Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  media

‘Real’ Journalists Unwilling to Confront Sacha Baron Cohen on Bruno‘s Homophobia

sbcbruno2s

Since no (ahem) media (ahem) outlet (ahem) is willing to engage Sacha Baron Cohen as Sacha Baron Cohen — and instead volunteers to take part, gratis, in the marketing phenom known as Bruno — it’s hard to get a real answer out of the comedian about how he thinks the movie portrays homophobia: hysterical, or wretched? Which means we have only the character Bruno to ask. And bless his soul, “journalist” Matt Lauer was there to get the answers! (Cue to 4:35)

Though we’re not inclined to reprint press releases — because generally they are garbage — we’ll include this updated release from GLAAD, since we reported about what Gay Inc. was saying about the film. Let’s just put it this way: After seeing the film, GLAAD ain’t having it.

(NB: As we’ve noted previously, gay rights organizations are inclined to hate this film, while gay media — and media in general — tend to support it. Also not fighting the movie anymore? That “Bingo assault” plaintiff, who dropped her assault claims against Cohen and Universal Pictures, but still claims emotional distress.)

Here’s a glimpse:

The movie repeatedly builds entire scenes around stock stereotypes and situations that make gay people and families the butt of crude jokes. I can’t help but think of all the teenage kids already getting bullied, beat up and ridiculed for being–or for being thought to be–gay.. For these kids, this movie will give their tormentors one more word in the anti-gay lexicon of slurs: Bruno.

Instead of challenging stereotypes, it reinforces them for many of the those who voted to take away the freedom to marry from loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California.

It’s now Saturday. Which means thousands and thousands of our readers were able to catch Bruno during last night’s official opening. It’s time to tell us: Homophobic, or hilarious?

By:           editor editor
On:           Jul 11, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,

  • 265 Comments
    • Shawn
      Shawn

      I saw it last night. I’m 23 living in a pretty conservative place (central PA).

      The majority of people in the theatre last night laughed at funny parts…but parts that showed very crude homophobia, they didn’t. There was this kind of weird silence. Like they were seeing how ridiculous some of these people are.

      As for myself, I generally liked the movie and I think it showed how ridiculous homophobia is…and I think, for the most part, people got that. There was only one scene that made me kind of draw back a bit. It was when he showed his boyfriend. The guy looked like he could’ve been really young…like pedophile young. I don’t think it was meant to be that way, but it kinda looked that way, which is often a defense of homophobes. “Gays will corrupt the young” crap.

      It was a pretty funny movie and I do suggest it. As I said, I think even people in this christian conservative place got the joke…because they WERE the joke…and they laughed when it was funny…but didn’t when it showed how ridiculous homophobia really is.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dabq
      Dabq

      Not that I would waste a penny on this so called movie, the homophobic parts will only do one thing to those who are supposedly not in on the joke, reinforce negative stereotypes that some want and sadly millions think are already true.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Thom Freeheart
      Thom Freeheart

      I can’t even stop fellow gays from reinforcing negative stereotypes.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geoff M
      Geoff M

      Why are “Bruno” movie ads popping up on Queerty so much?

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • heardofit
      heardofit

      I’d like to point out that this movie is a comedy. Take stereotypes out of comedy and there isn’t much left. Stereotypes are portrayed about all kinds of people. Gay people do it to. Get over yourself and let people laugh. The people that don’t get it… don’t matter. As an out gay man I am so sick of people tip-toeing around for fear that I may be offended by something that slips out of their mouth.

      It seems like people just sit at home and think of ways they can twist every little thing into the plight of the gay person. Enough of it already. Plenty of us are sick of it. If you don’t like the effin’ movie… don’t watch it and quick trying to spoil things for the rest of us.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cornerframe
      Cornerframe

      I saw it last night in Dallas. Packed theatre. Hilarious movie. Lots of gays and straights in the audience, all laughing. It was interesting to see who laughed at what scenes, but overall hilarious movie.
      It’s not a serious movie. It’s satire, just like “not another (teen) (scary) (dance) movie.”
      Gays aren’t the butt of the jokes. It’s the unknowning individuals in the scenes with Bruno that are the butts of the joke.
      We all need to loosen up and laugh abit. This movie is not the end of the world.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shawn
      Shawn

      I wonder…how many people that comment on this website are actually under 25? heck, even 30?

      My generation is much more accepting than the others…and my generation tends to get the jokes. I’m an activist just so you know since I’m sure some of you will jump down my throat trying to make me feel like a “stupid lil boy”…I think you should look at this like a younger person (which this movie is aimed more towards). I’ve marched on my capital building, I’ve met with my republican representatives, and I’ve even handed thousands of signatures to Sen. Eichleburger when he said that he allows us to exist.

      I’ve only recently started commenting on this site because well…you all sound like a bunch of old queens. As I’ve said above…I don’t like everything in this movie…but I think, since I actually went to see it, most people got the jokes…even the older people.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Thom Freeheart
      Thom Freeheart

      I’m with you, Shawn.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteamPunk
      SteamPunk

      POSSIBLE SPOILERS:
      After seeing the movie, then you may see that Bruno not only stereotypes gay people, but Black people as well. It even goes into racism territory. (Like when he yells at a runway model “Shoulders back! You’re at a fashion show, not a slave auction!” I’m really surprised the journalists didn’t ask him about that!) Yes, I admit that the stereotype of gays is the focus of the movie since the character is gay.

      The reason I point out that Bruno ridicules Blacks is because most gay people I know would not point it out. And that’s not something limited to gay people, but most people. Most people I know only tend to get angry when satire is making fun of their culture. Yet, they tend to overlook the fact that they aren’t the only culture being ridiculed.

      I thought the movie was funny, but very tense. However, I usually enjoy satire. For me, it wasn’t entirely about gay stereotypes or Black stereotypes; but it was about the lengths people go to just to get famous. (Gay people trying to become or act straight was a large part of the movie; and the Hollywood moms auditioning their kids for a commercial was by far the saddest scene.)

      Anyone else out there enjoyed the satire as much as I did? The half a dozen straight white people I saw thought it was terribly offensive, which I thought was pretty funny.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeandrewsdantescove
      mikeandrewsdantescove

      I saw the movie and was deeply concerned about 3 things – men in the middle east, African Americans on the Richard Day show and southern guys. All looked in disgust about Bruno being gay and yelled negative things.

      If they didn’t have security at some of those events including the cage fight, they would have been attacked. I was afraid when some homophobe hurled a chair in the ring with Bruno and his lover.

      Finally, Ron Paul proved he is a homophobe by calling him a queer and hitting on him.

      Mike

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      So, you saw the movie, Fitz?

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar

      @Shawn:

      I’m 18 and think most of what you’re saying is stupid and overgeneralizing so don’t worry it’s not about age.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @Matt: No more than I attended a Klan meeting, uncle Bruce.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @Shawn: So in short, they laughed at the gays but not at the people that reminded them of themselves. So, they thought the gays were hilarious but the criticism of the homophobes was harsh.

      Also, people that make intelligent film choices, and no matter what you say SBC is one of those people, don’t do anything by mistake, so if his boyfriend looks like he is 15 then he was supposed to look like he was 15. SBC is trying to say that all gay guys only date 15 year old looking guys.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      Maybe no one asks Cohen about his homophobia because there’s nothing there. Do people ask Michael Scorcese about his anti-Italianism? Mel Brooks about his anti-Semitism? Kai Pen about his anti-Indianism? Cohen is a satirist. it’s his job to make fun of people. That no more makes him an anti-Semite than Jonathan Swift was anti-Irish for “An Indecent Proposal.”

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @SteamPunk: Hmm, you couldn’t possibly think that is going to help to put a burden on race relations within the gay community. Nah. Its just satire. It isn’t supposed to be real. It shouldn’t make a difference.

      The rational person will see this movie as funny. The non-rational people will see it as justification. However, you can’t change the non-rational mind set anyways, so this movie will not have as large of an affect as some seem to think.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lucas
      Lucas

      Any gay person who supports this homo version of blackface should be ashamed of themselves. My favorite genre by far is comedy but this is just disgusting and shameful.

      No wonder us gays are where we are after 40 years of civil rights battles, we’re fucking pathetic.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      @hardmannyc: “That no more makes him an anti-Semite than Jonathan Swift was anti-Irish for “An Indecent Proposal.””

      Isn’t that ‘A Modest Proposal?’

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LJ
      LJ

      @Fitz: If you haven’t even seen the movie how is it that you can criticize it? And as far as your comment to Shawn, he doesn’t seem to be the stupid one here. You’re the one hoping Sasha’s wife and kid are attacked brutally which makes me think you’re a sick and twisted sadist. Lastly, homophobes don’t go and see a movie like this because it would make them very uncomfortable. The absurdity of his actions is enough for anyone with a brain to realize that no gay person, nor any person in real life, acts that way. If you actually see the movie than I think you can criticize it, but until then I think you should bite your tongue.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeAnimator
      DeAnimator

      I like how everyone is all in a huff over Bruno BUT will not complain about all the ridiculous queers walking around reinforcing these stereotypes EVERY DAY to real people.

      Maybe you can all start complaining when you protest the pointless and exclusionary pride parades around the country and tell your friends to stop wearing mesh and lisping in faux high voices. No one’s voice is naturally like that. It’s an IMITATION of a stereotype. The entire queer ‘culture’ is based off of stereotypes pressed on us by heterosexist society.

      Put down all the skin mags and read a book. Jesus.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • No Homophobama
      No Homophobama

      I do not think Cohen is a homophobe. I think he is an intellectual liberal heterosexual and really does not “get” what it is like to be a gay person growing up experiencing such hatred. He is making a joke about bigotry. Dumb people never “get” irony. They never will.

      I have not seen the film. Hopefully it makes homophobes look stupid and “uncool”. Who knows. We were fooled by gay haters like Obama who actively campaigned with homophobes such as Donnie McClurkin, who embraced gay hating Warren, who compared us to pedophiles and those who practice incestuous behaviors. Bruno is fiction, Obama is real, and really dangerous.

      Obama: ” I oppose same sex marriage because God is in the mix”

      Funky DJ Obama remixes your rights. Welcome to Funky Town. Now get Michelle a makeover.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @hardmannyc: You might have a point. SBC is an equal opportunity asshole. He will make fun of any group of people that makes him money. That should have been obvious when the dude that did Borat in the height of the time that the least liked minority was the Arabs decided to do Bruno when the least liked minority became the gays (yet again). Make no doubt about it, if other minorities were not off limit SBC would tackle those too. However, let him try to make a movie in black face and see how long he actually lives afterward.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @LJ: You are clueless. This is the kind of movies that homophobes flock to in droves in order to make fun of the fagot. Homophobes aren’t afraid of gays. Homophobes hate gays. They go to a movie like this just to make a point. I’m willing to bet that in smaller towns the “make fun of the fagots” movie is quite popular because the homophobes that honestly believe every gay person is just like Bruno.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @No Homophobama: Apparently you are pretty freaking dumb then because IRONY is by definition an unexpected conclusion. In order to have irony you have to lead the entire audience to one conclusion and then present a totally different conclusion. It is a type of surprise ending. In this case everyone expects SBC to portray gays in a negative light in order to make money and he does. That is NOT irony. Before you get on your soap box, at least understand what the word means.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roy
      Roy

      @hardmannyc:

      The difference between the analogies you make and Cohen, is that those people make fun of their own. Baron Cohen is not a gay guy making fun of gays. He is an orthodox jew making fun of middleeasterners (Borat and Ali G) and gays (Bruno) by depicting them as ignorant, offensive and clueless. I think he’s a bigot plain and simple. Noone in Hollywood would think Cohen was funny if he was an arab comedian playing a jew for outrageous laughs.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shawn
      Shawn

      @galefan2004: I actually live in one of those towns…and I will say again…most of them realized they were being made fun of…and actually laughed about it. All these other silly little queens on here are probably from some big city where it’s not that big of a deal…well, in small town USA…it kind of is.

      I KNOW for a fact that some of the people were a bit homophobic from some of their comments before the movie. I held my boyfriends hand before the movie…and guess what, after the movie, I had a few of those people come up a say some nice things about how silly those people looked in the movie and how they use to be against gays and whatnot…but it actually changed their mind.

      So, whatever you people have to say on here. Grow up…stop looking at this close minded…because, lets face it, some of our people are just as close minded as those bigots on the other side. And a lot of you people on here are proving it.

      Look at the guys who wishes violence on SBC….He proves it alone…but these other people do just the same.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bobby12
      Bobby12

      It was hysterical!! As a 40 year old gay I’m glad that for what a movie ticket costs I got to laugh more than once. Most comedies don’t even get a chuckle out of me. BRUNO had me laughing a lot.

      The theatre I saw it at was easily 50% gay and it was cool to see everyone laughing together.

      Anyone who sees this movie and gets upset about it is as stupid as the southern hicks shown in the film.

      Lighten up people.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Thomas
      Thomas

      @Lucas:

      I found the QUEER EYE guys more “blackface” than Bruno.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shawn
      Shawn

      @Thomas: Agreed.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @hardmannyc:

      An indecent proposal? Weren’t redford and moore in that movie? Are you comparing SBC (who would fuck his mother on camera if it would get him laughs and publicity–literally, he’d anything for a laugh, fame and money) to the author of the tale of the tub, gulliver’s travels, and a modest proposal? Hilarious. You don’t know the meaning of the word satire. Twain and Swift were satirists… Literacy: it’s dead.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kid A
      Kid A

      Saw it last night, and thought it was hilarious.

      There is one thing I’m finding very annoying, and it’s that some writers are saying that Cohen does a great job at exposing homophobia, particularly in the scene with Ron Paul. Now, if he was acting very non-chalantly, in a non-confrontational way and people reacted negatively, that would be a much stronger situation to expose homophobia.

      Instead, like the Ron Paul scene, he’s so over the top and obviously inappropriate that any rational person would react negatively. As much as I don’t particularly like him or his use of the slur “queer” after the incident, I can’t blame him for getting upset at a guy who is being an asshole, gay or not.

      That said, the good anti-homophobia scenes occur when Cohen isn’t up in anyone’s face. The scene with the martial arts trainer was great for this, exactly because Cohen didn’t present himself as gay, but opened the conversation to homosexuals to get the money quotes (“A homosexual will likely attack from behind”). If Cohen had done the gay shtick, the man may have gone into fake-tolerance mode and not expressed what he was thinking.

      The brawler scene at the end did this well also. When Cohen whips the crowd into a fury as “Straight Dave” (much like the rodeo scene in Borat), and the subsequent kiss comes around, it really shows the ugliness of the crowd. I don’t know anyone, even a homophobe, who would want to be part of what the crowd looked like.

      There are some acquaintances of mine reviewing negatively (via Facebook status updates) saying “it’s so gay” and “so much gay stuff” and all I can respond is “What the fuck did you expect? Was Borat not evidence enough that this movie would be extreme and explicit?” Any straight person who spends their own money to see this and complains about the content is a fool, and should be told so. No one is forcing anyone to see this movie.

      Although I don’t see any naysayers listing particular scenes this way (and I wonder why not…?), I do see why LGBT organizations and people will see this as harmful, and I can’t blame ‘em. But for my part, and hearing the reaction from the audience, I’m glad I saw it.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      As I said, mel brooks, larry david, etc can make fun of jews all they want because they’ve lived their lives in an antisemitic world. And c’mon, you can’t compare homophobia to antisemitism in the united states…homophobia is a million times more destructive and common. Whereas antisemites are largely laughed at universally condemned (for the most part)…homopobes are cheered on. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not underplaying antisemitism, but it’s laughable to say that homophobia is on a par with the current state of antisemitism based on numbers alone.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Would Richard Pryor have been embraced for the comedic genius he was if he were a white guy doing the same schtick? C’mon, lightweights, wake up. I’m sure it was hilarious. Because you know what, making fun of gay people is hilarious in this country. It gets the laughs and has for decades (since the beginning of film). It’s not innovative or anything new…

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DuttyBarb
      DuttyBarb

      I agree with this article.. Queerty.

      I have not seen this film but the parts ive seen are gross. Homosexuality is always going to be a sore spot for people..this film is not going to help matters. Trust me.

      Especially at a time when gays are fighting for acceptance and equality. Religious groups will use situations like these to bring people to an anti-gay fever pitch. They have been served ammunition thanks to Bruno.

      As you all know im not pro gay but i am pro peace and i hate any situation that will increase violence or discrimination against anyone. So no to Bruno

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • heardofit
      heardofit

      @Fitz: You’re disgusting and an embarrassment.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      We’ve been socialized to laugh at gay people because they’re…gay…okay. Don’t think gay people are immune to sexism.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @DuttyBarb: Honey you really should read this article:

      http://www.davidmixner.com/2009/07/separate-but-unequal-means-gay-apartheid.html

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @galefan2004:

      However, let him try to make a movie in black face and see how long he actually lives afterward.

      I take it you are unfamiliar with the character that made SBC incredibly famous in the UK and he brought over to the US as the main star of his TV show? Ali G was a caricature of the black rapper image that portrayed all the negative stereotypes of young black males – uneducated, violent, lazy, sexist, drug taking, bling obsessed, etc. He talked in ebonics and wore rap style clothes. It was very controversial due to the blackface aspect and the issue of whether young people would imitate or see it as irony, but it was extremely popular. SBC would not do publicity interviews out of the Ali G character and would not enter the debate or explain the character (people couldn’t agree on what it was supposed to be, which complicated the debate).

      As you can see, he is alive and well.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @TANK: We know gay people are not immune to sexism, look at the way some treated Hillary.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @mk:

      Ali G was not blackface, you moron. IF you can’t see that he was a white or middle eastern guy appropriating his understanding of black culture, then you’re lost. He was not sending up black people in that role (primarily, anyway) but the ridiculous white understanding of an element of “black” culture. He was more making fun of the little white boys who tried to talk gangster in suburbia than black people.

      Black face would actually be something like Al Jolsen singing mammy, or amos and andy…people aren’t getting away with that nowadays.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DuttyBarb
      DuttyBarb

      @InExile.. Nice article. This applies to me how?

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      but yeah, I Think sacha should put on some black body paint, dress up like a thug and make a movie in which with every breath he puts down black people living in the ghetto. I’m picturing the popeye’s chicken scene right now….but of course he won’t do that, because he likes to breathe.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kid A
      Kid A

      @TANK: I thought it was hilarious not because he was gay (I’m not particularly inclined to think that’s funny in itself), but because of the situations presented in the movie. His focus-group test of a show featuring a waving dick, his lampooning of high fashion, the scene at the end with progressively more and more famous musicians.. these are all funny regardless of the gay. I’d appreciate them no matter the context.

      Most of the people against this movie wouldn’t know this (since they haven’t seen it), but I can’t think of a single laugh SIMPLY because Bruno is gay. People moaned and laughed and got outraged at the unedited sex scene in Team America, not because it was gay or straight, but because it was sexually extreme. Some of what detractors would call homophobia, I’d call sex-phobia. Often, extreme (or even realistic) depictions of sex acts make people uncomfortable, gay or straight. Sex is such an important, powerful part of our lives, yet in some ways so repressed, that comedy and satire are perfect ways to bring our discomfort into the light.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kid A
      Kid A

      @TANK: Reminds me of a friend who calls white hip-hop kids “8 Mile.” To their face too, so precious. Only in cases where it’s obvious appropriation to look cool; there’s plently of white kids who genuinely like hip hop, myself included.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan M
      Jonathan M

      It is a great laugh out loud comedy movie. It’s not an educational documentary about the evils of homophobia. No one movie is going to make a homophobe gay friendly, but I really cannot imagine that any homophobes would watch this movie just because it contains quite a lot of cock.

      Watch it, chillax, enjoy it.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D-Sun
      D-Sun

      I thought it was hilarious. Laughed the whole time. Which is strange, because comedies usually bore and annoy me.

      I plan on seeing this one again while it’s still in theatres.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @TANK:

      If you check back on the debate in the UK at the time it was controversial as alleged blackface. I always interpreted it as making fun of people appropriating black culture, but there were certainly black people in the press who were not thrilled and there were ethnic rappers who were mad. Even when you saw it the character being a white guy acting like a black rapper or a middle eastern guy acting like a black rapper, it could certainly be said that it laughed at the excesses of the rap community and image as well as people who try to co-opt that image. And being welsh jewish/israeli SBC is actually dark enough looking that interview subjects who actually commented afterwards said they thought he might have been mixed race. During one of his Ali G interviews one of his real world panelists actually talked about him holding a particular view because he’s black. He didn’t actually blacken his face, but then he not make himself look like an actual Kazahkstanian either just something that could fool people and fit their idea of “foreigner from a poor country somewhere in mid or eastern europe”.

      Anyway, I didn’t have a problem with Ali G, but the poster who said SBC getting into controversy over black face would kill him was not correct.

      Satire holds risks and raises questions. A recent study found that most conservatives believe Stephen Colbert actually believes the things his character on his show says and is at heart conservative. I have not found that to be the case with SBC, especially since he does a number of characters while Colbert only does one. I would not want either one of them to stop their comedy regardless of questions raised.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @mk:

      I’m sure someone called it blackface, but the overwhelming consensus was that SBC wasn’t a black man. He was not racially black, and was making fun of the white boys who were trying to coopt popular memes about black culture.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Nor was he really even portraying a black man as Ali G, because the character wasn’t black. He was portraying the white appropriation of the white understanding, even, of black media figures.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And really, there’s a comparison between the discrimination that kazakhstanis face qua kazakhstanis and gay and lesbians face as gay and lesbians…idiotic. Once again, I’m sure there were a lot of gay people who would find this hilarious–I’d probably laugh at how absurd it was. But to act like it’s sending up homophobia rests the faith that that’s what it’s doing (confirmation bias), as I’m sure there’s tons of homophobic people who will see it (most americans are homophobic to varying degrees–just as most americans are deeply sexist) and won’t get that the target in a few sequences is homophobia. But then again, I haven’t seen it, and won’t.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And please stop acting like this is pushing boundaries…fag jokes are as old as film itself.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      There’s no “chance” that is being taken here–pushing people to question their own views as good satire generally does. Fag jokes fill theaters and get laughs, and have since time immemorial.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @TANK: It could certainly be argued, though, and it WAS argued, that it also made fun of black rap culture at the same time. He made people who act like rappers look ridiculous including actual rappers and poked fun at the conventions of the rap community in general. There was the same sort of hand-wringing about “how are dumb ass viewers seeing this? what are they laughing at?”.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @mk:

      Anything can be argued when we’re dealing with topics like this. But to compare Ali G’s character to blackface given that horrible and long vaudeville tradition is absurd. If you know anything about real blackfaces (white performers amplifying the most disgusting and false memes of supposed black culture for laughs at black people by explicitly capitalizing on the rampant racist beliefs of their audience), you wouldn’t do it.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      @Bobby12: We demand you feel bad about liking SBC immediately! Cut off an appendage to show you’re sorry and send in photographic evidence.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @TANK:

      Nor was he really even portraying a black man as Ali G, because the character wasn’t black. He was portraying the white appropriation of the white understanding, even, of black media figures.

      He looked enough like he could be mixed race or belong to some minority of colour that the act, the ethnic name and the claims that he’s not white would make many people at least unsure, especially the old high class people he interviewed most of the time in Britain.

      There was no agreement on whether the character was supposed to be black, middle eastern or white. Things like the continual references to relatives like “uncle jamal” did not suggest white. It wasn’t resolved in the UK until the movie, which actaully prompted some complaints from critics who said it was more interesting as a mystery.

      All of his characters have been caricatures of the negative public impression of a group. Bruno is an extreme version of what negative sterotype people have had of gays, especially of gays in the media. Borat is an extreme version of the west’s negative understanding of muslims and peple from poor european countries. Part of the joke is the subjects buy into that stereotype enough to believe in his characters no matter how ridiculously overboard he is.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @mk:

      No, it suggested middle eastern. SUre, he could’ve been black, but the consensus was against that–the overwhelming majority of people who saw the show and movie thought he was not black.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • might be me... but maybe not
      might be me... but maybe not

      Sacha Baron Cohen’s cousin is a professor at Oxford who studies the affect of awkwardness on people. The two collaborate on the movies SBC makes. His movies are a study in awkwardness disguised as comedy.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And it wasn’t a modern take on blackface, either. The suggestion belies a complete nonunderstanding of what that term means.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @TANK: I do know that black face was disgusting and racist. Of course Ali G was not literally black face and I do not think it was intended in any way as racist. Even if it makes fun of rap excess to some degree that is not making fun of the black community at large (as we are supposed to know as viewers, the stereotypes are not the truth and most black people are not rappers), and so many rappers of all races in the media play their images up so much they become sort of self-caricatures often.

      I’m just saying that obviously there are people who are just as sensitive about any taint of blackface as there are people sensitive about “gayface”, and these issues have come up before.

      When the movie eventually came out it was clear Ali G was a white jewish kid which vindicated the people who had said all along that’s what was supposed to be going on.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • No Homophobama
      No Homophobama

      @galefan2004

      Irony:

      i?ro?ny
      1??/?a?r?ni, ?a??r-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
      Use Irony in a Sentence
      –noun, plural -nies.
      1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
      2. Literature.
      a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
      b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

      Douchebag:

      By definition:

      A self-important bag of wind aka galefan2004

      Irony has a nuanced definition. The “oppposite conclusion” definition is far down the list. Get over yourself. I have a J.D. from one of the top law schools in the nation as well as a graduate degree from an Ivy League school. Eff you and your community college understanding of irony.

      Now go suck Obama!

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • No Homophobama
      No Homophobama

      I love when moronic simpletons call others stupid while demonstrating their own stupidity. AKA galefan2004, SM, SparkleObama et al.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      @Bobby12: And no, a pinkie will not suffice. ;-D

      Jul 11, 2009 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RainaWeather
      RainaWeather

      @TANK: Well look at you…hmm

      Jul 11, 2009 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @DuttyBarb: This article shows the flaws in your views on gay marriage. Our laws are gay apartheid laws.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steff
      Steff

      It strikes me that a few people on here state their desire to avoid watching the film at all costs, and then mouth off about its contents.

      If you haven’t seen it, please, shut up.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ali
      Ali

      I thought it was hilarious. Note, I saw it in a theatre in Vancouver, BC where there are liberal attitudes but also recent violence towards gay people, even in our own gay village.

      The audience laughed at everything. There were very few silences. The part that seemed to shock people the most and elicit the most awkwardness was when Bruno was insulting Osama to the guy from the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade. The audience was laughing at Bruno, but it was laughing at the stereotypes of American bigotry more, from both the volume of laughs and the conversations I overheard after. I can absolutely see where Sacha Baron Cohen came at this film as a non-American, and it’s actually these stereotypes that are more resonant for a non-American audience, especially following Prop 8, Obama’s vacillating on DADT, etc. For me, the absence of American gays in this movie was very noticeable.

      I’m noticing a real age gap, and nationality gap, in how people characterize Bruno on gay websites. I think there is an intense fear of stereotypes on the part of an older American generation that isn’t aware of the many different media images of gays that my generation has always had available, and who are only able to accept extremely sanitized versions of ourselves for public consumption. Only problem is, extremely sanitized people are incredibly boring. There are kinky effeminate fashion-oriented gay guys out there, and why the hell shouldn’t they be lampooned, and celebrated? I’m tired of hearing that only the 40-something committed middle class parents-of-two gays are socially acceptable. It reminds me of how some gays think Pride parade floats should cover up and be less fabulous, and dykes on bikes should put their tops back on. There are fantastically butch leather dykes and effeminate guys in glitter and lamé and feathers out there, they’re wonderful individuals, and we shouldn’t force them into business suits because we’re afraid they reflect negatively on us. They are us as well.

      I love seeing a movie that stars and, in the end, shows a lovable unapologetic queen in a mostly positive light (despite portraying him as shallow), where the (flimsy) story’s antagonists are misogynistic ex-gay preachers and homophobic swinger creeps who are blasted with both barrels. Also, as far as “minstrel” images go, why do we accept this when it’s Jack on Will & Grace (sure, played by a gay actor, but with undoubtedly some straight writers and mostly straight network execs) but hate it when someone else mocks that image? At least Sacha Baron Cohen has creative control and was able to make a stronger statement about homophobic jackasses – and was able to have sex scenes with guys onscreen and full frontal male nudity. Fewer double standards please!

      Jul 11, 2009 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GBM
      GBM

      @No Homophobama:

      Bitch your name is ignorant at best! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2012 and then lets really watch your ass cry and cry and you get gay bashed and no help for you Ms One. There going to really tell you that Jesus is really in the mix!

      Jul 11, 2009 at 8:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      I have not seen the movie. I am not sure I will. I do find it fucked up that people who have not seen it are commenting as if they have. Look, I can understand saying “I have not seen it , but the ads bother me” or whatever quote you want to make that demonstrates you are not closed minded about something you have not seen. But the vitriol coming out of folks like Fitz is bizare. Part of this whole discussion continues to remind me of Archie Bunker. There are some people for whom taboos exist that are never supposed to be crossed, and yet, by crossing them we move to a place that that may not have been possible otherwise. That’s the value of good comedy. Like I said., I am not sure I want to see Bruno at the theatres, but my reasons are related to it seems to remind me too much of Borat. Still, I think there is a sign of immaturity here that’s destructive to gays. I told a friend lately tht the reason I don’t like many gay movies is that too many gay people , like way too many African American movies, are looking not for funny or good movies , but emotional validation. You want the movie to help you escape from bigotry in society. That’s fine. But it’s boring. So is yet another coming out story, yet another gay romantic comedy about boyz finding love in WeHo or a movie that’s just really bad acting, etc. My point is that whatever this movie is- at least it’s a challenge. That’s somethingw e should laud, but more importantly see if we are going to criticize. it’s just fucked up otherwise to crticize something you have not seen.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 9:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      @heardofit: Someday, when you are about to get bashed, or you are looking at your boyfriend bleeding in the street.. think of this.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      Follow up: re content of movies with gay characters

      I want to add one other point. As a writer (wannabe) I told friends of a few plots ot stories in which the lead characters are gay, but the story has really nothing to do ith their sexual orientation. The response to the concept of it not being an “I am gay, so please make me feel better about my status” movie was to ask me “what does that have to do with being gay if the character does not focus on his sexuality.” I tought how limiting. So, we are not supposed to have a movie about a guy running a small town, but the mains tory is about local corruption. Or stories about a guy running a union or as a part of the environmental movement? What about those stories. The point is – part of the issue here I believe is that there are a lot of older gay men (I am in my 30s) for whom they want cliches presented in safe and emotional affirming ways rather than as a challenge to theri orthodoxy.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 10:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Fitz: Oh please now you are bringing up bashing? Jesus, you are fucking way over the top.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      Fitz is fulfilling the stereotype of the histrionic, overly-P.C., always-a-victim gay man. Someone should wish some harm on his friends and family, despite the fact that we do not know him personally and have only seen bits and pieces about what he has to say. I mean, someone could get the wrong idea and start to really hate gay people and then logically want to beat us up, and won’t we feel sorry.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 10:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hephaestion
      hephaestion

      I laughed all the way through “Bruno,” and kept laughing out loud for hours after seeing it. It is hilarious!

      I saw it in DC with non-homophobic college students in the audience. I was very pleased to see Snoop Dogg say “He’s gay. He’s gay. He’s gay…. Okay.” at the end.

      Jul 11, 2009 at 10:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hephaestion
      hephaestion

      I don’t think anyone who sees “Bruno” will vacation in Arkansas ever again. Those people were as scary as the Taliban!

      Jul 11, 2009 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James Bond
      James Bond

      BRUNO… I am sure Sacha thrives on pissing people off with his movies (and makes some money in the process), and I should not give him the pleasure of posting anything about his hideous crap. But sadly, it goes beyond taste: this cretin injects more wind to an already perfect storm in the issue that American society is deteriorating in leaps and bounds. We don`t exactly need porno-sociopaths as Sacha Baron and his entourage of perverts to discredit our ailing image. What a shame!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Onyx83
      Onyx83

      @Jonathan M: Alot of cock,,, I’m there. Thanks Bruno.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matcha
      Matcha

      Goddamn can anyone of jump on and stereotype Fritz anymore? Way to be (ironically) self-righteous, at least when he did it was towards a good cause. I’m not quite sure what all of you are aiming for besides posturing.

      It’s the internet, it’s not that serious, relax.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • No Homophobama
      No Homophobama

      “GBM
      @No Homophobama:

      Bitch your name is ignorant at best! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2012 and then lets really watch your ass cry and cry and you get gay bashed and no help for you Ms One. There going to really tell you that Jesus is really in the mix!

      Ever read Orwell’s “Animal Farm” ? you ignorant undereduacated twat? In the book, the animals took over the farm and they too became corrupt. The Pigs (those in charge, read Obamadouche and the Dumbocrats) used the same threat, saying “Remember how bad the humans were, you don’t want them in charge” as a threat when the pigs became as evil and corrupt as the humans were.

      Do you and the other semiretarded Obamabots read literature???

      You fucking morons make me sick.

      Go suck Obama’s sagging middle aged tits.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • historygirl
      historygirl

      @Kid A: I get your point about the Ron Paul scene not exposing homophobia in the way you expected because of how inappropriately sexually aggressive (you know, for someone normal and not for a caricature) Bruno was in the scene. But I think that scene was at the center of the whole point of the movie.

      Basically, I think Cohen is making a point about the ridiculous ideas that homophobes (many of whom have probably never met a really live gay person) have about gay men. Bruno, a ridiculous caricature, is exactly what these homophobes think that actual gay men are like – sometimes because they’ve never met one (to their knowledge). So Cohen is not mocking gay men, he’s mocking ignorance about gay men. Where this pays of is in the situations when Bruno is being completely sexually inappropriate, and nobody calls him on it. All they do is accuse him of being “queer”, as Ron Paul did. To the homophobes interacting with Bruno, sexual aggression and sexually inappropriate behaviour are synonymous with being gay, so they never call him on his specific behaviour, only his “gay” identity. Cohen is exposing this ignorance.

      Of course, the question of whether this is what people will actually take away from it is debatable. It’s possible the film will do more harm than good…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @historygirl: Your take actually makes me want to see it a little more, but to be honest that is exactlyw hat Borat did. by playing this outlandish character who was saying very outrageous things- it was a mirror to how people “secretly really” think say on race. Like with the scene where the two white boys want to own slaves. It was a hillarious scene, but also disturbing. I do agree that if you don’t appreciate that this is the point- to present people a mirror of themselves in someway- then getting offended is easy to do.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @historygirl: By the way- thank you for your throughful post. It gives me something to think about if I do see it.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Benj
      Benj

      As a Gay man, and one if the few people alive who never saw Borat, I didn’t really know what to expect from this movie. I didn’t know if I should be offended by the one-sided “pinkface” depiction of Gay men, or if I should be excited that there is finally a mainstream movie about the ridiculousness of mindless homophobia.

      To be honest, after seeing the movie I still haven’t decided.

      There were moments during this movie when I was mildly offended at mostly innacurate depictions of Gay sexuality that were seemingly presented just for their gross-out shock value. However, thinking back now I may gave been more offended by the immature straight audience’s reaction to those scenes than I was by the scenes themselves. (This audience also snickered – though not as much – at simple male/male kissing.)

      Other scenes were actually somewhat poignant, and even seemed to silence the audience. These scenes (one in particular) depicted just how dangerous homophobia can be, and actually seemed to put the actors in danger as well. Whether the audience was bored by these scenes or actually pausing to reflect on their own homophobia, I obviously don’t know.

      Ultimately, while there might be some initial backlash from this movie, I feel that this movie is a step forward in social acceptance of Gays. Everytime we see something we find shocking it becomes less and less shocking. Some people might just need a harder shove than others to get to that point. In the mean time I don’t think they even realize that the joke’s on them.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hominy Grits
      Hominy Grits

      The studio should have had some real moxie and called their little social satire
      BRUNO: A faggot’s journey.

      Little Britain USA does this shit way better (but ofcourse one of the stars is gay and he isnt boring the audience by hammering KY jelly and DILDO jokes ad nauseum)

      The Bruno character is fun for like 2 minutes – but this press junket is like being stuck watching a MAD TV skit that has been going for 3 months !

      Stewart: “Look what I can do !!!”

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hominy Grits
      Hominy Grits

      Imagine a full length film version of Damon Wayons and David Alan Grier super fag characters from MEN ON FILM from In Loving Color — now THAT would be comedy.

      “NOT YOU FISH – YOU GO BACK IN THE SEA”

      oh I could watch that shit for hours

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rudy
      Rudy

      I saw this mostly hilarious (and always shocking) film in Alabama tonight.
      If Cohen is homophobic for making Bruno, John Waters must be anti-drag queen for Pink Flamingos.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rikard
      Rikard

      Big corporate media journalists are forced to play along. SBC never does interviews. The choice is to take him in character or miss the interview. Most of them took a pass on Borat and regretted it. The movie and the actor blew up and all they were left with was trying to get Pam Amderson to admit she was in on the joke. I wish Bruno well. I trust SBC to make me laugh and cheer and probably question the bigoted nature of my own preference for “straight acting” men, among other bias’ (what is the plural form of bias?).

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      Ha ha Matcha, “it’s just the internet.” It’s just a movie! I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

      I’m with Rudy on the John Waters comparison. What would the reaction be if this was “Divine” instead of “Bruno.” And why hasn’t Queerty asked John Waters for his opinion on Bruno?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Matt:

      There’s a big difference between people making grandiose comments about someone’s frustration on the internet and people critiquing a movie that reaches millions of people directly through the screen or through pop culture.

      “I thought the sarcasm was obvious. ”

      Your sarcasm was not witty nor was it edgy.

      Secondly,

      I know everyone here subscribes to the “Thinking gives you wrinkles” philosophy but for people who do like to think let them be able to critique it without your anti-intellectual hysteria flailing about in the comments. They have no point and most of them are trolly.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @Shawn: That is awesome that you had a good experience. However, that is different from where I live for two basic reasons: 1) It is a safety issue to hold hands in public where I’m from. 2) People in the town where I’m from honestly are prone to stereotyping gays in general so they go a movie like Bruno to laugh at the gay stereotypes because they honestly believe those stereotypes.

      PA is still much more liberal than you will ever give it credit for. I know you have some whacked out political officials, but at least you haven’t had an anti-gay amendment pass with 75% of the vote yet. Where I’m from gays are seen as sick and evil. They are supposed to be cured. Hell, our own house welcomed women’s groups to talk about how gay people shouldn’t get equal employment and housing rights because gays are not equal and should be cured. In this state, the EHEA had 5 people vote against even letting it out of the committee and onto the state legislature floor. Now that it is on the state legislature floor it is being stonewalled (most likely indefinitely).

      Hell, we have even had people killed in the parking lot of the bar I used to go to in a much larger town just for being gay. Please don’t assume that because you live in a small town in PA it means you are overly knowledgeable about small towns everywhere. I don’t even live in a red state. I can only imagine what it is like for people in a true red state.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @mk: Apparently you are unfamiliar with what black face is. He was parodying a rapper. He could have just as likely been parodying Eminem. He was smart enough to keep his mouth shut when asked if there was a racial aspect. That is not black face though, it is a parody of the rap world. There are white rappers. I’m talking about true black face.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @might be me… but maybe not: Those that can do. Those that can’t teach. Seriously! I don’t really give a damn that he has a consultant professor from Oxford. That doesn’t lend any credibility to the works.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @No Homophobama: I’m supposed to be impressed? I really don’t give a damn what Ivy League school you want to throw in my face. I don’t really give a damn that you can throw a law degree in my face. Good for you. However, even by your definition quote you failed to exercise any common sense what-so-fucking-ever. You said that SBC was using irony. I pointed out that its not irony because he believes what he is selling.

      By the very definition you are using you would have to first prove that SBC is not an homophobic asshole to prove he is being ironic. That is the part where he is using “contradictory language.”

      You thinking you are better than all of us because you went to an ivy league school and hold a law degree when you most likely come from a privileged white back ground is neither here nor there. The fact that you think that makes you entitled to hate Obama because he overcame actual burdens to get to be president is the definition of irony. Tell me, when your daddy was busy shelling out money to pay for your college did you think anyone on a scholarship was evil too?

      Oh, and does it annoy you that Obama is president because he “hates homosexuals” or because you are jealous that people that actually overcome great odds in this country will always be seen in a more positive light than yet another kid that had mommy and daddy send them to a good school. GW Bush was Ivy League. That in and of itself tells you how great an ivy league education is.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @No Homophobama: I love when people that lack common sense hide behind their supposed credentials. With the amount of knowledge you claim to posses shouldn’t you be off saving the world instead of communicating with us lowly morons on QT. I mean, because you are so much smarter and better than us lowly commoners, shouldn’t you use your daddy and mommy’s money to constantly attack Obama instead of whining about him on a gay website.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      @Rarshar: I’m sorry, but if someone has not seen what they are critiquing, then that is anti-intellectual.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @GBM: Ahh come on, Obama is so homophobic. I mean, didn’t you see where he tried not once but twice to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment every time he needed a distraction. Oh wait, that was Ivy League GW Bush. Wait a minute, this dude talks like he lacks common sense and spouts off about his Ivy League education. Maybe this dude and GW were friends at one point. They seem to both have the same level of intelligence.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      SBC is not a homophobe and Bruno is not meant to be anti-gay. Yes, some of the scenes go a bit too far, but the guy is not doing this fully scripted – he has to react to what happens around him and sometimes makes the choice to go more overly flamboyant to elicit the response desired or get something said or done worthwhile to include in the movie. There must be dozens and dozens of scenes that never made the final cut. As for the order of making movies – first came Ali G in Da House, then Borat, now Bruno – he did his first movie around his most famous character. However, this was before Ali G became well received in USA on HBO and through the DVD of his show. Borat was the more critically received character from Da Ali G Show (“Through the Jew Down The Well” for instance was an interesting scene from the tv show) so that is why his movie came first. Borat was so absurd that it basically was anti-everything but Pamela Anderson! However, it was absolutely hilarious. I saw Borat in Forest Hills, Queens in a theatre where I was one of the few males not wearing a yarmeluke (in other words, the audience was super-majority religious/observant Jewish) and they all laughed at everything that one would assume is asserting the right to anti-semetism.

      By Spring 2007 they began filming these scenes for Bruno. SBC did not know that gay rights issues and marriage equality would be THE social hot topic right now. And for those who assume Borat was done to make fun of Middle Easterners, Kazakhstan is Central Asia and part of former USSR, it is not the Middle East. The character was Christian, and the scenes set in his home country were filmed in Romania. This movie was first time SBC filmed in Middle East for a movie.

      The only thing one could fault SBC for in this movie and Borat, is that we don’t see the whole scene. Just like a reality tv show, the producers behind the scenes do whatever they can to elicit the drama they want to capture on film. I went to school with cast members of reality shows that were meant to be “the racist” or “the partier” because the producers needed that character, but that was based on editing of storylines – knowing those people for years I know that the real person is not what we saw on tv, they were edited into a box to play a role on a show. Same happens with his movies. For instance, Straight Dave and the cage match – do you know the members of that audience were plied with free beer for 2-3 hours before they filmed that scene? People don’t react the same way while sober than they do when drunk like a skunk – homophobes or not.

      As for weather you should see this movie or not, if you don’t like gross out humor movies with foul language and squeemish nudity – you won’t like this movie, doesn’t matter that this is gay themed. If South Park, Family Guy, Team America World Police, The Hangover, and other “R” rated comedic shows and movies are not what makes you laugh, don’t waste your time seeing this movie.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @No Homophobama: Damn dude. Don’t hold back, tell us how stupid we are. Insult us some more. I mean, its fun for me. I love it when over privileged asshats such as yourself try to claim to the fact that you are smarter than everyone else every time someone disagrees with you. I’m sorry, my mommy and daddy didn’t have the money to buy my way into an Ivy League school like GH did for GW.

      Actually, in Animal Farm, the pigs eventually became more corrupt than the humans because they garnered the masses. Everyone supported them. No one dared to challenge them because they could use that argument.

      In reality, Obama will always be challenged. He has been challenged here. Also, if you think the Democrats are as bad as the Repugs then please use your great knowledge as a law student to go research voting records. When you can show me where Democrats have consistently voted against every gay rights bill like you can with the Repugs then I will gladly take your argument into account. Oh wait, I’ve researched the voting records, and I know you are simply full of crap.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @historygirl: Cohen is feeding off the ignorance not exposing it. That is Cohen’s MO. I didn’t have to see Borat to realize what was being done there either.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 9:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Matt:

      I wasn’t addressing Fitz’s position. I was addressing the people who have been saying “It’s just a movie! Chillax!” without analyzing it further. This includes yours.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 10:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      @Rarshar: And my opinion was only a counter to Fitz’s; I really have no desire to attempt to *prove* the movie is funny and innocuous, but pointing out the absurdity of wanting to kill someone related to the filmmaker without having seen it was on my agenda.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Matt:

      “I really have no desire to attempt to *prove* the movie is funny and innocuous, but pointing out the absurdity of wanting to kill someone related to the filmmaker without having seen it was on my agenda.”

      Unfortunately your comment didn’t come out that way and this is what I am addressing. His wrong doesn’t make you comment right.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 10:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      @Rarshar: I can tell that further conversation on this topic will not be fruitful for anyone. Peace.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Matt: exactly.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 11:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Matt:

      Alright.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Back to the original topic I pretty agree much agree with the sentiment that Bruno is homophobic. This comment on another site pretty much summed it up for me:

      SBC’s movies are NOT about subversive comedy, satire, or drawing out closet xenophobes/homophobes. All his characters do is prove how terrified people are of being seen as politically incorrect*, even in the face of behavior that is never, EVER acceptable. While that may be an interesting facet of what today’s society has become, its a bit moot since its not what he’s going for.

      The way he acts is offensive regardless of cultural or societal context. The circumstances of the character’s origins are irrelevant, because the character exacts such garish and sociopathic behavior that to “forgive” them for it due to “how they are” is just promoting acceptance that certain minority groups “can’t help” but be behaviorally inferior to their straight white American peers.

      Watching people forced to endure an uncomfortable situation out of fear they’ll be seen as a homophobe/xenophobe because of some disgusting shit that any one with any common sense would’ve stopped already, due to the antagonists “glaring minority trait”, is not entertaining. Its lame, embarrassing, and badly executed.

      GLAAD is right and I think less of people who get anything more out of these films than good ol’ schadenfreude for the people who are trapped in SBC’s skit-du-jour.”

      *She furthers goes onto to say:

      “When Bruno caught shit at the boot camp, its hard to prove that the military men were homophobic because he was also being an insubordinate retard who wasn’t taking it seriously – shit that doesn’t fly no matter who you are. IMO the second part negates the first part because you can’t separate the behavior to show that its the GAYNESS they had a problem with.

      The unsuspecting people who are caught up in Borat’s/Bruno’s shit are supposed to be succumbing to some deep rooted prejudice, but imo they’re too busy recoiling from a walking disaster for that to happen.

      Someone would normally put a stop to it, but because of the OTHERNESS, they tolerate it until they can leave… thats what I meant about “being afraid as being seen as not PC”.”

      Jul 12, 2009 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Gay violence will definately “spike” this weekend…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Can’t wait til he makes a film about jews and the holocaust…funny right??…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Rettenmund
      Matthew Rettenmund

      Loved the movie—to the tune of 3 out of 4 stars (it didn’t change me forever or anything). Very funny and very smart. Not homophobic. The “homophobic” parts is a misnomer; these parts show people who are homophobic, and they are in no way who you’re rooting for. I think the people who are homophobic who go see this movie (which I frankly can’t imagine happening) would hate this movie for making fun of THEM.

      All that said, I think it’s a joke that the media is allowing him to be interviewed in character, and certainly if an organization as legit as GLAAD says it’s homophobic, then Cohen should be asked about that. I mean, the lamest-ever special-interest itty-bitty committees (the Catholic League comes to mind) are taken seriously and their accusations reported far and wide, so why not GLAAD’s?

      The movie also has some very biting racism commentary that I liked and cringed at. Plus the stuff about parents who’d do ANYTHING for their babies to land commercials was a real public service.

      Ultimately, I think this is a very funny movie and all the people so PISSSSSED OFFFF at the homophobia might want to watch THE HANGOVER, which had Bradley Cooper using “that’s so gay” and “paging Dr. Faggot!” in explicitly homophobic (and not ironic or satirical) ways.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @alan brickman: several such movies, plays, books etc. have already been made by others. but please, continue

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Rettenmund
      Matthew Rettenmund

      Alan Brickman: Where have you been? BORAT had tons of anti-Semitism humor in the same way homophobia is skewered in BRUNO. In fact, BRUNO has tons of it, too, with the clueless Bruno character constantly referring to Hitler. Let’s just say there is a Nazi oven bit that brings out the worst in one desperate parent.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @might be me… but maybe not:

      Hey who’s answered back to you lol! Heh, very true. Have you read predicatable irrationality by daniel ariel? Bloody good and along those lines like Cohen’s cousin.

      Saying that, it’s a very Jewish thing, to further the study of humans and their behaviours..very forward thinking, futuristic and impressive.

      Dan brings a brilliant argument for behavioural economics that blows the whole concept of ‘free marketism’ that is based on humans being able to act rationally.

      SBC is a slutty egoist and not doing anything THAT new but that is why statire is needed, to get convo’s like these around…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @No Homophobama:

      Your being jus as irrational as the people you are insulting.

      As a Uni/College student, we all know when you write an essay you need to take into consideration WHEN, WHY and HOW the book was written.

      I love Orwell, more then any fucker our there BUT Orwell wrote AF, 1984 etc with keeping in mind his anti-communist situation when he was in Spain-Catalunia…

      So keeping that in mind, his cynicism that it’s all the same in diff clothing doesn’t generalistically wash, unless he is explaining why that is.

      The premise I get and agree with but it goes deeper then that. People need to open their eyes, ears and everything in between to who they are voting for but because they don’t and seek to have shovelled into their mouths, they get more and less the same-dem, repub and who knows what else.

      But in relation to the point you are trying to make, I’d ref The Death of Utopia-which links communism-the ideal left ideal to free market Bush style, through their Utopian undercurrents.

      In that you DO realise that more or less the same…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Matthew Rettenmund: I remember the bit from Borat where Borat fears that Jews will creep into his room late at night as a bug or something like that. He basically used every stereotype one can think of regarding Judiasm. Indeed, the movies do not just use stereotypes of Jews, but other groups (including women (My sister number 3 prostitute in the country) and blacks). But hey, we are suppose to be outraged and pretend that other such stereotypes do not exist in Cohen’s movies. That we above all are being “attacked” with regard to facts or circumstance. I am still not sure I want to see the movie, but I do fine the overtop posts and the need to simply make shit up to attack Cohen’s work distressing. My thing is if you got to make shit up or appeal to “you will be encouraging gay bashing” to make an argument- it should say that one is going over the top. But that’s not what happening here. People are just running with exaggerated claims and emotions.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Death to all utopias except my own.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Cox
      Mr. Cox

      LIGHTEN UP QUEERTY!

      The movie was effing hilarious!! I laughed nonstop at all the parts making fun of gay stereotypes and I LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO. Indeed the theater was full of mostly gay men and they too were laughing hysterically. Nobody was offended and if they were than they need to get a life!

      If anything, I think Bruno is groundbreaking. I think the scenes showing the Bible Belt and cage fight only amplified how ridiculous the Evangelicals and Redneck Nazis look and exposed a previously unexplored element of our culture to most Americans.

      EVERYONE even the bigots know that Bruno is meant to be satire and over the top. They know that not all gay men walk around in velcro suits and carry dildo machines. However, they don’t know how rude and despicable they have been towards gays until they see the cage fight and all these Eugenics enthusiasts trying to ‘cure’ Teh Gay ‘disease.’

      Jul 12, 2009 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @The Gay Numbers:

      “But hey, we are suppose to be outraged and pretend that other such stereotypes do not exist in Cohen’s movies. That we above all are being “attacked” with regard to facts or circumstance.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat#Accusations_of_racism

      Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

      “the need to simply make shit up to attack Cohen’s work distressing”

      Where?

      “[...] appeal to “you will be encouraging gay bashing” to make an argument- it should say that one is going over the top.”

      How is it over the top to say something that people believe is homophobic will encourage homophobic behavior?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @The Gay Numbers:

      lol, well I’ll be on the look out! As an instinctive Utopian chaser, I’m looking @ Utopia 2.0…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Rarshar: Homophobes will be bigotted in their behavior no matter what. The question is whether it is better to shed light as Cohen attempts do through satire (according to both him and others who have seen it) rather than hide away from it because it makes us feel uncomfortable. I keep bringing up Archie Bunker for a reason. The idea that the bigot may not get satire is not new. Your fear is that people will laugh at Bruno for the wrong reason. But, what other choice is there in good satire other than to take this risk? Satire is supposed to make us feel uncomfortable and push us over the edge to places we would not go without it. I have no seen the movie, but I get the point of the idea behind it. Push the envelop of what people believe gay people to be to demonstrate how stupid we are to believe that. It is not satire if it is not pushing our buttons in this way.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Rarshar: by the way- one practical example of an early movie that I saw like this was Mel brook’s movie Blazing Saddle. At one point the black character points a gun to his head, as I remember, and says to the onlooking crowd that wants to string him up rather than have him act as their sheriff “step back or the nigger gets it.” I am a black guy. I laughed hard at that moment. Then I realized what I was doing. I felt uncomfortable. Then I realized the point, and I had a realization about the complexity of race. Did everyone watching Blazing Saddles get that? No- some racist probably just laught “yeah , the niggers gonna get it.” but that does not change the value of such a work for me. I am not sure we should have our entire society run by what bigots think. Right now the big arguement, for example, over DADT is that we should not integrate out gays into the military because it will offend christian conservatives. Everyone is asking “What does the bigot think?” When the real question is what do the rest of us think? Here, what does the person who is persuable think of the stereotypes that bruno represents? How does it make them now view gay people in a different way than before? You want a one size fit all answer “oh it will make them more homophobic.” My guess is that like Archie bunker what that show did was to make people less bigotted. Because bigotry only works if it kept hidden and we don’t think bout the assumptions that the majority keeps, bu tnever says of the minority.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @The Gay Numbers: I don’t agree. You see the problem is that the homophobes are very proud of their homophobia. On the other hand, the racists were never really proud of their racism. Hell, they even hid their faces behind sheets for the entirety of the movement.

      Its much easier for homophobes to be out and open because they are much more supported. It is much easier for them to hide behind the “gays are not normal” excuse that they use then it was for racist to try the same. Skin color leaves no doubt to the fact that it is genetically inhabited. That means that it was much easier to see that racists hate blacks for something completely out of their control.

      However, no one knows the true cause of homosexuality, and many argue that it can be changed (although it obviously cannot be) and they use that argument as a badge of protection when it comes to their own stupidity. The normal claim is that they don’t want to hurt us they just want to help us.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @galefan2004: My chief problem with your comment is that it has no relationship to history. You really need that grounding.

      Racists were just as proud and open about their bigotry in this country, especially at the time of Archie Bunker. You again are not saying anything new unless you think gay is so special that no one in human history has ever suffered as much as gays have. The same hubris that infects too many in the straight black community regarding racial struggles (that it is so unique that no one can possibly understand it other than as the stuff of mythology that it has become) rather than lessons about what not to do with regard to minorities in society.

      You also have no idea what you are talking about with regard to race. What you describe is how they view race now. Not at the time of Archie Bunker, which is the comparative here.

      You claim that it is not about race and behavior, but this inaccurate. Bush I ran on the welfare queen (code for lazy black peo being responsible for their plight), etc.

      Nearly every argument you can think of for sexual orientation can be translated to race: blacks are genetically inferior (therefore equal status for blacks was against nature since nature intended us to be inferior (first withs slavery, and later Jim Crow)(as late as the 1990s you had people writing books like the Bell Curve arguing that I am an genetically inferior to whites)

      blacks are condemned to their position by God because they were cursed by God (much of this again is historical fact- religion was used to justify racism) and on and on. You are not saying anything unique. Even the use of religion regarding interracial marriage was similar

      “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red,
      and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the
      interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such
      marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not
      intend for the races to mix. ” — Statement by Virginia trial judge in
      1959 case that led to 1967 U.S. Supreme Court striking down laws in 16
      states that prohibited interracial marriage”

      This is what people felt. I have a former friend who still believes that k ind of shit.

      You are not that unique. You confuse the shellgame for reality. The shellgame is to pretend the specific argument of the bigot is really what the conversation is about. If X, happens, then things will be different. My great grandmother used to call that the shellgame. No,things won’t be different if x happens. Your life won’t be better by ignoring the assumptions of the bigot. Bigotry looks for its own means of supporting itself. it does not need Bruno to do so. The value of bruno is for the rest of us to start to isolate the bigotry for what it is- bigotry.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @The Gay Numbers:

      I already wrote that I don’t see this as a “satire” for a variety of reasons above and I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I wrote?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @galefan2004:

      I have to disagree, although you have a point, as in their is a large majority of people who take PRIDE in being prejudiced.

      But you have to ask why? Cause of family? Society? Hip Hop videos? Living in a small town? Some redneck shanigan?

      Are these instinctive to the person OR are they learnt behaviour brought out by FEAR to not fit in?

      As some who works on a voluntary basis (being black) with white kids who are TAUGHT one thing bit SEE one thing…the jury is still out..

      I’ve changed/altered some perceptions about gays to homophobes but to be fair, they weren’t the fucked up ones but merely the ones who live their lives to the conformist tune of what is society.

      There the one’s who say, ‘I’ve never met a gay person but then you say your gay and they’re like..oh?’

      Same with satire, which is more brutal, complexed and intelligent…it makes YOU look at YOUR behaviour….

      So again, I don’t think this will change those effed up homophobes BUT it will change the minds of the ignorant ones I’m talking about..

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Besides that with a quick look up on the show the creator noticed his plan backfired and Archie had become a beloved symbol for the middle class.

      This is why I’m guessing he had Archie’s racism subside towards the end of the show:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Bunker#Viewer_reactions

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Rarshar: a) I question whether you understand satire given your claims that Archie bunker was not also satire and b) I am not going to trust Wikipedia about what Archie bunker means.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Satire is always for the persuables. Not for those who are so entrenched in belief that they see their belief as fact. We are making fun of hose people.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J-Like
      J-Like

      kudos, gay numbers. all i was going to say is that maybe bruno will help us engage in a debate, which these comments show are well underway. ultimately, there is no more “value” to creative material than making us think and debate. the laughter is secondary.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @The Gay Numbers:

      A)I never said Archie Bunker was not satire, please do not put words in my my mouth and address the post.

      B) I’m fine with that since Wiki isn’t always trustworthy.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Rarshar: there is no difference between archie bunker and bruno except one is closer to home fo ryou, so I did not understand why you were now discussing my bunker reference other than to say it is also not satire. I should have asked rather than assumed, but in fairness to myself, your comment on that level did not make much sense regarding my thesis.

      Wiki can be a useful tool but it has its limits. I would note site any for any authority on any subject.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @J-Like: well I can’t really comment on whether it is funnyor not. I have no tsee it. Not sure I want to see it. I just don’t like the knee jerk well it must be offensive because it pushes the envelop in a way that I don’t like approach. Pushing the envelop means just that. pushing it.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Rarshar:

      What do you consider satire by the way? You know the brits invented it within the mainstream in the 60’s? ala Python et al who were a lot worse then this?

      Of course it came from the Greeks and do you agree with how they classified it? Bringing to the people the smallest and irrelevant aspects of society which we ignore that make us question those issues?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @J-Like:

      “ultimately, there is no more “value” to creative material than making us think and debate. the laughter is secondary.”

      It’s not suppose to be hitting queers, it’s suppose to be doing that with straight people. Howard Stern’s shock jock material had people talking too but that doesn’t mean it’s satire or meant to start debate.

      It really bothers me how people are conflating the two.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @The Gay Numbers:

      I agre 100%

      I don’t even like this guy and think he’s overrated BIG TIME. I also agree 100% that he’s sooo faux that he ISN’T pushing ANY envelopes but oh well!

      Which is why I cited Python and so mant before who REALLY did ‘push that envelope’!

      Damn even Richard Pryor or Brooks…

      This guy is MTV generation y friendly…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @galefan2004:

      it’s so easy.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Matt:

      No, not really. I don’t need to see a snuff film, for example, to criticize snuff films.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @The Gay Numbers:

      If I was a white gay man that would be true but I’m not, I’m an African-American. It would be better if you address my points instead of making assumptions like this.

      “I did not understand why you were now discussing my bunker reference other than to say it is also not satire.”

      I used it as an example of what’s presumably satire missing it’s target. That’s the only thing I pointed out in that post.

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s):

      I consider the points Colbert makes in his show to be satire.

      (By that I mean the show itself is a parody of conservative talk shows like Bill’s.)

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @galefan2004:

      Jealous? Yes, you are. Insecurity because you’re simple (the negative meaning).

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Well I liked borat, but I do wonder if Cohen is a one trick pony. Ultimately, my main beef here is the inability to realize that it is counter productive to expect satire to appeal to the lowest common demoninator. Here, that to be non offensive he must do satire in such a way to appease folks like Rarshar that gay bashing will not occur if this film was not around. Firstly, its an absurd position to take. Secondly, ultimately one can put a message, but one can not control what others choose to do with that message.

      Cohen’s thesis seems to be to illustrate how insane homophobia by using bruno as gay stereotype. At least that’s the opintion of one poster above. that makes sense to me.

      The humor requires us to know that , from what I am reading, that bruno is not what cohen thinks of gay people, but is a way to demonstrate what homophobes think of us. They already think of us as Bruno.

      The response so far from the detractors , other than yourself, has been “but some people may not get it.” THey may not realixze thier views are bigotted.

      Yes, they may not get it, but that’s not a sign that its not satire. Satire is not something that everyone is going to get often times because the party whom he is making fun of is not going to get it. That does not mean we should dumb it down so that we are playing safe easy to define rituals like you find in the black mythologizing about civil rights right now.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Rarshar: @Rarshar: I did not make an assumption about your race. At any rate, given your level of over sensitivity, I am going to stop talkng to you now. everytime I say something to you at this point, I have to deal with your defensive sensivity posturing. Sorry, not interested. This can go no where but down hill.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      I think I willd definitely bow out now that the ultimate hyperbolist has entered the discussion. Simply not interested in a conversatin that lacks any balance at all.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Rarshar:

      So NEW satire according to a mainsream TV host that has to rely on rating viewings in 2000 and something…?

      Instead of the people who coined it the Greeks OR the people who created it on TV/Theatre and are the reason Colbert can EVEN do what he does? (He’s OBSESSED with the 60’s satirists as coining who he actually is)

      Well, you should’ve said that cause I for one wouldn’t even had entered debating satire with you if it was according to an American indie populist TV commentator who has to rely in celeb and mainstream obsessed 2000 on viewers..

      Because that’s something all together different.

      P.S I actually find Colbert really rude and offensive at most times..

      Jul 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Abby
      Abby

      STOP JUDGING WITHOUT SEEING IT! YOU ARE NOT ONLY MISINFORMED, BUT NOT INFORMED AT ALL. AS A GAY MAN SEEING IT WITH ALL STRAIGHT FRIENDS, I WAS NOT AT ALL OFFENDED. THE MOVIE MAKES FUN OF HOMOPHOBES AND YOU ARE ROOTING FOR THE GAY THE WHOLE TIME. GET OVER IT AND STOP GETTING UPSET OVER NOTHING.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Actually satire isn’t there to be gotten, it was created by the outsider philosophers to depict the conformist religous world around them..

      Which Baron is doing in more shakespearean inspirations…

      He’s overrated but I still think we need people BADLY like Cohen…humor is still the only way to reach the muddled minds who are not fundementally right…or left..

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rarshar
      Rarshar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @The Gay Numbers:

      lmfao! You did nothing to answer anything I wrote and made some kind of vague assumption about my identity or feelings – something you don’t have a clue about and is irrelevant to the discussion.

      You continued to derail the conversation moment @I asked you to clarify your comments till now.

      We weren’t having any kind of conversation or debate in the first place.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Abby:

      I didn’t need to see anything directed by michael bay to know that michael bay movies are unwatchable refuse. C’mon, you gonna argue with that? LOL!

      And numbers, you have no argument. You have an assumption. This isn’t satire. You comparing it to swift, the pre-hellenists and hellenistic period…it’s sad. Very sad.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @The Gay Numbers: Unless I missed something, we don’t live in the past we live in the present. I really don’t care about past arguments. I care about things that happen in the present.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Well as I said, you are only one who is making a nuianced argument that I wholy can endorse. I am not saying Cohen is great or this movie. I am jus tnot interested in the ritualistic discussion of the minority versus the majority that I seehere, and have seen in the past on race. If we want to be offended, be offended at hte right things rather than where we create a situation in which no one can say anything that will make us uncomfortable. However, your position is perfectly fine by me. No one should have to like Cohen even if they are open to different styles of humor.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @galefan2004: The neocons would love you because they also were uninterested in how the vietnam war told us everything we needed to know about how Iraq would play out with the american people.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @TANK: Yes Tank, I’m jealous of you. If you would give lessons in how to be a hate filled bitch that has no scruples then maybe I could be just like you and then I wouldn’t have to be jealous. Now that was satire.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @Abby: I’m confused. What type of self-respecting gay man has all straight friends? What kind of self-respecting gay man would go with all of his straight friends to see a movie that only has one purpose (to make SBC as much money as possible by riding the backs of gay men everywhere). I think you need to examine yourself when you make comments that obviously show your level of self-acceptance.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @The Gay Numbers: That is apples and oranges. Unless you are trying to say that the gay rights movement relates DIRECTLY to the gay rights movement. I wouldn’t agree at all.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @alan brickman:

      He always makes Holocaust jokes. In one scene he’s interviewing parents of babies who are auditioning for a photo shoot. Asks one mom if she’d be ok with her baby dressed in an SS uniform pushing a cart with a baby dressed as a concentration camp victim into an oven….guess what the parent said…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @galefan2004: I am not really all that surprise you can’t understand the purpose of comparison through historical examples, analogies and metaphor. Like I said, you are very similar to the neocon thinking, or if you prefer, those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe a cliched statement will help you “get” the point.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Satire:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v2p37T6JP4

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsj4s9z-EAE

      See, the difference is that sacha’s primarily getting laughs at gay people…and not causing anyone to question their sacrosanct homophobia.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
      Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace

      @Shawn:

      Let’s hope some minds are changed for the better.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rudy
      Rudy

      @TANK:
      “No, not really. I don’t need to see a snuff film, for example, to criticize snuff films.”
      Certainly you don’t mean “criticize” here as in “film criticism.” It would be very sick to discuss the script, costumes, score, lighting, direction, etc. of filmed torture and murder.
      “I didn’t need to see anything directed by michael bay to know that michael bay movies are unwatchable refuse.”
      In the case of Michael Bay, there is such universal agreement among film critics that, yes, it would be reasonable to dismiss him; but in the case of Bruno, haven’t you noticed that almost every person here who’s actually seen the film disagrees with you? That should be a strong clue that the film you are imagining is not what’s up on screen.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @galefan2004:

      No tell me you didn’t say that??

      Do you not believe in history? That we can LEARN from our past mistakes? That your parents raising you as a kid (history) has a link to how you are now (present)??

      You genuinely don’t believe humans should learn from history or the past?

      Do you agree with Museums or think they are a waste of space because we don’t need that kind of info, cause it’s not the present?

      Do you feel that education is obsolete because they teach stuff that isn’t present but 5, 10, 30 or 100 years ago?

      Do you think Einstiens theories should be irradicated because it’s the past and now in the present, we should only concern ourselves with now? Paris Hilton? Miley Ray Cyrus? GWB? or Bruno?

      Do you get angry at people talking about Stonewall because it’s THE past and NOT the future?

      Honestly, when you wrote an essay…any..HOW did you pass not reverting to the past regarding research?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @TANK:

      “See, the difference is that sacha’s primarily getting laughs at gay people…and not causing anyone to question their sacrosanct homophobia.”

      How do YOOOOOOOU know that?

      Oh, I forgot, TANK the all seeing….eye, mind, brain????

      The man who knows it all without seeing it all! The Movie! Badum!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      All his characters do is prove how terrified people are of being seen as politically incorrect*, even in the face of behavior that is never, EVER acceptable.

      In some cases people go along with something out of cultural respect or political correctness which is in funny in itself for an audience, but in plenty of cases they show some real prejudice which is in no way politically correct. Like in the early seen in Borat where the old rodeo guy responds to Borats statement that they hang homosexuals in his country by exclaiming enthusiastically “that’s what we’re trying to do here too!”. There’s nothing “politically correct” about that, I didn’t see any people in the theatre laughing at it, and the rodeo guy’s public statements after the movie came out just confirmed that he really does have issues with gays and he hadn’t been misrepresented.

      If you are familiar with the TV show, you’ll remember interviews like the one with the rancher who talked to Borat about the jewish problem getting so bad in Germany that they’d had to kill a lot of them and the gun show guy who told Bruno that if gays tried to “recruit” his kids he’d kill them then added some anti-jewish comments. SBC hadn’t brought up Germany or anything about kids or recruitment. Those guys were just bigots and showing it.

      Sometimes they just show silly or ignorant attitudes that SBC draws out and prods with tongue in cheek questions not unlike the Daily Show correspondents do when they go interview someone (TDS people try not to tell which show they work for so people will walk in innocent if possible).

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Rudy:

      And roger ebert, for example, is consistently homophobic–conveying his discomfort toward gays depicted in movies having relationships and lives–while clinging to some liberal toleration. He misses the mark completely with regard to expressing an understanding of homophobia in almost all of his reviews of gay related movies. It’s almost like he doesn’t any gay people… Plus, he’s a mainstream washout, who applauds most sappy stupid hetero romantic comedies, while dissing movies that make him uncomfortable (re: shuttle).

      No one criticizing bruno here is engaging in film criticism. That is entirely irrelevant to assessing the ethical implications of this movie. GLAAD didn’t even do that.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @The Gay Numbers: I understand what you were trying to get at in your comparison. I was just pointing out how inadequate it was. It was obvious that by the fact that Vietnam turned out very negatively that we shouldn’t try to overtake an entire regime and just think it was going to go well.

      However, it is not obvious by any means that because the black rights movement went one way that the gay rights movement would go the same way. For starters, the majority of people respected black people even in the periods that their rights were denied.

      The same just isn’t true about the homosexual population. Yes, if you look at the majority of the population we are respected. However, there are no votes in this country that go off of the majority of the population. There are still more states that have outlawed gay marriage than those where it is legal. The majority of the states are just not prone to gay rights. Also, the movements are completely different because its pretty hard to say that black people can become white, but the predominant argument used by the bigots is that gay people can “become straight” and should be “cured.”

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @mk: that should be “in the early SCENE in Borat” obviously.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s):

      How do I know it? Because I’ve read the reviews, discussed it with people who’ve seen the movie, and have seen how it was marketed, fool!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): You are reading into it. I said that I don’t care about the past that the black population loves to keep throwing up to be part of the present. I simply don’t buy into the old argument that nothing ever changes.

      Einstein’s theories still hold water in the present, so the theories themselves are part of the present. Einstein is part of the past. However, you are still reading way to much into what I said.

      Damn, you couldn’t read more into that comment if you tried really really hard. You failed to understand who the comment was addressed at. It was addressed at Gay Numbers who just loves to throw up the past intolerance suffered by the black community instead of the present state of race relations. I’m sorry, but I can only hear the wrongs of slavery and discrimination so many freaking times till I just don’t give a damn about it.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      How can people call the movie homophobic when they haven’t even seen it. The outrage from GLAAD reminds me of Christians leaders’ protests for the Last Temptation of Christ. Once people actually saw the movie, they couldn’t under what all the fuss was about. I will make my own decisions. I don’t need GLAAD to think for me.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @hc:

      GLAAD did screen the movie.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      I saw the movie and I loved it. Sacha Baron Cohen is a comic genius. While it is too shocking for straight people, it is also too shocking for some of my more cloistered gay friends (who blog all day and haven’t actually seen the movie!) The Absolutely Fabulous Gays will love it but not so much the (Harvey) Milk Gays. The loser here is not gays so much as America yet again! Bruno is what you call an inside gay joke especially when he says, in one plot twist, that he wants to be straight like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Will Smith (well-known closeted gays.) The Butt of the joke (pun intended) is people’s homophobia from the requisite White Trash gay-baiting but also includes equal-opportunity laughs lobbed at suburban overweight blacks with Bruno’s ill-conceived intentions for his baby OJ used as a vehicle for stardom as comparable to the horrific parenting of Hollywood, or those who would literally sell there own children into slavery (he swapped the baby for an iPod) to become famous. Gay Incorporated may not like the stereotypical images of gay men as many gays themselves, but someone with a more sophisticated world view probably will find this to be searing sexually politically-charged commentary on homophobia, which comedy does best but appealing to peoples prejudices and creates laughs as a counter-offensive. The downside as it becomes processed by ignorant (gay, straight or adolescent) movie-goers (and DVD watchers to come) is that “Bruno” becomes a word in our lexicon thrown around at each other. Only with some of us, it brings a smile to your face…and everyone knows someone a little like Bruno!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @galefan2004:

      Er, who the hell was talking about black people….?? shit, I jus re-read and nope I wasn’t…

      Are you okay?

      Why are YOU talking about black people?

      I WAS talking about you CLAIMING that the ‘past doesn’t exist to explain the future’..

      So how is this MY fault that you lazily did not articulate your argument??

      What gives? I stumped dude.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @TANK: Yeah, somebody from GLAAD saw it, but a lot of the commenters here haven’t, and they’re calling the film homophobic based on hearsay. How do they know. That’s why I say they should see the film before saying it’s homophobic.

      What’s interesting is that SBC is “straight” and that’s what’s making people mad. If he were gay, GLAAD would be giving him an award.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @TANK:

      You’re the fool TANK.

      How much would this stand up not faced with busy bloggers hey?? Link me to your quantitative and qualitative research documents…fool.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): As I said, this is the problem when you jump into the middle of someone else’s conversation. Gay Numbers is always spouting about how the black rights movement was better than the gay rights movement but they will eventually arrive at the same point. He was trying to compare the gay rights movement to the black rights movement. I simply called the two completely different.

      The argument was never directed at you, so maybe you should read the post of the person it was directed at before attacking me on my argument and over generalizing it. I felt like getting the most impact out of what I wrote. I didn’t feel like saying I really don’t give a damn about (black vs gay rights) history and only focus on the present. So I just omitted the black vs gay rights part and that led to you thinking I was talking about all history. Although, after my major concentrations history was the subject I have the most credit hours in. I love history, I just don’t justify the present with the past when it comes to civil rights struggles.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @galefan2004:

      I am a gay, Jewish male. I saw Bruno with a straight female friend. I saw Borat with straight Jewish male friends. That doesn’t mean I am less of a gay man because I socialize with my straight friends. ABBY probably has gay friends, they just chose to see the movie with their straight ones. Who knows why? However, good for Abby to have some diversity in their network of friends. My straight fraternity brothers have come out to gay bars with me for special occasions (as someone running this site can attest). Maybe I am lucky to have found friends who are willing to socialize in an unfamiliar territory because they want to spend time with their friends. I go to bachelor parties, and baby’s birthdays, and so on. I know a lot of it has to do with growing up in suburban NYC with a big Jewish minority. When polled back in June on gay marriage in NYS, over 70% of Jewish New Yorkers were in favor of marriage equality. So the likelihood of a friend cutting me out of their life and vice versa is less than those of my friends who grew up in southern and rural neighborhoods.

      I went to see Lisa Lampanelli with a dozen gay friends (who had all seen Borat together just before), some were Asian, some Jewish, some African-American, some WASP and most of us were upset she didn’t choose our table to single out for jokes about the different minority groups we fall into. There were plenty of jokes that would have been insulting to my grandparents generation, not so to mine. If you are easily offended, don’t watch or listen to someone’s routine! If the comedian is making fun of everyone and everything, they are not being racist. Sascha Baron Cohen makes Jewish jokes, gay jokes, women jokes, black jokes, white jokes, Asian jokes, etc. His sketches and movies are equal opportunity offenders. I’m not a fan of Star Wars, I don’t find it enjoyable. I also don’t complain to everyone who is in love with those movies and has to see it over and over that they are dorks or losers or whatever. It’s something that they enjoy. I prefer sophomoric humor in my movies. I went to see “The Hot Chick” it’s opening weekend, my bf at the time made me see “The Hours” as revenge…people can have different opinions and tastes without taking the discussion to extremes.

      I don’t know if it’s environment or what not, but so far none of my NYC based or former NYC based friends who are gay have made any mention to me (or pronounced on Facebook) that they were avoiding Bruno.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s):

      No, you’re the fool, pissypants!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @hc:

      Because they are aware of how it was marketed, talked to people who have seen it, and saw the previews.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @hc: I really think the gay community would be even more on the attack if he was gay. You see, the problem isn’t rather he is being homophobic or not in my view.

      The problem is that in some areas of this country people have not even met gay people. As I said, that is normally the blame of gay people that remain closeted for whatever reason. However, can you imagine if someone were to honestly believe that all gay men are like SBC’s Bruno.

      I personally don’t want anything to do with Bruno because he is simply every gay stereotype all rolled into one. If he is to gay for me then I can just imagine what people that can’t even stand moderate gays think about him. If I was a kid wondering if I was gay and the gay role models I saw resembled Bruno I’d do whatever it takes to avoid being gay.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I don’t think glaad would be giving sacha an award even if he were gay–though I’d feel better about it because he’d be subject to the same homophobia I am. He’d share in that oppression and lack of social privilege. I don’t think the NAACP will be giving alan keyes an award, either.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      social and legal privilege…he’d lack that as other gay people around the world do.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      One thing that also shocks me…Madonna “discovered” SBC by casting him in her “Music” video as the limo driver (he was in his Ali G persona). One would think the connection to Madonna would have some gays give him the benefit of the doubt…

      Was the above statement a) satire b) sarcasm or c) stereotyping ?

      Does the tone of the statement change because a gay male made it?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @CHIP: There is a HUGE difference between NYC and the rest of the country. Hell, there is a HUGE difference between NYC and the rest of New York (hence why New York still refuses to pass gay marriage). Its great for you that you have had only positive experiences. However, try living in the rest of the world before you sing the praises of Bruno based on feedback from people in NYC.

      Also, I have already stated that SBC is an equal opportunity “bigot”. I’m not even sure I would call him an actual bigot. I think he just uses whatever will make him the most money at the time to make the most money he can. He is more of an over all sell out than anything else. I didn’t have to see Borat to tell it simply wasn’t my kind of movie. I don’t have to see Bruno to know I’m going to like it either. However, I have always supported the right of SBC to make the movie. I just think we are kidding ourselves if we don’t think it will have an impact in more rural areas through out the country. However, as I have said, you can’t make bigots a bigot with a movie. You can just help them justify why they are are bigot.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)
      sal(the original)

      @Shawn: wow i like what you said there…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @TANK:

      No!

      YOU the pissypants!

      Hugz!

      xoxo

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @CHIP: I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that the old bitch that has inspired many drag queens is actually for gay rights. Madonna is pro anything that will make money for her. In many ways she is exactly like SBC. Dolly Parton is more pro-gay than Madonna because she risks alienating fans to do so. Madonna would be nowhere with her “music” if she didn’t cater directly to crystal queens and other gays that worship her.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @CHIP:

      Madonna is an opportunistic bitch like Michael Jackson who realised that doing vogue-stealing from the poor blacks/hispanics could keep her one step ahead of the game, like MJ with the moonwalk he discovered from the breakdancers in NY..

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @galefan2004: Just like you’re concerned that this film will generalize gays, you’re generalizing the South (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by certain parts of the country). I saw the film in Mississippi. No one walked out. No one yelled faggot. The audience I was with loved the film. In fact, they were reluctant to leave at the end. Many waited to see if there would be outtakes or something during the credits. And I don’t these people left the theater thinking, “them queers are like that.” That’s why I say people should see the film before going on the word of a gay “spokesperson”.

      I would respect criticism of the film on its aesthetic value more than what’s being asserted about its purported homophobia.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And what does someone from mississippi know about…anything?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @galefan2004:

      Ha! We agree! 100%!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lifeofthecity
      lifeofthecity

      I have not seen the movie, I won’t. The same went for Borat, but from the annoying ads placed around my life all I see is madness cloaked in studio money and sold to an ignorant public. Its art imitating life…There is no culture anymore really.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @hc: Actually, I wasn’t talking about the south. I was talking about the rural parts of the country in general. Also, like I said, this movie won’t create bigots it will just help to enforce bigotry. You are using your experience as an universal truth, and that is never a good idea.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rudy
      Rudy

      @galefan2004:
      I saw the film last night at the Crescent Theater in Mobile, Alabama where the right-wingers fled 10 minutes into the film and the 99% who stayed laughed their heads off.
      The film pushes the boundaries of decency, that’s for sure, but it is absolutely not homophobic which is why I originally compared it to John Waters “Pink Flamingos.”
      GLAAD is coming at the film from the perpective of their mission – encouraging the presentation of “positive” gay images, and I respect that, but even they did not call Cohen or the movie “homophobic.”
      Cohen gets Paul Cameron of the Family Research Council to make a fool of himself.
      His closing number is sung by Elton John, Bono, Sting, and a Snoop Dog who raps, “Gay, OK.”
      The film plays like the kind of gay humor that has been created for gay people in clubs and theaters since the 60s.
      We just didn’t used to share it with straights.
      Times have changed – even in Alabama.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @galefan2004:

      I am in upstate New York right now, where I saw the movie with a split male/female audience. Many couples out on a date, and a lot of High School and college students. I was one of the oldest in the audience. In the past I have lived in upstate NY and the west coast of Florida, and found my homosexuality less of an issue – it was my being Jewish that was more of a topic of “conversation.” When I was in college I went to the LGBT Task Force Creating Change conferences. I always had to listen to my opinion not counting as much as everyone elses, because my minority status (Jewish and gay) is easily hidden – just because I was an average looking white male (And by average looking I mean nothing stereotypical of Jewish or gay). Yes, I will never understand how it is to lead my life as an African American or an Asian or Native American, but that doesn’t mean I have never encountered discrimination. As for other places in the world – I have spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe, where my boyfriend is seeing the movie tomorrow with his straight friends. I will be happy to share the Feedback on how a non-American in a less-gay tolerant country than USA viewed the movie and what those in the audience said or reacted, and if he felt more or less likely to be attacked due to his sexual orientation.

      As for making someone less bigoted because of a movie, I highly doubt any movie can accomplish that. One could only hope it makes a few people re-evaluate their beliefs. A bunch of mainstream movie reviews said this movie is the closest to gay porn a straight male would ever see. I don’t think many homophobes are planning on seeing this movie. Just like they probably didn’t see Brokeback Mountain. It’s not like the gay theme is a plot twist that wasn’t revealed in the previews, trailers, commercials, reviews, etc. So I don’t see someone who watched this movie to feel more empowered to physically assault a gay or join the Klan or what not (note the hyperbole). However, if in every town in America, one movie viewer changes their stance because of seeing things in plain view in front of their eyes(“wow, do I really sound or look like that when I say or think some of the things I say about gays?”) Then it has served a purpose to help broaden the dialogue.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @TANK: Well–that’s pretty f*cking insulting. I thought I was engaging in a debate with an enlightened person, but I see I’m not. SBC isn’t the gay community’s problem–it’s douches like you.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lifeofthecity
      lifeofthecity

      @galefan2004:

      Truly…that guy sounds like my grandmother…”and you should have seen the preacher, we all loved him and left feeling warm and toasty like a nice apple pie” -barf-

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lifeofthecity
      lifeofthecity

      @hc:

      you generalize too muc, and when you get spotted for it..you, sir, are the lycanthropic douchebag.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @galefan2004: No, I’m not using my experience as a universal truth. I’m saying that even in rural areas like the Mississippi Delta there are gay people, that people down here are more tolerant of gay people than some @ queerty like to think, and not all Southerners are stupid. We know what satire and irony is (William Faulkner is from MS, after all).

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @lifeofthecity: I generalize too much. Did you read what Hank wrote to me? You can contribute when you’ve got something to contribute.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      anecdotal evidence is for people who have stopped thinking! Got it, chip? Schmuck.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @hc:

      Stop generalizing, Patricia. I can’t stand this oppression!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      This movie marks the beginning of the gaylocaust.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      as I said- many of youare @galefan2004:

      “Gay Numbers is always spouting about how the black rights movement was better than the gay rights movement but they will eventually arrive at the same point. He was trying to compare the gay rights movement to the black rights movement. I simply called the two completely different.”

      You must have went to a really shitty school if you don’t understand analogies and metaphors, and their value for understanding whether any given argument is useufl or not. You certainly didn’t learn anything of you think you can judge whether what you are making up by what you feel is correct or not simply by thinking you can resort stating the opinion.

      I was making an analogy about the value of trying to pretend that satire will lead to what you describe here by pointing out that in the past people have said similar shit,a nd been wrong.

      And yeah, it is not a surprise that you don’t want to talk about my argument because it demonstrates that you are full of shit. Just like even as you keep claiming to want to talk about the “present’ you keep discounting all the present accounts that disagree with your thesis by claiming your opinion is somehow the greater grip on reality.

      The problem is your sense of over importance about wheter your opinion alone is enough to judge what other people will or will not do. I don’t pretend to be that arogant.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @hc: You must understand. The point is to discount any information that does not fit what he’s arguing. He has a thesis,a nd that thesis is more important than your individual truth or those of others along this thread.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Something you know all about.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      Mississippiphobobia!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      And you just sounded like Rush Limbaugh, personally disparaging everyone who disagrees with you. Some people can have a discussion about different opinions without personally attacking the other. You assume I have stopped thinking, but all debates and discussions re better served with concrete data, observations, or quotations. Punditry is when one responds to what another person said with a personal attack on the other. Unless you have a contract with a cable news network, you should re-think how you go about making your points if you want to better represent your stance. For instance, Galefan2004 and I have commented back and forth, disagreeing on things, without attacking each other.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      Yeah, I knew this guy once who was totally like SBC is not homophobic, and bruno’s so like totally gay friendly and stuff. I provide substance in between the attacks so it’s not informally invalid…see, that’s the whole part about “anecdotal evidence” is fucking useless…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      But when an anecdote can be substantiated, it is valid. The point of this posting on Queerty was to discuss – “Did you find the movie to be homophobic or hilarious?” People who saw the movie and are talking about their experience are perfectly in the right to use that to back up their opinion of whether the movie was homophobic or hilarious. If one finds an article about a gay bashing occurring due to this movie, or a protest/anti-protest happening outside the theater, than that would be factual evidence that this movie could be construed as homophobic without having seen this movie oneself. If you have seen this movie and found it homophobic then explain why. What scenes went too far? What joke was used that made you as a gay man cringe or provoked laughter in the audience that was overtly anti-gay? These are examples of positive discourse when having a discussion. If all you have is absurd hyperbole, defamation of whole states of our country, and personal attacks on everyone who has a different opinion than you, then I am thankful and count my blessings that myself and others on here don’t have a person such as yourself in their lives.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No it can’t be. You’re making a generalization based off of an anecdote. I don’t deny that it can be verified. I’m not even calling you a liar. basic reasoning 101! I’m surrounded by the stupid!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @The Gay Numbers: Actually, I’m more than happy to talk about the past if it actually relates to gay rights (or how black rights apply to gay rights). I pointed out why the two struggles are completely different. You like insulting what I said without providing any counter points. My point still stands, the difference in the movements are two fold:

      1) The black community already had the respect of the majority of America by the time Rosa Parks sat in the front of bus. The gay community still doesn’t have the respect of the majority of America.

      2) Skin color is a universal and everyone recognizes that. Being gay is only seen as universal to the gay population. The largest argument that is continuously thrown in the face of gay rights it the EXTREMELY FLAWED notion that there is no universal gayness because all gays are just “sick” and can be “cured”.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      My anecdotes were to place why I would see this movie with heterosexuals and not gays and that gays can find offensive humor funny, like Lisa Lampanelli. When it was assumed I watched this movie in NYC, I explained I watched it in Upstate NY, a rural area, and described the crowd. My rationale for why this movie is not homophobic is because SBC is an equal opportunity offender. If there were no African American jokes, Asian jokes, Jewish jokes, Holocaust jokes, political jokes, European jokes, Hitler jokes, etc. and all this movie did was make jokes at the expense of gays, then yes, this would be a homophobic movie. However, this movie stars SBC’s gay character and it makes satire of the American view of celebrity, Hollywood, philanthropic causes, the media, the homophobic rural South, parents that try to live vicariously through their children thus push them into horrendous situations, etc. If the movie did not satire and poke fun at the whole spectrum of American foibles, then I can understand this being viewed as a homophobic film.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      No, actually, if you read what you wrote, you were using your anecdotes to suggest that it wouldn’t increase homophobic attitudes in traditionally homophobic places in this country. Read it again.

      As to the second line of argument you’re lumping in with the first, the joke is that bruno is gay. It’s a long fag joke. That’s the focus.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @CHIP: If you have seen this movie and found it homophobic then explain why. What scenes went too far? What joke was used that made you as a gay man cringe or provoked laughter in the audience that was overtly anti-gay?

      Totally cosign everything you’ve said, Chip…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      EG,

      I saw Borat in Forest Hills, Queens in a theatre where I was one of the few males not wearing a yarmeluke (in other words, the audience was super-majority religious/observant Jewish) and they all laughed at everything that one would assume is asserting the right to anti-semetism.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      Can’t everyone just admit that some on this thread have superpowers, and thus know all about movies they refuse to view?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @Rudy: I think you’re speaking on deaf ears. Some people here are uncomfortable with the idea that not everyone in the south is a racist homophobe.

      I stand by what I say, if you actually see the movie, you will realize that a “reasonable” person–whether that person be from Philadelphia, MS or Philadelphia, PA–cannot help but understand that Bruno is satire.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hc
      hc

      @TikiHead: LMFAO

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      No, when assumed that I live in the bubble that is NYC, I used anecdotal information to explain where I saw the movie and where I have also lived. You keep on making assumptions and trying to read between lines. This is not Shakespeare, there is no hidden meaning, I am not that talented of a writer to have a story within a story. Just because I said I can share first hand knowledge of someone viewing this movie in what one might consider a hostile environment in another country, does not mean I am suggesting it will or will not increase homophobic attitudes. What I did say is that just like Brokeback Mountain, thanks to how oversaturated this movie is in the press, people who are homophobic know what this movie entails and would probably not watch this movie. Therefore, those watching the movie are most likely not homophobic. This is a hypothesis based on facts (the media saturation, the demographics that watched Brokeback which is the last heavily promoted mainstream “gay” movie, etc.)

      If you had watched the original Da Ali G Show, you would know that Bruno’s focus was not a “long, fag joke.” I am watching an episode of Friends where Chandler made a whole bunch of comments about his father being with the houseboy, dressing in drag, etc. – would gay rights activists denounce Friends as being homophobic? No, because you need to see the whole context. If you have seen the movie, tell us what about the movie makes it homophobic? If you haven’t seen the movie or even watched Da Ali G Show, I am sorry, but you cannot actually provide any valid arguments for calling this particular movie homophobic. The courts have determined you know pornography when you see it – the same can be said about racism, anti-semetism, homophobia, etc. If you don’t watch this movie, you can never validly classify the movie as homophobic.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      We’re talking about Bruno, not Borat. That discussion board is so 2006.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rudy
      Rudy

      @CHIP: Chip, you’re right.
      And, I would add, the reason for the laughter is not that Bruno is gay, but that he is incredibly stupid. Whether dealing with straights, gays or lesbians, he has no idea what a fool he is nor any idea of appropriate behavior. If he weren’t gay, people would still laugh, but they’d see him more clearly as one of the Marx Brothers, Three Stooges or Dumb and Dumber. Being gay, his stupidity naturally takes different forms.
      Bruno’s best line was not in the movie but in an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer who asked Cohen (in his Bruno character)why he thought he went to the Middle East and thought he could solve the Israeli/Palestnean conflict.
      “Look,” Bruno answered, “if I opened my closet door and saw nothing but a burqua hanging there, even I’d blow myself up. You don’t see people exploding themselves wearing Marc Jacobs.”
      As I said before, that’s no homophobic, that’s gay humor.
      Paul Rudnick could’ve written that.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      No, that’s not the case at all. You also said that you experienced less homophobia in more “Rural” areas, and used that to somehow defend the claim.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      No, there is no hidden. It’s very straight forward what you were trying to do with the anecdotes. You were challenging the perception that this will increase homophobia by talking about who was at the theater, who you went with, and how your straight friends weren’t offended by it. Stop denying it. THe evidence has you dead to rights.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      And of course I can classify this movie as homophobic. I saw the homophobic promotion of this movie, and homophobic clips of it. That’s how this movie was packaged and sold.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      What I did say is that just like Brokeback Mountain, thanks to how oversaturated this movie is in the press, people who are homophobic know what this movie entails and would probably not watch this movie. Therefore, those watching the movie are most likely not homophobic.

      Oh this is just stupid. As dumb as you using your anecdotes to counter the argument that this is homophobic, and will validate the views of homophobes who go to see it.

      OF course homophobic people will watch this movie. IT’s hilarious to laugh at the faggot; that’s the joke, stupid. It was number 1 this weekend–are you suggesting that the people who didn’t go to see it are homophobic? At least a large percentage? You have greatly underestimated or misunderstood what homophobia is, first of all, and how prevalent it is amongst teenage boys, for example.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      You were even challenging the perception that it will reconfirm the suspicions and beliefs of homophobes who go to see it with your anecdotes.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Here’s the response. For those who aren’t trying to obsfucate as chip is, follow the bouncing ball.

      CHIP:

      I don’t know if it’s environment or what not, but so far none of my NYC based or former NYC based friends who are gay have made any mention to me (or pronounced on Facebook) that they were avoiding Bruno.

      Galefan:

      There is a HUGE difference between NYC and the rest of the country. Hell, there is a HUGE difference between NYC and the rest of New York (hence why New York still refuses to pass gay marriage). Its great for you that you have had only positive experiences. However, try living in the rest of the world before you sing the praises of Bruno based on feedback from people in NYC.

      And then you, chip, saying you saw it in upstate new york to challenge the assertion that this will only substantiate the homophobic views of people in more rural and less tolerant areas…c’mon, you’re a douchebag.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      the above is anecdotal bullshit reasoning.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @TANK: Honestly, my favorite part is where he admits after seeing the movie that it had homophobic overtones but that was acceptable because the movie simply distributed loathing equally. To me, that is like saying because a Neo Nazi hates gays, blacks, Jews, Arabs, and Asians they can’t be homophobic because they hate everyone. When you hate everyone but yourself you are the very definition of a bigot.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @galefan2004:

      Yeah, but even if there’s the joke about black people or asians or jews or even homophobes, the emphasis throughout the entire movie is that it is a fag we’re supposed to be laughing at–that’s what I’ve heard anyway.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      @TANK: “…that’s what I’ve heard anyway.”

      This anecdotal reasoning is … backed up by superpowers.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TikiHead:

      Okay, that’s what I understood from watching how it was promoted and sold, and the glaad review.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • galefan2004
      galefan2004

      @TANK: Like others have said though, maybe you should see it before you judge it. This isn’t the type of movie I would ever see in the theater (mostly because I’m very selective about the type of movie I see in a theater and its normally limited to action/horror movies because I simply hate going to the movies especially on a date). However, I can see myself seeing this movie once it hits DVD. However, I said that about Borat as well and then when it hit DVD I just couldn’t be bothered to actually rent it because the cover made the movie look even more stupid.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      borat was funny.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      No, that was the statement I made that being Jewish was worse than being gay, that I encountered more discrimination for my religion than my sexual orientation. I didn’t say I lived in rural areas only, Florida isn’t rural. You made an assumption because I said western Florida instead of eastern Florida. So those who live in Tampa are not living in a city? Oh wait, that’s because Florida’s east coast is considered more liberal, it’s west coast more conservative, thus rural. There’s a trend to your recent posts, you tend to make assumptions when it comes to those who post a different point of view than yours to try and rationalize why they have to be 100% wrong and you are 100% right.

      @TANK:

      No, the original comment was about my defending ABBY for seeing the movie with all of their straight friends and they being attacked for being less of a gay for seeing that movie with heterosexuals. Interpret my comments whichever way you want. The facts are that I gave anecdotal evidence on who I saw the movie with to defend ABBY’s right to see it with heterosexuals. This was done back in Post #173. I described those in the theatre here upstate to dismiss the assumption that I watched the movie in the bubble that is Manhattan. Try and twist my words around as much as you want. As you said yourself, “the evidence has you dead to rights.”

      I am off to spend more time socializing with my heterosexual friends. When I arrive at the bar and someone proposes a toast for the first round, I am going to give thanks that I have friends who can make intelligent conversations without accusations and assumptions, who come together even though we have different personalities and beliefs, and who have the humility to know that their shit doesn’t stink. Interpret that at will.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No, that was the statement I made that being Jewish was worse than being gay, that I encountered more discrimination for my religion than my sexual orientation.

      Well, I think we can rule out southern florida. And for what purpose? Seems like you were suggesting that to invalidate the claim that in more traditionally homophobic places, this won’t confirm people in their beliefs.

      I didn’t say I lived in rural areas only, Florida isn’t rural.

      Actually, in northern florida, there are rural parts.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      That was a separate point. Now you’re just lying…or you’re too stupid to understand what you were doing.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @galefan2004:

      OMG, a comedian can use a gay joke without being a homophobe. I don’t assume that everyone who makes a Jewish joke hates Jews. A joke is a joke.

      They screened this movie before it came out. Gay rights groups, GLAAD, etc. They received feedback and actually made changes to the movie based on what was suggested was in bad taste and went too far. If SBC and the producers were intending to create a homophobic movie they wouldn’t have edited those scenes out.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I don’t assume that everyone who makes a Jewish joke hates Jews

      Except people aren’t laughing at the jokes because they believe jews are, for example, less than human. THey’re laughing at them because of the absurdity of those who might believe them. That’s not the same here; people are laughing at the fag because he’s gay.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      DO you have proof of this? Where is the linked article that Bruno was edited as per the recommendations of gay rights groups who prescreend it?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      Fuck you and your ageism.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK: @galefan2004:

      Twist those words some more, you only are twisting the knife into your own ethics! I never said the movie was homophobic. I said there were gay jokes along with the other ethnic and religious and racial jokes. And your analogy about a Neo Nazi making fun of everyone else but themself makes them a bigot…SBC is an Orthodox Jew, and a religiously observant one. So observant, that his fiance, Isla Fischer from Wedding Crashers had to convert to Judaism before he could marry her. So, here’s a religiously Jewish comedian who makes fun of Jews and the Holocaust in his movies…hmm, sorry, your Neo Nazi analogy does not compute.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      Twisting your wrods? They’re your words…are these not your words,


      I don’t know if it’s environment or what not, but so far none of my NYC based or former NYC based friends who are gay have made any mention to me (or pronounced on Facebook) that they were avoiding Bruno.

      ? Well? What other conclusion can one draw in the context?

      Jul 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      SBC is an orthodox jew and observant? LOL! I know lots of jews who were born into orthodox homes who aren’t observant…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      No, people laughed at the stereotypes of Jews being cheap and controlling the world’s finances and media because we all make jokes about stereotypes. If you’re going to cry, it’s best to be from laughter. If you take everything too seriously when a minority with stereotypes, you’re going to have a lot of arguments. I don’t want to assume anything, but if you aren’t Jewish, remember that the next time you joke to a Jewish friend about the tip they left at a restaurant or if they make a purchasing decision based on cost savings.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      Yes, they did, but not anymore. Times have changed, and blatant antisemitism is considered inappropriate. Unless you’re telling me that lisa lampanelli is primarily getting laughs from antisemitic bigots…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      Even if you are jewish, remember that the next time you joke to a jewish friend about jews. Jews have become their own worst enemy.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And who can blame them? Jews are so annoying with their complaining and nagging and health problems and zionist banking conspiracies.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      The ending was changed because of Richard Day’s feedback. http://www.movieline.com/2009/06/exclusive-original-bruno-ending-included-brutal-gay-bashing-played-for-laughs.php

      The joke went too far and would have portrayed gay bashing in a positive light. This is just one gay industry professional who was at a screening. There could been others who were responsible for the other edits. Not just Michael Jackson’s death causing the edit of a scene with Latoya Jackson.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Well, at least they got rid of the brutal gay bashing that was “played for laughs”…I guess some things are over the line, huh? LMAO! QED. The prosecution rests.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chicaboom
      chicaboom

      Finally…Give the white man an excuse to get up an arms about inequality…being an abstract thing like gay? how foolish..there is nothing wrong with having sex with men, but trying to pretend you are not black…when we all came from africa, now thats a problem the white world needs to face. they need to come back home and when they respect their home again, then there will be no closets!!

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      @TANK:

      Health problems? Please enlighten on that one.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      Do you have jewish relatives over the age of forty? Self explanatory.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chicaboom
      chicaboom

      and dont talk about homophobia in africa..those fake blacks are just imitating the white man, heh, just like bruno…you need to start earning wisdoms dear twinks.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP
      CHIP

      Ok, as far as I’m concerned you are making comments that can be viewed as anti-semetic. Without actually knowing you, I can’t assume that you are an anti-semetic bigot. What I can say is you made a Jewish joke. Just like you can’t assume the whole movie’s point is to promote homophobia, you only saw clips and chose to see what you wanted because as a gay man it impacts your life. If I listened to everything said in the news about Mel Gibson’s “Passion of The Christ” I would not have watched that movie. It’s hard for me to say one who’s ignorant of history will come to a different conclusion than one who knows Roman history during the time of Jesus, but I can see how some might see the movie is anti-semetic. I did watch the movie in all its gory detail at least before trying to make a decision that I can understand both sides’ arguments.

      As for my own relatives, I guess I don’t fall into that stereotype. Unless diagnosed with something serious, my family never bitched about their illnesses. And there are no doctors or lawyers in my immediate family either. Shocking, maybe I’m not Jewish…

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @CHIP:

      That’s right. I’m an antisemite. You caught me. I’m a terrible person. For shame.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      There aren’t any doctors or…gasp…lawyers in your immediate family? You better turn in your jew membership card now.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      You went to the passion? Now I’m pissed. You can’t be a jew! Didn’t you hear about the protest? Fuck that movie, and fuck mel gibson.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      and joke? That was hardly a joke. Jokes are supposed to be funny.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Benj
      Benj

      Good God. It was obviously a mistake to ask for email notification when people comment on this article. This is just too much. It might be time for y’all to just move on.

      Jul 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • a
      a

      @galefan2004: you have obviously been seriously scarred by homophobia, and that sucks. so i acknowledge that, and accept you and your beliefs for what they are: skewed. but accept my views: something is seriously up your ass (get it cuz your a fag lol).

      Jul 13, 2009 at 12:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ethan
      Ethan

      I think it’s interesting that everyone is so up in arms about satire in the gay men’s community. Afterall – drag shows are a pervasive part of gay men’s culture – yet aren’t they a sexist satire of what it means to be a woman? I mean, men don’t have to experience a sexist world as a woman and yet many feel comfortable parading around in drag.

      Maybe we should all look in the mirror once in a while and think of our own bigotry

      Jul 13, 2009 at 1:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew W
      Andrew W

      Why are you asking us if we think it’s homophobic when your headlines show that you’ve already leapt to that absurd conclusion? I think it’s sad that GLAAD had to render itself irrelevant in this way; GLAAD is the new Kazakhstan. The gay movement is haemhorraging leaders faster than the Republican party.

      Jul 13, 2009 at 9:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mikey
      Mikey

      So many angry comments! How many of the posters actually saw the movie? I can’t imagine very many. First off, Bruno was HILARIOUS!!! People weren’t laughing at the “silly homo”; they were laughing at the incredibly vacuous wannabe celebrity and at the impossibly uncomfortable situations he puts people in.

      As for all the supposed homophobes out there seeing the movie so they can laugh at the mincing faggot… Really? Sitting through two hours of nudity, simulated sex, and very bad techno music seems like a helluva way for a true bigot to spend his Saturday night. In fact, the people in my suburban, red state theater laughed at the same parts I laughed at, cringed when I cringed, and seemed to have a fine time, as did I.

      Jul 13, 2009 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Burl
      Burl

      It’s called comedy for a reason.

      Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ConcreteN
      ConcreteN

      Ok. so I don’t want to be that dude but…its a movie. I think there are much more important things in life right now then a movie that is going to be out of theaters in 3 weeks

      Jul 13, 2009 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bambizzoozled
      Bambizzoozled

      @TANK: At least twice, while in character as Ali G, he has claimed to be Black. Once was on the show Parkinson, and the other was when Ali G interviewed Andy Rooney. So, to me, that is blackface. Sometimes it is dialogue that dictates whether or not something is blackface.

      When Ali G says “ignoranus,” for instance, he is using malapropism, which was one of the main weapons in the minstrels’ comedic arsenal.

      Jul 14, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anony Mouse
      Anony Mouse

      I haven’t seen either Borat, or Bruno, and I don’t really intend to. However, it is impossible, since I go to one of those hipster liberal arts schools, to avoid seeing at least a few clips of SBC every year in some class presentation or another, I do have some opinions which may or may not be accurate as I did not get the full SBC movie experience. What I found most offensive isn’t really his caricatures, but how he gets his comedy. Most of the people he mocks in his movies, he mocks because they respect the social norm that the way people behave is not a joke. When Borat talked with the feminists, for instance, he was making a mockery that those women would believe that he genuinely believed in the things he was saying to them…their righteous anger was the butt of the joke, and humorless feminist me doesn’t think that’s funny! Perhaps he meant to expose that people expect Arab men to be a certain, stereotypical way, but the truth of the matter is that the things he says are things people have said in an honest expression of their beliefs and he doesn’t construct his sketches in a way that makes their fallacy humorous, but instead in a way that makes the completely understandable reaction to these beliefs humorous.

      The fact is, in daily life, people are brought up to expect that the people you meet are presenting their considered, important self-identity to you with their behaviour and words. A joke can obviously be identified, but only in the context of contrast – if someone is joking the entire time you interact with them, how are you to know they are joking? Perhaps over the course of the movies, it becomes easy to see he is being completely outrageous, but for the most part the people involved see him only for a short time and respect the fact that he is truly who he is pretending to be. So, in short, I don’t see how it is funny to belittle people for expecting a person to be who they say they are, and often for trying to respect him as a person, which is what the majority of his comedy is.

      Jul 14, 2009 at 1:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.