Gay-Friendly Bruno Reshoots Rumored

bruno_behind

According to a new report at The Wrap, Sacha Baron Cohen’s Bruno was reshot to appease the “Hollywood gay community.” Frankly, if this is true, I’m a little disappointed in the filmmakers for bowing to this pressure. Furthermore, I think it reflects very badly on this community if they are incensed by the movie. There’s absolutely no way that Bruno isn’t, wasn’t, and hasn’t always been a very passionately pro-homosexuality, anti-homophobia piece. The article mentions a few particular individuals that were apparently offended, from Year of the Dog’s Mike White to the actors Jack Plotnick and Peter Paige. It also includes a video, embedded after the break, in which numerous industry folk let their feelings be known.

But this is actually quite a cut-and-dried scenario, if you ask me. If Bruno was not such an utterly transparent and simplified stereotype the satire wouldn’t work, the statement wouldn’t be made and the film would become more exploitative, not less. It was essential for Sacha Baron Cohen to create such a definitively outrageous stereotype with the character, much as he did with Borat and Ali G. The less plausible the stereotyping is, the more scathing the film.

I’m hoping that Cohen and Co. stuck to their guns and didn’t bow to this unfounded or unreasoned pressure at all (and this isn’t impossible - the reporting at The Wrap is gaining a reputation for innaccuracy). Bruno looks like an incredible megaton-bomb of a film, a rare movie that can actually do some damage on the cultural battlefields.

What we have to remember is that Borat and Bruno are to a large extent documentaries, if hugely innovative ones, that represent real social reactions to extreme stimuli. The more extreme the stimuli, the better the experiment’s results. You might think of them as cinematic equivalents of psychology tests, such as the famous Milgram Experiments which exposed, quite conclusively, man’s ability to be inhuman in the face of pressure from authority. If Milgram curbed his test’s concept at a mild slap or two instead of definitely fatal electrical charges his findings would carry considerably less import.

Here’s the video, which canvasses the opinions of industry folk at a recent event in Hollywood. Do note how the the interviewer leads their answers and even finishes sentences for them at times. Impartial reporting this is not.

Should you be one of those who seems to find homophobia funny and when you watch Bruno you are laughing at the gay stereotype, not at the provocations, reactions and satirical implications of Cohen’s actions, then you still aren’t Sacha Baron Cohen’s responisiblity and his inability to reach i nto your head and fix it shouldn’t be drawing criticism on his film. His not making the film would not have snuffed you out or left you free to learn the error of your ways in isolation. I honestly believe that this film is a weapon against homophobia and while it is going to be misunderstood by many, and that might feel uncomfortable for some, I’m afraid that discomfort is relatively insignificant. There’s a battle going on, against bigotry and hatred and small mindedness, and Bruno is a big gun (though only one, I admit) in that war. We can’t abort the mission just because some lunkheads are too armoured by their thick skulls to take the bullet.

  • Since everyone who thinks homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, and not healthy to promote without restraint, assuredly does so out of nothing but pure, raw, and total ignorance and sheer terror.

    What's honestly most revealing about the Hollywood attitude towards homosexuality is the constant message that anyone who doesn't view it exactly like they do is somehow backwards, ignorant, bigoted, or incredibly stupid.

    It would be equally ridiculous to pretend like part of Bruno's humor doesn't also identify with the fact that we all have at least some inkling of an instinct that homosexuality is clearly an alternative and often results in or is connected to absurd lifestyles.

    What's so silly about this is you act like you are reviewing "To Kill a Mockingbird." I think you are missing the trees for the forest.
  • Joy
    "What's honestly most revealing about the Hollywood attitude towards homosexuality is the constant message that anyone who doesn't view it exactly like they do is somehow backwards, ignorant, bigoted, or incredibly stupid."

    What I glean from this passage: Hollywood's attitude towards homosexuality is that anyone who believes homosexuality is unacceptable (homophobia) is wrong.

    This seems like a fact to me, and I see nothing wrong with Hollywood taking this stance. Indeed, I would argue that it's the media's responsibility to increase tolerance in society. Of course, there are those who argue that opponents of homophobia espouse tolerance, but you're being intolerant by saying my homophobia's wrong! However, homophobia is not a culturally relative principle. Rather, it's an absolutely wrong belief, much like racism and sexism are absolutely wrong.
  • bah
    Though I agree with you in terms of how you interpreted his comment (i.e. that he seems to be saying that it's wrong for Hollywood to say anyone who has a negative view of homosexuality is ignorant and wrong), I do have to say that there's something to the concept of Hollywood believing that their view on things is the only correct one.

    The industry and its members do often seem to hold a specific concept of the gay community, how gay individuals should act, and especially, that their way of promoting tolerance and gay rights is the only correct way. There are myriad philosophies within the gay community and among liberals in general. While you shouldn't appease intolerance, you must not also disregard and denigrate those who share your goals, but have a different approach.

    I don't particularly find SBC and his characters entertaining, but if he's chosen to create a film that, in its own way, promotes acceptance and is anti-homophobia, then I hope he would pursue his vision rather than bow to pressure from any group. (Though I would posit a significant doubt that anyone who is actually anti-gay would ever watch Bruno, thus rendering moot any concept of it being a progressive force)
  • wha?
    huh?
  • Sergio Leone
    So, did Mike White's creepy stalking gay character in Chuck and Buck help move the community forward?
  • A great point that I wish I had made myself.
  • Jeff
    A great point? One film here has a studio marketing budget and is aimed at young males, and another is an art flick seen almost exclusively in urban film circles. (And in any case, we don't know if Buck in "Chuck and Buck" is gay or not -- the movie never really says. We could debate that, obviously, but that's for a different time.)

    Look, to the larger issue here, I think you miss the real problem here. Obviously, Cohen shouldn't have to do reshoots, but I think there could very well be a legitimate claim against this movie. When it comes out, imagine that you're a gay man in the audience, and come back here and report how that feels. As long as movies like "The Hangover" still have characters yelling "Dr. Faggot" in the first 10 minutes and get a rolling laugh, I think it's fair to ask what the mainstream audience really gets from these stereotypes.
  • vva
    Um.. I think it's making fun of everyone, honestly. It's all just a little ridiculous, you know? Cohen is definitely making fun of homophobia but is also making of the flamboyancy of it all. The key to comedy is to make fun of everyone. So, while the bigots and anti-homosexual people are mocked.. the flamboyant over the top lifestyle of CERTAIN homosexuality is pocked fun of as well. What the Simpsons always got right in the beginning (and where Family Guy is going really wrong) is it made fun of Christianity... but also buddhism, hinduism, atheism ect..
  • SachaLuv
    I think BC hits the nail on the head. Heterosexuality is an 'alternative' lifestyle, too, if you want to get down to brass tacks. It just depends on your point of view. I don't live in Hollywood, but I, too, believe that bigotry and fear of homosexuality, along with the discrimination and marginalization as a result of it, have no place in society.

    By the way, Bruno and Borat ARE this generation's To Kill a Mockingbird. Time will tell...just as it did with that film.
  • ifthenwhy
    "There’s absolutely no way that Bruno isn’t, wasn’t, and hasn’t always been a very passionately pro-homosexuality, anti-homophobia piece"

    Really?

    Doesn't Bruno use homophobia (the same way that Borat used racism) as a device to expose people who would otherwise be very guarded, which of course allows for some serious comedic scenarios?

    To frame this film as "pro-homosexuality" seems diengenious to me.
  • In a weird way it isn't pro-homosexuality as much as anti-anti-homosexuality.
  • I guess I was, to a large extent at least, phrasing anti-anti as pro. And I actually believe that to be valid.
  • well, someone was bound to protest this movie....
  • Jbiza
    @Joy

    There's a huge difference between condemning homosexuality as a way of life and being homophobic. Don't be so dense as to assume that one equals the other.
  • Joy
    Is there? Homophobia is a prejudice against homosexuality. Condemning homosexuality as a way of life is predicated on prejudice against homosexuality. Thus, homophobia is inherent in a condemnation of homosexuality as a way of life.
  • Chris
    Homophobia is not a prejudice, it is a fear. Phobia means fear of. So you can't call homophobia a prejudice when that is grammatically incorrect. When someone is a homophobe they are scared of homosexuals not prejudice toward them. Granted it may come off that way, but it is not what that word mean.

    Condemning homosexuality as a way of life is not prejudice either. It is an opinion of thinking that alternative lifestyle is unhealthy. A prejudice of homosexuals would be something like, "many homosexuals are also pedophiles", or "Homosexuals are the biggest cause of aids, and I don't want them near my children." That is different.

    Your reasoning is wrong. There are huge differences between condemning homosexuality, prejudice against homosexuality, and homophobia. Although all three of those view points are misguided, they still are vastly different.
  • I could give two hoots if you are scared, but I do care if you condemn.

    Condemning homosexuality is the problem. You can be scared of it all you want, as long as you don't act on that fear.
  • Burton
    Phobia - An irrational, excessive, and persistent fear of some particular thing or situation. Webster's New World Dictionary
    Prejudice - suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, creeds, regions, occupations, etc. Webster's New World Dictionary
    Synonymous - equivelant or similiar in meaning. Webster's New World Dictionary.
    Do you get it?
  • Joy
    homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals . Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

    We're getting bogged down in semantics. Would anyone legitimately argue that there isn't a connection between homophobia, prejudice against homosexuality, and condemnation of homosexuality?

    Also, "Condemning homosexuality as a way of life is not prejudice either. It is an opinion of thinking that alternative lifestyle is unhealthy." As there is no legitimate basis for this belief, it is a prejudice. What if you said, "Interracial marriage is an unhealthy alternative lifestyle"? That is clearly prejudice. Condemnation of homosexuality is no different.
  • So true. The public has to see the film before making a decision whether it hurts the gay community or helps the gay community. It is too soon to pass judgment on a film that has not been released.
  • This is ridiculous! Did they back down to make Borat more 'conservative friendly?' Not at all. Let him make his damn movie.
  • Guest
    "Doesn't Bruno use homophobia (the same way that Borat used racism) as a device to expose people who would otherwise be very guarded, which of course allows for some serious comedic scenarios?

    To frame this film as 'pro-homosexuality' seems diengenious to me. "

    So are you saying that the movie "Borat" was pro-racism?
  • I think the article in The Wrap is misleading in that it indicates that these adjustments were not part of Cohen's intended process for the film. He was making a movie with a gay focus. He was going to bring in advocacy groups and smart, funny gay men to get their opinion. Please note the gays quoted here: Jack Plotnik has done some very outrageous humor, and voiced the gay superhero on Drawn Together. Marc Shaiman wrote the score for the South Park movie. These are gay people who have no trouble making fun of gay people in politically incorrect fashion.

    The character of Jack of Will and Grace was offensive to many people, but was never depicted as leaving shit stains on the wall and dead gerbils around after sex, nor was he shown having sex in front of his adopted child. Those are the things that people are objecting to, and I bet they will still be in the movie. I'm also guessing that they will be re-edited so that they are funnier and less dark than in the version shown this spring.

    Imagine what it would be like to be gay and be sitting in a movie audience when a trailer for this film comes on. Some idiot kid yells "Faggot!" and many people cheer and applaud. It's hard not to feel like a victim in that scenario, and many, many gay people are going to find themselves in it this summer.

    I think most gay people find Bruno funny, actually, but the movie is going to make us just as uncomfortable as it makes homophobes. We are targets of its satire, and we are very angry about political events right now. I think the movie is already serving as a valve for straights who are weary of seeing and hearing about gay issues. It's going to spark a lot of conflict and conversation that are going to hurt gay people's feelings. Ultimately those conversations are going to be good for gay people because they will illuminate stupidity, but that doesn't make them any less painful or frightening.
  • Queerface
    As a gay man, I don't really think that the film was intended as being pro-homosexuality, nor was it intended to make fun of homosexuals in a sort of "queerface" manner as they said. Whether its with bruno or borat, SBC is simply just using outrageous characters to get funny reactions out of people. We are supposed to laugh at the fact that people actually take these over the top personalities seriously, and at the absolutely stupid things he gets them to say. Your average person who watches the movie is not going to think about it on a deeper level, they are just going to laugh at sascha's antics and the ways people react to it. Only people who already are in a pro-homosexual mindset are going to even recognize that aspect, and you have to understand how many gay people can be wary of the character, as in the past the stereotypical portrayal of homosexuals has definitely not helped the problem....often times many straight people see gay people as characters rather then real people, because they don't actually know any real gay people.
  • The way interviewer led the questioning reminded me of a lot of the Bruno "Fashion Polizei" segment from "Da Ali G Show."

    [youtube sLi7liCC_zs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLi7liCC_zs youtube]

    He also spoke to about five people at what was obviously a pretty well-attended event. That could have easily been the minority opinion.

    Even if it's an actor playing a gay man, how many blockbusters have there been starring an homosexual lead-character. I'm gonna go ahead and say zero. I honestly think the exposure will help squander homophobia.
  • Go ahead and say zero but you would be wrong. Just off the top of my head, I can name In and Out, The Birdcage, and Brokeback Mountain. Also, Milk may not have been a blockbuster, but it wasn't tiny either. Maybe none of these movies had people fighting giant robots aliens or supervillains, but they were still Hollywood movies with pretty sizable box office.
  • There is some thought that Lawrence from Lawrence of Arabia is gay as well. I'll have to dig out my Ebert's Great Films to get the reasoning for you though.
  • Gennaro Gattuso
    Brendon, you're a straight white guy - why are you trying to tell gay people how they should react to this film?

    Do you really feel that the use of a gay stereotype is the right way to go about breaking down prejudices?
  • Who said I'm straight? How did you jump to that conclusion?

    And yes, I feel that the deconstruction of a gay stereotype is indeed the best way to... well, deconstruct gay stereotypes. At least one of them, anyway.
  • You better not be now, if you're gonna play that card. ;-) But good point!
  • Buddy
    and what does the fact that he is white have anything to do with it?
  • Cohen is a comedic genius, but also a genius at exposing cultural hypocrisy. His comedy is skillfully manipulative. Which is why a lot of rednecks don't get that Borat is making them look ridiculous. And so I have tremendous faith in Cohen to pull off Bruno as a smart if divisive cultural commentary (and make me laugh my ass off in the process). However, when extremely smart, talented funny dudes like Mike White have a problem with aspects of the film...hm...it does make me wonder if Cohen missed the mark in a couple of places. That's to be expected, though. Comedy ain't funny if it ain't treading on dangerous territory. Certainly Kazakhstan took offence with Borat. The difference is people aren't really running around America killing Kasakhs the way they're killing gay people, which does raise the bar for social responsibility in the case of Bruno. (Cf., recent reports about huge increase in murder and violence against gays in the past 12 months.)
  • Ali G is the best Cohen, who needs Borat or Bruno? Ok a good comedian but there no good character.
  • Erick
    If there is any pressure from the gay community about this movie, it smells of selective outrage. Did the people who are uncomfortable now about Bruno come out then (no pun intended) to say that Borat exploited stereotypes about foreigners and immigrants from the ex-Soviet Bloc? I don't think anyone working for the news outlets felt the need to track down Anton Yelchin or Vera Farmiga to ask them if Cohen was putting on "Russian-face" to get his points across, but I know everyday people of Eastern European and Russian descent who were pissed about how Cohen portrayed Borat
  • scott
    "If there is any pressure from the gay community about this movie, it smells of selective outrage. Did the people who are uncomfortable now about Bruno come out then (no pun intended) to say that Borat exploited stereotypes about foreigners and immigrants from the ex-Soviet Bloc?"

    Do the religious nuts who protest every movie that doesn't show their faith as perfect have to protest too? Of course it's "selective outrage", practically all outrage is selective and based on your beliefs.
  • My question is, who are Jack Plotnick, Peter Paige, and Jennifer Elise Cox and why should anyone, let alone Cohen, be concerned with what they have to say?

    They are waaaaaaaaaay too low on the celebrity totem pole to even be listened to.
  • Why So Serial?
    I hope they didn't reshoot. That would be pretty gay.
  • Burton
    The point of Bruno is to illustrate how emotional we are over something that is silly. The fashion industry takes it's self much too seriously so it's an easy target. The fear that homosexuality is going to undermine and destroy our society is ridiculous and pointless. Cohen's work is similiar to holding up a mirror for us to take a good long look. Regardless of your race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, if you don't like what you see it says more about you than it says about Bruno. Myself, I can't wait to be offended and to laugh until it hurts.
  • Xenix
    What? Everything he does it offensive to someone/group, why change it?
  • Lawdog
    If people aren't pissed off and suing SBC, then he hasn't made a SBC movie. It isn't like he just made up Bruno for this movie. He was a regular character on Da Ali G Show. So was Borat. SBC's MO is to make fun of both sides at the same time. He plays up the stereotypes in front of an ignorant audience looking for their own stereotypical response. My question is what does he do for his 4th movie? He only had 3 characters.
  • Isn't Bruno more making fun of other people's biases then praying on stereotypes. And the character of Bruno isn't that more over the top then the character Jack McFarland on that awful NBC show "Will & Grace"(which was embraced by the gay community). If Sacha Baron Cohen was actually a gay man playing an overly the top stereotypical gay person would this even be an issue, how would that make it any more or less offensive. Also if Angelina Jolie can put on tanning makeup and get nominated for a Golden Globe and Robert Downy Jr can put on black face and get nominated for an Academy Award how is "Bruno" over the line.
  • MisterE
    Saw the movie last night at a preview. It's hilarious. I'm also gay, and not offended. It does a great job of showing just how ridiculous homophobia is. The cage fight had me almost rolling around on the floor.
  • Speaking as a gay person, I'm excited to see this film.

    I don't know how anyone can see the trailer for "Bruno" and think that it's just made to be funny and THAT'S ALL. It very clearly has a political slant that I think is undeniably anti-homophobic. It's exactly the same kind of thing that "Borat" brought us. Scenarios in which bigotted fools have their backwards ways exposed by being confronted with extreme cases.

    I disagree with changing the movie after the fact to appease a few uber-sensitive gays who can't take a joke from anyone that isn't themselves. And the interview clips might as well have featured the interviewer handing those people scripts to read off of. Seriously, why even bother asking the question if you're essentially going to instruct them how to answer?
  • Will
    The obvious parallel here is all the anti-semitic humor in Borat. I don't think it inspired people to hate Jews more, and I didn't hear any Jewish people complain (though maybe I wasn't listening very hard). In fact, all the Jewish people I know that saw the movie loved it.
  • Mitch
    "Oh it's hilarious when he makes fun of others and blows up others stereotypes, but its so offensive when it involves something related to me."

    sounds fair...
  • Ezra
    "There’s a battle going on, against bigotry and hatred and small mindedness, and Bruno is a big gun (though only one, I admit) in that war."

    Except not. If Cohen were really concerned with homophobia and oppression against gays, he'd film in Saudi Arabia, not California.
  • Scott
    So, let me get this straight: you're appalled that a studio WOULD remove stereotypical gay themes because some are offended, while simultaneously being appalled that a studio would NOT remove stereotypical black themes because some are offended?

    You can give a whole movie a free pass using the "satire" argument, but not an individual scene in another?
  • N
    Not to say "Bruno" is as important, but was "Black Like Me" racist? It featured a man in blackface & helped expose the ugliness of racism to a wide audience that may not have had other in-roads to that.
blog comments powered by Disqus