Can you imagine what would happen to him if he mocked African Americans the way he is mocking the gay community? What a shmuck. I am so sick of being told to take a joke, and take turn the other cheek. You know what would be funny? a video of his expression as his wife was being beat. That would be hilarious.

Fritz – he DID mock the blacks here in Britain with his very first character, Ali G.

In this he played a stupid bigoted black Yoooof who went around playing at interviewing famous people who had no idea what they were letting themselves in for!!

And during these interviews he came out with all the prejudices of Da black Street Yoof.

The joke is that he a white youth playing a black yoof whilst obviously being white! And the famous people he is interviewing dare not confront him about his prejudices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oftOCN1jkNo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Khj7ZHMSo

He's using an over the top, exaggerated caricature to expose the prejudices of other people…how is he mocking gays? Is he mocking Austrians? Or Fashionistas? The butt of the joke is not the character he's portraying, but the real people who are reacting to him.

I think this character mimics a certain and small group of our gay community just as all communities have their own groups that are subject to jokes and ridicule. I don't think that his mimicking is intentionally to ridicule the gay community but more likely to ridicule how some social groups react to these type of individuals. What he is doing with these characters is a satire that exposes people's ignorance and prejudice and let us all see the real face our society…

If we as individuals were going to be offended for every character that mocks a group of our society we would not be able to watch any comedy show (e.g. SNL, Mad tv, etc) in which their characters mock the 'white trash, the blacks, Latinos, the blind, the handicapped, etc etc…

@REBELComx: Very well said. If you look at some of the previous videos of the Bruno character, it's obviously making an ass out of homophobes. Like the one where he interviews those Spring Breakers— hilarious!

Gotta ask, Fitz: why is it his wife that should be beaten?

Shove the misogyny and uh, grab a sense of humour and a sense of satire.

Women don't always have to be the targets of male rage. I mean, just for ONCE, please.

@Tallskin:

Ali G was not blackface, get it? This can be verified on wikipedia. He wasn't black–if anything, he was mocking the white wannabe gang bangers who immitate their perception of "black street culture".

@REBELComx:

Don't kid yourself. People aren't laughing at the homophobes; and they're not going to theaters to laugh at the homophobes, either. I think you forget it's still quite funny to most people in the u.s. to mock and ridicule gays because they're gay.

Tank

well, i think we have to wait until the film comes out.

You may be right

On the other hand you may be wrong and he may be mocking homophobes and homophobic attitudes.

As for his being Ali G and black/white, well obviously he is white playing a black street yoof and playing with the stereotypes. As to who he mocking most the bigoted black yoof or the white wannabees deciding that ends up causing madness!

ha… This is the type of thing my girlfriend

Yes, as with all of Sacha Baron Cohen's characters, Bruno is a stereotype. But the joke is clearly on the bystanders, whose barely latent bigotry all-too-easily surfaces when confronted by unashamed flamboyance. But know what? There are effeminate gays out there, who risk real harm every day just being who they are. They are even subjected to scorn from the gay community. SBC makes us laugh at the expense of the haters for once. Bruno rocks.

For the record, Borat contained a lot of black stereotypes. Only a racist could imagine that it didn't. I laughed my butt off during Borat because I understood the purpose of the stereotypes in the comic work.

Still not the same thing.

He wouldn't dare, because that's just not considered something you can laugh at anymore.

Yes, of course, it's not the same because it's not the same. When he makes fun of the black woman in the audience by naming the baby OJ (hilarious by the way) he's totally "respecting" African Americans there rather than making fun of faux outrage. As per usual Tank- it comes down to your agenda rather than what something is. I don' know any actual African Americans, including myself, who do not see this as putting down African Americans. The difference is those of us who watch it realizing it's a comedy. You apparently think you are looking at a political discourse on Cohen's real feelings on homosexuality. Truly a bizaro world you live in where over the top satire is 'reality" Next you will be telling me that Emiem really was angry during the butt in his face moment.

@The Gay Numbers:

No, it's not the same because he's not doing black face for an hour and a half, acting like a stereotypical black man for laughs at stereotypical black man (and exaggerrations of stereotypes) "things". Can you not see the difference between Bruno acting like an extremely flamboyant homosexual engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior in public places to shock people, and sacha donning makeup and wig so he could win a watermelon eating competition? I see the difference very clearly…he's done one for laughs and money; he wouldn't dare do the other. One is indirect, and admittedly racist; the other relentless throughout the entire movie. ANd who is he really making fun of when he cluelessly engages in racism with the OJ comment? In borat, the kazakhstanis were being made fun of for…antisemitism and racism, for example…in bruno, is it the gays who are too stupid to realize what they're doing who are being made fun of as well? SO it's not just because of who they are according to sacha's satire, but another negative being racism…

The difference is those of us who watch it realizing it's a comedy.

A defense used many times throughout the twentieth century to justify discriminatory comedy. I don't think you'd buy it if it were being used about some other "entertainers," so why now? Is it your deep level of comic sophistication is being able to spin…er, see this for what it really is? A gay rights paean? Are you aware that homophobia sells movie tickets and gets laughs? Have you seen any…comedies released in the past…oh, I dunno…thirty years?

Your core thesis is that a sterotype is less of a stereotype by the amount of time one does the stereotype and by whom. You are making form over substance arguments. A stereotype is a stereotype whether it is for 2 hours or a minute and it does not matter by whom. By your definition a blaxopoitation film is okay because black people are doing it so long as we only see a couple minutes of the character talking about eatting watermelon and fried chicken. Then it's not a stereotype because it was only for a couple of minutes and it was a black person doing the offensive character. For the record, I find Tyler Perry to fit your definition perfectly. He's not "offensive" because he's a black person doing the black face. But substantively he's not doing anything different than what whites were doing when they dressed up as us coloreds making fun of us.

And, yes, comedy is a defense because well- it's comedy. So although I feel that way about Perry's work and Cohen's I am able to realize there is something mroe than the linear mind is willing to accept. You are , to put it nicely, the most linear thinker, I have seen in quite sometime. I have a friend like you. I love her dearly. I never discuss art with her because an arm and breast to her is just an arm and breast.

The later being a reference to a scupture I did in which it was a class project meant that required us to create a symbolic image of an arm and breast without it being literal. She didn't get it becasue she kept saying "so that's what you think an arm and breast look like in reality?" She knew I was gay so in her mind interpretation was not possible. In your mind, comedy should not use steretypes on things that offend you thus making you and her incredibly boring when it comes to being creative because x=x to you. Never x= imaginary number.

Your core thesis is that a sterotype is less of a stereotype by the amount of time one does the stereotype and by whom.

No, my "core thesis" is that he's exploiting a bigoted stereotype that's socially acceptable for laughs. He is not doing blackface because that's not socially acceptable. Further, the theme of any movie he's done isn't making fun of black people, or other minorities for which it is now considered unacceptable to make fun of. Even your example isn't "making fun of black people," but making fun of Bruno…for being a racist moron. That's curious, considering your contention that it's just comedy.

You are making form over substance arguments. A stereotype is a stereotype whether it is for 2 hours or a minute and it does not matter by whom.

But that's not my assertion. ANd yes, one joke about a stereotype that is not central to the theme in a movie is less offensive than, say, hundreds of them throughout the entire film, which are, on average, equally vicious. It is also more offensive, I contend, to make an entire film about negative stereotypes of one group, exploiting them for laughs than it is to have a bigoted stereotype incidental to the overall theme of the movie.

It is also more harmful and offensive to murder a million people than one. But, according to you, they are of the same weight.

By your definition a blaxopoitation film is okay because black people are doing it so long as we only see a couple minutes of the character talking about eatting watermelon and fried chicken.

No, I didn't say it was okay; I said he's not doing it…because he wouldn't dare. Because it's not acceptable to ridicule black people because they are black anymore, and exploit stereotypes about them for laughs to the extent and degree that it is acceptable to tar and feather gay people for cheap laughs. Do you have a learning disability? I couldn't have been clearer.

Then it's not a stereotype because it was only for a couple of minutes and it was a black person doing the offensive character.

No…I never said that. this is more vacuous "misunderstanding".

For the record, I find Tyler Perry to fit your definition perfectly. He's not "offensive" because he's a black person doing the black face. But substantively he's not doing anything different than what whites were doing when they dressed up as us coloreds making fun of us.

Or martin lawrence in big mama's house. But no, if you think that martin lawrence and tyler perry are of the same ilk as al jolson or amos n' andy, then you don't understand racism.

And, yes, comedy is a defense because well- it's comedy. So although I feel that way about Perry's work and Cohen's I am able to realize there is something mroe than the linear mind is willing to accept.

Yes, and you can make a duplicate argument for race baiting humor that elicits laughter non-ironically. It's only a linear mind that can't "read between the lines," as it were.

You are , to put it nicely, the most linear thinker, I have seen in quite sometime. I have a friend like you. I love her dearly. I never discuss art with her because an arm and breast to her is just an arm and breast.

Ha ha, don't discuss art…you don't what it is. ANd it's not "your opineeon". You'd not understand aesthetics from comedy…

x is x to me. You're quite right. That's self identity…and has nothing at all to do with abstract representations.

speaking of big momma's house, they're making another one! I can't wait, as big momma's house has it all…the laughs shot through with pathos. I love the big momma's house series, and bring it up as much as I can with as many people as I can. I'm thinking of establishing a fan club for the big momma's house trilogy. I just don't think it gets the attention and critical acclaim it so richly deserves.

And yeah, it'd be less offensive if cohen were actually gay, because then, he'd have similar experience with actual homophobia–and share in the oppression that binds.

I can't wait to see this film. Hell, I think gays are a ripe group for satire. Get a sense of humor!

Years ago, when Christopher Durang was being attacked for "stereotyping" nuns (and Catholicism) in his play "Sister Mary Ignatious…" he said he wasn't making a statement about nuns, he was just creating a character who happened to be a demented nun.

Do you thing that MAYBE Sasha Baron Cohen was merely creating an amusing character and not making a statement about all of gaydom?

Relax people. It's harmless comedy.

people were laughing at the reactions to bruno at not to cohen's character.