The Bruno Moral Quandary
A year ago, I wrote a post about the Bruno movie's moral quandary. A year ago! Time flies when you are having BLOGS! (You have no idea how sorry I am. For everything.) The post concerned what seemed to me then and seems to me now to be the biggest problem facing Sacha Baron Cohen's new movie: Borat-style jokes built on exaggerated stereotypes to "expose bigotry" are different and potentially more "dangerous" when they deal with a genuine group of discriminated people, especially one that currently sits at the white hot center of a national debate on equal rights. For one thing, it's going to be a much less charming hipster Halloween costume. Not very niiiice!
Now, as Richard Lawson points out at Gawker, some gay rights groups are voicing some complaints and some concerns about the movie:
A representative for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation told the New York Times for a feature running on Sunday that, while the movie's satire is "well-meaning," mostly it's just "problematic in many places and outright offensive in others."Meanwhile the Human Rights Campaign feels that Bruno should be responsible for the fuckwittery of its audience, saying that a disclaimer should run before the film so people know that it's, y'know, sayin' somethin':
"We strongly feel that Sacha Baron Cohen and Universal Pictures have a responsibility to remind the viewing public right there in the theater that this is intended to expose homophobia."
Uh oh! Well, the fact of the matter is that some people definitely won't get "the joke." Does that mean that a movie like Bruno shouldn't get made? Just because we have got some dumb thumbheads up in this country/world? No. We cannot cater to them anymore than we already do. But it does mean that the laffs of the movie become more suspect, and one's motivation for laughing--not to mention what exactly one is actually laughing at--needs to examined. How many people need to sing along to "Throw the Gay Down the Well" before it stops being a commentary on homophobia and starts just being an engine of it?
Richard ends his post this way:
So what are we to think (and do) here? Say that these groups are being humorless prigs? Dismayingly acknowledge that they're sort of right--that now, especially, isn't the time for humor that might be interpreted the wrong way?Honestly, we're really asking.
And that seems about right. We all support gay rights here. But no one wants to be the humorless scold who can't draw the line between what's a joke and what is actually offensive and damaging**. That's the fine line that Sacha Baron Cohen has chosen to walk. He has done it brilliantly in the past, but the stakes were never really that high. So what are we to think (and do) here?
Honestly, I'm asking.
*The laffs in Borat, which is an amazing movie, I own it, relax, were actually quite problematic in their own right, and if I ever finish building my time machine I'm going to go back in time and KILL HITLER, and then I am going to blog about the complications of Borat's humor, especially in a theater-setting, when it was STILL RELEVANT.
**Before the commenters who love to cry "PC Police" get involved, it's important to point out that the distinction between something being a joke and something being racist/sexist/homophobic is one of the more complicated distinctions, mainly because a lot of times it's both! A lot of you guys seem to have a really hard time recognizing that just because you laugh at something that is racist or homophobic or sexist doesn't necessarily make you those things, but it also doesn't make the thing you're laughing at NOT racist or sexist or homophobic. It's all a big mess! But that is the world that we live in, and I for one think that it's more important to at least acknowledge when something is based on stereotype and/or bigotry. That doesn't mean you can't laugh at it, which would only be out of some kind of condescending false empathy. Just know what is what! Don't play games! Eracism! Eracophobia! OK, Edgy Jokes University class of 2009 DISMISSED.
Posted by Gabe at 5:00 PM in Backlashes, Everyone's A Critic
Tags: Bruno | Homophobia | Homosexuals | Sacha Baron Cohen
**obligatory "When did this turn into Seriousgum?" comment**
Score = 23
Seriousgum? I found that post still kinda funny. I'm not getting into this gay thing. Also, I don't have the fuckin prerequisites to talk about this movie:
I never saw Borat. THERE IS IT! JUDGE AWAY.
Score = -13
We're not judging you for not having seen Borat.
Score = 7
The problem isn't that Bruno is a homosexual. The problem is that he's an obnoxious asshole that happens to show his homosexuality down the throats of bigots and/or people who probably just don't like him as a person, regardless of his orientation. Face it - Bruno is fun to laugh at but you'd never want to actually hang out with that guy. He is deeply unlikeable. So because someone doesn't like him they become a homophobe by default. It's an easy joke and an easy trap. People need to stop calling Baron-Cohen a genius and start calling him out as the lazy hack he is.
Score = -17
I realize that Bruno isn't someone I'd want to hang out with, but what exactly do you mean when you say he shoves his homosexuality down peoples' throats? That really isn't any different than how you probably act. Don't you "flaunt" your heterosexuality in public???
Score = 25
No, you ignorant bastard, straight people do not "flaunt" their heterosexuality in public. But gay people DO. There's no such thing as "straight pride" where straight guys dress up in sports uniforms and ride around on floats shaped like giant, golden breasts to signify they like to fuck women.
But for some reason, gay people do that very thing. So I can get it where "mark" is coming from about being all in your face about being gay, because it happens. The entire concept of "gay pride" is about getting into people's face and making a stink about being gay. And, sadly, if you don't like it, you're marked as homophobic.
But I'm gay and I don't like it, so where does that leave me?
Score = -89
There isn't such a thing as straight pride b/c most people are straight. Minorities (like us) should be proud of our identities and not feel like we should try to act "normal" so that straight people can feel more powerful. As an oppressed minority, we need to make a statement that we love who we are.
Score = 33
See, the thing is, you're all so ready to turn over and let every day be straight pride day. I live every day of my life as a gay person who isn't ashamed of who I am. But that doesn't mean I'm running up and down the streets in drag, riding a giant phallus float telling people "Accept me or else!" I just do my own thing and, oh, and kiss boys as well.
By saying I have to "take pride for being a minority" is saying that I have to revel in otherness, that somehow me simply existing as a gay person isn't enough, that I have to make it a point to single myself out and shine a spotlight down and say "Look at me, look at me! I like boys!" when the same isn't expected or asked of straight people.
I'm not proud to be gay, I'm proud to be a well-rounded human being who just happens to be gay.
Score = 44
If it's part of who you are, what's so wrong with being proud of being gay? Seriously, I'm asking.
Score = 3
I get where K-Mo is coming from, because it does seem like "pride" is only culturally sanctioned if you're a minority. And there's something kind of weird about that. If I said "I'm proud to be white," that would be a very strange statement indeed. I’m not proud of being white or straight any more than I’m proud of having brown eyes or freckles. It’s what I was born with -- what’s to be proud of? But in our cultural ethos, if you’re gay, it’s imperative to be “proud” of being gay! Otherwise you must be ashamed of it! Simple acknowledgment of identity just isn't enough for some reason. I fully support the fight for gay rights, but to me the pride movement has an insecure, almost infantile hysteria about it. I don’t think it’s progressive at all.
Score = 27
Has no one in this thread ever heard of straight privilege? Or white privilege for that matter?
I mean, every day is straight pride day. Kind of like how every month but one month is white history month. We just don't call it that because it's part of the dominant discourse.
I can understand that the stereotype embodied by Bruno can cause a certain amount of self-hate in those that don't identify with his behavior, as can the sort of mass imagery that accompany "pride." But it's still important to be proud. Being out and and vocal about it, no matter who you are, reminds people that LGBT people are in every walk of life and every shape size and color. That also includes those who ride floats and wave around rainbow flags and cover themselves in glitter while wearing speedos. We're all in the same boat, and accepting LGBT people means accepting them too. I'm just amazed by the amount of unaware self hatred going on here.
Remember, We still live in a country where I can be beat up for holding my boyfriend's hand, and people exist that think I deserved it. I've had to move into different subway cars while showing a little PDA because some guy will come on yelling about how there's too many "fags" in new york and he wants to beat them. Would that ever happen to a straight person? No. All that might happen is someone would yell "get a room."
Sorry, I know comment rants are useless, but like... ya'll, we need to overcome this sort of bigotry that exists within LGBT communities just as much as straight people need to realize that not all gay people are flamboyant and promiscuous.
Score = 9
THANK YOU! You have no idea how hard it is to get that very point across to (gay) people. A lot of people see it as being very black and white; either you have "gay pride" or you're self-hating. I get shit from other gays all the time because I don't know which Scissor Sisters song is playing. When I first saw the Equal Rights Campaign sticker, the blue with yellow equal sign, I didn't know what it was so I asked a gay guy who was wearing one. But of course, instead of just saying what it was, he berated me saying "Oh, we're going to take your gay card away." I said "Fine, but I'll still keep sucking cock anyway."
I think pride was a good thing in the 70s and 80s when people had to get loud and proud, but nowadays homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted. However gay people still MAKE themselves out to be the minority by celebrating how different they are from everyone. It's hard for a straight person to know how to approach gay people because they make it such a point to show how different they are, while asking to be treated the same.
Score = 4
So...wait.
Are you saying that in order to receive the same fundamental rights as straight people, we need to proclaim to the world how we're just the same as straight people? I see nothing wrong with you viewing yourself as a more masculine gay man, but don't tell me I have to stop listening to Tegan and Sara, Scissor Sisters, etc. in order to be accepted by society. Gay culture exists and, whether or not you choose to distance yourself from it, this culture and uniqueness has a right to exist.
I see nothing wrong with living a "normal" life and also having the attitude of loving who I am. I'm not saying you need to dress up in drag everyday to be proud, but why deny that gay communities help us achieve equal rights by banning together with common goals and understanding of the discrimination we all face by being who we are?
Score = 2
No, keep rocking to your Tegan and Sara (love them as well...), keep dressing up in drag and keep doing whatever it is that makes you feel good. I'm not trying to crap on that. If someone is a flamboyant queen, then that's just how they're going to be and trying to change that would not only be unnecessary, it'd be wrong.
I'm just saying, don't get your panties in a bunch when a straight guy picks up on all of these stereotypes that gay people themselves help to perpetuate and uses them to make straight people feel uncomfortable. If he were actually gay, you'd call him a hero for getting in the face of rednecks and making them deal with his sexuality. But since he's not, it's somehow this big bad thing.
Score = 5
There's a big difference between just being yourself and imitating a gay stereotype.
But, quite honestly, I respect your views on what pride is and to what degree you choose to express it. I don't go around doing drag either, but I do like being gay (and going to Tegan and Sara concerts). If giving blowjobs to guys is the only way you want to immerse yourself in gay culture, then that's your choice.
Score = 2
Would you marry me?!?!
Score = 1
quit being gay you guys, for real.
Score = 53
On another note, you have the best profile image.
Score = 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity
Score = 6
now it's my turn to be obnoxious and answer for the previous poster: my guess is no, they don't flaunt their heterosexuality (if indeed they are straight) in that it would probably connote harassment, so get over that one phrase, go back and read the post and understand-- "i don't hate you because you're white-- you're just a white person i can't stand." i dare you not to get it.
Score = 1
I'm late to the game here, and wish to divorce this comment from an analysis of "Pride" which has is own complexities, but it seems clear that Bruno is ostentatious and obnoxious with the specific goal of upsetting people. The fact that he pairs that with a range of effeminate, flamboyantly gay stereotypes would almost be irrelevant if it weren't a cheap way to transform his pranks into "socially-relevant commentary."
Really, what is the proper way to respond to a character whose entire purpose is to annoy, harass and provoke you? Imagine that you meet Borat, unaware of his identity, and he begins pleasantly spewing racist, antisemitic invective in service of an anecdote about his village in Kazakhstan. What is the right response? If you scold him, you are a xenophobe. If you play along and try to enjoy him, you are a racist. If you try to politely refute his position, you are a condescending, cultural imperialist. If you try to work around the issue tactfully, he steps up his game. It is impossible to win.
Bruno promises to be more of the same, and the fact that the character reminds me of some of my friends does not make it any less obnoxious. My friends are being themselves; they are not trying to bait people. Most of my more flamboyant friends would find Bruno insufferable in real life, and they are the embodiment of the stereotypes he is aping to supposedly expose bigotry.
I think what Sasha Baron Cohen does is amusing, and occasionally he comes across a bigoted individual, but his work no more holds a mirror up to society's bigotry than the Clarence sketches from Wonder Showzen.
Score = 1
"If you scold him, you are a xenophobe. If you play along and try to enjoy him, you are a racist. If you try to politely refute his position, you are a condescending, cultural imperialist."
Would that be so horrible, though? Americans have this incredible phobia about being called racist. It's like somehow once somebody calls you racist you've lost the right to be thought of as a human being, and you'll be a pariah for the rest of your life.
Why should disagreeing with a racist person, foreign or not, make you look bad? Are the PC police really going to come to your house and send you to PC jail?
One of the things I remember liking about Borat was that the people he was making fun of came of as fully rounded human beings who just happened to have some unfortunate views, rather then as two dimensional racist monsters.
I think this terror of being called racist or xenophobic really makes it hard to discuss issues of race and culture in this country. If somebody says or does something racist, you can't just say "Dude, that was kind of racist" the way you'd say "Dude, that was kind of rude" or "Dude, that was a boneheaded move". Instead you have to come up with weird euphemisms like "racially insensitive" or something and spend lots of time assuring the person that you don't think they're a horrible worthless monster.
I think we should try not to make every question about racism into a struggle to the death.
Score = 4
It wouldn't be so horrible if it were merely seen as amusing and harmless. Instead it is hailed as an indictment on the individuals and the society by those lucky enough to avoid entrapment.
I agree that many of the people came across as well-rounded. Many of them even impressed me with their patience. The problem is that a big chunk of the audience and critical response was focused on painting them as the face of what is wrong with our society. That isn't fair to them or to our society, and it validates the aforementioned phobia of being called racist.
Score = 0
i am gonna hate this movie because i am homophobic.
Score = 36
You know those studies where strongly opinionated people are directed to talk about issues like abortion, and they all come out more dogmatic than they went in (liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative)? I think this movie is probably going to do something like that. The people who support gays will have a good laugh at the expense of homophobes and walk out of the theater with those pro-gay opinions affirmed. The people who don't support gays will have a good laugh at the expense of gays and walk out of the theater with their anti-gay opinions affirmed.
I think edgy, stereotype-based humor usually has this effect: some laugh at the absurdity of the stereotypes and some laugh at the stereotyped group.
Score = 48
i agree. persuasion usually comes slowly, softly, and through the subconscious-- people tend to make up their own minds rather then submit humbly to a thunderbolt of epiphany-- so any good done by cohen might be wiped out in the immediate sense due to bombast and the reinforcement effect you mentioned.
Score = 1
"The people who support gays" = Most Unreal Comment Fragment Here
Score = -2
Art Spiegleman said once that since Robert Crumb's racist caricatures were printed without satire in some white power publications (without his permission), that meant that Crumb's parody had failed since certain people couldn't immediately tell he was being sarcastic. I didn't buy that argument then and I don't buy it now. Stupid people will always misinterpret art. Cohen's intentions are clear. Feel free to laugh away.
Score = 36
OKAY. I'm gay (which obviously makes my opinion more important jk), and I'm honestly a bit worried about Bruno's potential affect on audiences and anyone who watches daytime television or other entertainment shows during the promotion period. This film is probably going to be unavoidable for anyone in America for a couple weeks, just like Borat was. I realize the SBC is a gay rights proponent (obviously not homophobic) and this character of his is not supposed to be funny by itself, but rather the reactions of the people who interact with him are supposed to be the ones we're intended to be laughing at.
However, note the word "intended." I feel like most people who see the movie (even well-intentioned straight people) will end up laughing at Bruno just like people laugh at other gay characters in movies where the punchline is "see how gay that guy/girl is? Isn't it funny how gay they are!!!!"
To me, this type of humor isn't really that different from blackface. I realize that's a controversial statement, but that's just how I feel. Regardless of SBC's intentions, I just couldn't sit through that movie and not feel uneasy.
Score = 2
There's a world of difference between blackface and Bruno.
Score = 11
Care to elaborate?
Also - I'd make the argument that I Am Sam = retard blackface.
Score = 17
except, of course, blackface was initially used for 19th century lolz and i am sam was trying to elicit sympathy; the original point of blackface was certainly not "hey, look how terrible black people have it." granted, i am sam was terrible and probably did more harm than good, but it still was decidedly not intended as a comedy.
further, blackface is seemingly different from bruno because the intention of the comedy is different. the intention of blackface - when used as comedy rather than as a conduit of culture - was generally to make fun of blacks, to laugh at their ignorant, sub-human antics. Bruno is more about making fun of the current milieu of gay stereotypes and homophobia. Perhaps there's an element of SBC's character that's meant to poke fun at the gay community's outlandish and in-your-face expressions of identity, but i don't think this element makes Bruno a modern day blackface.
Score = 13
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Score = 0
19th Century LOLz were the best.
Score = 10
I'm gonna vote you up, only because of that profile image
Score = 2
have you ever watched a movie about a bunch of straight guys who have a bachelor party (the hangover) and they talk about how much they want to fuck everything that moves and haha its so funny because those guys are ridiculous. almost every comedy i can think of has at least one male character like that. should i be upset at the way it portrays heterosexual men?
Score = 3
Representation is more important for gay people and other minority groups because people are exposed to unique types of straight men everyday. Gays are a minority and representation affects the levels of homophobia that gay people are treated to each day. People are, in general, more willing to stereotype a minority group than a majority group.
Score = 11
Exactly. You are not a group of people, you are your sexual preference (not orientation). Black people are defined by their race and women are defined by their gender, but white heterosexual men are just people. They are not defined by anything but their own personal worth because they are the norm.
This concept becomes clear if you ever talk to a standard white male about white privilege and patriarchy - they have a hard time working with the idea of themselves as part of a group defined by their race and gender rather than an attack targeted at them as a person.
Anyways, this is why representation is important. The more we are represented by our stereotypes, the more they are reinforced.
Score = 4
i don't think that makes any sense to me. i'm a white and hetero and male, and i would assert that all of those qualities very much define me. there aren't communities with strong identities built around these qualities, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant to who I am and how I perceive myself. My sense of personal worth is very much affected by how I interpret my being white, male, and heterosexual – just as much as it's determined by my being middle-class, American, atheistic, etc. I recognize that I am part of essentially the most entitled and advantaged demographic in the world, and this profoundly affects my identity. I am painfully aware of the fact that adversity means nothing to me, that my suffering is petty and inconsequential, that my life is very much among the cushiest ever lived. And I understand that this luxury is determined by factors completely outside of my control.
Maybe I'm not a 'standard white mail' (??) but I am very much aware of being part of gender/sexual/racial/socio-economic/religious/national groups, associations that profoundly affect how I see myself and how I am treated. And just because I don't have to fight adversity because of my membership to these groups doesn't mean I have no fucking clue that i'm in them and that i'm somehow completely free of their (in my case positive) effects.
Score = -1
I'm totally with you and I completely agree as a fellow self aware white heteronormative able person. Your identity is absolutely defined by these things, but you are not defined by SOCIETY by these things. Seth Rogan movies do not have a detrimental effect on you as a white male because you are not defined by the actions of a few stupid, pothead white people, but this is not true for minority groups. That's why people say things like "Obama's real numbers when you take away the black vote.." because black people aren't individuals, they are black people. This is why representation is so important and Bruno effects gay people. White people don't represent other white people, but gay people and characterizations of them represent gay people.
Score = 2
I can accept some of that. It would seem that being white, male, and hetero merely empowers me to be defined by other characteristics. You don't put it this way, but I think what you're saying is that white, hetero, males aren't strictly defined by society because society recognizes how disparate a group they are; our culture understands that knowing someone is white, hetero, and male doesn't tell you very much about them. Hence, a Seth Rogan movie doesn't reflect on me as a white male because everyone understands the vast heterogeny that is the white male demographic – which includes such disparate personalities as Seth Rogan, Stephen Hawking, and Spencer Pratt. I wouldn't think this argument for representation applies too well to women; I think most people also understand the vast heterogeny within the female demographic. But there certainly is a perceived homogeny within the homosexual community – and, to a lesser extent, within the black community.
If this is true, then Udolpho's solution of representation is insufficient. What is needed is differential representation. Lots of really disparate kinds of gays need to be active and visible, forcing people to abandon stereotypes as they realize that knowing someone is gay tells you about as much about them as would knowing they're straight – i.e. fucking little.
Score = 0
Exactly exactly exactly. This is another reason why we need to encourage gays to come out of the closet. Let people know you are not a scary Bruno stereotype, but a normal person in their lives, just like them. Now we just need the entertainment industry to end the token woman/POC/gay. Let us see those differential types.
Score = 0
it's so much like blackface...........so much.
Score = 0
Not to be a total douche, but it's spelled "quandary."
Score = 15
Fixed, total douche.
Score = 43
It's official: my people have no sense of humor.
Seriously though, I get that this is bad timing for Bruno's release, and I totally expect the movie to be littered with problematic and offensive material, but I for one am still behind it. I've met many a fellow queen in my day, but not one has been as outlandishly flamboyant as Bruno. Maybe I'm giving Sacha Baron Cohen too much leeway, but I feel like his creation alone is a send-up of America's send up of gay stereotypes. Besides, when the majority of gay comedies made by actual gay people regurgitate the same tired stereotypes, I'm just glad to finally get a gay comedy with a more subversive flair.
I somehow doubt that Bruno's going to be the movie that dismantles homophobia by making us all LOL or something, but I can't help but feel that if Bruno ends up reinforcing your negative perceptions of gay people, well, then your head's shoved way too far up your own ignorant ass for you to ever be convinced otherwise.
Oh, and PS: shoving your head up your as is totally gay. I should know. I do it all the time.
Score = 38
The idea that Bruno is a send-up of send-ups of gay people is interesting. I haven't really thought about it that way, or heard it thought about that way before. Reading it that way requires a Masters Degree in Advanced Joke Getting, but still, interesting idea!
Score = 12
I'm of the opinion that exposing bigotry can only help a group that is being actively oppressed. As evidenced in this newly released TV spot for Bruno:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/06/new-tv-spots-for-bruno.html
Score = -1
"Your finger's in my alley."
"Not yet."
THE MAN IS GENIUS PEOPLE
Score = 1
I am a gay man and I will be seeing this movie because Sacha Baron Cohen is hot. Moral huhdary?
Score = 34
Benjamin- I think you deserve ALL the Votes Up...All of them.
Score = -6
Benjamin- I think you deserve ALL the Votes Up...All of them.
Score = -11
I apologize, you guys.
Honestly, I didn't really feel that this was something that JUST HAD to be posted twice and waste all that precious internet space; the computer took it upon itself to make me look a fool.
Fucking dastardly computers!
Score = 7
I'll also throw up my queer approval for this movie. I'm gay and I've found Bruno to be funny since "Da Ali G Show."
First of all, homophobes are too homophobic to see this movie. I worked at a video store when Borat came out and rednecks hated it, didn't get it or just plain ignored it. I doubt they'll be coming out in droves to laugh at gays.
Second of all, sure SBC is potraying a gay stereotype, but how is this any worse then the ACTUAL living, walking gay stereotypes you see all over TV and movies nowadays anyway? Isn't "Queer Eye" the biggest gay stereotype ever? I mean I'm gay and completely clueless when it comes to dressing myself, decorating a home or finding the right hair product. If actual gay people are going to go around claiming to be representatives of the culture at large and act like complete nancy-boy stereotypes, I think I can afford SBC the same right.
Score = 8
I feel like every day is straight pride day sometimes. It's forced down my throat every day I leave my apartment. I see heterosexuals holding hands, hugging, and kissing in public. Were I to do that with my boyfriend (hypothetically, because my boyfriend is my cat right now, and he's afraid of the outdoors) I would feel uneasy. Yes that is my problem, but it's not my problem that the movies, books, television shows, etc. I was exposed to growing up did not offer me an alternative to the boy/girl relationship. I know I will have to get over it, but I don't want to feel like I'm flaunting my sexuality when I give my boyfriend a peck on the cheek in the line at Gifford's Ice Cream.
You and I are similar in that we both don't fit the gay stereotype. I agree that flamboyant gay people make me uneasy and are annoying. But it's the flamboyancy, not the fact that they're gay. We aren't alone, though. We just tend to not notice the non-flaming gay guys because they're not flaming. We often confuse them for straight. I am often confused for straight. I find that to be insulting, because it implies that based on the way I look and act, it is assumed I like pussy and tits and clits and shit. I don't. But if I don't want to be confused as straight, then maybe I will run down the street with a golden cock shoved in every hole in my body wearing a see-through silk chiffon Marc Jacobs kimono with matching stiletto pumps. Because that's what I have to do to be recognized as gay apparently.
Don't hate on gay people because of how they choose to express themselves. Hate on society for forcing gay people to feel as though they are different. The stereotype of the gay man is prescribed to us by popular society. We are a marginalized group. Marginalized because of our genes (genetic gay studies is something I really did seriously study at a collegiate level, I swear). And if we're going to be marginalized, I welcome the gay pride parades as a way of saying if you're going to treat us like second class citizens, we'll throw an exploded exaggeration of a stereotype placed on us by you as reason to treat us as second class citizens right back in your face. Somebody help me buy seven golden cocks.
Sexuality is a tricky genetic trait in that it is both hereditary and environmental. It's similar but not exactly like hair color, so this may not prove an effective point I'm trying to make, but look at it this way: A person states, "Gay people should not have the right to get married. Gay people are gross abominations." Replace the two "Gay"s in those sentences with the word "Blonde". "Blonde people should not have the right to get married. Blonde people are gross abominations." It's stupid. In both cases.
I know I don't have to prove to you that gay people are not abominations. I know that's not the point we're discussing here. But I think it's important to consider that maybe gay pride embraces the stereotype and is supposed to be annoying because it's a way of showing the people that discriminate against us that we don't care what they think. And it's important to dislike people because of the one reason that makes them unlikable and not get it confused with something unrelated. Flamboyant gay people are annoying. Flamboyant straight people (there are some) are annoying. Flamboyant ____ people are annoying.
Score = 4
tl; dr. Try not to post comments longer than the blog they're attached to.
Score = 1
This can't do much worse for gay stereotypes than the Folsom street fair in San Francisco—and they aren't even trying to be funny.
Score = 2
Agreed! Man, those parades. Bruno is about 47th on the list of characters that reinforce negative gay stereotypes. How about first we get rid of "leather guy" at the parade? Even liberal Americans are somewhat prudish typically, so let's dial down the creepiness a bit.
Score = 4
That the Human Rights Campaign has insisted that a disclaimer or something similar be used before the movie means that they have completely given up on humanity.
We can't be worried about something because "stupid people won't get it." That's their fault.
Score = 11
Well the disclaimer thing is just ridiculous. Human Rights Campaign? More like Human Grandpa With No Idea How Things Work Campaign.
Score = 21
Agreed. The HRC in no way represents the LGBT people I know. They completely ignore trans people and compromise our queer sensibility. I'm not into the idea of a disclaimer or censoring the film, I just don't plan to see it myself.
The HRC is completely out of touch and is focusing on the wrong type of political action that doesn't really help normal gay people (just the stuff that makes the old white men who run it happy). But that's a whole other can of worms.
Score = 2
I would actually like to see that campaign. I'm sure there's a quarterly conference about "Getting Those Damned Kids Off My Lawn."
Score = 10
I am torn. Should I see this movie in the theater, or should I download it? In either case, I will laugh. It is a tricky situation indeed...
Score = 2
isn't downloading it like shamefully watching it (maybe a need to not be seen seeing it)
also, don't steal movies dirtbag
Score = -3
I read something that talked about how a fair amount of conservatives like Stephen Colbert because they think he's on their side. Obviously, that's not quite the same thing as this, but still: huh? It's like people enjoying Team America because they think that's how America should behave. Sure, there are people that probably felt that way, and also people who think Colbert speaks for them, but I don't think this is a good representation of the population as a whole. I imagine most people who watch this movie will see it for what it is. They may or may not like it, but I think they'll "get" it.
But this is America, and we are retarded, so I'm probably wrong.
Score = 10
As a lesbian who owns both seasons of Da Ali G Show on dvd, I'm not offended at all by him. And as a VERY outspoken anti-censorship advocate, I think this is exactly the kind of movie that's necessary.
Colbert does it for conservatives, Bruno does it for homosexuals. Sometimes you have to see conventions pushed to absurdity to realize the absurdity that lies in them normally.
Gawd I sound obnoxious. I end there.
Score = 12
you realize that doesn't make any sense right?
colbert is being a conservative in order to make fun of them.
Bruno is being gay in order to make fun of them??
Score = 8
They're both making fun of society. Maybe I worded the analogy wrong, but Colbert shows the ridiculousness of loud-stubborn-oft'conservative-pundits and Bruno shows the ridiculousness of homosexual stereotypes and the way society regards them.
Score = 6
i really feel like colbert and bruno are disanalogous. you said it yourself: one makes fun of people, the other makes fun of societal concepts, of essentially the entirety of the Western conception of homosexuality - both from inside and outside of the community. Colbert is attacking the intellectual integrity of the modern, populistic conservative movement; Bruno is attacking the importance our society places on sexuality and the ramifications of this importance.
But, i agree that they're both welcome and, in a sense, necessary.
Score = 1
See, I don't really think that Colbert is making fun of PEOPLE, rather of the sensationalized highly biased news industry. I think he's satirizing the culture of Fox News rather than particular correspondents.
Score = 6
why would a gay woman be offended be offended by a man portayal of a gay man
(thanks for coming in today)
Score = -13
Ummm because if you play up one stereotype you're inferring the other and making fun of both? And public opinion doesn't divide between gay women and gay men? And neither does the progression of gay rights?
Maybe?
Score = 7
Thanks buddy
And I don't know what the "thanks for coming in today" thing means, BUT I am a videogum nerd who comments at least daily so it's not as if I'm someone who just hopped in to says "YAY GAY" and then left. I come in everyday. Unless I don't understand what you're saying.
Score = 5
eat some of your own poop
Score = -1
I think Sasha Baron Cohen's humor most appeals to me when he isn't 'exposing the racists' but rather exposing how the folks more desirous of being understanding will stomach a very annoying individual because they consider his eccentricities a normal part of his 'other' factor. Which is yknow, racist in the best sense because I want all people to be a little too kind. Although I must say that I get that out of Ali G and Borat more than I ever did Bruno. And at least from the stuff leading up to the film I don't get the idea Sacha BC isn't exactly gonna milk the gay uncomfortable factor. I mean id some host of some austrian gay tv channel fell from the sky at some second rate awards show and got his balls directly in my face you better believe I'd be all "you cannot be serious!'
Score = 5
I always go back to what Louis CK said
"I'm not laughing at him cause he's gay, I'm laughing because he looks like a fucking retard."
Score = 19
Man, I just hear a bit of self-hatred. That sucks. And yes, K-Mo, heterosexuality is flaunted all the time: whenever straight people show any form of affection in public without the fear of being harassed or beat. Oh yeah, and getting wedding invitations.
I agree with the comments made about people coming out with reinforced ideas after watching the movie. If it helps to continue the dialogue that already exists, than it will do some service. It does suck a little that it is a straight man who is making this commentary.
But come on, nonpracticing-liberal, young gays! Learn some shit! Being a midwestern gay who admits to passing some homophobic judgment, I feel a bit disgusted after reading some of these comments. Gays, like straight people, consist of a broad range of humanity, which includes clueless jerks. If you don't like stereotypes representing you, go out and represent yourself. Oh wait, money-hungry, straight corporate folk don't see that as making much money. Sorry. (That's them flaunting their heterosexuality again.)
Score = -7
So the Jews are fair game, but homos aren't? If we're talking lines, and walking lines, that's a complicated subject. How many people stand on either side of that line?
The answer is: who the fuck cares?
Score = -8
I'm with Mark on this one. I never have found SBC to be a daring comedic "genius" He always goes after easy targets. In Borat, obviously foreigners, southerners, religious conservatives, the political windowdressings somehow allowed it to have more cultural cachet than The Tom Green Show (much better in my opinion) And in Bruno its gay men . Its a dumb trap, the nicer/more polite the other person is the more obnoxious he becomes via tired stereotypes until he forces a breakdown. Why not go after the whole foods shopping, record collecting, organic farming only, art school trust fund kid crowds. And adding a disclaimer isn't such a terrible idea, at the end of the day this is a giant broad studio comedy opening in 3,000 plus theaters. Its mass entertainment.
Score = -7
I don't think anyone will be watching this movie in a bubble. For better or worse, there's going to be more media analysis and commentary on this than Alanis Morrisette's "Ironic". And when that happens we will all say "that was so June 11th, 2009".
As for SBC: It's not the band I hate, it's their fans. Three cans of water perverts me.
Score = 3
Wow, I didn't realize this place was militanthomogum. I like it though.
Score = 17
I am not informed enough to contribute something to this discussion that hasn't already been stated in one way or another, but I will say that I often really enjoy Seriousgum discussions and this is no exception.
Score = 15
The problem with restriction of speech on any issue is that it does little to solve the underlying problems (racism, homophobia, sexism, classism) but instead sweeps them under the rug and creates a new, fake orthodoxy that is in many ways as oppressive as the old. We should relax about humor but be deadly serious on making structural changes like legalizing same-sex marriage.
Score = 9
To people like K-Mo, and those who agree with him, I would have to say that you owe a lot of what you have in terms of rights today because of those "in-your-face gays" and what they did to become noticed. I'm a very masculine-seeming gay male, so I hardly have to worry at all about being singled out for my sexuality. Those gay men who fit stereotypes in more obvious ways have to deal with that shit everyday, and they are far more brave than I will ever be. So please, show some respect for them and what they've done for all of us. I hate when gay people turn their back on their own community and lash out at the feminine gay men, or the overly-masculine gay women. We are supposed to be the first to practice (and preach) tolerance, yet we throw these people under the bus.
And go read a wikipedia posting on the origins of gay pride. Guess what, EVERY day is straight pride day. I can't believe how oblivious you are to all of this!
gabe, I agree with you and I too worry about what I'll be hearing from teenagers in the coming years. because we heard those Borat lines for months. the issue is, so many people still dont know gay people, and dont know the huge range of personalities, or "traits" that a gay person can have (hey, its all the same as straight people!), so they'll continue believing that most gays are like this.
but like some said, you can't help this, and if Bruno does make people aware of bigotry, I'm fine with it. Also it looks fucking hilarious. So I'm excited!
Score = 40
you're awesome! nailed it all!
Score = 5
Finally some sense-speaking.
Score = 4
If you lived in Chicago, I'd track you down & marry you.... or at least try to get a date.
Score = 1
tempted to turn this into findagaydategum...
but I'm (sort of) taken.
Score = 4
Boo! My homewrecking days are over.
Score = 1
Dibs on that domain name?
Score = 0
Ok, for one, instead of "Not very niiiice!" you could have gotten TWO Bruno references by saying "Very niiiiice ...... NOT." BAM.
Honestly, I'd need to see the movie before I decide where the humor lies. I gagged at the staged Bruno/Eminem ass stunt at the MTV Movie Awards. I think Bruno can be useful if any gay panic shown in the film exposes the subject's and the audiences homophobia (then laffs), rather than if all the humor comes from the gay panic, ala MTV Movie Awards.
Because of the MTV Movie Awards, we're not off to a good start. :(
Score = 7
BAM. lulz.
Score = 0
Two BORAT references. Sorry I'm a huge d-bag.
Score = 1
I didn't really like Borat for this very reason. Sure, it's funny and piercing when his actions inspire a Real Person to admit to some terrible belief... but so much of that film is too ridiculous to be honestly satirical. The "Jew Egg" scene, for example: I remember watching that and thinking--this isn't funny, its all staged and doesn't reflect even an exaggerated version of what anyone actually believes. It's just horribly anti-semetic; why are people laughing?
I even have sort of the same issue with Cartman from South Park. Maybe it's just... these characters aren't the villans, you know? I don't know that I'm willing to accept that putting stupid beliefs in the mouth of a stupid character will translate into "those beliefs=stupid" for everyone. Because the dumb characters are also often the funny (and therefore often popular) characters. They may just think "that phrase=funny phrase," without catching the nuance of what exactly makes it funny. I know when I was in school and South Park was first being aired, many of the other kids just thought of Cartman as funny. He's the character who says funny things. Referring to "Jew Gold" is just funny. Except it's really not.
Anyway, while neither of those examples are quite analogous, I guess I'm just saying that I understand the concearn of the gay rights groups.
Score = 4
This is exactly equivalent to hipsters who wear ugly clothing, "you know, BECAUSE it's ugly, and clearly YOU don't GET it. GOD."
Actually, the only way this buttbloat of a movie will be redeemed is if the final scene is a big ol' Godwin's Law, of SBC getting the living shit beaten out of him by the rednecks who just don't get it. Because this really is nothing more than blackface done by a hack. Hilarity!
Score = -12
i admit i have a perverse desire to see pranks go horribly wrong--but someone would have to be secretly shooting their own SBC outtakes...
Score = 0
The Bruno character is actually just the Borat character in different clothing. Borat played on bogus perceptions of Kazakhs, who are widely disliked in Britain by a lot of people. (Long story: immigration, racism, etc.) And Bruno is the same: he's gay beyond the stereotype, unless you don't know any gay people and he seems like he could "plausibly" be gay. (Hence Ron Paul.)
Without having seen the movie, I feel pretty confident in saying that Bruno only reinforces gay stereotypes for people who are really detached from reality.
Score = 3
"Borat played on bogus perceptions of Kazakhs, who are widely disliked in Britain by a lot of people."
Bollocks, no one knew where Kazakhstan even was until Borat. In fact, I thought that was what the film is playing on - the fact we're so ignorant about another country and culture that they could film it in Romania and no one would know the difference.
Other than that, I agree!
Score = 6
Yeah I'm not sure about British stereotypes of Kazakhs, but I am fairly positive SBC chose Kazakhstan because of its relative obscurity (I actually thought it was a made-up country at first, I'm embarrassed to admit) and the fact that it sounds "Middle Eastern," so the general Western audience will automatically apply various harbored stereotypes to Borat's character in the absence of real information about his "nationality" and cultural heritage. Hence all the people who put up with his bullcrap for so long, because, as someone else said, they accept it to an extent as part of his outsider-ness about which they know nothing.
Score = 0
i think that SBC is a great comedian, but i also think that bruno and borat are not his best work. i just dont really get what theyre supposed to represent. they are not gay or KAZ, they are just ridicules. its just walking around, acting retarded and embarasing people. he doesnt even have to look gay or KAZ. he could have put on a victorian wig, swimming trunks and a baseball jersey and it would have made just as much sense. i dont see whats so genius here.
anyway, i liked his other work better. hes a funny guy.
Score = -3
there are more troubling gay stereotypes on any number of TV sitcoms that air in primetime.
at least people have to pay to see Bruno
Score = 5
As a bucket of popcorn, I will definitely be present at screenings nationwide.
Score = 22
I have never commented on any of these postings before, or ever in my life. But this post makes me sad, so I will. I am upset that everyone is being so selfish, does no one remember Borat? I have heard talk about "throw the gay down the well", the song from borat was "in my country there is problem (throw the jew down the well)". How then has no talk about Borat come from this thread, are you all concerned that there will be an imminent strike on the homosexual and lesbian minority after this film? Because after Borat no resurgence in anti-semitism happened, they aren't burning jews, or hanging them, or throwing them down wells because of Borat. Bigotry is alive people, and no movies or music is going to change that in people, when I read these threads I see tons of bigots, not just the heterosexual individuals who are hopefully making jokes, but all of the homosexuals who say that they need to pronounce pride because of their sexuality, because they are a minority. I am a 21 year old, blond haired, blue eyed, german, heterosexual, white male, and everyone I know who is a homosexual says that they have never seen a person treated more poorly in their life, I have no physical defects, and I have no intellectual problems, now if this minority is telling me a majority, that my life is more difficult than his, why then do we argue about minorities being hurt worse. I do understand that there are bigots, there are lots of ignorant individuals that roam this earth, but what is the point in trying to "convince" them by blogging, the reason why I am typing this post, is because I believe there are intelligent individuals in here, who got too caught up in the heat of the argument because they are trying to defend themselves, or what they love. People who are going to hate you for who you are, you cannot change that, people hate me, and I am a musician who spreads music about love, not the absence of love, like most musicians, but the power of love to heal pain, in this depraved world. I am sure I will receive many comments about how I am wrong, and how homosexuals need to be proud of who they are, and how I am a bigot, I am expecting that, but I don't plan on coming to this page again, it actually sickens me looking at all of the comments, all I wanted to say is, you have to understand comedians are always going to go too far, people are always going to hate you because you are different, and don't just look at yourselves remember there are other people who have been hurt before (i.e. the jews). You all have a good day, and please don't worry this movie is not going to destroy anyone's lives
Score = -6
I have a pretty good idea why people don't like you Brian.
Score = 3
thank you for our Edgy Jokes University commencement speech. Keep in touch. Have a great summer. Play us off, Keyboard Cat.
Score = 4
Wow, this is a super interesting discussion. I need to start memorising paragraphs here for when Bruno comes out.
Score = 2
...wut
Score = 1
Seriously, why give a fuck about this movie like its important? Its not gonna change people who are for gay rights in to vicious homophobes, and if it does "expose" homophobia (as if it weren't front and fucking center in this country already), do you honestly believe that any one of these douchebags who fuck with gay people are gonna change? Cause of this movie? There's no moral quandary here, because this movie is not going to change ANYTHING. It'll just be really, really funny.
Score = -2
Yeah..........basically this movie isn't really going to cause any sort of societal paradigm shift because it's a comedy intended for laughs and laughs don't really inspire change in any sort of norms. Will it reinforce disdain for homopobia? Yes. Will it reinforce homophobia? Unfortunately yes. But that's how the world is and there isn't really anything you can do about it. If anything it all it will bring the issue of gay rights a little more to the forefront of politics,which is a good thing so I think that the positives of the joke-getters will outweigh the negatives of the non-joke getters. And it looks hilarious which is also good.
Score = 0
i don't feel like reading everything that's been written thus far, so if this has been mentioned i second the previous commenters statement:
In Larry Charles I trust. I'm sure there's more to this movie than what everyone is expecting...
Score = 1
These comments have been very educational. The fact that Sasha Cohen's art has caused such a debate is proof of his genius.
Score = 0
Spencer Pratt's art has also caused a lot of debate in this very establishment- genius?!
Score = 1
Someone mentioned this earlier and it's really true: Bruno (and Borat) don't really point out homophobia and xenophobia as much as they point out assholephobia. These characters aren't exaggerated representations of different minorities that help show how people can be really awful and bigoted, they're just pricks who happen to be part of different minorities. Sometimes it works, but mostly it's just people responding negatively to someone acting like a jackass which doesn't prove anything besides the fact that Sascha Baron Cohen is kind of a small minded prick.
Score = 4
You know, no matter how obvious your satire is, there are going to be people out there who just don't get it. The Dead Kennedys song "Kill The Poor" was about how the government should drop neutron bombs on poor neighborhoods so that we wouldn't have to pay any "welfare tax" anymore, and there were still some people out there who thought the Dead Kennedys were making a serious statement against poor people.
I don't think there has ever been a piece of satire that was immediately recognized as satire by everybody who saw it.
Score = 0
This may have been stated already but I can't pay attention long enough today to read the whole thing. What this reminds me of is when Dave Chappelle talked once in an interview about how he thought he was making jokes and picking at stereotypes until he looked in the crowd and saw racists laughing at it. I'm not sure what one can do about this except hope it's just taken as a form of entertainment and we all move on.
Score = 0
"Everyday is lesbian lover day"
I am proud of K-Mo for being gay.
Score = 0