The Shotgun Blog
« UFC is Canada’s fastest growing sport and Georges St-Pierre is our champion tonight | Main | You look good enough for a promotion: Smarten up your wardrobe with a pocket square »
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Bruno looks for homophobia; finds patience and kindness instead
I saw Bruno on Friday afternoon, the much-touted mockumentary starring Sacha Baron Cohen portraying a fictional gay Austrian fashion reporter named Bruno. The film is expected to gross $40 million by Sunday, topping the box office.
The plot of Bruno is fairly simple: With his career in shambles, Bruno leaves Austria for America looking for fame and fortune but instead finds true love. The sub-plot is more political, and, I would argue, less convincing: A gay man confronts homophobia everywhere by ignorant and bigoted Americans.
Bruno’s antics are so offensive I was forced to look away from the big screen from time to time. It’s not just the sexually explicit material that offends; it’s the harassment and humiliation of ordinary people, many of whom show remarkable kindness, patience and understanding toward Bruno, despite his outrageous behaviour. This good will has its limits, of course, and Bruno pushes past these limits in the pursuit of humour, but also a political message.
When Bruno – or more correctly, Sacha Cohen – gets the reaction he wants from these unsuspecting middle class squares who are not in on his weird act, the audience is supposed to take note of the awful homophobia and ignorance that still exists in America.
Consider these scenes:
A pastor who councils homosexuals talks patiently and lovingly with Bruno, who flirts and baits this sincere and religious man with talk of oral sex. The pastor never loses his cool, and never utters a single unkind word about a lifestyle he thinks is spiritually destructive. The pastor thinks homosexuality is a choice, and a bad choice at that, and the audience is supposed to read into that that the pastor must be a homophobe.
A small group of very unsophisticated hunters, the kind of people who have never spent much time with the likes of a gay fashion reporter from Austria, patiently teach Bruno to hunt, ignoring his provocative sexual innuendos. Bruno returns their hospitality by sneaking around naked in the middle of the night trying to make his way into the tents and sleeping bags of his hosts. After hours of sexual harassment and condescending comments that were not lost on these men, one hunter pushes back, demanding only to be left alone and insisting that the filming come to an end. These people are also ignorant homophobes goes the narrative.
Setting out to make a sex tape he thinks will make him "uber-famous," Bruno lures Congressman Ron Paul into a hotel room under the pretense of an interview. He shuts the door of the bedroom, dims the lights and starts to dance. That would have most people, gay or straight, looking for the door, but none of this bizarre behaviour seems to trouble Paul, who picks up a newspaper lying on the bed and ignores the very strange man who is suppose to be preparing to interview him. Not until Bruno takes off his pants and blocks the door with his body does Paul react, calling Bruno “queer” and leaving the room. Is Congressman Paul a homophobe? Of course not. His reaction was measured given the very bizarre situation in which he found himself.
Bruno also shows up at a straight swingers party and gives his undivided and ultimately unwelcomed attention to a male swinger who, while polite beyond all reasonable expectations, eventually tells Bruno to leave. It's hard to imagine a group more liberal than swingers, but even these people harbour a heterosexual bias against gays, we're led to believe.
The scenes go on and on like this, but never do we encounter any real, unprovoked hostility toward Bruno for this homosexuality.
Only when Bruno creates the perfect conditions – a straight pride professional wrestling match somewhere in the rural south; a hand picked audience whipped into a fake frenzy typical of wrestling matches where villains and heroes polarise fans; and a spontaneous live gay sex show in the centre of the cage – does civility break down. Once again, we’re supposed to recoil at the fact that homophobes still run loose in America.
Bruno sets out to portray America as a country hostile to gay men. What he showed the world instead is how patient and tolerant most Americans are when confronted by a complete lunatic, gay or otherwise. Anti-homosexual views do, of course, exist, but it is unfair to characterize this bigotry as pervasive.
In the end, Cohen does little to expose homophobia, but does plenty to denormalize the gay community. The Associated Press reports that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said Friday that the film reinforces a “damaging, hurtful stereotype” and "decreases the public's comfort with gay people."
This is a fair criticism.
Putting all of this aside, is the movie funny? Yes. It's absolutely hilarious. It's as good as Borat, Cohen's first feature film.
Cohen is no doubt a brilliant humorist, but it would be a mistake for movie-goers to look for cultural insights in Bruno.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on July 12, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I like that you see a story in everything, and your take on Bruno is pretty dead on from what I hear. ( I have not seen the movie, and probably won't until DVD time).
I know some people who stood in line to see "Ron Paul's New Movie"... Everyone else was there for some guy named Bruno.
Maybe for a sequel, Bruno can go to Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Gaberial | 2009-07-12 6:54:55 AM
A "straight pride" wrestling match?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-12 7:58:37 AM
You make some good points in this post Matthew, and I rarely agree with your posts. This is the same schtick as Borat: portray everyone as racist sexist homophobes. Baron Cohen is an extreme leftist who did his thesis on the civil rights movement. Basically he - a Jewish Brit - is mocking America, as he mocked Kazakhstan and Eastern Europe. *HE* is the bigot, few people seem to get that, but you did, good for you.
IT's been said before: the WS staff wants to be politically correct and libertarian\anti-statist. Can't be done. The vast majority of incursions on liberty come from the left and require saying politically incorrect things to address.
I hope this is not the last nearly politically incorrect post at the WS. After all, if you never, ever say anything politically incorrect, you're part of the problem, Leviathan's henchman. Advocating for legal weed is not politically incorrect, btw, nor is calling for a cut in spending and taxes.
Fighting "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" is exactly what the corporate media and the government want you to do - nothing progressive about that. It should be a big red flag to you when the government and media tell you to do something - it's better to do the opposite.
You guys need to attack the gay agenda, which is out of control, and feminism, and race hustlers if you want to be taken seriously as libertarians, otherwise you are one of them and part of the problem.
Posted by: Kelsey | 2009-07-12 9:02:05 AM
"The sub-plot is more political ... A gay man confronts homophobia everywhere by ignorant and bigoted Americans.... Bruno pushes past these limits in the pursuit of ... a political message... the audience is supposed to take note of the awful homophobia and ignorance that still exists in America... and the audience is supposed to read into that that the pastor must be a homophobe.... These people are also ignorant homophobes goes the narrative... It's hard to imagine a group more liberal than swingers, but even these people harbour a heterosexual bias toward gays, we're led to believe.... Once again, we’re supposed to recoil at the fact that homophobes still run lose in America. Bruno sets out to portray America as a country hostile to gay men.... it is unfair to characterize this bigotry as pervasive. In the end, Cohen does little to expose homophobia."
Other than the fact that you repeat again and again and again and again and again and ... again what you think is the way we are "supposed" to react to the film and the political conclusions we are supposed to draw from it, what makes you so sure that is right? Why should I believe that the film is anything more than a feature-length episode of "Candid Camera" with a single main character? Maybe you assume far too much. Maybe it's just a film, not a political exercise. Maybe...
"Cohen is no doubt a brilliant humorist, but it would be a mistake for movie-goers to look for cultural insights in Bruno."
Maybe you should have taken your own advice when watching the film.
Two more things: "When Bruno – or more correctly, Sacha Cohen..."
You mean "more correctly, Sacha Baron Cohen." The entire family name is "Baron Cohen". "Baron" is not a middle name.
"Borat, Cohen's first feature film"
Borat was his second film (if you don't count Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby). Ali G Indahouse was his first film.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-12 9:52:15 AM
The dumbing down of language with Orwellian speech results in invented terms such as homophobe. By this logic I would be a porkophobe since I discriminate by not eating pork. At the same time I neither hate nor fear pigs or pork. All this goes hand-in-hand with the invention of hate speech, hate laws and HRCs.
I have know, associated with and worked with both homosexuals and lesbians and can say not one of them behaved in an unacceptable way. I think they would be disgusted by how this film wants to portray them.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-12 10:04:43 AM
"Cohen is no doubt a brilliant humorist, but it would be a mistake for movie-goers to look for cultural insights in Bruno."
Maybe you should have taken your own advice when watching the film.
I did, which is why I found the movie so funny, Fact Check.
As for Cohen's intentions, he has been said in interviews that "Bruno" exposes negative attitudes towards homosexuals. GLAAD isn't buying it, and neither am I.
And I wouldn't call "Ali G" a feature film, although like the rest of Cohen's work it is very funny.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 10:43:53 AM
Do you actually believe the people in the film are unsuspecting, and unrehearsed?
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-12 11:11:18 AM
I do, dp. They know they are being filmed, but they don't know that the whole thing is a "mockumentory." Would Ron Paul agree to be humiliated is this way?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 11:22:33 AM
Gaberial, he does go to the Middle East. It's some of his best material in this film.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 11:23:37 AM
The whole thing is very likely to be as orchestrated as Rick Mercer's interviews with "dumb" Americans. The whole thing is silly and a complete waste of anyone's time.
How about WS or some of it writers find time to write about the life and society changing political events that are working to control us all? You know, - "World Health Authority" - "Gun Control" - Criminal Levels of Taxation" - "Economic Ruin by Design" - "False Flag Security" - and on and on...or we could just talk about wrestling and gay people...that's fun too, I guess.
No offense intended Matthew, but there is some "serious shit" going on out there. And before you say it...If I knew how to write I would submit something.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-12 11:26:28 AM
A man needs some comic relief in these trying times, JC.
The Western Standard gave considerable coverage to recent gun control activity on the Hill. I've written a lot about Alberta's economic situation. I just recently wrote a story about tax sovereignty I thought you'd like.
No offence taken, but we do cover a range of issues. What we need is more hands on deck. Perhaps I need to spend more time sources content and less time trying to produce it.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 11:36:56 AM
Matthew- I agree there's probably some trickery, but if Ron Paul agreed to let the film air, he agreed to being humiliated. Michael Moore got sued for tricking a couple of people in some of his films.
I'm surprised at some of the films that become box office hits in America. Will Ferrel, Adam Sandler, this Sasha guy. They aren't funny. They make Jerry Lewis look like a genius.
And what's the deal with all this computer animation? Why don't they call them what they are? cartoons.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-12 11:41:19 AM
I watched the video found it very entertaining. I agree with Matthew. I expected lots of homophobia and even violence the guests were very tolerant until Bruno started touching them or putting them in very uncomfortable situations having nothing to do with sexual orientation. The hunting situation best shows this. He harassed them all night long in to the early morning that would have upset any one and would cause them try and get him to stop so that they can sleep. Very funny movie but it had the same story line as Borat essentially.I doubt I will be rushing out to see his next one.
Posted by: Calgary Libertarian | 2009-07-12 1:52:12 PM
A man needs some comic relief in these trying times, JC.
True.
What we need is more hands on deck. Perhaps I need to spend more time sources content and less time trying to produce it.
True too.
Best, JC
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-12 1:57:20 PM
Other than the whole homophobia thing, the film also tried to touch on how people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame. Bruno goes to great lengths to be famous as well as some of the people he interviews. The scene that stands out most in my mind is the scene where he is auditioning children for a very risque photo shoot and the parents will do anything to get their kids the part.
Posted by: Rick | 2009-07-12 9:46:55 PM
Bruno is almost already yesterday's news...I predict a Boy George style slide into anonymity and probable suicide.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-12 10:37:19 PM
The movie is funny, JC. Cohen will continue to have success. Although, reports coming out today show a steep drop from Friday's revenue. He's still #1.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 10:49:27 PM
". . . as good as Borat, Cohen's first feature film."
I won't waste my money then.
Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-07-13 12:46:45 PM
Although, reports coming out today show a steep drop from Friday's revenue. He's still #1.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-12 10:49:27 PM
Bruno was #1 in daily grosses for one day only (Friday 10th) it now fallen to #3 behind ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS and TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-07-13 1:05:36 PM
I haven't seen the movie but have seen sketches with the Bruno character. It seems to me that Baron Cohen (Cohen)is not trying to expose anything except perhaps his own prejudice towards gay people in that he exaggerates and caricaturizes their manner of dress, speech and other behaviours which are stereo-types of gays.
If anyone, gay or straight, behaved the way he does in my home or office, I'd kick his ass to the curb too - not because he's gay, but because he's acting like a complete jerk.
Cohen's work fails in three ways: it's not funny behavior really, it's stupid, annoying, offensive behavior; it's not insightful to the problem gays experience in society, instead it reinforces negative stereotypes; and lastly it is not a subversive work of art that will open minds, but a poor portrayal of anything close to reality that will confirm in the prejudiced mind the reasons for their prejudice.
So what's it really about? It's about shocking people's sensibilities. It's about embarrassing people. It's about the audience's discomfort as they watch people being humiliated. But mostly, it's about how much money Cohen can make by jumping on the "stupid is the new smart" mentality that has swept the internet. Cohen is laughing at all of us, laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted by: Lance Boyle | 2009-08-06 3:49:00 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.