Marketing itself as "Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt," British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen (of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan fame) is back in the game as Bruno, an outrageously camp Austrian fashion journalist who tries the push the boundaries of the real life personalities he interviews.
Bruno has been heralded to be a satirical attempt to expose the prejudices and bigotries of people he interviews in the US in the hopes of becoming a Hollywood celebrity - or, as he puts it: "I want to be the biggest Austrian superstar since Hitler!"
Gay groups are however concerned that some viewers may instead leave the theatres with their existing stereotypes about gay people reinforced, and their homophobia validated.
Above: Bruno poses nude for the cover of GQ (July edition); pink hotpants-clad workers erecting a Bruno billboard on Tues, Jun 23 at Taylor Square on Oxford Street - Sydney’s famous gay strip - ahead of the movie’s Jun 29 premiere in the city.
The film shows Bruno crashing Milan Fashion Week and the American military, and dropping his pants during an interview with US presidential candidate Ron Paul. The same Times report revealed that a scene in the movie shows Brüno having sex in a hot tub while a baby sits nearby and later tells a talk-show audience that having a baby is a man magnet. The paper also quoted a source who said that the scene "consists of still images that were photoshopped – no baby was actually present – and that the sex is only strongly implied."
In another scene, Bruno consults with a Karate instructor to learn to protect himself from gay people. "They probably would tackle from behind," the instructor says. "If they get close to you, hit them."
And how can one spot a gay man? The instructor replies: "Obvious is a person being extremely nice… Some of them don’t even dress no different than myself or you."
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) spokesman Brad Luna said: "We strongly feel that Sacha Baron Cohen and Universal Pictures have a responsibility to remind the viewing public right there in the theater that this is intended to expose homophobia."
Gay website Queerty.com quoted HRC as saying: "If the context and intent behind this kind of particular humour is about exposing and making fun of homophobia to show the ridiculousness of it, that is one thing. What is undeniable though is the impact on the audience is going to vary. Although we view the movie for what it is, a satirical portrayal of stereotyping, we shouldn’t lose sight of the seriousness of this issue. The #1 epithet used on schoolyards across the country remains anti-gay slurs.
"In the last few months, we have had to continually witness the heartbreaking suicides of young boys who were taunted and bullied using anti-gay epithets. It continues to remain a serious problem in this country.
"(The producers) have a responsibility to make sure that the viewing public understands this character is done as satire to poke fun at stereotyping. Otherwise, they run the risk of 16 yr old high school boys across the country feeling empowered to bully schoolmates. And tragically we already know what the consequences of that are."
The reports also quoted Aaron Hicklin, the editor of Out, a US gay magazine, who said he is excited that there might be more awareness about the issue and plans to put the star on the August cover.
"The movie does something hugely important, which is showing that people’s attitudes can turn on a dime when they realise you’re gay," Hicklin said.
"The multiplex crowd wouldn’t normally sit down for a two-hour lecture on homophobia, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I’m excited about that."
The film had began making the headlines over a year ago when he was believed to have outraged thousands of unsuspecting audience members when he filmed undercover at two cage-fighting events in the US state of Arkansas where two fighters stripped to their underwear before kissing and "rubbing one another."
Following a host of headline hogging stunts since landing his jock-strapped behind on faux-outraged Eminem’s face at the recent MTV Movie Awards and appearing nude on the cover of GQ, he has kept up the momentum with his antics during his recent promotional activities in major European capital cities.
London saw him in an "updated" Buckingham Palace guard-inspired outfit with tight black hotpants and boots; Madrid, as an anatomically-correct bull; Berlin, in a pink bodysuit with prominent “genitalia”; in the red-light district of Amsterdam, in a cut off suit with an exposed a red thong and so on. (See photos at top of page)
Bruno Movie Trailer
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
The function of satire and irony is to increase awareness of the irrationality of people's modes of thinking and stereotypes through humour - it is a far more effective tool politically than boring politically correct propaganda could ever hope to be. What did GLAAD want Bruno to be anyway? A straight-acting, dour gay man lecturing us about the importance of equal rights, mutual respect and safer sex? What a hoot of a movie that would have been. I confer with caesar2003: It's a bloody comedy, not a Stalinist propaganda film.
amazing.... gay men and women can act like this in a gay "pride" parade and it is simply called a positive expression of our sexuality, yet when someone else does it under the guise of humor and satire it is detrimental and reinforces stereotypes... hmmm
I would rather see this move than see the conduct of gays the world over prancing down streets in a so called "pride" parade.
The demand to put a notice at the beginning explaining the movie to American audiences is also hilarious.
I suspect that Kuman10127 (post 6) is also a Sacha Baron Cohen creation. The double irony of putting down the "real" Brunos out there while wanting to see a movie that satirises his own attitude is just brilliant.
www.at5.nl/artikelen/18600/nu-ook-pink-light-district-in-stad
it's just a movie, take a f***ing chill pill!
Sure you may get a laugh here and there, from being so stupid and/or disgusting. But, unless you don't care wasting your time and money then go watch the movie, just don't say you weren't warned though! Otherwise, it is definitely worth the wait until it comes out on DVD!
Good thing I watched it for free!!!:-)
PS. Demoted is actually a funnier and a much better movie!
Unfortunately "straight" are not real people!
GAY AND LESBIANS ARE VERY INTELLIGENT AND CLEVER PEOPLE!
REGARDS KRIS!
and every single one of them is right.
This movie will re-inforce some people's stereotypes,
and for others it will satirise their ignorance.
For some of us it will simply be a great laugh and for others
it will be deeply offensive.
If media such as this is able to create a platform for discussion,
and prevent complacency around issues of equality and tolerance -
then great!
- regardless of whether this is the intention of the movie or not.
Drew :)
wow...i've just seen a gorgeous species of beautiful HOMO sexual.....quaint....
xxx
gavin
How do you know they were insults to humanity if you didn't go and see them?
A movie may be bad in someone's opinion, but it hardly makes it an "insult to humanity". Slight exaggeration there maybe. But you're right about censorship, so long as it's not propaganda to incite hatred against a group, it should be shown and people can decide for themselves.
The cherry on the cake being that if you don't like it, well, too bad because there is no one to blame, no dictator to oust. There can be no "resistance" when there is no identifiable oppressor like there was under every single dictatorship so far in history.
H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley and Ray Bradbury ("fahrenheit 451") in their wildest nightmares did not imagine anything so efficient and... soft.
One contemporary author who was accutely aware of the problem and brilliantly treated it in several of his books was Michael Crichton who sadly passed away recently.
In comment #2 I read : "he (S.B. Cohen) trashed an entire central asian nation" and in the 25 subsequent comments I look in vain for a reaction to this. None. Mind busting.
No, no, no, a million times no, Cohen did NOT "trash a nation" in the film "Borat", what he trashed was common human traits such as philistine stupidity, racism in every possible disguise (and there are lots), arrogant self-righteousness, stupid patriotism (in my eyes a pleonasm), religious bigotry etc. What he's saying is that those traits exist in every human being, no matter if they live in Kazakhstan (so called un-developped) or the US (so called developped).
To prove his point he uses one of the many tools from the human toolbox called "sense of humour" and which was already used by Aristophanes, the Commedia del'Arte, Molière and many others, and which is called the FARCE. Some people don't like it, some people do, just like any other form of humour, but only a fool would take a farce seriously ie from a "first degree" point of view.
In a farce, the outrageous character who screams, for example, "all the Jews and all the hairdressers should be put to death" is not making a statement about Jews and hairdressers, he's making a statement about people like himself and there is a unwritten "contract" between the author and the audience which clearly states that this is what the farce is all about.
When you lose the ability to understand the basic rules of humour such as the one i just pointed out, you may consider that you're on your way to become the perfect citizen of the Politically Correct Planetary State. I am truly and honestly thankful that I'm 53 already, because i'd hate to be in my early 20s and realize that I may have to live in this Wonderful State for another odd 60 years or more. But then, if I was in my early 20s, I guess I would not see what's going on, what is at stake, I would be happily politically correct and I would say things like "I'm not interested in politics"... brrrr.....
as far as reinforcing stereotypes is concerned, perhaps many of the wounds today are self-inflicted by the hubris of some of the more sexually irresponsible, self-absorbed or politically-retentive people in the LGBT community itself... i think many want a different approach now... both in the west and especially here in Asia.
btw, have you watched the BBC's Graham Norton? now, he's very funny, and he obviously isn't "straight", but he doesn't have to join a "gay" pink parade or spout pc garbage for us to see that this very likably cheeky guy has real wit and talent, and yet also has respect for others! now, that's pr! cheers :)
Almost every last one of my gay friends seem pretty Normal to me; coming from all walks of life, and careers; they're anything but Graham or Bruno-esque, but it just seems that they, or We, are never shown on the big or small screen, just the usual easy stereotypes of a certain - and singular - kind of gay man.
It just gets... old, you know? It's one thing to be on the inside, looking out, with gay guys (and gals) knowing and understanding the gag, and, sure, seeing that 'Bruno' is also poking fun at some expectations of homosexuality. Fine, I get it. Unfortunately, doesn't it also have to be recognised that, yes, 'Bruno' is going to reinforce a very negative image of homosexuality for a lot of people, who'll come away from it further believing what 'Them Gays' are like?
It's just a movie, and I'm sure it'll be entertaining enough... but I'll pass on seeing it...
erm, could we have a review of Brothers and Sisters now from you?
seriously... haha :)
In a recent article about the defunct Bangkok Pride, a member called “vercoda” made an incredibly racist, aggressive and arrogant (not to mention totally off the point) comment about how shocked he was to see “old and fat” white guys going out with young Thais. He was not ranting against pedophiles, he was, I repeat, condemning relationships between “old and fat” western guys and younger (NOT underage) Thais.
Another member called “yveserwan” commented on that shocking statement and I urge everyone here to read his comment if it’s still here because it is simply remarkable and obviously indicates that the writer is highly cultured, intelligent and articulate.
I regularly read the Fridae articles and enjoy them most of the time. I also read the comments and find them very revealing, in all kinds of ways. Most members seem to use this comment board solely as a tribune to air their angers, insecurities, frustrations, or simply their ego (plenty of that). I go through their self-serving blah blah with a smile and move on.
Some members, however (and yveserwan is one of them), do write things that help me widen my views, see the issue from a different angle, go deeper into the subject and learn to distance myself from ready-made conceptions. I thank those members for taking the time to share their experience, knowledge and understanding.
As yveserwan’s reply obviously scratched Mr vercoda’s ego, the latter wrote all kinds of nasty and silly things to which yveserwan was wise enough not to overreact upon. Vercoda also virtually accused yveserwan of pedophilia, and all I can say is that when people feel the urge to hit below the belt rather than produce sound and consistent arguments, well, it just shows that they don’t know where the brain is located !
The same thing happened here. ‘Seoulseeker’ comes up with this utterly silly comment in which he claims that Sasha Baron Cohen “trashed an entire Central Asian nation” (Kazakhstan) in his movie “Borat”. ‘yveserwan’ contradicts that statement with clear and challenging arguments. What does Seoulseeker reply ? well, see for yourself, he replies that yveserwan doesn’t have a sense of humour. The reaction is soooooo unintelligent that it speaks for itself and yveserwan’s reply “hahahhaa” is certainly the only viable one. It's also quite funny, actually.
I’m not here to help yveserwan face silly comments and nasty allegations. I’m sure he can handle that by himself and much better than I ever would as he obviously has the vast culture and brilliant mind to do so. My point is that I wish this comment board would attract more yveserwan(s) and less vercoda(s) or seoulseekers(s)… yeeeeees yes I know, freedom of expression for everyone and blah blah blah, it’s just that some people’s egos are soooooooo hyperinflated that they can’t stand the smallest contradiction. They’re probably spoilt brats because theirs is a typical spoilt brat attitude.
However a comment board is meant to encourage debate, and debate implies contradiction, so guys, if you can’t be intellectually challenged and offer an intellectual reaction rather than insults, you should write on your personal blogs only and see if anyone’s interested ! I’m not.
Actually, life's too short, right? That guy has his opinion, you have yours, I have mine and they have theirs... and it doesn't serve any of us well to sink into he-said-you-said tit-for-tat arguments. It was a little unecessary to add that stuff above, but I think we'll all just look like weird, aggressive assholes if this "Oh yeah? Well..." attitude continues.
True, I'm a little surprised at getting this, my first taste of pure vitriol and highly personal and public attacks after years of being on Fridae (I mean, who ARE you people, and why single my not-so-shocking comments out like this?), but, fine. Not everyone agrees with you; you can't be liked by everyone; and it's fine if, on This thread and topic, there are violently opposed points of view. That's debate, and openess at work, even if these comments do feel unecessarily muddied.
Good luck, gentlemen...
As HE said, a local Thai guy who'd taken those Pride photos in Thailand, when I commented on all the obviously middlle-aged and upwards white guys draped over Thai twinks: "Oh, they're just white perverts; they come every year to pick up boys." His words, not mine.
So, you know... if it seems that locals disapprove of older white guys picking up guys 20, 30 or even 40+ years younger than them, I don't think it's very fair to blame ME for also saying that, in general, it seems to be Wrong, and that for Most of those guys there is a wildly unequal status.
Maybe inter-generational relationships are much more accepted over there; but Here, regardless of sex or sexuality, such things are still largely taboo, and frowned upon... and, given Thailand's continuing and unfortunate reputation for sex tourism in Some parts, I'm sorry, but I can't let you simply attack me for what appears (to me, and to locals, and to other guys from Thailand) to be another group of Western men largely working the system there. Are my comments fair and balanced enough?
Or are those who've been attacking me going to try to say that, "Oh, No, almost every last one of those aging and older white guy [labelled 'perverts' by my Thai friend, remember] just Happens to be a really wonderful gentleman who just Happens to be with a guy 20, 30 or 40+ years younger than him, in case after case after case"?
I'm not agist. I have nothing against white people. I'm not jealous of caucasians meeting asian guys in Thailand etc. But I won't let Anyone accuse me of being racist etc for raising These points, which are beyond obvious. It's not about 'ego', although of course I don't like being attacked and insulted - who would, or does? But it IS about addressing being publicly accused of Whatever - I wouldn't let someone just start shouting at me in the street, so why let insults fly over here?
To conclude - have I personally attacked anyone here, or named anyone in this reply? No. So, please, less of the accusations of personal attacks, when I've used very polite and clear language, simply to defend myself against whatever reasons different opinions and outlooks have been turned into personal attacks.
The Defence rests.
As they used to say in bars: No Politics or Religion. Or multiple attacks on others for saying something you don't agree with, even though I'm perfectly capable of standing up to it - I'd rather not, as I think this makes us ALL look like crazy letter writers. Right? (:-/
Your endless self-defence here reminds me of something I read in a John Grisham novel... in court's jargon it's called "overkill", lol... you spend so much time and energy pleading your cause that in the end, all you prove is... that you've definitely done something wrong !
And something wrong you DID ! You may try to present yourself as the nice guy, nay the poor victim who never accused anyone or never said anything bad or impolite but if fridae readers take the time to read the original comment of yours that started all this, they will see for themselves (its in the comments after the article on the Bangkok Pride).
In that comment you lash out like some american newborn Christian preacher at "old fat white guys" who go with young Thais. Tell me, Vercoda, are these people taking something from you ? Are they harming you in any way ? And if not, then why do you treat them like trash ? Why do you attack them so arrogantly ? Where in the LAW does it say that a 60 year old guy cannot go with a 20 year old guy (or gal for that matter) ? Where ? in The Napoleonic Revisited Vercode maybe ?
Like it or not, buddy boy, the law is the law and once people are of legal age sexually, they do what THEY want and not what YOU think is good for them. Like it or not also, older and fatter guys have a RIGHT to have a sexual life, and it may not look good in your book, but again that doesn't give you the right to lash out at them. I have many young Thai friends here in Bangkok (and i'm not talking about money boys) who PREFER older guys and a lot also happen to PREFER "poompui" guys ie chubby... yes ! Mr Sanctimonious, it takes all kinds !! It even takes the likes of you to make this world as rich as it is, so welcome to a world of all kinds and stop telling people who they should love and who they should f**k, ok ?
oh and stop playing the victim, you just don't have the looks :-))
Refreshing !
Have you also read yveserwan's comments ? I love the way he writes and i appreciate every word he says...what a brain and what a culture to feed that brain... hope you enjoy his insights too, cos some people here obviously don't, nudge nudge wink wink hahaha
Some writers (above) certainly have their right to their point of view, but I sometimes wonder why they make such comments, when they can be so hurtful and disparaging to some , when in actual fact those that they criticise are not hurting anybody.
Living in Australia I have never witnessed to a large extent ( a little maybe) the younger Asian man with older man scenario, and havent given it too much thought, but I feel if everything in the realtionship/affair is mutual, then my view is live and let live.
Who is anybody to judge ? Whats the point of it ?
Everbody has preferences, and to re-iterate what you (danu22btm) wrote, there is no legal or 'moral' law against it.
There are so many things in our community that need sensible logical and careful debate without having to dwell on the age differences in our relationships.
For the record, my great grandfather was 25 years older than my great grandmother, and they married and had many children, of which I am a descendant, and I am thankful that they fell in love.
but if you're talking about Thailand, then i will just add that on the other side of the coin, let's not forget that there are those, especially from the rural areas, both children and young men who are not "underaged", who are drawn or pushed into the world of "love"-for-sale by poverty. some of these faceless kids are still dying of Aids, not aid.
perhaps there are true love stories that cover a multitude of sins in Bangkok, and there may be cases where the prey turns predator, but i don't know of any places in the West where so many young boys or men of little education and sophistication, have had to sell their bodies, and at times their dignity, for a few US dollars....
it's easy to philosophise when you have so many choices...
(btw, while we're digressing, has anyone seen Radiohead's video on Youtube highlighting the exploitation of "child" labour in the apparel industry in the East? maybe they should do one on the sex trade...)
The problem is that, generous and concerned as you may sound (and I'm sure you are), the picture you are painting of Thailand's gay sex scene is simply not real. It's the picture that the boys you meet there will repeatedly sing in your ears, for the obvious reason that your compassion and sense of guilt are directly related to your potential generosity.
It's the picture that both “seller” and “buyer” like to convey, not because it's true but because it suits them and eases their guilt (in that order). How many times have I heard the sex tourists conscientiously repeat this legend and explain how happy they are to "help" those boys send money back to their families, repair the house, buy a new buffalo, pay for their university, their Mum in hospital etc.
99% of the time, a big pack of lies.
Expats who've been living in Thailand for a long time, and many of my Thai friends too, all joke about it because they’ve heard it all, they know the real picture and don't buy the "I come from poor family" routine like gullible temporary tourists do.
A few guys may be "drawn to the world of love-for-sale by poverty" (especially those from the Northern hill tribes) but anyone who knows the scene there will tell you that they are a precious few (except in Chiang Mai). Most of the boys in Pattaya, Bangkok, Phuket etc come from Esarn (the Northeast) and from families which are indeed not rich, but helloooo, we are not AT ALL talking about poverty such as the one that can be met in the suburbs of Mumbai, Jakarta or Dacca.
Where girls are concerned it's a totally different story, because they are almost always pimped, which the boys are NOT.
i think that's the first benefit, if any, of a forum like this - it's not personal, it's not to "win" arguments, it's not about ego, it's to learn something which might help us to understand each other and the world better. but in the end, what we believe, we have to decide ourselves.
you're right about at least one thing, sir - i am no philosopher.. :)
cheers!
He reminds me of a guy who walks into a public square, drops his pants and takes a dump, then looks around to see who is laughing. "Hello! Funny, funny, funny. No? You didn't find it funny? Wait, wait, I have big fart coming". Then he farts loud and long and splatters more stuff around. "Okay, funny now? hehe, see, so funny. You want more funny? I give you more funny. See, different colour, different smell, just for you. Funny, funny. hahaha. Wait, wait, I do on this nice potted plant. Funny now? Yes, yes. hahaha. Hey, nice doggie there. Bring that doggie. I do on doggie... like this... funny, funny. hahaha".
His "Ali G" interviews look truly pathetic, and not the least bit funny. The people being interviewed didn't find it even remotely funny, either, and at least one person, including Donald Trump, simply got up and walked away, showing contempt in their faces while saying goodbye.
Usually, you call someone dumb if he asks dumb questions. But this guy belongs to a different category of dumbness: He is so dumb that he often doesn't even have any dumb questions to ask. Have you noticed the long bits of awkward silence while he is floundering around racking his "brains" for more dumb questions? Of course, he cleverly edits his bits to shorten those awkward pauses, making the pictures rotate around, etc., just to give the feeling that a lot is happening.
Let me anticipate the indignation of those who would think this guy is funny, and put to them this situation:
Let's say you're in hospital, and the doctor has just asked you to put your head back, close your eyes, open your mouth wide and say "aaaah". You say "aaah", and the next thing you know, the nurse has pooped in your open mouth.
Would you find that funny? This guy probably would (he'd probably be the pooper, in fact).
I know we all do that all the time. If we don't like onion soup, we say "onion soup is disgusting". If we don't understand Picasso we say it's ugly. If we don't appreciate J.-S. Bach we say its boring...
But the fact that we do it all the time doesn't make it right. It's no big deal, it's just another of those semantic twists that make us look at things the way they are... not.
As I wrote earlier, Cohen mode of humour is the farce, it's as old as can be, and it's always had its fans and its detractors. Obiously Donald Trump doesn't like farce, well, good for him, but the fact that he's Trump doesn't make his taste heavier or more important, it's just his. And yours is yours... :-)
what i suppose was "funny" in Borat was the ignorance of the poor people he "duped". and it will be the prejudices - racial, sexual, philosophical, etc - of the world, that will give us cause to chuckle in Bruno i suspect. i'm not paying money to see that.
however, i suppose everyone, whether priest, politician, philosopher or comedian, has a right to "preach"... whether we take it in or not, and what we believe is right or wrong, is up to us, individually, to decide. that is a personal responsibilty.
my own grandfather, who loved and married a woman much younger than himself, will, i'm sure, agree, "jupiter101" :)
btw, haha, i digress further... do u know that C S Lewis, who wrote the Narnia chronicles, and became a Christian in mid-life, was by profession a professor at Cambridge University in England? He taught greek mythology and... philosophy!
:)
THEY are the ones who're reinforcing the gay stereotype, not Bruno.
love SBC, so talented and minutious~~
Nothing to brag about: the film is insipid and vulgar and most unfortunately very mediocre. As for the laughs this film brought out
of me, I can count them on less than my five fingers (the other hand was tired of showing me my watch and counting the running time left!)
If you like slapsticks thick as a buffulo hide, go and see it.
An exellent gay fim, I recommend in exchange for this toilet-comedy is : "Were the world mine" with the stunning Tanner Cohen.
JPS
請先登入再使用此功能。