Et Tu, Brüno?

Have you ever been at a polite dinner party and heard, in an exquisitely timed moment of silence, a loud, rasping fart erupt from one of the guests? The ensuing moment is ripe--with feeling. Oh my god, did everyone just hear that? How embarrassing!--for the offender, certainly, and, weirdly, for everyone else as well. Faces flush, molting through a welter of expressions: shock, disgust, feigned ignorance, a suppressed smirk. Finally, hopefully, someone breaks the discomfort with a cackle, and the anxiety is swept away with a hearty shared laugh.

Watching Brüno, the British comic Sacha Baron Cohen's latest mockumentary, is a lot like experiencing that après-fart moment, except it lasts for an excruciating ninety minutes in which the viewer is kept constantly teetering between incredulity, mortification and laughter. It is unpleasant, almost physically painful to watch and also, at times, irresistibly funny. Brüno is a gas!

It is also a whole lot of ass, nipple and cock, especially cocks, which in Brüno come in a variety of forms: flesh and prosthetic, soft and hard, mechanical and human. That's because Brüno is, among other things, Cohen's send-up of gay male culture. Like his other alter-egos, Ali G and Borat, Brüno is an exaggeration of an already exaggerated stereotype, in this case, of a gay Austrian fame whore who, having lost his job as a fashion correspondent for the TV program "Funkyzeit," embarks on an odyssey to become "the biggest Austrian superstar since Hitler."

Cohen plays Brüno with absolute conviction, as someone utterly genuine about his superficiality, which is to say that Brüno is completely unconvincing as an actual human being, except, of course, to the parade of celebrities, politicians, preachers, agents and just folks Cohen punks along the way. Hence one level of transferred embarrassment cum laughter; you just can't believe so many people were so wholly duped by so obvious a fabrication--and on camera too!

And so Brüno minces, gyrates, strips, sashays and shantè, shantè, shantès through Hollywood, Israel-Palestine, Africa, Wichita, an Alabama military base, ex-gay therapy, a swingers' sex party and a Sherman Oaks salon named Pink Cheeks that specializes in a beautifying treatment known as "anal bleaching." Needless to say, this is not a movie for those with delicate sensibilities.

It is also not for the turgidly politically correct. Since Cohen announced his intent to follow 2006's Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan with a queer flick, the guardians of gay identity have been wringing their hands over whether the film will satirize and expose homophobia or merely Make Fun Glorious Nation of Gaymenistan. At least they had advance warning. After Borat hit theaters, the startled Kazakh government responded with full-page newspaper ads and television commercials countering Cohen's portrayal of their homeland as a rural, anti-Semitic backwater whose toothless citizens drink fermented horse urine and have sex with their sisters. Of course, this humorless rejoinder only proved that if ever a country deserved mockery, it's Kazakhstan.

Alas, in 2009, it appears that gays are the new Kazakhs. After viewing a rough cut, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation asked Cohen to film an postscript stressing the importance of gay rights and tolerance, and the Human Rights Campaign implored Universal Pictures to "remind the viewing public right there in the theater that this is intended to expose homophobia." Thankfully, no such tedium was added to the film (although a scene featuring Latoya Jackson was cut from the US version in light of her brother's death).

Undeniably Cohen scores some easy, bawdy laughs at the expense of gay male sex, which Brüno has frequently, acrobatically and with the help of many accessories and aides. One of those is a black baby boy christened OJ, whom Brüno adopts in Africa. Just before OJ is carted away by child protective services, Brüno, an incurable "cockaholic," readily concedes that part of OJ's appeal is that he's a real "dick magnet." All of this (and more!) is revealed on an episode of the Richard Bey Show attended mostly by discerning black women, who arrive ready to cheer on a single gay man and his adopted son only to turn against Bruno, who thinks Africa is a country and claims to have purchased OJ with an IPod.

Among the objects of ridicule in this scene are African vogue, black nationalism, white ignorance, benevolence, Angelina Jolie and Madonna, family values, consumerism, the talk show genre and the compulsion to take self-incriminating digital photos. Given the sheer anarchy Cohen unleashes upon the world, it seems small-minded to complain that this scene trivializes "gay families" or that Brüno engages in "gayface minstrelsy." Cohen is wielding a nuclear bomb, not a sniper rifle. And besides, his gay minstrel act, while it lubricates and connects the film's set pieces, is frankly the least offensive, and thus least interesting, aspect of the movie.

If Brüno is not especially homophobic, does it succeed in satirizing homophobia? Not particularly. Here Brüno falters because Cohen abandons the comic formula that worked to such devastating effect in Borat. As the cultural critic Lauren Berlant pointed out to me, Sacha Baron Cohen borrows heavily from the legendary performance artist, Bugs Bunny, the tricky rabbit who used gender-bending drag not only to escape Elmer Fudd's murderous designs, but to entrap the poor man in the pursuit of his own most ardent desires--to shoot a critter or kiss a pretty lady. Nowhere is this debt more evident than in Borat, in which Cohen, cartoonishly costumed as a rabidly anti-Semitic, nonchalantly misogynist worshipper "of the Hawk," sadistically and methodically elicits the ugly sympathies of our modern day Fudds, who clap merrily along as Borat sings the Kazakh folk song "Throw the Jew Down the Well" or enthusiastically agree on how awesome it would be to keep women as slaves. As in so many Bugs Bunny sketches, once armed, the Fudds shoot themselves.

In Brüno, Cohen replicates this method in too few scenes, the most delicious of which is a series of interviews with stage parents who share Brüno's yearning for fame and thus, with minimal goading, consent to have their three-year-old daughters operate heavy machinery, handle hazardous materials and lose 10 pounds by liposuction if it will help her land the gig. As a slice-and-dice of America's quest for fifteen minutes of fame, Brüno scores.

For the most part, however, Cohen chooses in Brüno to present an antagonistic rather than sympathetic face. The premise, I suppose, is to confront the straight world with a figure so flamboyant and so oversexed that the breeders can't help but freak out. The problem is that Cohen's victims just won't play along. Whether it is Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, whom Brüno decides to cast as the lead in a sex tape, or Ayman Abu Aita, the head of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, whom Brüno insults by calling his "King Osama" a "dirty wizard" and a "homeless Santa Claus"--Cohen just can't get a rise out of his male co-stars, who usually respond by ending the interview.

When Brüno goes on a hunting trip with a trio of Alabama rednecks and attempts to crawl naked into their tents because "a bear ate all my clothes and all I have is this box of condoms," the reply is altogether appropriate and disappointingly mild--"get the fuck out of my tent!" The only scene that approaches real violence is the film's climax, in which a stadium of wrestling fans hurl invectives, spit, beer and metal chairs at Brüno and his lover--but only because Cohen has previously stoked their rage, not as gay Brüno, but as "Straight Dave." The resulting chaos is animated, one suspects, not so much by homophobia, but by a sense of betrayal.

What does this all prove? Perhaps the ultimate discovery of Brüno is that the world is a tolerant, commodious, even benevolent place for strange fruits. Or perhaps the camera actually functions as a civilizing instrument, one that puts straight white men on their best behavior, unlike the infantilizing effect it apparently has on the cougars of Real Housewives. Or perhaps Cohen really intended to make a film about the banality of tolerance, satirizing not homophobia or homosexuals, but the squirm-inducing ways in which people strive to accept others against their baser instincts and, in some cases, their better judgment.

Alas, that film remains unrealized. According to industry reporters, the original ending of Brüno depicted the protagonist and his lover--now brain damaged and wheelchair bound as a result of the wrestling match riot--at a press conference where Brüno predictably milks the media's sympathy. That conclusion was spiked, it seems, in response to protests from gay Hollywood powerbrokers--Cohen's rare concession to the rules that be. Perhaps this aborted ending would have been seriously unfunny, but one can imagine in it a more devastating epilogue than the benign celebrity sing-along that now concludes the film--one that indicts our culture's penchant for turning victims into superstars. Perhaps, too, that ending would have lifted Brüno to a place even Borat dared not go--a critique of the mainstream.

Comments (30)

1. Cohen's problem is a rapid decline into M. Night status.

   "The bit" is going to wear thin and he's going to go from "Sixth Sense" -"Borat" to "Signs"-"Bruno" to something tepid to something just bad pretty soon.

   I'd say different, but as noted, from Ali Gi to Borat to Bruno...it's kind of a "one trick pony" career.

   BTW, "Borat" was hilarious. The faces on the rodeo people when he cheered them on with "And hope that George W. Bush drinks the blood over every man, woman, and child"....to cheers...then boos when he starts singing the "Kazakhstan national anthem" is great.

   Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 2:44pm

2. Cohen probably wont have staying power. Since as mask suggests he not terribly diverse. However, I think Bruno could be funny and I just might rent it when it shows up in the dollar rental machine at Safeway.

   Posted by Extraneous at 07/10/2009 @ 3:08pm

3. Holy crap.....is this guy and movie worth this much verbage? Longer than any TN article on that Freak of Pop?

   Haven't seen any of the movies mentioned.....but saw The Proposal and Public Enemy last week...hehehehe!

   Posted by Happy at 07/10/2009 @ 3:54pm

4. Cohen is a cultural satirist and it's what he does best. Sure, we needed Borat back then more than we need Bruno now, but I do love his characters. He has to go down as one of the best actors in recent times; he believes so hard that his characters become real!

   That being said, I'm still going to see it and I have to do it soon because this town is very homophobic; it won't even be here a week. Especially since the theater is across the street from a church!

   Posted by 1legatatime at 07/10/2009 @ 5:01pm

5. Richard, I was enjoying your review of "Bruno" until I came to the phrase "Israel-Palestine" in your fifth paragraph. This term must be some new way to deny the existence of a sovereign Jewish state. We can have 22 unhyphenated Arab countries in the region but we cannot have just Israel. Israel. The Jewish State of Israel. Iran has a small Jewish community. Can we call it "Iran-Israel"? Robert Ceisler

   Posted by ceisler at 07/10/2009 @ 6:09pm

6. Sick perverted unholywood production doomed to fail as the majority of their works of evil and satan inspired themes!

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 6:16pm

7. @ceisler: strange place to have this discussion, but if you really want to know: the phrase 'Israel-Palestina' refers to a territory on which two states are ment to be established (I'm not judging right here, merely stating the fact); I don't see that happening on the territory of Iran, do you? And as far as I know, there's now such thing as the 'Jewish State of Israel' - I don't think any state that calls itself democratic should define itself by the religion of (even most of) its inhabitants (about 20% of its population is not Jewish): so yes indeed, the Vatican, not Iran are real democraties to me.

   Posted by ruumn at 07/10/2009 @ 6:49pm

8. I think Cohen is one of the greatest comedy exports we've given you for a long time. I accept the point that the 'shock humour' genre may wear a little thin after time; but his ability to reinvent himself, say from Borat to Bruno, helps prevent this happening.

   My only concern is that it may in time go too far. To use TN's analogy, there's a difference between laughing at someone's flatulence and screaming with laughter whilst pointing squarely in their face.

   I hope Cohen continues to draw the line as well as he does because whilst there are commenters like 'BigPasture'; we need him.

   Posted by marc20 at 07/10/2009 @ 6:55pm

9. Sick perverted unholywood production doomed to fail as the majority of their works of evil and satan inspired themes!

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 6:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   BigPosture: Don't hold back--tell us how you really feel.

   Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/10/2009 @ 6:56pm

10. As a gay man, I'm just not buying this line that we shouldn't be upset by this movie, this it is a statement against homophobia. I'm not buying it. Cohen is simply making a buck off of making a joke out of a gay stereotype, nothing more. Mr. Kim, I'm curious to know your thinking on a possible Cohen film poking fun at people of Asian ancestry. Not so funny now, right?

    Posted by MattInPS at 07/10/2009 @ 7:49pm

11. Rumnn: It's the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. You've decided that (the Jewish State of) Israel is a place "ment" (sic) to have two states. The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't want there to be two states. They want just one, to be accomplished by wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Anyway, I object to referring to Israel as anything other than its proper name.

    P.S. I'd like to see Bruno! Borat was a hoot. :-)

    Posted by ceisler at 07/10/2009 @ 9:47pm

12. Cohen's problem is a rapid decline into M. Night status.

    "The bit" is going to wear thin and he's going to go from "Sixth Sense" -"Borat" to "Signs"-"Bruno" to something tepid to something just bad pretty soon.

    I'd say different, but as noted, from Ali Gi to Borat to Bruno...it's kind of a "one trick pony" career.

    BTW, "Borat" was hilarious. The faces on the rodeo people when he cheered them on with "And hope that George W. Bush drinks the blood over every man, woman, and child"....to cheers...then boos when he starts singing the "Kazakhstan national anthem" is great.

    Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 2:44pm

    Gotta agree with you on this one and very good comparison to M. Night. You can only do this bit for so long before you either run out of material, so you reach farther and farther into the unfunny, or you simply become stale. I think M. Night is branching out now because he realizes he isn't going to make another sixth sense. Last I heard he is working on a movie that's based on a kids show. Hopefully he doesn't screw that one up too.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2009 @ 9:48pm

13. michael knight?

    how come kitt never gets any credit?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 12:15am

14. ceisler- Perhaps Kim used the phrase "Israel-Palestine" because they were filming on Palestinian territory occupied by Israel (i.e.- Jerusalem)?

    Though I would argue the whole territory formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine is Palestinian territory occupied by a bunch of primarily European settlers dubbing themselves "Israelis". But that's for a different article.

    Posted by sean_from_ohio at 07/11/2009 @ 01:25am

15. Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 6:16pm

    So how did "Borat" make $270 Million, RIO?

    Or do you have some definition of "failure" we don't know?

    Posted by Mask at 07/11/2009 @ 06:59am

16. Mr. Kim, I'm curious to know your thinking on a possible Cohen film poking fun at people of Asian ancestry. Not so funny now, right?

    Posted by MattInPS at 07/10/2009 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Matt,

    Do me a favor. Find Kazakhstan on a map.

    Posted by magh at 07/11/2009 @ 10:24am

17. ceisler: A country that purports to be a democracy and yet denies civil rights to people because they are not Jewish is by definition a theocracy (apartheid and democracy are also mutually exclusive). None of the other Islamic countries fits into that category.

    Wouldn't it be a hoot if Cohen's next film would "satirize' the Palestinian genocide e.g. the movie should show the T-shirts that the Israeli soldiers wear encouraging everybody to kill pregnant Gazan women or Palestinian infants. That would be hilarious!! No doubt the Israeli defence force thinks so, and its enabling government and Jewish citizenry. Not even the Nazis did that.Cohen should have a field day. See pics on news.sky.com

    Posted by mystic at 07/11/2009 @ 11:29am

18. Racism is racism, you can't make it cute. Why does Cohen get a pass? Can you imagine what would happen if a Kazakh came to this country pretending to be a stupid, sexist, racist Israeli?

    Posted by lnh at 07/11/2009 @ 12:15pm

19. Sick perverted unholywood production doomed to fail as the majority of their works of evil and satan inspired themes! Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 6:16pm |

    Failing all the way to the bank.

    Borat Budget $18M -------------------------------- US Gross, $128M Worldwide Gross, $261M US DVD Sales: $62M -------------------------------- Profit: $305M

    Granted it didn't do $600M worldwide like The Passion of the Christ, but Sascha will probably pay his co-writers, unlike Mel "Fucking Jews" Gibson.

    I'll concede that the fashion industry could be inspired by Satan, but that's exactly why we need a send-up of that (un)culture at which to laugh.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/11/2009 @ 1:16pm

20. As long as Cohen attacks everyone, he can't be accused of discrimination. While I may occasionally cringe, I will probably watch his video. His satire is too good to miss. Everyone takes themselves too seriously!

    Posted by pjcasey at 07/11/2009 @ 1:44pm

21. mr/ms. mystic: The Israeli Declaration of Independence guarantees full rights to all Israeli citizens, including the 20 percent who are not Jewish. It isn't easy being a minority, I am one in the 90 percent Christian United States, but Muslim Israelis participate fully in the life of the country. The overwhelming majority of ALL Israeli citizen live in peace and relative harmony.

    Posted by ceisler at 07/11/2009 @ 7:23pm

22. magh ... got me there buddy! good call!

    Posted by MattInPS at 07/11/2009 @ 8:00pm

23. <i>Posted by ceisler at 07/11/2009 @ 7:23pm</i>

    Except...the Constitution and laws don't entirely follow through with that. Just as one example, the only domestic marriages that Israel honors are those performed by Orthodox Jewish institutions. Though the degree of problems can be a subject for debate, to contend that there aren't any inequality issues simply ignores reality.

    <i>Posted by mystic at 07/11/2009 @ 11:29am</i>

    Tell me, when you say "The Israeli soldiers"...do you mean Israeli soldiers as a whole? Or just a select group?

    Also...the Israeli government is either the least impressive fighting force in all of history and they can't succeed in genocide even though they're trying really hard...or there's no actual genocide going on. Bad things? Sure. Genocide? No.

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2009 @ 9:38pm

24. Also...the Israeli government is either the least impressive fighting force in all of history and they can't succeed in genocide even though they're trying really hard...or there's no actual genocide going on. Bad things? Sure. Genocide? No.

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/11/2009 @ 9:38pm

    more like "getthef#$kouttaherecide.

    most unfortunate.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/11/2009 @ 10:54pm

25. @MattInPS:

    My assumption is that Mr. Kim is gay. Otherwise, it would be considered extremely offensive for him to throw out such terms as "wringing their hands" and "strange fruit."

    As it is, I find this review slightly problematic anyway. It's written in such a way as to make clear that if one dares to be slightly offended by or even cautious of Mr. Cohen's film, then one join the ranks of the uptight and humorlessly politically correct. I prefer my film criticism to be a bit less arch than all that.

    Posted by baklita at 07/12/2009 @ 01:06am

26. "Cohen is simply making a buck off of making a joke out of a gay stereotype, nothing more."

    nothing more? really?

    you think he's not also trying to make a buck off the stereotypical, brainless redneck?

    or the elite, parisian fashionistas?

    or the united states military?

    ............

    Posted by darladoon at 07/12/2009 @ 10:52am

27. He is one of the few comedians out there making intelligent, actually funny movies. My hunch is that he is smart enough to come up with a new concept if this one is getting old. Then again, Bruno is #1 at the box office, so this concept isn't dead yet.

    Posted by pizzmoe at 07/12/2009 @ 5:38pm

28. I'm a little surprised no comparison was made to that film about the male models: Z... something. That was a good flick, i thought although I expected I would hate it. It had heart, so to speak. Does Bruno have any heart?

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/12/2009 @ 11:45pm

29. genocides may proceed slowly and Israel's lethal blockade, white phosphorous terrorism (made in America), lethal road blocks, destruction of cropland, ad nauseum, constitute slow genocide -

    Cohen's film does not confront homophobia - it only exposes a perfectly reasonable disgust against a living caricature or anti-social neurotic example of homosexuality. This caricature resembles "gay pride" parades which appear as nothing more than an opportunity to exemplify every neurotic erotic impulse that alleged homosexuals can conjure into an empirically constituted phenomena and so to verify the most vile homophobic presumptions.

    For those genuinely homosexual who are, thus, seeking love and affection from their own gender an insipid obsession with body parts, unwilling partners, coercive sex, exhibitionism, etc. has no correspondence to the realization of their hopes for intimacy with a willing partner and so has no relevance as an expression of their sexuality so any reaction to an individual focused on the latter obsessions cannot expose any genuine homophobia.

    Kim has it correct when he recognizes that the film's failure resides in its lack effort to "sympathetically" elicit any authentic admission of homophobia or any other racial or cultural bias from its participants unlike the FBI's painstakingly deft tactic of a supportive ear to actualize unwitting and self incriminating confessions but rather takes the light-minded approach of obvious caustic confrontation. Predictably, no self revelation of any irrational homophobic bias in the participants comes forth , so education and healing of homophobia cannot ensue.

    Posted by nonukes at 07/14/2009 @ 04:02am

30. Cohen's comedy employs an irreverence that NOONE is free from being targeted by. If you haven't been able to notice this in his work, your hide is too thin or your attention span filters through something political. If you think altering a film like 'Bruno' to change the minds of inherently homophobic folks would actually work, you're naive. The best reference would be some of the most brilliant, black comedians in the 70s onward who took racial stereotypes in their bits and accelerated them to something so ridiculous it not only foiled their targets of satire but completely upturned the convictions of those who would get suckered into laughing at what is already an easy target.

    Posted by lonthaniel at 07/16/2009 @ 5:31pm