Double Standards
June 21st 2009 05:24
Bruno, or, Confronting People with Overblown Stereotypes for the Purposes Of Making Yourself Look Good, Them Look Bad, plus Making Lots of Dollars, while Dodging Criticism by Taking The Moral High Ground and Claiming to Expose Hidden Prejudices, Thus allowing you to Perpetuate Damaging Stereotypes and Get Away With It.
I haven’t seen the movie ‘Bruno’. However, I have seen numerous clips, trailers and downloads, and many of Brunos public appearances at premieres. More than enough!
The concept of Bruno, like Borat before him, is that of the ventriloquists dummy. A dummy can say things that wouldn’t be right, or proper, or even safe for their operator to say (drag acts work the same way, except the operator is inside the dummy).
A dummy allows the ventriloquist to pander to the audiences prejudices. ‘Ahmed the Dead Terrorist’ (Google it if you haven’t already) allows us to laugh at Islamic suicide bombers and subtly reinforces anti-Muslim prejudices. When criticised, ventroliquist Jeff Dunham hides behind the dummy, claiming it isn’t a Muslim.
Bruno is a ventriloquists dummy with Sacha Baron Cohen inside. A dummy designed to allow us to laugh at shallow, fashion-obsessed screaming queens whilst subtly reinforcing our prejudices against them.
The film-maker claims that putting this screamer in with ignorant rednecks exposes their hidden homophobia. Actually, what ‘Bruno’ mostly exposes is an astonishingly high level of tolerance. People put up with this jerk for much longer than they ordinarily might precisely because he IS homosexual. Cohen has to push extremely hard to get the reactions he wants. It’s embarrassing and uncomfortable to watch. I ended up feeling sorry for his victims.
When they finally snap, it’s not Bruno’s homosexuality but his boorishnesss that drives them over the edge. A group of white middle class anti-racist liberals would find their ‘hidden racism’ similarly exposed if Robert Mugabe dropped in for tea and harangued them on the evils of colonialism.
With Borat, this stoking of prejudices didn’t really matter much (except to Kazakhs, of course). There’s no deep-seated worldwide anti-Kazakh hatred, no religions devoted to curing Kazakhsuality, no steady toll of anti-Kazakh murders. Kazakhs are not jailed and executed in dozens of countries, and Kazakhs have always been able to marry one another, even, according to Borat, their own relatives.
I’m sure Cohen means well and really wants to really expose prejudice, and he certainly doesn’t lack courage. Unfortunately, his intentions are utterly irrelevant. Only the public reactions count. Sophisticated urban audiences may ‘get’ the anti-homophobia messages, if they’ve been appropriately coached by their newspapers (and can manage to sit through the movie).
Most audiences won’t. They’ll just see another stupid ridiculous queen stereotype trying to ‘shove homosexuality down our throats’, and some will go out and look for one to bash, or worse.
Let Cohen stop aiming at soft targets and put his talents to better use. I know! He could be a Palestinian estate agent offering to buy houses and businesses in the Israeli occupied territories.
Now that’d be REALLY funny.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Brad N
Was there any evidence that Borat provoked anti-Kazakhstan prejudice? [In any case Borat seems obviously designed to expose anti-Muslim prejudice rather than specifically anti-Kazakhstan prejudice.]
I recall that certain Jewish organisations were concerned with Borat too, but I have not heard a single instance of someone citing Borat to justify anti-semitic sentiment.
When I hear people comparing this to blackface, I can't help but point out that the one very major difference between blackface and SBC's antics is the use of irony. It seems some people have lost theirs; unless this post is a parody of the gay community's lack of a sense of humour. In which case, well played.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
I don’t buy this post-modern distancing technique of claiming that his humor is directed at the reaction of his redneck audience. That simply gives the audience licence to enjoy the anti-gay humor while at the same time feeling morally superior to the poor dumb homophobes. I dislike humour that takes the soft option by mocking the dumb, poor and powerless - they have troubles enough. He should take on some harder targets.
Cohen is just hiding behind the idea that he’s fighting homophobia, whereas it’s abundantly clear he doesn’t give a toss about homophobia or anything else, except ridiculing everything in sight for a cheap laugh all the way to the bank.
Plus, he's not very good at it. The difference between the edited footage in the movie scenes and his live appearances is stark. In the movie the characterisation looks seamless and solid. Live, however, he’s uncertain, sloppy and nervous.
As one critic put it, “he's reduced to awkwardly recycling pre-scripted garbage based purely round the notion that he's gay. It just doesn't work, and you can't help but feel that Sacha knows it too.”
Even the scripted and edited sketches I have seen are plain unfunny and way too contrived.
My main problem with Bruno, in the end, is not that it’s hypocritical and homophobic – although it is. It just isn’t particularly funny.
And if you bother to check back (Wikipedia is a good start) you'll find Borat left a trail of destruction and humiliation that seems a pretty high price for ordinary individuals to have to pay for the rest of us to have a few cheap laughs.
Comment by Brad N
Fair enough. If the marketing for the movie doesn't turn you on, don't see it. But if you are going to be a commentator on the film, I think you are obliged to watch the whole thing. To judge the film and make some moral assessment based on a few snippets makes you as bad as Fox News cutting clips out of Obama's Cairo speech and calling him pro-terrorist. Responsible commentators provide context rather than passing snap judgement based on fragmented impressions.
'That simply gives the audience licence to enjoy the anti-gay humor while at the same time feeling morally superior to the poor dumb homophobes. I dislike humour that takes the soft option by mocking the dumb, poor and powerless.'
You are either arguing that homophobes don't deserve to be mocked (which is ridiculous) or you are arguing that cashed-up gay men who buy into a superficial, image-driven commodity culture are poor and powerless (which is equally ridiculous).
Sure gay men lack certain rights, but let's not overstate the level of oppression. Gay men like Bruno (and like it or not they exist) face nowhere near the social/economic degradation that women and blacks did. I am here of course talking in the context of contemporary Western society.
A second aspect of Bruno's critique is latent homophobia. People will accept gays as long as they are not 'too gay'. By drawing a parallel between Bruno's overt sexuality and Mugabe, you yourself are buying into this hidden conflation of sexuality and morals.
I argue that Bruno mocks the superficiality of mainstream gay culture which in my opinion totally deserves mocking. (Gay men can do a pretty good job of stereotyping themselves.) At the same time, it mocks the homophobia both overt and latent in American society. It's complex (maybe) but that's what it is.
'it’s abundantly clear he doesn’t give a toss about homophobia'
Well in your post you quite rightly and contradictorily state that SBC's intention is really to expose prejudice. No need to change your position just to win an argument.
'And if you bother to check back (Wikipedia is a good start) you'll find Borat left a trail of destruction and humiliation that seems a pretty high price'
I am well aware of the legal issues of Borat without checking Wikipedia. But our discussion is about whether Borat/Bruno promotes discrimination. There is still no evidence of this. You argued that people will watch Bruno and then go out and look for a gay to bash. I highly doubt that. I challenge you to find someone who enjoyed Borat who was led to believe that gypsies should be killed or that Jews are evil or that Kazakhstanis should be bashed.
'My main problem with Bruno, in the end, is not that it’s hypocritical and homophobic – although it is. It just isn’t particularly funny.'
The main thrust of your original post was not that Bruno was not funny. However, humour is a largely subjective thing. And given the large success of SBC, maybe it's a case of 'you just don't get it'.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter