civil rights movement, e.g. “pinkface.”

You can argue with Lane or me with the ferver of the true believer.  Borat’s sold his comedy, and you’ve bought it, you’ve joined the fandom.  Now you must protect your investment.  Islam means peace, Piss Christ is great art, Sacha Baron Cohen is a comic genius.

Meanwhile, after the hype-driven opening, the tweets went out:  “Not funny, don’t see it.”

Anthony Lane’s comment rests on the dubious assumption that Cohen’s setups are live and unscripted. Some probably are, and some, surely, are not.

  Perhaps Lane also assumes (I don’t want to say for sure as I have only the excerpt below to go on) that Cohen’s primary aim is to enlighten. So, naturally, the Borat and Bruno characters fail to live up to their potential in that department. They could be more enlightening if Cohen were less insistent on playing it so far over the top.

  But would that be funny? Probably not. At least not funny as often as Borat and Bruno are. The core of Cohen’s comedic formula is bombastic chutzpah. The laughs originate mostly from the astonishment that an individual would actually manage to place themselves in such a situation.

  Lane complains that Borat’s apparent dupes or set-ups don’t respond in ways that show bigotry, and, indeed, they do not in many cases. But in those bits, the comedy comes not from the dupes but from Borat himself, who is also emphatically a figure of fun.

  This is another aspect of Cohen’s genius. He’s making fun of both himself and the ostensible patsies he interacts with. It’s 360 degree parody, laying low all pretense and highlighting every foible. If Cohen didn’t invent this style, he has certainly mastered it.

Whoa nelly!

Cohen didn’t give a rat’s ass about American manners or Southern hospitality. He was looking for what churned below the veneer and he scraped and scraped until that veneer came off. He did it in Borat and he did it in Bruno. 

Notice how his gags begin almost innocently. Once his foot is in the door he moves in, pushing the envelope to see what’s under his victim’s veneer. THAT’S where he’s going. It isn’t a test of manners or a lesson on etiquette. Politeness be damned, he wanted to reveal what was underneath.

The gracious martial arts instructor? Clueless as he was, he assumed Bruno was straight. Do you think he’d spend 5 seconds with Bruno if he thought he was gay?

And how about those tolerant fans at the Ultimate (100% Straight) Fight stadium? I had no idea that thowing folding chairs at someone was a token of Southern affection.

Let’s not liken high manners to high morals. And I think that’s one of the messages Cohen attempted to reveal. But to me, he failed on that score. I walked away thinking I’d watched an adult “Candid Camera” - all contrived gags made on innocent (but not necessarily decent) foils.

Come to think of it, I’d have preferred 90 minutes of old Candid Camera re-runs to Bruno. Remember the one when Fannie Flagg drove the engine-less car down the hill and into the gas station and asked the mechanic to check the oil. Remember the one when…

“Cohen’s genius is in the way he gets people to expose their own irrational hostilities and/or bigotry and/or small-mindedness.”

Nonsense.  He completely failed in Borat.  The patsies he selected responded to his vulgarities, for the most part, with grace and kindness.  As Anthony Lane says, in The New Yorker:

I realized, watching “Borat” again, that what it exposed was not a vacuity in American manners but, more often than not, a tolerance unimaginable elsewhere. Borat’s Southern hostess didn’t shriek when he appeared with a bag of feces; she sympathized, and gently showed him what to do, and the same thing happens in “Brüno,” when a martial-arts instructor, confronted by a foreigner with two dildos, doesn’t flinch. He teaches Brüno some defensive moves, then adds, “This is totally different from anything I’ve ever done.” Ditto the Hollywood psychic—another risky target, eh?—who watches Brüno mime an act of air-fellatio and says, after completion, “Well, good luck with your life.” In both cases, I feel that the patsy, though gulled, comes off better than the gag man; the joke is on Baron Cohen, for foisting indecency on the decent. The joker is trumped by the square.

The only thing Cohen exposes is his own mean, puerile vulgarity.

By the way, glad someone has caught the minstrel in Brüno.  Those who see this censoriously, as demeaning or stereotyping, miss the entire point of burlesque, in which caricatures, like minstrels and drag, are part of the artform, as they are in commedia dell’arte.  Brüno would be a wonderful burlesque if he were put to a better use than that of a cheap provocateur.

“Cohen’s genius is in the way he gets people to expose their own irrational hostilities and/or bigotry and/or small-mindedness.”

Nonsense.  He completely failed in Borat.  The patsies he selected responded to his vulgarities, for the most part, with grace and kindness.  As Anthony Lane says in The New Yorker:

I realized, watching “Borat” again, that what it exposed was not a vacuity in American manners but, more often than not, a tolerance unimaginable elsewhere. Borat’s Southern hostess didn’t shriek when he appeared with a bag of feces; she sympathized, and gently showed him what to do, and the same thing happens in “Brüno,” when a martial-arts instructor, confronted by a foreigner with two dildos, doesn’t flinch. He teaches Brüno some defensive moves, then adds, “This is totally different from anything I’ve ever done.” Ditto the Hollywood psychic—another risky target, eh?—who watches Brüno mime an act of air-fellatio and says, after completion, “Well, good luck with your life.” In both cases, I feel that the patsy, though gulled, comes off better than the gag man; the joke is on Baron Cohen, for foisting indecency on the decent. The joker is trumped by the square.

The only thing Cohen exposes is his own mean, puerile vulgarity.

By the way, glad someone has caught the minstrel in Brüno.  Those who see this censoriously, as demeaning or stereotyping, miss the entire point of burlesque, in which caricatures, like minstrels and drag, are part of the artform, as they are in commedia dell’arte.  Brüno would be a wonderful burlesque if he were put to a better use than that of cheap provocateur.

I just saw it and I was a bit let down. I am gay, I love Cohen, and was ready to laugh. But the problem was he didn’t expose any under-the-surface bigotry like he did in Borat. He overdid his “gayness” to such a violent extreme that he forced reactions out of people, some of whom are probably plenty openminded. You ended feeling sorry for these people.

Especially Ron Paul, who out of all the politicians Cohen could have chosen, deserved it the least. He’s no champion of gay rights, but he is certainly not an enemy either and he reacted like any normal person would in that nightmarish situation. There were also some genuine bigots in the film, but Cohen goes to such an extreme to provoke them, by the time it gets to that point, who cares?

There were funny moments, of course, Cohen is a funny man, but this movie lacks the bite Borat had. This was just an exercise in bad taste (which is fine, if that’s what you’re looking for).

‘‘Why do people support this stuff which expresses -not explores- sheer hostility.’‘

Cohen’s genius is in the way he gets people to expose their own irrational hostilities and/or bigotry and/or small-mindedness.

While the mediasphere groans under a surplus of self-important admonishments against homophobia, it is rare and valuable to witness authentic outrageously ribald demonstrations of the species.

The Gay Species, well said!

S. Cohen doesn’t deal _with_ human degradation; he deals _in_ it.  No accomplished comedian does that. He is not funny and he is no artist.  He is simply making more polluting trash to add to the pile that already exists on TV and movie screens. But the more serious issue is why do people support this stuff which expresses -not explores- sheer hostility.

Che, you struck out.
1. Strike one. WTF are you bringing your kids to an “R” rated film without a clue as to what you’re in for? When was the last time you saw a fun-for-the-whole family comedy with an “R” rating? 
2. Strike two. Like bunkerbuster said, Cohen is a straight Jew. For pity’s sake, he’s hardly promoting a gay agenda in this film.
3. Strike three. The portrayal of “Mexican furniture” was, in my view, directed smack in the face of insensitive non-Latinos.

Wake up, Che. Bruno IS a hetero Jew. And if you took your children to see this movie, you have no one but yourself to blame. If they are too young to figure out the satire, they’ll just be bored…

I am not sure there is supposed to be some underlying commentary, reflection or message about society.  Its about getting laughs and it succeeded for me.  He simply creates situations that are uncomfortable and confusing for people and lets us watch the reactions, if they don’t react, he ups the discomfort until they do.  If they still don’t react, they get cut from the movie.  Its really just an edgier version of candid camera. Ali-G made people uncomfortable with his extreme ignorance, juvenile mentality, stupidity, and unflinching self-confidence.  Borat made people uncomfortable by exhibiting strange behavior in situations where people felt they had to keep being polite to avoid cultural insult.  Bruno provokes discomfort with extremely narcissistic behavior, and sexual antics which represent an extreme version of common gay stereotypes.  He confronts people to evoke reactions which are funny to watch.

Digital Dave,

You’re telling me that Ron Paul’s remarks were scripted, that the crowds screams and taunts in the ultimate fight arena were scripted, that the martial arts instructor’s lines were scripted as were the preacher’s lines?

No, I hardly think so. I won’t say there’s not a helluva lot of editing going on here but then again, it’s not a documentary. As with Borat, there’s a plot, they have a general idea of where they want to go with a scene, and they’ve arranged the “interviews” and briefed those they’re going to question - to get their foot in the door. Then it’s everyone for themselves.

Whether it advances our society’s view on homosexuality, hypocrisy or religion is another matter. In my view, homophobic viewers will remain unchanged (“Yep, them fags are just like that Bruno guy”) and others will find it outrageous, funny, stupid or a waste of money.

I think the Ron Paul segment was supposed to show how homophobic the politician was. But the impression I got was that of a homosexual man who tricked Ron Paul into a bedroom and then proceeded to aggressively show him his cod piece. Sacha Cohen showed himself as a sexual predator, not Mr. Paul as homophobe. I would call this outrageous conduct.

There are very few prominent entertainers who I absolutely loathe.  Sacha Baron Cohen is one of them.

The gays and gay lifestyle depicted by Bruno and his cohorts were outrageous, over-the-top, and often funny - but no more representative of gays and the gay lifestyle than the clueless “conversion” preacher or the ultimate “100% Straight” fighting fans are of heteros.

But my “take away message” from Bruno was this:

Bruno and Lutz (his not-so-secret admirer) aren’t real people; they’re ficticious characters. They’re actors reading lines and doing outrageous, scripted things designed to elicit a reaction.

But the preacher, the ultimate fight fans, the “anti-gay/terrorist” martial arts instructor, Ron Paul, the talk show audience - all are REAL people. They weren’t reading lines and their reponses weren’t scripted. Therein is the difference.