News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.The “Brüno” Imbrüglio
This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.
Gabriel Arana
July 16th, 2009
Brüno, Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest mockumentary, has been criticized by gay rights groups like GLAAD for reinforcing stereotypes about gay people and “decreas[ing] the public’s comfort with [them].” The movie’s eponymous main character is a flamboyant, fame-mongering Austrian who throughout the film is shown engaging in a hot tub romp beside his adopted black baby, “O.J.”; tethered to his partner by S&M gear to which he has lost the key; and using a bicycle affixed with a long rod to its wheel as a dildo. If you haven’t seen it, you can watch the trailer here (warning: not appropriate for work).
The movie’s producers have defended the film, saying the intent was to expose homophobia.
The studio’s argument, I think, is that in presenting someone with an exaggerated gay stereotype, it will test just how accepting he or she is of gay people. I sort of doubt this was really their intent — and it’s definitely not the effect: Who in the world would not be offended by someone trying to sneak into their tent naked at night, as Brüno does? And as Richard Kim points out, it is actually surprising just how tolerant people in the film are of Brüno’s histrionics.
Other reviews/critiques have focused on whether the film is good or bad for gay people and whether it’s beyond the pale of good taste (even for satire).
XXfactor’s Jessica Grose, who “almost walked out of Brüno,” called the film mean-spirited and “not funny.” Dana Golstein from TAP points out that while she found the film at times “uproariously” funny, it portrays gay sex as deviant and “that’s unfortunate”:
Yet because I was familiar with Baron Cohen’s shtick from his previous film, Borat, what most shocked me about Bruno wasn’t its exploitation of regular people, but its overt focus on the deviance of gay sex. Every single one of Bruno’s sexual encounters is a sado-masochistic kink-fest. … a lot of folks seeing this film are going to come out of it thinking to themselves, “Wow, gay sex is GROSS!
The thing I can’t stop thinking about as I read these reactions: How does this compare to drag shows? Drag queens make a living off being mean; the meaner, the better. Or a gay pride parade? A lot of people would think New York Pride is a “sado-masochistic kink-fest.” There are even arguments about whether gays should suppress these sorts of exaggerated expressions of gay subcultures because they might be off putting to society at large.
It’s of course a different thing to make fun of yourself and another to be made fun of, but the crux of many critiques of the film is that representations of gay people should be tasteful lest we scare the public back into the 1950s.
In my opinion, this film would only succeed in hurting gay people if one thinks it is an accurate representation of what gay people are like. The movie is clearly camp, which, as Susan Sontag said, is a performance of culture “in quotations marks.” I suppose some people will read them — and others won’t.
Dan
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
Hmmm…. You see, I really enjoyed Borat and I must say that I love this kind of in-your-face humor.
The problem I see with Bruno is mostly related to it’s perception outside of the western world. Such a popular movie will be seen in every country regardless of offical bans (such as Ukraine’s). People in those countries do not have the appropriate context to understand this type of film. I lived in one such country for many years so I know what I’m talking about.
Jake
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
I really enjoyed Bruno and did not find it offensive to gay people.
A lot of these critics claimed that this movie would cause people to think of gay people differently.
Come on! Let’s not insult the intelligence of that vast majority of straight people.
Jason D
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
“The thing I can’t stop thinking about as I read these reactions: How does this compare to drag shows? Drag queens make a living off being mean; the meaner, the better. Or a gay pride parade? A lot of people would think New York Pride is a “sado-masochistic kink-fest.””
This isn’t a valid comparison for the most obvious reason. Sacha Baron Cohen is NOT gay.
It is one thing for gays to live their lives as they wish (Pride Parades) it’s another for a straight person to co-opt and exaggerate their lives without so much as a “thank you”.
Drag is not about being mean, you severly misunderstand it if that’s what you think it is. It’s not even female exploitation. Rather, it’s mocking the standards that straight men expect of straight women — to the point of absurdity. Drag is more comedy, satire, and performance art. Homophobia being essentially an offshoot of sexism, it’s rather appropriate for gay men to make this connection viz a viz drag.
And Gabriel, I’m rather shocked that you’re distilling the pride parade down to the 5% of the parade that’s shocking. You know quite well the majority of the pride parade is rather tame. In Chicago, the majority of marchers are religious and professional organizations, gay police, gay nurses, gay jews. One cannot say that Bruno only has 5% over-the-top-stereotyping.
My only real thing to say about Bruno is why are we giving an entertainer a pass when we won’t give the same leeway to our president and democratic party. To me, it seems Baron Cohen isn’t helping us, and is just as damaging as our politicians — so why is the gAyTM open to him? Seems to me if we really want to commit to fighting for our rights, then we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of anyone who’s not committed to the Dallas Principles.
TJMcFisty
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
Back during the Ali G show, the Bruno skit was more about satirizing the fashion world and the culture that revolves around it, and it’s well deserved in certain areas, but I’d like to know why SBC decided to make the movie more about satirizing the character rather than the object the character satirized.
I’m well aware that filling an hour and a half of interviewing ridiculous fashion icons and crashing runway shows over and over again gets old.
I guess it was a SBC requirement that all three characters have movies. Circle is complete. Closure. Whatever.
ravenbiker
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
I have not seen this movie and probably will at some point only because I thought Borat was grizzly, raunchy and pretty funny. I remember at the time it did stir an international controversy with Kazakstan. I’m sure Bruno would be no different.
In fact, I would argue that most people think two things in general:
1. Sex, what ever the flavor, is disgusting—exchanging body fluids and the like.
2. Most all people do see that this guys is over the top and intellegently assume that it is what it is—a farce.
I like to see the “ugly” side of being gay portrayed, because, after all, people ought to see us as they are: Good, Bad and Ugly.
Chad
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
Well, Jason said it all, although I’d add that I think “Bruno” can safely be classified as a twenty-first century minstrel show.
Jason D
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
“I like to see the “ugly” side of being gay portrayed, because, after all, people ought to see us as they are: Good, Bad and Ugly.”
To be fair, raven, this is actually the ugly side of a straight man pretending to be gay.
This is a performer, playing a role.
If this were an actual gay person and this was actually how he went about his business — I’d simply think he was an obnoxious and stupid person.
Lindoro Almaviva
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
The problem (as i see it) is the fact that we take ourselves way too seriously:
How dare he, a Straight man, behave like that?
How dare he make fun of us?
How dare he use the skeletons he have our collective closet?
Fact is that that is how many heterosexual see us and what he did was to put is in black and white, no holds barred.
We are in the middle of quick transformations and shifts in attitude, so I can see why many people (gays specially) feel like they have to walk on egg shells, lest the people around us get pissed off because we are daring to demand our rights. This by no means should equate with being so uptight as to not engage in satirical humor.
SBC has managed, once again, to make fun of everybody: The straights for their stupid stereotypes of us, and us for being to f**king uptight as to get offended by his portrayal
I laughed my auschwitz off
Hrm
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
I can’t bring myself to get too worked up about Bruno, but I do think there is a good point to be made that there can be a fine line between parody with a purpose of enlightenment and parody with a purpose of exploitation. From what I have heard about the film, Bruno almost certainly crosses that line, and arguably intended to cross that line.
A good, brief analysis here:
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/57766/
Mike Airhart
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
The unbridled nudity and implied gay sex in Bruno may be understood as camp by liberal adults — but not necessarily by the high-school students and red-state college students who will easily see it despite its R rating.
For how many of them will the movie merely reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with the insult, “That’s so gay”?
tristram
July 16th, 2009 | LINK
@Mike Airhart – it’s not just “red state college students.” It was in the heart of one of the most liberal blue state cities in the country that I heard a group of college students who (while they thought the phallic humor was hilarious) who obviously felt liberated to be loudly and publicly homophobic after exiting the movie.
Leave A Comment