone back into the closet.

Which is precisely why i came out of an Armoire

Delivis said

Balljunkie saidJust to be an ass, I am going to make a movie about black stereotypes and bigots. I will do all of the black stereotypes that people have, make it into a film, and see if it is seen as comedic genius and how the various communities will act.

You're too late.

It's called Ali G.

Wait, I was under the impression that Ali G was a parody of "wigga" culture -- whites who take on a stereotypically urban black persona, not a parody of actual urban blacks.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tronik saidFirst off, I found it rather astounding how many of you blindly defend this movie, despite its clear derisive intentions. If you can't stand up for how you're represented and depicted through pop culture, no one will.

I'm not backing down on this one. I continue to assert that "satirical" comedies, which rely on institutionalized stereotypes, are not what creates a bridge of understanding, tolerance, and ultimately unconditional acceptance between groups.

When the satire is directed at an already disadvantaged or marginalized group, such as gays, or blacks, the damage can be even more astringent, often materialized through social and political ramifications (in regards to careers, housing, civil liberties, etc).

Often times, these types of satire encourage and foster ignorance and close-mindedness, and serve as a means to divide, rather than collectively join together to fight prejudice and hatred.

I will agree that GLAAD could be spending its time on something much more worthwhile than a satirical comedy, however, the fact that every recent gay-themed movie (minus Brokeback Mountain) has been satirical in nature, I think contributes to the animosity and fervent aversion many Americans seem to have in regards to homosexuality.

Satire by definition marginalizes and is not about portraying a reality. The point of this film is to expose people's reactions to this blatantly stereotypical portrayal of a gay man. It isn't trying to make a point about acceptance; it is making a point about homophobia. Did you see the movie? Cause it doesn't sound like it. If you had, you would know it's actually doing the opposite of what you claim by having people witness the mass public act disturbingly toward gays, thereby humanizing them and creating a sense of empathy. That is what satire does.

Gawd I"m glad that there is an uptight group out there that represents me...

It makes me soooooooooo happy

lilTanker saidGawd I"m glad that there is an uptight group out there that represents me...

It makes me soooooooooo happy

i nominate myself as your uptight representative

calibro said

lilTanker saidGawd I"m glad that there is an uptight group out there that represents me...

It makes me soooooooooo happy

i nominate myself as your uptight representative

you wont be so uptight once i get ma tongue in there

lilTanker said

calibro said

lilTanker saidGawd I"m glad that there is an uptight group out there that represents me...

It makes me soooooooooo happy

i nominate myself as your uptight representative

you wont be so uptight once i get ma tongue in there

oh look, i dropped a quarter, let me bend over and pick it up

sydney_cider saidIf Gay Pride is pushing a Stereotype then something must not quite be right. Surely Gay Pride is about representing Gay people in all walks of life?

Having worked for GLAAD, they agree with your viewpoint not that Flex89. However, they do work with media covering Pride events to ensure they balance coverage of the more exuberant displays of Pride along with other examples, like PFLAG, professionals, lgbt policemen, etc.

calibro said

lilTanker said

calibro said

lilTanker saidGawd I"m glad that there is an uptight group out there that represents me...

It makes me soooooooooo happy

i nominate myself as your uptight representative

you wont be so uptight once i get ma tongue in there

oh look, i dropped a quarter, let me bend over and pick it up

oh of course sir, let him help sir..

The thing is, this kind of satire is old, old, old.



Here:

I like drags,,,,I like off beat humor and I like this and I am sure I can get a fast laugh!

I had heard a lot of hype about Bruno and though I had no real interest in seeing Bruno, I did have some interest in seeing this movie. I guess a lot because of the publicity of it and also because the subject matter some what represented a community I am a part of.

While I was sitting in the theater, watching Bruno, I had a few different thoughts. I saw the movie with gay and straight friends, and so I also kind of thought about their reactions to the movie and wondered what they were thinking.

First off, I have to say that I agree with those in the forum saying it showed homophobes being homophobes. I also understand that this is satire. A lot of times I thought, how clever, this is showing in a smart way the reactions of people who are against gay people. For example, like dancerjack said, there is a scene where "straight power" is something to be proud of, until it is flipped and people become disgusted by 2 men kissing. Clever and a good way to show homophobes being homophobes. However, it then turns into 2 guys undressing each other and you thinking bruno is about to blow another guy in front of a room of people, which is where it becomes a little over the top for me.

But this is the point of the movie. So if you thought bruno was a movie to defend homosexuality and to show that homophobia is still very largely out there, then it will. But if that was all you were hoping for, when it becomes over the top, you may be a little bit disappointed. The explicit sexual acts kind of made me uncomfortable, so I knew my friends had to be uncomfortable. Also, Bruno provoked people to become homophobic and though the people he provoked were most likely homophobic anyways (which I appreciate the clever ways of making this apparent), he went over the top to make these people show their true colors. And I think some of the things he tried to do were things any one, even if they had gay friends or were very comfortable around gay people, would react to negatively towards. That is where I think this movie was not a huge help when it came to representing gays. But again, I understand it is a movie that was made to be over the top and to be funny. I laughed at a lot of parts. Though like Liltanker, the talking urethra bothered me.

Balljunkie saidJust to be an ass, I am going to make a movie about black stereotypes and bigots. I will do all of the black stereotypes that people have, make it into a film, and see if it is seen as comedic genius and how the various communities will act.

Watch the Dave Chapelle show. While not live, his show did a lot of this, and is critically acclaimed.....and effing hysterical.

I LOVE this movie...It's inappropriate, ridiculous, wrong, politically incorrect, and offensive...What is not to love! Its a comedy, which means, not to be taken literally. Pull the dildo out and get over it!

Caslon11000 saidSydney-Cider is giving the americans of the our heartland way too much credit for intelligence. Let me illumine what I mean. They voted Bush into office TWICE!

Well, not really. They voted Bush into office once. He got in twice, but we voted him in only one of those times.

Unless perhaps you're being very specific about the phrase "our heartland."

laughed...sooo..hard...GLAAD just needs to get over themselves...

Tronik said

I've never seen his work, and quite frankly, have no desire to. He's not funny, nor original, and I find him rather distasteful.

If you've never seen his work, how can you write "He's not funny, nor original, and I find him rather distasteful"?

I'm not saying you have to or should see his work. I haven't seen it. But I also wouldn't write "He's not funny nor original, and I find him rather distasteful" without having seen it.

Blah, blah, blah. I've seen enough clips of it to realize it for that kind of classless humor I've never been a fan of.

Clearly, I disagree with the majority of posters here. I stand by my original statements.

Consider this, absolutely none of Bruno's behaviors in the movie(ie: fashion designer, being obnoxious, etc.) have anything to do with being same sex attracted. Every single thing he did could be, and is, done by any straight guy if they wanted to.

I'll admit, I didn't see the movie and I don't plan to but did "Bruno" ever actually kiss another guy? Did he ever do the naked ANYTHING with another guy in the movie? Probably not. So why is this movie being so vehemently defended as a satire of gay men when Bruno does not exhibit a single behavior that is actually intrinsic to being same sex attracted? By defending the supposed satire all you're actually doing is promoting the idea that the qualities that Bruno expressed (Flaming, designer, obnoxious, etc.) are intrinsic to being same sex attracted when the fact is these behaviors are just as easily expressed by heterosexual people as well.

Promoting the idea that "Yeah, he's acting like that because he's pretending to be gay and that's okay" is not okay because it does nothing to combat the lies that his behaviors have anything to do with being gay.

RyanReBoRn said

I'll admit, I didn't see the movie and I don't plan to but did "Bruno" ever actually kiss another guy? Did he ever do the naked ANYTHING with another guy in the movie? Probably not.

actually, yes. It shows multiple scenes with gay sex complete with sex toys and a full on make out scene at the end of the movie.

I thinks it's bullshit that movies have to give some PC, whitewashed version of any minority group just to keep everyone happy.
A movie should represent a filmmakers voice. It's simple really. If you are offended by a film, don't go... but for fucks sake, don't expect that all of us are so stupid that we can't see the difference between satire and real life.

As for someone being so misguided they can't tell the difference between real and imagined, that's on them. Dumbing down culture and art or watering down an artists point of view just to make it more palatable to the masses creates a lose/lose situation.

I wish we didn't value the stupid so much that we have to build the culture around them and what they can or can't handle. And the mice over at GLAAD tripping over themselves to find the perfect model of gay and gay opinion is stomach turning.
I am not saying the work of Sasha Baron Cohen is brilliant or profound, but the weight of any of his films is on the shoulder of bigots, not the main characters. I think the bigotry is just as over the top as his stunts.


I thought the scene with the hunters was hilarious.

sydney_cider said

Caslon11000 saidSydney-Cider is giving the americans of the our heartland way too much credit for intelligence. Let me illumine what I mean. They voted Bush into office TWICE!

Your welcome

But seriously, I think the main message from Sash Baron Cohen is that there is a lot of ignorance out there.

People will block out what they are not comfortable with and look the other way. If it upsets them they then put up a big stink. Well what do you know, sounds just like what GLAAD is doing.

Oh the irony!

Well said/stated.

Tronik saidBlah, blah, blah. I've seen enough clips of it to realize it for that kind of classless humor I've never been a fan of.

Clearly, I disagree with the majority of posters here. I stand by my original statements.

But now you're saying something different than what you said before. I was responding to what you wrote before. Clearly, I was taking what you wrote — "I've never seen his work"— too literally

Sometimes it makes a difference when you see a whole work, rather than just clips. Seeing things in context can make a difference.

But I'm not necessarily urging you to see it. As I wrote, "I'm not saying you have to or should see his work." As I also wrote, I haven't seen it myself (but that's mostly because I'm lazy).

what did the PFLAGers say?? Hopefully not something as missing the boat on humor as GLAAD said!

As cool armydude said we can only wait and hope. All gay/bi men aren't flamming!!

MunchingZombie saidHey, have you heard about this Jonathan Swift guy? He wants us to actually EAT BABIES! Can you believe it? We need to do something about him.

I was actually surprised to read about how many people not only took Mr. Swift's piece of writing seriously, but how many people were in favor of it.