Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...GLAAD: `Bruno’ reinforces negative gay stereotypes
07.13.2009 10:33am EDT
(Los Angeles) The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said that “Bruno,” the new film starring Sacha Baron Cohen, reinforces negative stereotypes and “decreases the public’s comfort with gay people.”
GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios, who saw the film Friday, said that “the movie was a well-intentioned series of sketches – some hit the mark and some hit the gay community pretty hard and reinforce some damaging, hurtful stereotypes.”In a style similar to his popular Borat character, Baron Cohen brings Bruno, a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashionista, into ridiculous situations with unsuspecting everyday people.
Universal Pictures, which released “Bruno,” sought GLAAD’s input on the film and invited staff members to advance screenings, Barrios said.
The organization “shared a number of concerns, and unfortunately, the scenes that we had the biggest concerns about remained in the film,” Barrios said.
One such scene shows Bruno in a hot tub with his adopted infant son and two naked men involved in a sex act.
“Scenes like that don’t help America understand the hundreds of thousands of gay families who get up every day, do the carpool then rush home to make dinner and be with their children,” Barrios said.
Similarly, the movie’s mock marriage scene “doesn’t help Americans understand the lives of gay couples who are denied the rights and protections of marriage in 43 states,” he said.
Universal Pictures maintains that “Bruno” is a satire that “uses provocative comedy to powerfully shed light on the absurdity of many kinds of intolerance and ignorance, including homophobia.”
“While any work that dares to address relevant cultural sensitivities might be misinterpreted by some or offend others, we believe the overwhelming majority of the audience will understand and appreciate the film’s inarguably positive intentions, which we’ve seen demonstrated whenever we have shown it,” the studio said in a statement.
Barrios said that while he believes the filmmakers had good intentions and that some moviegoers will see the satire, “some people in the gay community will be as troubled as GLAAD is that the movie doesn’t decrease homophobia, but decreases the public’s comfort with gay people.”
There’s an excellent and thought provoking review in this week’s Entertainment Weekly. Owen Gleiberman gives the movie an A- (Gleiberman has had a pretty good eye for well-done movies with gay themes, especially in terms of excellence in film making). The review ends like this: “Those looking for purity in satire should stay away. Yet there’s a vision at work in Bruno–the movie is a toxic dart aimed at the spangly new heart of American hypocrisy: our face-tolerant, fake-charitable, fake-liberated-yes-still-madly-closeted fame culture. Bruno ends on a note of scandalously funny out-and-proud triumph, and that’s because Sacha Baron Cohen never makes a plea for tolerance. He tosses a grenade for tolerance.”
It occurs to me that, if straight people’s acceptance of us is contingent on us all looking like David from “Six Feet Under” and yet excludes anyone remotely resembling Bruno, then I don’t think I want that kind of acceptance.
It also occurs to me that, if something is clever–even if it’s flawed–should we have to “dumb it down,” just because ignorant and bigoted people might misinterpret it and not get it? (I was so sad when the removed the “little f*gg*t with the earring and the make-up/Yeah, buddy…that’s his own hair” lines from Dire Strait’s “Money for Nothing.” It was making fun of a homophobic narrator and *not* gay people! It’s like the unfortunately “limited” people who choose to play “Every Breath You Take” at their wedding. Oy!)
I feel for GLAAD, because using tactics like this worked very, very well in the nineties. When there is a dearth of positive portrayals of gay people in the media, then pointing out a stereotypical portrayal had more power in terms of educating. Now that there is a wide range of LGBT portrayals (it could be better, but, if you count cable TV, it’s pretty darn good), this kind of tactic comes off as nit picking political correctness at its worst: do we really want to restrict art only to those depictions of us that further our political cause?! I hope not. The point was to broaden our portrayals, not to switch from only negative stereotypical portrayals to only positive stereotypical portrayals.
It occurred to me that you could have three or four theater goers in a row watching this movie, laughing, and squirming at what they are seeing. And they could all be laughing and squirming at different things. As for me, vapid fashionistas in our community drive me up a wall…but maybe my own squirming will force me to deal with some remaining remnants of internalized homophobia I haven’t yet dealt with.
This movie clearly messes with people. That might be part of its genius. You can’t think creatively until you’ve “messed up” what’s already in there. *Blam*!
I thought the movie was hilarious. I also thought that most people who watched it will not go away more aware of homophobia like I had hoped they would. More scenes showing the kind of homophobia most of us go through would have been a big help.
Haven’t seen the movie. The ads look funny as hell. If you don’t take a stereotype head-on, then you let it define you even if it looks nothing like you. Think of the stuff the Wayans brothers did on “Living Color.” When you let people show some intelligence, it’s amazing how often they’ll take the opportunity and run with it. When you feed bigotry, of course it gets bigger. So be subversive and make people laugh.
The African-Americal leadership criticized the movie BARBERSHOP when it came out for the same reasons as BRUNO is being criticized…but just as most blacks enjoyed the movie for what it was…a comedy, the gay “spokespeople” should just lighten up and enjoy the movie for what it is…a comedy…just like BARBERSHOP was.
I think for myself and usually giggle whenever a community organisation weighs in regarding a film. It’s a throwback to being Catholic and having the Church produce a list of “good” and “bad” films. I will say that the list was a good guide to the cinema of the time (the sixties and seventies) just as long as you failed to see the “good” films.
GLADD strikes me as a fairly irrelevant organisation, one that helps relatively few in our community find jobs, housing, social support. Maybe I’m wrong but their condemnation struck me as contrived and trivial. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve encountered discrimination and insults for being gay — but GLADD and others did nothing to help. What exactly is their mission?
This site had a Bruno ad a couple of days ago.
My partner and I won’t be wasting our Gay dollars!
Barrios said that while he believes the filmmakers had good intentions and that some moviegoers will see the satire, “some people in the gay community will be as troubled as GLAAD is that the movie doesn’t decrease homophobia, but decreases the public’s comfort with gay people.”
======
Haven’t seen it yet. Plan to next weekend. That last paragraph struck me as odd. How can you admit it is satire and then complain because some won’t get the joke?
GlAAD’s time could be better spent
I have to completely agree with this assessment.
This is the second in a round of terrible movies by Mr. Cohen. I am gay and i completely agree with GLAAD. This movie is cruel on many levels. I think the success of Baron Cohen’s movie says something terrible about those who enjoy watching it. Mr. Cohen plays on people’s desire to socialize, their trust in others, as well as on popular sterotypes, and turns it against them. In a world of such violence where groups are constantly seeing everyone outside their group as the “dangerous other”, Mr. Cohen adds to the problem. Mr. Cohen is cruel and the sad joke is really on us. And as for the comment that those who didn’t like the film have thin skin, i suggest you ask those gay people who have been beaten by homophobes, or have been rejected by family and friends, as to how funny they find it.
It’s funny that GLAAD would do a serious review of this movie and proclaim that it furthers stereotypes. Does the word “Duh!” mean anything to you? It’s a ridiculous satire and meant to be. I saw it with my boyfriend and my best girlfriend and her boyfriend. We all laughed, cringed and were uncomfortable in the right spots. And then we left. That’s it. It’s not supposed to be anything but a stupid comedy. Deal with it! And I agree with the previous posts who understand that the real losers in the movie are the homophobic straight people who seem to permeate so much of America.