Bruno

[Pythos]

I hate to have to gripe, but I got to.

Sacha Baron Cohen's latest creation, Bruno. It is a movie about a flamboyant, glitzy, European, male model that get's outside of his little country. It seems the movie will be funny, and make many laugh.

Problem I have is...well let me just ask this.

Why did he HAVE to be a gay character?

He is a god darned stereotype to the tee. It is the stereotype that supports the notion that a man that is flamboyant in his self expression is automatically gay.

G.D.!!! When the hell are we going to get away from this?!!!

You all will most likely not agree with me, but I don't think this will help us guys with an alternative sense of style.

Before you ask, "what's the big deal about being called gay?" The answer is. It is not necessarily about being called gay, it is about another cheap shot by a comedian supporting a BS stereotype that should have been done away with decades ago.

[r.m.anderson]

Pythos:

Agree with you wholeheartly!
It appears the gay (GLBT) movement has taken one step forward and two back.
Have not seen the movie except for snips and trailers from the TV media.
Making money and exploiting others while doing so is not my cup of tea.
I guess the only way to get your point across is to boycoat the movie and any
of its sponsors. Any input by critics/reviewers just say the movie stinks and
you would not recommend it as if you had seen it.
Benny Hill I like!
THIS IS NOT BENNY HILL!

rm

[crfriend]

I hate to have to gripe, but I got to.

A man's got to do what a man's got to do.

Sacha Baron Cohen's latest creation, Bruno. It is a movie about a flamboyant, glitzy, European, male model that get's outside of his little country. It seems the movie will be funny, and make many laugh.

Problem I have is...well let me just ask this.

Why did he HAVE to be a gay character?

Why? Because it was the easiest way to get a laugh. Nothing more, nothing less. And, from what I've seen, at least on US television outlets, the subject matter isn't even particularly funny. It seems like somebody's trying to outdo Zoolander.

He is a god darned stereotype to the tee. It is the stereotype that supports the notion that a man that is flamboyant in his self expression is automatically gay.

Think about it for a moment: what's particularly noteworthy or funny about the sartorial sense of the members of this community? I'll posit precisely nothing -- and that does not help sell a film or advertising. Yes, the film shores up the stereotype, but most commercial ventures (and one seldom gets more commercial than big "cinema") do that, and they do it precisely because it's easy.

You all will most likely not agree with me, but I don't think this will help us guys with an alternative sense of style.

I agree with you -- to a point. However, the mannerisms we (as in "men in skirts") display are decidedly different from the caricature of homosexuality -- even most homosexuals don't behave that way! So, before letting loose with a wide brush, consider (1) the target audience and (2) one's own natural mannerisms. Our "target audience" is the general population; personally, I make no apologies for who I am, and I suspect that nobody reading here does either; moreover, my mannerisms are not exaggerated in any sort of stereotypical manner, and I suspect that none, or few, reading here behave so. Hence, I believe, the argument moot; the general public should be smart enough to spot the difference, and in the case of "Bruno", know the difference between reality and "comedic" fantasy.

In short, we're not funny; the caricature is (or at least sells).

Before you ask, "what's the big deal about being called gay?" The answer is. It is not necessarily about being called gay, it is about another cheap shot by a comedian supporting a BS stereotype that should have been done away with decades ago.

It's a cheap way to get a laugh. I think that we as a people have moved on from such inanities and now merely giggle at them when they're presented to us as "entertainment". Whether presenting it as such is "right" or not, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Of course we'll have to wait to see how the box-office results work out...

[skirtingtherealissue]

At the time of writing, I have had far too many beers to be coherent.

I hate to have to gripe, but I got to.

Ditto crfriend.

Problem I have is...well let me just ask this.

Why did he HAVE to be a gay character?

Possibly to get cheap laughs?

He is a god darned stereotype to the tee. It is the stereotype that supports the notion that a man that is flamboyant in his self expression is automatically gay.

Blinkered and myopic halfwits, without the ability to think for themselves, will subscribe to this thought pattern. We can dress more conventionally if we choose; they will still be blinkered and myopic halfwits, without the capacity to think for themselves.

You all will most likely not agree with me, but I don't think this will help us guys with an alternative sense of style.

I do agree that it is a cheap publicity stunt. But I also take comfort that Sacha Baron Cohen also created Ali G and Borat, both caricatures, both awful.

In the UK there were two sitcoms in the '70s; "In Sickness and In Health" and "'Til Death Us Do Part". Both centred on the character of Alf Garnett, played by Warren Mitchell. The character, Alf Garnett was a racist, bigoted, homophobe. The entire series played on his prejudices. Whilst I do not recall all of the situations, he had (I believe) a "home help" who was a gay, black man, whom Alf referred to in derogatory terms as "Marigold". You get the idea?

Warren Mitchell (incidentally, I believe, of Jewish descent), in an interview, recounted a tale of an ordinary working class Brit whom he met one day who said he loved the show and how "Alf got one over on those darkies!". Warren responded "I'm not getting one over on the darkies, I'm taking the p*** out of you bigoted idiots, but you don't get that, do you?" This may not be the exact exchange, but I think you get the point.

Anyway, whilst I could be wrong, I suspect that half of the point of Cohen's characters is actually to poke fun at those who do not have the intellectual capability to think independently.

You have your style and those who know you, know you. Those who don't will either: a) try to get to know you; or b) aren't worth knowing anyway. I know the truth about me and that's all that counts. I try to live by the following: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Sorry for the rambling, hic

[r1g0r]

well boys, the fact is that ALL humor is aimed at somebody's pain/suffering/humiliation. if it's funny, it's because you're laughing AT somebody.

think about your favorite joke or funny movie. think HARD. you were laughing at somebody. it's a fact that smart comedians have used for literally centuries.

the accepted rule is that some people will find it funny, some will find it offensive. the secret is to make it funny to the greatest number of people, or the people that matter the most.

you're not gonna tell most jew jokes in a synagogue, but an arab joke will usually go over great.

choose your audience, choose your humor, and deliver it the best way possible.

in this case, they've gone for the summer "i've just got to get out of this hovel and go laugh at something i don't understand" crowd. they've chosen the VERY broad stereotype of the flamboyant gay communitee (easy to make fun of). their delivery? i'll never know, because i'l not bother watching it even on dvd.

pax vobiscum!

[sapphire]

Errr....

Has anyone actually seen this movie?

[r.m.anderson]

Unless the theatre schedule is different in other parts of the country it was
released for showing today 7-10-09 - at least in the midwest cities.

rm

[r1g0r]

Errr....

Has anyone actually seen this movie?

sapph, i wouldn't see it on a bet. the little i've seen of it is stupid in the extreme. i think it's inflamatory, excessively childish, and i'd rather spend the money on a new skirt.

[Skirt Chaser]

Although I have read the material is not too impressive I am certainly enjoying the print ads for his clothing. Variety and whimsy make me smile and I am amazed at how completely different Sacha Baron Cohen looks as Borat and Bruno.

[Uncle Al]

Errr....

Has anyone actually seen this movie?

For me, myself & I, there's not enough $$$$$$$$
to pay me to see such garbage. I've seen the
TV Trailers, Ads and this-to me-is foolish, a
waste of time, is an embarrassment to men
and the film industry for thinking that the public
is really stupid enough to pay money for garbage.

I'ld better as some here may like it

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Kilted_John]

I won't be seeing it. Waste of time and money, IMO. That said, a lot of movies today seem to be that way for me. Just am uninterested in seeing them in the theatre.

I did see the cover of last week's Seattle Weekly, which had a photograph of him in the white dress and pink top. Almost picked it up, for the job market classifieds, but, looked at it, and decided, "nah, I'll wait a couple days." Also was a little concerned, due to my being skirted, that people might think that I'm a "Bruno-ite". Fears were unfounded, since an older couple told me that they liked my kilt, even though I wasn't in a kilt.

-J

[Ray]

Try and find some old clips on Youtube of Cohen doing his "Ali G" interviews. Sometimes cringing, but frequently hilarious as the unwitting interviewee misses the outragous comments, led astray by Ali's deadpan innocence.

[Since1982]

It's really too bad famed Movie persona Sacha Baron Cohen couldn't have thought up an original name for his movie. There was already a movie called Bruno about a young boy who wanted to wear dresses that also completely missed the mark as to where it "should" have been heading.