We went and saw Bruno last night. Peter liked it much better than I did. I'm not against it reflexively--some of the viler participants really did seem to deserve what they got. But overall, it just wasn't that funny.
Partly that's because Baron-Cohen's schtick is wearing a little thin. Yes, you've proven that if you put people in weird situations, they will usually go along to be polite. But the sight of normal people awkwardly complying with Cohen's antics seems less amusing than it did five years ago.
But I suspect that the deeper problem is that most Americans just aren't as openly homophobic as he and director Larry Charles were clearly expecting. Baron-Cohen is funniest when he gets one of two reactions: genuinely horrible people say genuinely horrible things, or he gets people to go along with his non-horrible, but utterly surreal questions.
But there's little of the former, and almost nothing of the latter, which is what's always charmed me about him. They are forced to resort to provoking people by being complete jerks: fondling people inappropriately, showing them "surprise" sexually explicit video, and if all else fails, grabbing their stuff. And the responses to people being complete jerks are not particularly surprising or interesting, and therefore, not really very funny.
A lot of the jokes, for example, rely on making very, very explicit passes at straight conservative men. But the men all behave pretty well. Though one target throws around the word "queer" in a way that made me like him less than I already do, no one says anything nastily homophobic; they just tell "Bruno" to knock it off. The tension as these scenes build up is occasionally interesting, but the weakness of the denouement means they never pay off. I haven't laughed so weakly at a movie in years. Plus there's always the disturbing knowledge that I'd be deeply, deeply offended if any straight man approached me the way he went after those men.
Even the folks carrying the "God hates fags" signs are barely good for a half-hearted smile. Cohen is reduced to grabbing onto their signs, since they declined to provide him with the verbal fireworks he was expecting. That's true in much of the movie--he's forced into actual physical slapstick, which he's not very good at, because people don't give him the dialogue he's trying to provoke. A number of the funniest scenes are, in retrospect, obviously staged. But while they'd be funny if they actually happened, none of them rise to the standards of fictional comedy.
In the end, it just didn't work at any level. There were a few chuckles along the way, and one genuinely funny and charming moment. But mostly, it feels like an amateurish college video. After the trailers, I was expecting a lot more.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
As is usually the case, the right response to Cohen's antics comes from a South Park episode.
"Our kids didn't hate gay people. They just hated being taught by this asshole!" - Randy Marsh, from "The Death Camp of Tolerance", referring to Mr. Garrison and Mr. Slave.
I never understood what people thought was so great about Borat, which was a 2 hour long Polish joke that somehow, because there was an artsy purpose to it, became acceptable to mainstream Hollywood.
His stunt with Eminem at the Grammys was equally dumb. No, it's not homophobic to object to having a nearly naked guy's ass dropped in your face.
Cohen's shtick has worn thin mostly because in the year or two after Borat, he was ripped off like mad by every no talent hack grasping on to the edges of the entertainment industry.
That said, I am embarrassed that I laughed at the Borat movie. His entire repertoire consists of using people's better nature against them. Asking for the help of strangers and then, when help is given, make them look stupid and laugh at their humiliation. Cohen is truly the bottom of the barrel. Sorry, I won't be paying for that again, not in this lifetime.
I wonder if people are a bit more desensitized to his schtick now. Like the guy with the "God hates fags" sign. I'm betting he was thinking in the back of his mind that this had to be some sort of joke movie/TV thing so I should keep quiet. If I saw something as outrageous as that on the street my first thought would be "somebody has to be making a movie"
His Buzz Aldrin interview as Ali G was classic stuff. When you do comedy with an unsuspecting normal person as your straight man, you've got to provide the laugh lines yourself. Cohen's talent is for posing as a caricature of an idiot, not provoking idiocy in others. And even if he could do the latter, it still wouldn't be half as funny.
Seems like he either got bored with the schtick that actually worked, or else misunderstood what was funny about it.
I think the problem was that he had already done an Ali G movie, though it was set in Britain and was released before he became big here. You're right though, the interview with Buzz Aldrin was great (e.g., "What was it like to be the first man to walk on the sun?")
Some of the Bruno stuff was funny on the HBO show, particularly the bit where he encouraged a bunch of kids on Spring Break in Florida do engage in drunken nonsense, wrestle with each other, etc., and then they get offended at the end when he thanks them on behalf of "Gay Austrian TV" or something like that. But it's true that, generally, Americans are too polite to give him the reaction he's trying to provoke, whichever character he's playing. Often he's forced to up the ante and become truly offensive and disgusting (e.g., when he defecated in the plastic bag as Borat at the fancy dinner) which is more awkward than funny. Though sometimes awkward can be funny too, e.g., when Borat served Bob Barr a piece of cheese and then, when Barr was already chewing it, told him it was made from his wife's breast milk.
Yeah, but how funny was The Hangover?
As an Austrian movie, do you rate it above or below The Sound of Music?
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I've seen a clip Ron Paul's reaction to being ambushed. Is Megan talking about him?
One reason I prefer libertarians over conservatives - Ron Paul is a blatant bigot, but his political beliefs prevent him from acting too strongly on his bigotry. So it's kind of difficult to put him in the same category as, say, Alan Keyes.
Homosexuals would probably be better off in a world of Ron Paul homophobes than in one of homophobes of any other political color.
Sascha Baron Cohen is a vile racist.
The problem is surprise.
The "latter" situation you describe, Megan, is personified by Cohen's strongest character: Ali G. That character completely relied on the element of surprise to catch powerful people (Boutros-Boutros Ghali, Newt Gingrich, the Noam Chomsky interview you linked, Andy Rooney, etc.). He also did well (at times) with Borat, albeit with much less powerful/important people (James Broadwater excepted). Bruno was even less consistent, although he absolutely drilled the fashion industry in his first appearance...
Victim of his own popularity; more people wised up to his act, the further he had to dig. The Borat movie was largely contrived, with scripted parts that were completely awful. I imagine the Bruno movie is more of the same, although I'm probably going to see it....
Ali G was occasionally funny, but Borat was just a boor - and this seems more of the same. As tim maguire said, using others' kindness against them is reprehensible, and more typically associated with going to jail than being famous.
Cohen's real problem is that his act just isn't very funny after you have seen it once or twice. I loved his HBO show quite a lot, but as time went by, it was the same basic act over and over.
One reason I prefer libertarians over conservatives - Ron Paul is a blatant bigot, but his political beliefs prevent him from acting too strongly on his bigotry. So it's kind of difficult to put him in the same category as, say, Alan Keyes.
Can we please, PLEASE dispense with equating "libertarians/conservative" with "bigots/homophobes"? As someone who identifies to varying degrees as the former, and who decries the latter, I find it deeply offensive. It's also intellectually dishonest - there are plenty of non-bigoted conservatives out there, as well as a rather large number of bigoted liberals (the African-American community is, after all, the most staunchly anti-gay in the country, in addition to being the most staunchly liberal).
As for Cohen, I always found Bruno the least funny of his characters, because the routine has always largely depended on behaving as offensively as necessary to elicit offended reactions, and then equating it with homophobia. As sometimes occurs with Borat, there's a really obnoxious tendency to supertextually moralize that goes along with it. Cohen is a talented guy and I do think he can be very funny, but his current schtick has worn out its welcome - he needs to go in another direction after this movie.
Xeynon-
I agree, but I don't think that was the point that Nimed made. The point is that while there are bigots among libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and socialists, those who want less government intervention aren't going to force their bigotry on others.
Irony much?
I'm sure he's correct, but I'm not sure its a bigoted statement. Esp. not if he's correct, but even if its a honest mistake not accompanied by racial hatred, general intolerance, or stubborn resistance to consider that his opinion may be incorrect.
bigot - " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Correction - That should have said "I'm NOT sure he's correct."
Not saying that it's you in particular, but I've heard many a conservative claim to not be racist and then say incredibly racist/homophobic things. They just deny it because they know it's "bad" but they still hate gays. My favorite was a convo I had with a few righties in Pittsburgh in which they swore up and down they weren't homophobic, but were equally as convinced that gay marriage would "destroy the sanctity of marriage." Every single one of them used those words and none of them could explain to me how something that wasn't bad could make something else "not-sanct." None of these people seemed terribly religious but they were all conservative.
Libertarians and conservatives seem to come to conclusions (in general, don't bother pointing out that not 100.00000000% of them do it) because of a world view. This world view accepts the way things are and what their leaders say. Right now, things ARE racist and homophobic, both intentionally and institutionally, so conservatives and libertarians take that in whether they mean it or not. Or maybe it's some other reason(s), I dunno. I do know that it's a pattern.
There is a reason there aren't many conservative minorities. Either it's because minorities feel mistreated by conservatives (in which case cons are at the least widely perceived as racist, if not actual racists) or else one must suggest that there is something inherent about minorities that tends them democratic (NOT liberal, you make a false equivalency with that.) If you suggest that, well then you're a racist by definition.
The problem is that people seem to think "I don't go around calling people niggers so I'm not racist" as if that's the be all and end all. Probe yourself sometime. When you pass someone on the street, are you more likely to acknowledge them if they're white? That kind of thing. Everyone's at least a little racist (including me) and the most surefire way to embrace that tendency is to deny its existence entirely.
Again, sorry for throwing the 2nd person in their. I do mean people in general and not you in particular. English really needs to bring back the pronoun "one."
Now, before someone says "No u" I am aware that there are similar flaws in liberal logic.
Or perhaps they (conservative minorities) seem few and far between because they are denigrated as being "oreo," "uncle tom", and have their likenesses photoshopped in multiple racist ways.
See, e.g., multiple attacks on Michael Steele.
Better to stay a closet conservative.
My favorite was a convo I had with a few righties in Pittsburgh in which they swore up and down they weren't homophobic, but were equally as convinced that gay marriage would "destroy the sanctity of marriage." Every single one of them used those words and none of them could explain to me how something that wasn't bad could make something else "not-sanct." None of these people seemed terribly religious but they were all conservative.
This means that they're not that well spoken and are repeating talking points, not necessarily that they're homophobic.
The secular conservative argument against gay marriage is that marriage, as an institution, is key to social stability. The form of marriage that is good for society is one in which couples are expected to enter into permanent relationships to raise children, because it's the best way to raise kids. Gay marriage weakens the institution by focusing on sex and emotion rather than the responsibilities of marriage--there won't be any children to raise. It's even worse when heterosexuals are playing the serial monogamy game, getting divorced for no real reason, and breaking down families.
Now, I find this argument uncompelling in 2009, where the institution of marriage has already been wrecked, but it's not homophobic.
Don't automatically assume prejudice, or the worst prejudice, of those you disagree with. To take your second point, I'm unlikely to acknowledge people who look like thugs, gangsters, or are generally scary. On the streets of New York, these people are mostly black, but occasionally white--and I'm much more likely to acknowledge a black guy who looks like a businessman than a white guy in a wifebeater with a shaved head. This makes me a classist, not a racist.
The assumption that gay unions are centered around sex and emotion, rather than commitment, responsibility and selfless devotion to one's spouse and children, is indeed homophobic.
The assumption that gay unions are centered around sex and emotion, rather than commitment, responsibility and selfless devotion to one's spouse and children, is indeed homophobic.
... but also entirely reality-based.
Elizabeth-
Since until recently, gays couldn't have children together, it's hard to see how gay marriage could focus on raising children. Again, this is why the argument falls apart in our modern age, and why I support gay marriage. But I'm not going to call people homophobic just because they oppose gay marriage for reasons having to do with the function of the institution.
Re: "Libertarians and conservatives seem to come to conclusions (in general, don't bother pointing out that not 100.00000000% of them do it) because of a world view. This world view accepts the way things are and what their leaders say."
That's false about conservatives (at least no more true than it is about "progressives") and close to being the opposite of true about libertarians.
Right now, things ARE racist and homophobic
Only in the sense that racism, and bigotry towards homosexuals (only some of which is in any way phobic) exist, but in the modern US they exist to a lesser extent than during most of history.
or else one must suggest that there is something inherent about minorities that tends them democratic
Nothing inherent (at least not that I can think of) but rather a matter of history and for lack of a better word "culture". Of course each person makes up his or her own mind about partisanship and political ideology and politics in general, but historical patterns have some durability (and also don't always have clearly rational explanations).
What Edgehopper said.
But I must say that, in the particular kind of bigotry that is homophobia, I believe it's pretty obvious that it has a higher frequency among self identified conservatives than among libertarians or liberals.
For what it's worth, I do consider the tirades you hear from the left about "the values of the bougeoisie" are also a pretty obvious type of bigotry.
I stand by my point concerning Ron Paul. His fundamental tolerance is the reason, even though he is a bigot, anti-evolution, and defends policies that would be disastrous for the country, I can't help feeling a modicum of sympathy for the man. Which I really don't feel for similarly crazed politicians such as Jim Inhofe or Michelle Bachmann.
Just saw it last night and it was good for some laughs.
My main problem with it though is disgusting does not equal funny. I love ribald slapstick, but a lot of the movie was just straight up vulgar. I liked some of the more subtle humor in the movie, like when he mistakes Ron Paul for Ru Paul or when he pulls the African baby out of a cardboard box at the luggage claim.
I get it the point - he is trying to deflate homophobia by pandering to the most over the top stereotypes, but I don't think a lot of the audience will understand that. In particular, the scene when he goes hunting with the straight dudes falls flat. I actually thought they were rather gracious and polite, and probably a little camera shy. Bruno had to go way out of his way to provoke them, and they never said anything homophobic. Much of the movie just seemed like an exploitative minstrel show. Ha ha let's laugh at the fag.
"I get it the point - he is trying to deflate homophobia by pandering to the most over the top stereotypes"
Is that the "point" or simply the justification? This reminds me of the claims that Dave Chappelle's skewering of underclass blacks was somehow subversively undermining racism, but even Chappelle didn't seem to buy that when he noticed whites were laughing "too hard" at his characters.
"Not saying that it's you in particular, but I've heard many a conservative claim to not be racist and then say incredibly racist/homophobic things."
Sure, but I've heard many a liberal do that as well. Certainly anyone who's conservative and a minority gets a ridiculous amount of racist hate mail.
Most people are familiar with young people who say incredibly homophobic things as "jokes" but politically vote in favor of equal protection for gays. People are weird.
And according to surveys, the most racist of all are moderates. (This is largely because there's correlations between being intelligent, being educated, not being racist, and having fairly "extreme"/ internally and philosophically consistent politics.)
That's only weird if you are convinced they aren't jokes. And even if they are deeply held beliefs disguised as jokes, you can have all sorts of prejudices about gay people and still think they deserve equal protection under the law. I certainly favor equal rights for members of the John Birch Society. Maybe even Linkin Park.
Interesting. Do you have any links?
How dare Ron Paul react like that when someone takes his pants off and pretty much sexually assaults him? He should have thanked Bruno for exposing him to a new and exciting lifestyle choice.
Bruno is lucky he didn't get a punch in the mouth, in my opinion.
His whole shtick is pretty pathetic. Even in Borat, most of the people he interacts with are incredibly polite and hospitable. It was especially classy how he humiliated the kind old Jewish couple, I'm sure they enjoyed being called cockroaches and having coins thrown at them. It's ok though, because he is Jewish and liberal himself, therefore he is allowed to casually use slurs that sound like they are coming from Ahmadinejad.
The fact that people consider his disgusting humor high art really shows how depraved this country has become.
Bruno was lucky he wasn't dealing with a real man like you.
Nice comeback. I didn't say I would punch him in the mouth, I said he's lucky someone didn't.
Ron Paul is a gentleman, he used a pseudo-epithet only after being harassed repeatedly by a complete asshole. I think being touched in a sexual manner against your wishes merits a punch in the mouth at least, although I do admire Paul's restraint. I'm sure if it was your 73 yr. old grandfather, not someone whose ideology you despise, you would find it far less funny.
Also you didn't respond to any of my other criticisms, should I assume you are one of the people who considers Baron-Cohen to be a combination of Peter Sellers and Alexis de Tocqueville?
Fair enough.
I agree with the rest of your criticism (although I had a smaller score on the outrage meter), and it seems to coincide with the general impression of Baron-Cohen.
I don't despise libertarianism. I have in general a lot more sympathy for libertarians than for conservatives. I don't think too much of some libertarians because of their tendency to pretend that some problems either do not exist, or that they exist but that's nothing anybody can do about them.
But if I despised libertarianism and liked Baron-Cohen, surely I wouldn't compare him to Tocqueville?
@nimed:
if you've ever been a teenage boy and fondled against your wishes by an older man in a gas station bathroom across the street from The 2AM Club in Mill Valley, Ca, you might've wanted to punch the creep in the mouth, too.
Trust me, it's violation of your body that you wouldn't want to happen.
What is interesting about Cohen's humor is that in order to be politically correct everyone has to pretend to be laughing at the straight man. His brand of humor is to play a dumb guy with a funny accent. It is a style that is as old as comedy itself.
Tina Fey and Will Ferrell did the same thing on SNL but nobody had to pretend they weren't laughing at the hick with the funny accent.
sourcreamus said:
"His brand of humor is to play a dumb guy with a funny accent. It is a style that is as old as comedy itself...Tina Fey and Will Ferrell did the same thing on SNL but nobody had to pretend they weren't laughing at the hick with the funny accent."
Spot on. Cohen's characters are designed to make us uncomfortable. They are fools. We should sympathize with the unwitting straightmen, they are an extension of the audience.
In regards to dealing with Ron Paul, no one does it better than Colbert; he'll honestly agree with him on some things, and strongly yet respectfully disagree on others. What more can one do?
Homophobia is a fairly particular term, typically referring to a negative emotional reaction to homosexuality based on suppressed homoerotic urges. It was derived from studies showing particularly strong anti-gay sentiments from people who showed a homoerotic response.
Unfortunately, the term has been generalized. A person who believes that same sex marriage will erode the sanctity of marriage may not "hate gay people" and may also not have homoerotic urges.
Also, noone that I know discriminates based on orientation. They discriminate based on actions. Which makes the racism-sexism comparison problematic.
For my own part, I think SSM is likely to further reduce the birthrate. And while some people think there are too many people in the world, industrialized nations like Japan are experiencing ill effects from their diminishing population. Not that this is sufficient to oppose SSM. But there will be consequences. Also, the level of STDs is, at least currently, far higher among gay males. Would SSM fix or exacerbate that? I could see it going either way.
And while I'd like to see same sex couples get the rights they should already have, such as hospital visitation and such, I will say this;
People say that no-one is trying to promote same sex relationships. But to the degree that the state promotes heterosexual marriage it will, if SSM is legalized, also have to support SSM. That means that if heterosexual marriage is advocated in school then SSM will also have to be advocated equally. That's the law. Then you have companies like eHarmony getting sued (and essentially losing, since the judge pushed them to settle) because they didn't provide services to same sex couples.
I found that "Borat" was too bad and repulsive and hence didn't bother to check out this "Bruno" movie. I especially thought the scene where he bundles up the sh*t in a towel and carries it around to his host's dining table. There is a clear line between what is funny and what is gross, and "Borat" was way way over it.
To see an early, Australian, example of the challengingly fake character, you should take a look at Norman Gunston on youtube. This character preceded Sacha by many years, without having to make his own assumed character the central point. The interview with Sally Struthers is a good one http://preview.tinyurl.com/moktaw
While it is true that most of the best comedians are funny by using sexually and racially charged jokes, the best of these include some form of self-deprecation in their comedy. They realize that they are as ridiculous as the people they make fun of. To me this is what differentiates Sacha Baron Cohen from these great comedians – he only makes fun of other groups. Even his supposedly big Jew jokes (’Throw the Jew down the well, etc.’) are really making fun of ignorant rednecks, Kazakhs, etc. They do not actually make fun of Jews at all. This, coming from an orthodox Jew Cohen and taking the form of three characters which are thinly veiled caricatures of groups traditionally at odds with Jews (Ali G the stupid black Muslim, Borat the stupid Kazakh Muslim, and Bruno the sex-crazed aggressive gay Austrian) make it hard to defend his work as ‘comedy’. And by thinly veiled I mean – Ali G is blackface without the blackface, Borat is Kazakh but is supposed to be your typical Middle Eastern or Central Asian Muslim, Bruno makes Austrians (and Germans by proxy) look like queens and in the same sweep makes use of the not-so-nuanced gay equivalent of blackface, etc. Baron Cohen is obviously intelligent – he must have carefully picked his characters for prime-time – and so it is hard not to see him as a racist. Why didn’t he instead use a character who was a big-nosed greedy Jew banker who fondles little boys? Not so funny anymore, hmm? In the final analysis of Baron Cohen's 'oeuvre', which groups suffer? Blacks, Muslims, gays, Austrians...I'd rather pay my money to watch Avigdor Lieberman speak for two hours.