Comments on: GLAAD: `Bruno’ reinforces negative gay stereotypes

By: litguy

litguy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:45:41 +0000

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.

By: Jeffrey Fried

Jeffrey Fried — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:19:28 +0000

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.

By: rebecca justesen

rebecca justesen — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:16:57 +0000

I have to completely agree with this assessment.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:27:59 +0000

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

By: John

John — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:15:00 +0000

This site had a Bruno ad a couple of days ago.

My partner and I won’t be wasting our Gay dollars!

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:43:53 +0000

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?

By: J. C

J. C — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:23:05 +0000

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.

By: drewski

drewski — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:27:25 +0000

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.

By: mark snyder

mark snyder — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:54:22 +0000

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.

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:45:09 +0000

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*!