BRÜNO Post-Release Discussion - Page 3

A major flaw of this film for me is its the flow. The seams were showing and it didn't feel like a finished film. Like I said earlier, it felt like a series of clips presented one after another without a defining thread to latch on to. Maybe I came in with expectations, but Bruno himself should have been the connecting thread and he wasn't. Whereas Borat was a clueless immigrant who was learning the rules of our culture (while exposing some of the uglier sides), I couldn't really tell you what Bruno was exposing.

As has been noted by several people already, Bruno had to go to extreme measures to get reactions out of people. Hardly a damning statement on most of the people being pranked. For example, the Rednecks only pulled a gun on Bruno after he had repeatedly attempted to get into their tents at 3 a.m. (anyone tries to wake me out of deep slumber I'd shoot em in the face too!) while being naked. I don't even get the point of the military academy. They treated Bruno exactly like they treat every other cadet. And if the S&M lady was meant to show that straight people do "immoral" things while condemning gay love, the film did a terrible job of it since every scene of Bruno outside of the swingers party was over-the-top nonsense.

Maybe. But by focusing the film on Bruno, Cohen is trying to force people's discomfort via his flamboyantly gay behavior. I mean, the psychic guy's reaction would be funny if anyone - straight or gay - were doing what Bruno was doing. Straight people making out in public places freaks people out; of course an out and proud gay guy doing sexually explicit things will do so. I don't see the point in this being a "Bruno" movie if the message isn't about exposing people's homophobia. The self defense guy was a good example of this working. I've learned that if one guy talks nicely to another, he must be gay and you should kick him in the balls.

Why must that be the point of the film?

Did you read the rest of my post? It kinda explains why.

You made a point about what the movie should have been, exposing people's homophobia. But maybe the film wasn't about that, maybe it was just a comedy featuring this character semi real life situations.

Overt homosexuality makes some people wildly uncomfortable, so there's that. It's a means to an end, if you want to call it that. The real problem with hoping Bruno could expose homophobia the way Borat did with is anti-semitism is that the character is coming from the opposite direction. Bruno is the object of people's prejudices, while Borat just confirms them. If Cohen had played one of those God Hates Fags types, it'd be easier, though probably not so funny.

I actually think the movie was less about showing homophobia, which just a few scenes do (and, IMO, do it okay), its a lot about the sheer comedic factor of watching reactions, and seeing with what he gets away with it.

For example, the scene with Ron Paul is not a matter of Ron Paul being a homophobe, or a bad guy, or something. The sheer audacity of Brüno is, IMO, the star here. Basically, Cohen makes fun of himself.

If the movie is just about getting funny reactions, why use the Bruno character? Why not some other outlandish buffoon?

What do gay horses eat?

Haaaaaaayyy...

...Diva, what's up?

(It feels weird being a lurker, but hey, baby steps...)

The way I see it, Cohen does have a stable of "outlandish buffoons": Ali G, Borat, and Bruno. In his third film, Bruno is definitely my favorite simply because you can't get more outlandish than this highly-flamboyant and overtly-sexual gay fashionista. So much so that both straight and gay folk did not warm up to that character at all (based on Box Office results).

I think most people tend to focus on the "gayness" of the character and end up forgetting that Bruno is just a "character" to get reactions out of people. In short, Bruno is just a jerk. Whether gay or straight, he's a douchebag through and through.

But what's so great about his character is that he still manages to get the inner thoughts of his unfortunate victims. And that's what I loved about the film. Take the martial arts master instructor, for example: the instructor says to "hit" the gay person who wants to "schtupp" him, then adds, in the same breath, that gay people are very nice and very similar to terrorists. To me, these were the moments that got me cracking up good.

Also, I love how the Bruno character was overtly sexual. Someone mentioned that Bruno is so '80s and that's true. However, the flaming queens of the '80s were so castrated that you can't even picture them with a sexual organ. Think of Andrew McCarthy's friend, Hollywood, from Mannequin. He was a one-noted sidekick side joke. Cohen's Bruno got out of the closet and freaking twirled his ding dong to all of us. And, for me, I loved the hell out of it.

So yes, I agree with Khaunshar here...

Two major scenes that really touched upon homophobia was when Bruno mentioned finding "Mr. Right" and the predominantly black audience booed him (and he still hasn't introduced O.J.). The other scene, of course, is the MMA show.

Exactly. Also, I didn't see anyone mentioning it, but the joke here is not about Ron Paul's aggravated reaction (hell, he had every right to be pissed; I would be too). It's hilarious because Bruno mistook Ron Paul for RuPaul: "I couldn't even schtupp RuPaul..."

Oh, and lol at the "All Gay Cruises" banner ad at the top of this thread.

"Militant group issues threat over mockery in Bruno film"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/...ha-baron-cohen

Voltes5! You need to post more. Your opinion is always welcome.

I guess we agree to disagree. I didn't particularly find people's reactions to Bruno funny. I like a good dick joke as much as the next person, but a feature length movie of them isn't worth my $12. The whole thing came off desperate. Bruno had to keep doing more and more extreme things in order to get reactions. And the pay off to most of the reactions weren't particularly funny. People are first shocked, then disgusted, then storm away angrily. Unless they were a desperate stage mom. Then they agreed to subject their kids to the most heinous things imaginable. As social commentary, this film failed (which I admit may have not been the point). But it didn't entertain either (which is the far worse crime).

I'm not a big fan of Jackass though I find it a bit more entertaining than, say, Tom Green. I'm also not a big fan of Ali G. Borat, on the other hand, I did find hilarious; however, it's a film that I could not watch multiple times. I guess that I personally enjoyed Bruno more due to his very gay character. He's the very first gay character that I know of who completely flaunted his sexuality on the big screen. I know that does not instantly make a film funny; but, yes, I will just have to agree to disagree.

I'm with you, Voltes5. I enjoyed Bruno because he is so openly gay. Cohen created Bruno to be something like the culmination of every gay stereotype and prejudice and just unleashed it on the world.
Of course, the film's not perfect (the focus group scene has problems, as others have pointed out). I still found it really funny and when the satire, the humor and the outlandishness all came together, like the Straight Dave scene, it is amazing to watch.

At the very least it looks like we can all agree that the Straight Dave scene killed.

bah: nvm. Previously posted. Continue!