I am not Bruno

That's just awful Fritz.

The depiction this asshole Cohen is sustaining and cashing in on is no different than the racist depictions of Blacks from the 1930's/40/s etc.

Somehow, culturally, this is one hateful stereotype which is still 'acceptable' in 2009.

This porn film (let's call it what it really is, it is certainly NOT a comedy) will act to reinforce every negative argument against DADT (the scene which has been used by the press to show previews shows Cohan trying to 'accessorize' an Army uniform) and is nothing more than a Gay Minstral show.

Why is this movie not being picketted?

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 06:16:14 AM CDT

There's the phrase I couldn't come up with

Thank you for the phrase "Gay Minstrel Show", which neatly encapsulates what has been bugging me in what little I'd heard about this movie so far (I'd been kinda trying to avoid it), ...

... and about the way orientation ambiguity is used by some television personalities to make themselves seem edgy and daring -- where the excuse is, "look how much progress  we've made, that I can joke about possibly being gay," but the resulting message tastes more like, "look how brave and daring I am to imply such an insulting thing for a laugh at my own expense," and, as I perceive it, just reinforces the "gay is bad, 'gay' is insulting" meme that so many people have been doing so much work to erode for so long.

(Interestingly, I don't get the same vibe when Craig Ferguson does this as when Conan O'Brian does.  Perhaps because Ferguson does it with a shrug and a wink (almost "why should I give a crap whether ayone thinks I'm het or not") while O'Brian does it with an uncomfortable, almost ashamed look (as if to say the joke is from being "caught" in something that nobody would want to admit to)?  Or am I cutting Ferguson too much slack?)

But to get back on topic:  yes, "Gay Minstrel Show" sums up this overplaying of stereotypes the 'phobes want to be able to continue to believe about gay men, to reassure them that it's still okay to mock instead of having to recognize their neighbours' full humanity.  Thanks for the phrase.

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:14:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just my opinion

..but I do think people cut Ferguson too much slack. Maybe because he's "European", a euphemism he constantly uses for his gay jokes. Sometimes they don't bother me, but on certain nights, upwards of 70% of his improvised monologue is jokes relating to being gay, T, effeminate etc. At which point he just seems incredibly lazy to me and I have to turn him off.
As a post below notes, it's not that we can't take a joke, but when we are the only joke, and it's the same simple joke over and over again, you have to wonder where these people are coming from and why. In Ferguson's case, to me it is laziness. Nights when he's tired or has no other material, time to trot out 10 gay jokes in a row. Yawn.
I don't make the same association with Cohen. I know he has a doctorate or something in civil rights, so I'm sure he's patting himself on the back as he walks to the bank to cash his check. Not that having a higher intent excuses how he does what he does, but it's a different animal to me. I did see Cohen as Bruno on Conan, and actually enjoyed it, because as you note Conan is more uncomfortable with the idea, and Cohen did really make that obvious; the joke became at Conan's expense.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:37:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's THE test....

This is directed at all those defending Bruno.

Raise your hand if you would contribute to a fund to arrange to have it shown to a joint session of Congress immediately before they voted on repealing DOMA, DADT, and whether to pass ENDA and the hate crimes bill.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:46:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll tell you AFTER I see it.

That's the point.  If one hasn't seen it, how can one have an opinion on the movie as a WHOLE.  It might be that AFTER seeing it I might not like it.  But, as the letter quoted at the top of this thread states, MANY in the Gay community will not be offended by it.

Just because I am gay, does not mean I have to be offended at everything other gay people are offended by.  And sometimes I'm really surprised at what people are offended by.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:01:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was talking about ...

...those gays who HAVE seen it and still defend it.

Thank you.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:05:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you are welcome.

I couldn't tell what you intended, since this is what you said:

This is directed at all those defending Bruno.

It would have helped if you had mentioned it.  :)

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:08:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

slight problem

If you see it and don't like it, can you get your money back? No.

What good is paying to see a movie and then saying you don't like it --- the movie makers don't care, they got your cash too.  The dollar signs make it all worthwhile to them.  

The only language they speak is money.  If it costs them an audience, they care, if they get money from supporters and opponents alike, they don't care, it's all green to them.

I don't need to burn my hand to know if I wouldn't like the experience, I also don't need to see an hour of this crap to know it's offensive and trite. That's why reviewers exist in the first place, that's why GLAAD screens these things for us.

Last month we were all about "closing the gAyTM" to those that don't support us.  Why is the wallet back open for Cohen?

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:26:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Bottom Line

What good is paying to see a movie and then saying you don't like it --- the movie makers don't care, they got your cash too.

Ah, but they do care if you don't like it, because it means you won't buy the DVD or BluRay when it's released. What the producer makes at the box office is just a small slice of the total potential revenue of the film. The really big bucks come from the disc rentals and purchases.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:50:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Watch the previews

I mean, the bit about the gay-by?

That was enough to make me not want to watch this.

Maybe I'm getting humor-impaired.  

Willow: It's horrible! That's me as a vampire? I'm so evil and... skanky. And I think I'm kinda gay.
Buffy: Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was.
Angel: Well, actually... That's a good point.

---

by: joeray @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:22:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh?

I'm not defending Cohen, but what exactly is that a test of? If the only media made in this world fit those criteria, this would be a horrible and boring world to live in. I wouldn't ask them to watch gay porn either. Or even Brokeback Mountain. Bruno is entertainment media, people and particularly politicians have ample opportunity not to watch it. I would hope they would base their decisions on information from real actual humans.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:02:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're missing the point...again

...it is NOT a question of whether the film should be allowed to be made. DUH.

It is soley about connecting THIS film to consequences.

Its Hipper Than Thou defenders are incapable of seeing the consequences in terms of random movie goers who are ALSO voters and/or parents of gay kids or classmates of gay kids or neighbors of gays ad infinitum.

So, for simple minds, I created a simple hypothetical where they have the opportunity to defend their insistence that THIS FILM is "harmless" even in front of people about to vote on our lives.

If you STILL don't get it, might I suggest you rent the DVD of The Celluloid Closet.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:13:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

disagreeing does not mean someone missed your point.

It means they do not agree with you and are stating their own opinion.  Just because someone does not agree with the logic that you have used, and sees an issue differently than you, does not mean that they have missed you point.  In fact, I would say that when one responds directly to your points in their rebuttal (at least the ones you actually wrote in the post) it's a pretty clear sign that they got your point, but that they just do not agree with you.

And really, your going to start calling people "simple" and insulting them because they disagree with your viewpoint?  I'm surprised that after our "lack of civility week" that you would attack someone and call them simple minded because they disagree with you.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:19:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL

Seeing as that was my first response to you, I fail to see how I missed your point twice. So much for civility week.
I've seen the Celluloid Closet and hundreds of other gay films, and yes, I still don't see your point. I don't agree that Bruno is a simple gay stereotype. I feel the topic is more complicated than that. I do agree that some people who see the film may see him that way. I don't agree that a fictional film, at this point in history, should or will have any bearing on the way our government treats us fairly as real humans.
Thank you for the childish insults.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:25:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and this is why we don't have our rights in 2009

because some people get a pass for being alleged artists.

What happened to "no more mister nice gay"?

What happened to "closing the gAyTM" to anyone who isn't an explicit supporter??

Why is Obama's lack of movement on DADT/DOMA/The Kitchen Sink a bad thing, but Cohen's minstrel show is "more complicated than that."

It's funny, the same excuses we didn't accept last month from Obama's administration, are the first excuses we're ready to dish out on behalf of Cohen.

And yes, I know, one person is an entertainer and the other is the president.  One we elected, the other we didn't.  But they both have equal power in getting our goals achieved.  I don't see how Cohen's stereotyping isn't as bad, if not worse, than Obama's foot dragging.  If anything, Cohen's movie probably has more direct impact on our community than Obama does right now --- and that's not a good thing.

Finally why do we give entertainers the benefit of the doubt, but not our elected officials, beauty queens, rappers, and the like?

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:47:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't

..give all entertainers the benefit of the doubt, far from it. In fact I just explained as much in the third post in this thread. I don't remember ever stating a personal opinion about the other things you mention either. I choose to wait and see this film for myself to form an opinion, because based on my previous opinion of Cohen, I don't believe he is anti-gay.  I'm not afraid of watching it and I'm not about to form a knee-jerk reaction to it based on the wildly differing opinions I've seen here. I won't be seeing it in the theatre, I'll be seeing it on Netflix in 6 months or whenever, making my contribution to his wallet minimal.
Sorry, but blaming me personally for the reason we don't have our rights, because I don't conform to your hysteria on this issue is beyond ridiculous.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:27:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You asserted far more than that, Jack...

You went far beyond your potential opinion of THIS film to, "I don't agree that A fictional film, at this point in history, should or will have any bearing on the way our government treats us fairly as real humans."

What difference does it make that it's "fictional"?...All the films discussed in The Celluloid Closet, which you claim to have digested, as having played a major role in creating homophobia were fictional.

What difference does it make if Cohen isn't "antigay"? It doesn't mean he's incapable of creating something whose unintended consequence is reinforcing homophobia.

For those interested, there's a real life example of the power of manipulated images in film, even one supposedly not "fictional," that played a major role in passing antigay legislation.

When the Antigay Industry woke up to the fact that President-elect Bill Clinton was serious about wanting to open the military to out gays, they went into fagbaiting, hatemongering overdrive.

One of the principle players, as he had been for years on the state and local levels, such as Colorado where he helped pass Amendment 2 banning gay rights laws in the state [eventually overturned by the Supreme Court] was Bill Horn. He made the "documentary," The Gay Agenda, featuring sure-to-outrage Middle America scenes of nudity and simulated sex from San Francisco's Gay Pride parade, along with the rabidly homophobic lies of "researcher" Paul Cameron, "testimony" from "ex-gays," and scenes of children crying because they were supposedly watching film of "leering homosexuals."

According to Nathaniel Frank's recent book about the evolution of DADT, Unfriendly Fire, during the 1992-93 debate about gays in the military, Horn distributed 55,000 copies of the video. Many ended up in the VCRs of members of Congress, and one in that of Commandant of the Marines Carly Mundy, Jr., who showed it to other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and made copies for many others at the Pentagon. Brigadier General Richard Abel, head of Campus Crusade for Christ's military ministry distributed copies to others on active duty and to vets, and he and Mundy invested a great deal of time and energy...and hatred...into helping create the inferno that incinerated any chances Clinton had of successfully vetoing DADT.

The Gay Agenda was not the only factor, but it played a major role in public support for gays in the military going from 59% in August of 1992 to 35% by the end of January 1993.

It's comforting to believe that the rest of the world sees us generally or Bruno specifically through OUR eyes. The truth is something entirely different.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:04:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know

..you'd like to believe me stupid and ill-informed, but the fact is you aren't telling me anything I don't know. You are however putting words in my mouth. Obviously media plays a huge role in public opinion. What I said was no fictional film should or will play a role in how we are currently treated by this government.  The Gay Agenda was not made or sold as an intended piece of fiction, it is political propaganda. The two are not even comparable.
If you bother to read anyone else's opinion in this thread you'll see that Bruno is not coming down good or evil unanimously. Read LW's account below. Think the result would be the same with The Gay Agenda? The split in opinion alone is enough to make me curious to see this someday. You don't agree? Good for you. Don't watch it. I've seen The Gay Agenda. Does the fact that I watched it mean I support all the views in it?
I think you are being hysterical.

The fact is Sally Kern would find Bruno just as offensive as you do. Christians are already protesting it. Homophobic posters on AICN are vowing never to watch it. While other straights who've seen it say it made them think. Are you the only one who's right?

Frankly the more gay male opinions I continue to read about Bruno all over the net, the more I'm starting to think that a large number of gays are uncomfortable with this film just because Bruno is effeminate and they don't want to be seen that way. That doesn't make Bruno a minstrel show. It does however make me want to see it (on DVD someday) and decide for myself.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:42:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

another cinematic comparison, FWIW

Perhaps one example of fictional film as political propaganda, or at least lending itself to propagandizing, would be Birth of a Nation, by D. W. Griffith.

Not the same period, subject or impact, of course -- which is why it's worth comparing.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:39:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

another problem

"...based on my previous opinion of Cohen, I don't believe he is anti-gay."

And yet, we said the same thing about Obama.  And look how mad we are at him.  At a certain point, intentions mean nothing.  We've been going on and on about our rights for months, DADT, DOMA, ENDA, and now, now, the same people critical of the president are giving Baron Cohen a pass.  I don't get it.  Where's the anger?  Where's the righteous indignation?  Where's the calls for action, and to stop accepting lame excuses?

PS:
I wasn't speaking to you directly, nor blaming you directly. I was using your post as an example.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:10:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

.. for clarifying that.
I'm as mad at Obama as you are, believe me. But based on the full spectrum of opinions I've read about Bruno I'm not prepared to get equally upset over him.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:46:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WHICH "government"?

Merely REPEATING "no fictional film ... will play a role in how we are currently treated by this government" doesn't make it true. And which "government"?

....the Executive Branch which has betrayed 99% of its smile fuck promises to LGBT voters?

....the Legislative Branch which, while controlled by Democrats, has failed so far to send a single gay rights bill to the President?

....the Judicial Branch which, time after time, agrees with homophobes that gays have no right to marriage or to serve in the military?

We're still second class citizens 40 years after Stonewall and six months after election of the Messiah for the Gays. Ya think there's no correlation between the two?

The similarities between the CONTENT of The Gay Agenda and Bruno are huge...they both cherry pick "facts" about gays and package them in a format bound to gross out the average nongay American who thinks every "gay" they see represents all gays, and I'm talking about the sex scenes not the "effeminacy."

Cohen's "intent" is irrelevant. I bet he "supports" gay rights just like Obama

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 18:17:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also don't know anything about this movie

Other than what has been covered via media, who collectively seem to be simply FASCINATED by everything this man does, for some reason that escapes me.

All I can think is that people eat up the SBC crap over the years because he's "entertaining" people and feeding into the stereotypical ideas of bigotry and racism they would like to be open about but keep closeted instead.

 

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:33:10 AM CDT

The film was almost even worse than it already is.

The original planned ending was to show Bruno's wedding, then zoom in on the other groom who was in a wheelchair, drooling, obviously brain damaged from a homophobic attack earlier. Audiences were apparently supposed to laugh at this.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:37:41 AM CDT

sucks Fritz

I know that feeling of overhearing people talking freely and negatively about your sexual identity. For me, it brings back a panic that I walked around with for much of my early life. It is "teh suck." Straight guys in groups suck. Period.

Also, am I taking crazy pills or is this the same GLAAD that was slathering the ass of Adam Sandler for the homophobic stereotype-filled I Now pronounce you Chuck and Larry (my diary on that is here)?

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 08:53:11 AM CDT

Sorry to hear this Fritz

I saw the movie yesterday.  It really is sick.  The reason I went was because of the outcry from the Christian religious right.  They are not worried about our welfare however, but the influence it will have on the young in their flock, making them gay.  They want the government to intervene.

http://www.movieguide.org/arti...

Baron Cohen exhibits a similar disconnect and misunderstanding about attitudes toward gay men as the government, since most polls show that Washington lags behind popular opinion when it comes to tolerance.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:08:49 AM CDT

On Facebook

I got chewed out the other day on Facebook by a gay man and a straight woman for chastising Bruno and this Sacha Baron Cohen cat.

They basically said I needed to "lighten up" and "learn to laugh at myself" and "not take things so seriously."

The pair said they couldn't wait to fork over $10 Friday night and see Bruno mincing and prancing around for 90 minutes.

Apparently, movies laced with antigay images is the new mall crawl in suburban America. I suppose next up will be a film featuring gays as child molesters and child rapists because it's oh, so funny!

People ask, "How have you guys managed to stay so long?" I tell them, "Don't sweat the small stuff." It's mostly small stuff.

---

by: christopher di spirito @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:09:46 AM CDT

stereotypes can ruin a film

This film sounds awful from start to finish. I've also had the experience of trans stereotyping ruining a movie I was otherwise enjoying. One that comes to mind is the rather amusing "A Mighty Wind" mockumentary, where they went for a cheap laugh in the last few minutes by having a "male" character appear in female garb, apparently transitioning...  

---

by: CathyG @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:14:19 AM CDT

My Question is:

What the f#*k is GLAAD going to do about it other than send off yet another of their strongly(not even) worded letters?

The time it takes this "protest" to go from the producer's hand to the circular file can only be measured in nano-seconds. Add a little more time for the derisive chuckle if you like.

And I'm sure SBC is shaking in his designer boots because GLAAD let him know in no uncertain terms they are "frustrated."

Good lord. Next time you write a check to these people remember this is what you are paying for.

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:32:18 AM CDT

SBC

is laughing all the way to the bank.

And there lies the best way to deal with him- not a penny to him, any movie theater that plays his filth, any company that supports him in any way.

A complete boycott of all things even 7 degrees related to Sasha Baron Cohen.  

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:22:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seven degrees is too far

I know you meant that as hyperbole, but it's worth noting that even two degrees probably casts too wide a net to be useful.  (For perspective, by having been an extra in a movie, just by tracing links in IMDB I am at most three degrees of separation from Cohen.  Not the same thing as you meant, as I've no financial entanglements other than a long-ago check from Central Casting, but it illustrates how small the world really is.)

Looking at financial cooperation and artistic collaberation, two degrees might work; one degree is probably more effective just because it keeps the linkages (and the guilt-by-association) clear and obvious to the folks you want to convince to join the boycott; three probably spreads so far that many people will see a complete boycott as making their own lives too difficult.

I suggest one degree.  If done effectively, that alone ought to enough to make Cohen poison.  And if a one degree boycott can't be organized and sustained, then a larger one wouldn't be either.  (But I do suggest counting a theatre that shows his movie as one degree, not three, because it's a direct involvement with propogating it, despite having a distributor and a studio between the theatre and Cohen financially.)

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:33:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, it was hyperbole.

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:38:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Boycott, really?

Just a question, did YOU see the movie?  If so, what aspect of it makes you call for a boycott?  If not, how can you call for a boycott of something you have not even seen yourself, based on just the word of others?

I'm with d'glenn on this one.  The christians are always calling for boycotts, and always calling for boycotts of something THEY had never seen.  I could understand this point of view if YOU had seen it, but if not, how can you make a judgment on something you have not seen yourself?

I see far too many reviews on films that are so far off base that I do not trust others to "preview" what is acceptable for me or others to see.  The clips that have been on tv have seemed funny, and you really got to hand it to someone who can interview a member of the Taliban and tell him his leader, Osama Bin Laden, looks like a dirty Santa, and then lives to tell about it.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:54:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good gravy

I PERSONALLY am boycotting this movie and anything SBC does in the future.

And last I knew, not even my dog would listen to me, so I seriously doubt that MY writing that is going to make people do anything other than whatever the heck they are going to do anyways.

Okay?  

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:23:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What would you suggest?

While I agree with you, when I think of boycotts and protests of media, I think of "The Last Temptation of Christ" or Satanic Verses.  The protests only made the name recognition and desire to see the works more.

---

by: TrumpetDC @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:25:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's have some straight talk about Sacha Baron Cohen

It should not have taken Bruno for people to realize exactly what Cohen is about. He has always chosen "the other" as a safe target for his so-called satire.

Ali G targets hip-hop and urban black culture ("not us"); Borat was swarthy and crude and primitive - identified as a "Kazakh" for no reason other than few people had any idea what a Kazakh was. What Borat really stood for was the Middle Eastern/Asian/Muslim "other" ("not us"). And now we have Bruno, flamboyantly gay and Austrian - who's going to defend an Austrian?

It doesn't stop there. Cohen also makes fools of his credulous marks - and chooses another "other" for that role - redneck, unsophisticated Americans. American audiences laugh because they think the fools are rednecks ("not us"); the rest of the world laughs because they delight to think that all Americans are like that .

Cohen is not brave, he is not transgressive, he is not cool. He picks on the "other". He is a bully and a bigot. His creations are modern-day minstrel shows. His shows are "Jackass" filled with hateful stereotypes.

I will change my mind if Cohen creates a new character with exaggerated mannerisms, let's call him "Hymie the Hasidic Jew", and takes HIM on tour to Brooklyn and North London. If not, why not?  

---

by: figfest @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 09:46:37 AM CDT

He's too much

of a self-serving coward to even consider it, imo.

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:19:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's what

I thought exactly Louise.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:29:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cohen clearly doesn't understand

the difference between satire and schoolboy nastiness.  And obviously,neither do a lot of critics or a sizable section of the public.  

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:06:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ambush, hit-and-run

Borat actually reminded me of O'Reilly's ambush interviews. Maybe not a dead-on resemblance, but it did make me squirm once I connected it.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:46:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be fair ...

After Brokeback Mountain came out, I was surrounded by joke after joke incorporating brokeback into some sort of sexual connotation.  I even had the fun experience of a senior manager at my organization send me a photoshopped poster of two Hollywood female stars posing for Brokeback Mountain II:  The Fur Traders.  It took me awhile to explain that derogatory comment to our HR Director when I filed my complaint. So even a tragic examination of homophobia provides fertile ground for even more homophobia.  

Personally, I found the movie funny.  It has been a tough week here in PA -- I was called a dyke while walking downtown, my partner was called a dyke twice, and we sat in a County Council hearing in which our non-discrim bill passed with a bare majority and a large religious loophole. I'm exausted. Being able to unpack all of that in the movie theater last night was great.  

I do see what you are saying.  My theater was filled with heterosexual folks, a lot of whom went out repeating lines from the film (and missing Snoop Dogg's line).  I guess I just didn't see Bruno as a gay character.  I agreed with Slate that he was more of a social experiment.  I don't think Bruno creates more homophobia so much as exposes it a bit more precisely.  

---

by: PghLesbian @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:23:12 AM CDT

See? Even a "gay positive" movie is fodder for these creeps.

The main thing to do is be sure to call them on it. The fact that they scurried away shows just what cowardly sleazebags they are.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:33:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're blinded by your "Special Gay Decoder Glasses"

The last successful movie to THEORETICALLY try to have it both ways was I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry...but from what I've seen and read of Bruno, it appears to make Chuck & Larry look like Milk.

Your problem, PghLesbian, is that you fail to realize that you were wearing what Joan Garry called "Special Gay Decoder Glasses" in her review of Chuck & Larry.

GARRY: "...Chuck and Larry is different [from the way Adam Sandler treated gays in Big Daddy]. There is something about it that feels duplicitous and I left the theatre mad. Sandler has done something ingenuous. The pimply teenage boys love gay jokes. Sandler knew he would get great mileage from playing a flagrantly heterosexual homophobe surrounded by men dressed as butterflies and young sissies in tap shoes.There's a second movie hiding in [Chuck & Larry] but you can only see it if you wear your special gay decoder glasses.

There is the hilarious movie in which Adam Sandler plays a total sexist pig who agrees to pretend to be gay to help out his friend who needs pension benefits. That film uses words like "butt pirate" to great comic effect.

Then there is the film you can see only with the special glasses. In this one, the premise is the same but the sexist pig is changed by the experience. He reaches a greater understanding of issues facing the gay community as well as a greater understanding of what it really means to be in a relationship. In this version of the film, there are sweet and preachy moments and you must ignore the use of words like "butt pirate."

In one scene, Chuck and Larry leave an AIDS benefit to find protesters waiting outside. Chuck gets called a faggot and slugs one of them. In the first movie, the one reaching the folks who drove the $34.8 million, you see Chuck's motive clearly -- that being called a faggot gives you license to slug. In the gay-friendly version, the audience sees Sandler sticking up for his "peeps."

The pimply teens will only remember the, slow-motion, aborted kiss. They will remember that it was hilarious. With my decoder glasses, I can appreciate that they were willing to go that far (and in public no less!). The boys will remember the big African American firefighter dancing and singing "I'm Every Woman" in the locker room shower. In my version, I pick up on that accepting look on Chuck's face while the rest of the men look on in horror and get the 'change of heart' message.

Having defended Sandler once before, my gut tells me that Chuck's "change of heart" was always an integral part of the plot line but that message did not hit its intended target. And I hope that Sandler will use the platform he has to communicate that message more directly to the kids bringing him so much success.

There's a courtroom scene at the end of the film. The judge rules in Chuck and Larry's favor and the courtroom crowd bursts into applause with lots of cheering. There were about eight pimply teens two rows behind us. They began to cheer, too. I turned to see the looks on their faces but [my 12-yr. old daughter] Kit didn't have to. She leaned over and said, "They are not really cheering cheering." I knew what she meant. The technical term for what they were doing rhymes with cheering. It's called jeering.

Nope, the boys were not cheering. And neither was I." END QUOTE.

When I first moved to San Francisco several years ago, via a couple of detours, but essentially from the Midwest, I was shocked to see how clueless natives were about how most people outside of San Francisco "see" gays differently, and how quickly most emigres, who came from the same kind of homohating parts of the country I had, had braindrained how potently toxic those attitudes are.

Trust me, the majority of people, pimply teens or graying baby boomers, making SBC rich, are NOT seeing their homophobic selves in Bruno. They are NOT laughing WITH "sophisticated" gays who watch it through their "Special Gay Decoder Glasses" ...they are laughing AT us one moment and having their concept of us as sex-crazed pervs reinforced the next.

A boycott doesn't stand a chance, but I hope Cleve Jones et al. will IMPACT a few theatres with protests that can generate some MSM attention to those who see the harm in the film for those tens of millions who don't own the special glasses.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:52:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow!

That's an interesting way of putting it. I've always thought the differences in perception were an issue of intelligence; that a more intelligent audience notices the subtext and interprets the film's deeper meanings, it's messages, while the simpler-minded audience members only see the film on it's surface.

You've added another angle that never occurred to me. My being gay no doubt plays a role in how I see films--I knew that--but I never even tried to imagine how a non-gay person might view a film like "Chuck and Larry". I keep wanting to believe that no Special Gay Decoder Glasses™ are required.


Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:03:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm from the Midwest

So, I already know how many in those rural areas will view this film.

Another thing that will happen is that it will reinforce their idea that their gay nephew/cousin is different from all those other gays.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard that -- "Oh, you're not like them."

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:15:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Oh, you're not like them."

I hear that too. My response is, "Yes I am, damn it."

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 01:45:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Large Chunks of the Film

Were pretty cringe-worthy, but I still laughed at parts.  The section near the end when he gets an audience of people to chant "straight power" was excellent, as was the part where he gets Paula Abdul to talk about her love of "human rights" while sitting on the back of a day laborer.

Both did a good job at throwing some of the things which are fundamentally wrong with our society into stark relief.

With that said, I could have done without the anal waxing scene.

---

by: Poetry @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:37:56 AM CDT

I'm sorry

Fritz, your story is compelling.  Folks forget how this sort of alleged art affects real people.

I've linked this on Facebook.  

I don't understand why it's not okay for politicians, reggae bands, rappers, beauty queens, lobbyists, and religious groups to mock and attack us --- but comedians( at least white ones) get a pass.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:43:00 AM CDT

More than just the white ones.

You obviously forgot Eddie Murphy and his whole shtick that made him famous in the first place, or Richard Pryor and his act.  I watch BET comedy night and there are queer jokes on it ALL the time.  So, I guess gay jokes are not just coming from the White community.

 

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:41:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, all Germanic, blond gay men are now in danger of being called "Bruno".

In other words, this movie is going to have no actual impact on anyone.  Contrary to the howls of protest then, the world didn't end with Borat and now it's going to survive Bruno.

The anti-gay bigots already hate it because it makes them look bad.  The gays already hate it because it makes them look bad.  Sounds like Baron Cohen did his job.  If the bigots thought this was the best film of the year, then I'd be worried.

I'll grant that it can be unpleasant to come across people in the act of making fun of you.  But if I had my pick of people either laughing at me or attacking me, I know which one I'd choose.  And I'd like to think I'd be the first one laughing at myself, anyway.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:04:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"...this movie is going to have no actual impact on anyone."

Thank you for dismissing me as a nobody.

How nice of you. :-(

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:16:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure.

Right.  Because laughing at us and making jokes at our expense has NEVER devolved into laughing while beating the crap out of us.  

Also? Great effing job dismissing Fritz's experience.  I bet you're oodles of fun at parties.  

---

by: Naphtali @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 03:56:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lewiston Sun Journal (newspaper in Maine)

somehow manages to play "connect the dots" with the current marriage law debate, the 25th anniversary of Charlie Howard's death and "Bruno"...

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:48:40 AM CDT

Anal waxing? Obscenity need not have sex to be obscene.

In the immortal words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it..."

This is obscenity, masquerading as mainstream entertainment.

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 10:51:44 AM CDT

Frankly, I'm Fine With Obscenity

In the public square.  The movie was rated R and people going to see it knew exactly what they could expect based off of Cohen's previous work.  We all might criticize Cohen for the movies excesses, but it did have some very good moments of social criticism too.  It was unfortunate that they were surrounded by so much nonsense.

---

by: Poetry @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:39:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The movie was originally rated NC-17 and had to be recut for an R.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:06:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Noticed and Assumed as Much

I mean, there are some parts which are obviously cut up and some others where the little black censor-dots are placed.  Either way, the rating is almost immaterial.  The people in the audience knew what they were getting, and the ones who were offended by the nudity need to loosen up and admit that they've seen those parts before.  

---

by: Poetry @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:30:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If anal waxing is obscene, then there's a lot of obscene people out there with very smooth anuses.

"Two Girls, One Cup" can be argued to be obscenity.  Manscaping can only rise to the level of icky.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:07:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will be seeing it eventually

..on DVD with an open mind. I appreciated parts of Borat, even though it was not great filmmaking. I think Cohen's biggest problem is overestimating his audience, and expecting them to be sophisticated enough to get the joke and the ultimate point. You'd think he would realize that the same phobic people he skewers in the film will be the ones going to see it, but he's not American. I think our real frustration with him is that we know his audience better than he does.

One of the reasons I am willing to give Bruno an objective viewing is because of some comments I read over at JMG, some gay readers expressing distaste for the film precisely because Bruno was too effeminate for them. "I don't like anything fem."
If the film causes the same reaction from the kind of gays that disgust me as the kind of Christians that disgust me, there's got to be something worthwhile in it, at least for the purpose of me forming my own opinion.

I'm sorry this happened to you Fritz, though I am always amazed to meet gay men who have never been "called faggot to my face." I am not considered effeminate, but even I heard it to my face 40 or 50 times a day until I graduated from high school.
Because of my experience, I tend to agree with the Brokeback observation above when it comes to things like this: ANY popular representation of gay men in mass media is going to generate these comparisons and insults from the ignorant. Whether you are getting called Will, Ennis, Bruno or Harvey matters very little in the end with that type of person, they are going to find a way to express their discomfort regardless.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:01:07 AM CDT

And

..what do you want to bet that there are going to be plenty of a certain type of gay man referring to more effeminate ones as "Brunos" as well? They probably already are.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:07:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh, it won't be just the fem types

It'll be blondes, eastern europeans, and people who in some way shape or form resemble the character.  As Fritz's story shows, it's not going to be limited to men who behave much like Bruno, but those who resemble him in any way.

I won't be too surprised if "Bruno" replaces "faggot" as the new slur on us.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:30:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right

But my point was that every time there is a mass media depiction of gays, this happens. The content of Bruno doesn't really even matter, it will be forgotten as soon as the next blockbuster hits, even if the name sticks. After Brokeback there was a Brokeback joke on every late night talk show for 2 years. Same for Chuck and Larry, Will Truman, Elton John, George Michael etc.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know how much blame resides with Cohen. My point was, there is a bigger place to lay blame, and which name they use hardly matters.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:48:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I have to add...

(and again, I haven't seen the film yet,) I get the impression that the popularity is part of the problem here. I'm sure if John Waters' early films were playing at multiplexes there would be plenty of people up in arms about our depiction in them. And he is an acquired taste as well. I remember the way Bruno clips were passed around between gay friends before he was popular. I have to wonder if this was a tiny film marketed to the gay community, or if Cohen was gay, (or if it was an off Broadway show, etc.) skewering the same topics in the same way, if it would be much more accepted. As I mentioned before, this is playing to an entirely different audience, and one we don't trust to react appropriately. I think that is a big part of the issue. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see it, but I've seen so much gay underground stuff (some made by straights even,) that goes so much father than he does, I kind of doubt it.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:10:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem with "Can't you take a joke?"

Well, actually, I think there are a lot of problems with it, but there's one that absolutely drives me nuts.  And it can by summed up by one word in that question:  "Can't you take A joke?"  The encapsulates it.   It is A joke.  One joke.  The same damn joke, over and over, ad nauseam.  I could point you to movies made before and during World War I that portray gay men in exactly that same, mincing, sashaying, stereotypical way.  You'd think that anyone with a normal mind would get tired of it, but straight society never seems to.  And they won't, until we start screaming about it the way the black community screamed about Stepin Fechit.

I haven't seen the movie, and won't.  I don't feel like I need to.  I've seen Cohen doing his minstrel act everywhere in sight for the last two weeks, from Today to Letterman, so I know perfectly well what it's like.  If Cohen himself was half as resourceful as his publicist, then he'd really have something.

How impoverished are straight people, that they keep laughing at this same tired crap year after year, decade after decade?  How impoverished is Cohen, that he can't think of any way to "expose homophobia" other than by perpetuating tired, awful stereotypes?  Actually I do think Bruno exposes homophobia.  Cohen's.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:25:12 AM CDT

Shaming With Coolness

That's what I call it when people do the whole "Can't you take a joke" or "lighten up" remarks.  They're flimsy arguments, they're not even arguments at all.

They are an attempt to appeal to our sense of being cool, hip, popular, YOUNG.  Old, uncool, unpopular, unhip, out-of-touch people who live in caves and eat TV dinners alone have no sense of humor, can't take a joke, can't "lighten up" --- and you don't want to be like them do you???

I think the next time the Obama administration drops the ball on gay rights (voted for him, but let's face it, it's going to happen repeatedly), and people are all foaming at the mouth, I'll remember to tell people:

"Lighten up"

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:37:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Think Fritz is being a bit thin skinned here....

The very idea that this could make it to the big screen and be shown all over the world is a step forward for gays.  LGBT issues are receiving more and more attention and any light shown in the former darkness is good...

I was watching the Morning Meeting (with the insufferable Ratigan) and one guest corrected another for saying "gay lifestyle" instead of the "gay life" and received an apology from the person who used that wording...this would not have happened ten years ago.

When gays can laugh at themselves and the stereotypes about them a new level of openness can emerge...just look at the difference in attitudes towards homosexuality in the under 30 crowd compared to the over 60s...a world of difference!

Lighten up Fritz and other whiners here!

---

by: wagonjak @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:28:37 AM CDT

wow

you have no empathy.

I've often wondered why the words "lighten up" usually bug me.

It's because they're in place of any substantial argument.  It's an attempt to shame with coolness.

How anyone can read Fritz's story and not be bothered by both Bruno, and the neighbors, is just plain absurd.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:32:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Color me absurd.

It would be highly unlikely if Fritz has never talked about his neighbors.  It would be absolutely impossible for Fritz never to have talked about anybody behind their back, ever.  It's completely normal behavior.

His neighbors could have been calling him a child molestor, a pervert, a whatever -- you get the idea -- instead they called him the name of a movie character he superficially resembles.  Has anyone ever not done that ever in their lives?  My friends never stop with the movie references.

I take "lighten up" to mean that the poster using that phrase believes that Fritz is taking himself too seriously.  Whether he is or not is a matter of opinion, but there's no doubt that if he didn't give this incident the weight he has then this incident wouldn't have this much weight for him.

If he's not being attacked, if that's the worst insult he hears outside his door, if he's otherwise treated well as he comes and goes, then life's too short to worry about what the neighbors think or say when you're not around.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:22:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again

Thank you for dismissing me and my feelings as irrelevant.

It would be highly unlikely if Fritz has never talked about his neighbors.

How do you know this? You don't know me.

I was raised not to talk about people behind their backs and make rude remarks. Of course, I've done it on rare occassions. But, I don't make hateful remarks about my neighbors.

I can't recall my mother ever saying anything negative about anyone. Ever. If I did, she would scold me.

There are good people in this world who don't think being rude and mean is "completely normal behavior."

In my family and the region where I am from, the worse thing you can do is gossip about your neighbors. People will stop you in mid-sentence if you start to talk trash about someone.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:42:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how arrogant

"I take "lighten up" to mean that the poster using that phrase believes that Fritz is taking himself too seriously."

How arrogant it is of you, or any poster to presume how seriously Fritz (or anyone else) should take themselves.  Who is he?  Does he even know anything about Fritz?

So I see, not only does Fritz have no right to be annoyed, he has no right to express it, and no right to take himself seriously.

Perhaps it would be best if you(or the other poster) would explain to Fritz what rights he DOES have?

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 15:29:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how nice

civility at the Blend indeed.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:28:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But is it as big a step forward as apologists want to think?

The very idea that this could make it to the big screen and be shown all over the world is a step forward for gays.

But just like the self-deprecating late-night comedy I referred to in an earlier comment:  is it really a step forward to have folks being 'daring' enough to portray insulting stereotypes or have the "it's funny because we called him gay" punch line directed at themselves, when these things still reinforce these memes in the mainstream's consciousness and subconscious?

To personalize this (not to make it "about me", but to illustrate from personal experience rather than putting words in someone else's mouth even if I think I would be putting Fritz' own word back in his) ... I used to be pleased just to know that a transgendered character was being portrayed, because I was used to trans folk being invisible; but as I saw more and more charicatures -- and ignorant charicatures at that -- being shown, and (over and over and over again) people asking me questions that suggested they'd accepted those charicatures as being real (that is, perhaps exagerrated somewhat for comic or dramatic effect but assumed to be based on reality instead of being based in the first place on misinformed stereotypes), or worse yet just making assumptions based on those charicatures instead of even asking for a reality check, I started seeing these prejudice-reinforcing and misinformation-reinforcing portrayals as doing at least as much harm as good.  (Not to mention how conventional comic shorthand deliberately conflates homosexuality and transgenderism to save time on exposition, which winds up, again, reinforcing misguided beliefs many mainstreamers hold about gay men necessarily being effeminate and that orientation and gender identity are the same thing, which everybody here knows isn't how it works.)

"We can admit you exist," is a wee step.  "We can admit you exist, but mainly because you're a minority it's still safe to spread hurtful stereotypes about when we're too lazy to write real comedy," is a minuscule step, if it's even a step in the correct direction.

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:18:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, wagonjak let's extend your idea...

"...a big step forward for gays."???

By your reasoning, Steppin Fetchit was actually an affirming positive step towards civil rights for blacks? And the wonderful portrayals of Jews in KKK literature is actually a step forward in their quest?

It must be 1984.  Hello Mr. Orwell, your table is waiting.


Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:12:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By your reasoning, Steppin Fetchit...

Steppin Fetchit and Amos and Andy still have fans. Those stereotypes live on and are being enjoyed by hateful racists to this day -- almost 80 years later.

If that can serve as an example of what we can expect, people will be calling people like me "Bruno" for a very long time.

This type of entertainment has staying power. Once stereotypes are used in a major film and millions are spent marketing it, they can become firmly embedded in our culture.

Bruno features an actor using two stereotypes, gay and Austrian. Neither group is sympathetic to the general public -- fags and Nazis.

Check out this clip of Amos and Andy. This was a feature film produced by RKO, a major studio at the time.

Then, click on over and read some of the comments posted there. People actually seek out this kind of racist humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:38:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like my dad

One of his oldest and most repeated "joke" was one I didn't fully understand until I was an adult:

1- Knock knock!
2- Who's There?
1- Amos!
2- Amos Who?
1- A mosquito bit me!

1- Knock Knock!
2- Who's There?
1- Andy!
2- Andy Who?
1- And he bit me again!

Innocent joke to a child, but in the hands of my incredibly racist father, another thing altogether. That he had me REPEATING THIS by age 5 offends the hell out of me now- his grandchildren (our daughters) do NOT know this one.

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:43:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could you explain to me how those jokes are racist, because I don't get it.

Yes, I know who Amos and Andy were and I get that those jokes were probably inspired by the popularity of those names, but how is referencing two men's names -- even in the context of the popularity of those names being tied to racist caricatures -- render the completely innocuous jokes about a mosquito racist?  Are the mosquitoes secretly in blackface?  I joke, but, seriously, I don't get it.

Don't people of a certain race have to actually be the target of lampooning in a joke in order to make the joke racist?

---

by: diablorobotico @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:30:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Knock knock!

Who's there?
Yo momma.
Yo momma, who?
Seriously, it's yo momma, open the damned door!

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:42:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Our Amos and Andy

I just don't see how this is different from Amos and Andy.

The bright yellow lederhosen, the fake accent, the prancing and vulgarity, are all meant to make particular people look stupid. This isn't satire meant to expose homophobia. It is homophobia mixed with xenophobia.

And, I fully understand how defensive people get when they think someone is attacking their source of humor. The fans of Amos and Andy are quick to use all of the defenses we see being used for Bruno.

"Black people should have thicker skin."

"Amos and Andy paved the way for African Americans."

"These shows portrayed black people in a sympathetic way."

Blah, blah, blah. Same old fuckin' story (to quote Cyndi Lauper).

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:01:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"This isn't satire meant to expose homophobia."

This isn't satire at all, as far as I'm concerned.  It's infantile humor trying to pass as satire.  You want satire, read Gulliver's Travels or watch Dr. Strangelove.  Brilliant works that skewer their targets brilliantly--with style, wit and intelligence.  Cohen's "gayface" act doesn't come within light years of them.  

When schoolyard bullies harass gay kids with mocking "effeminate" acts, it outrages us. and rightly so.  When SBC does the same exact shtick, a lot of LGBT people are only too happy to pony up $10 to see it--and then defend it.

(I imagine the next defense we'll hear is that Cohen did this intentionally to fire up our community to demand an end to stereotypes.   You know, like Obama has deliberately shafted us to make us stand up and demand that he stop shafting us?  Yessirree, our enemies are really our best friends, not just grown-up schoolyard bullies.)

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:40:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And the song

They played him on with George Michael. This is supposed to be respectful in some way? The whole thing is a travesty.

---

by: TR @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 18:39:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a big pratfall forward

"Bruno" is hardly a step forward in any direction. You want cinematic "forward," look at the documentaries "Times of Harvey Milk" and "Celluloid Closet." Or check out the positives in major productions like "Victor/Victoria" or the Merchant/Ivory "Maurice." Or even the tragic treatments in "Brokeback Mountain" or "Milk."

We're hardly better off because of this buffoonery. If anything, we can now take our place beside Kazakhstan as a butt of a joke that was not of our devising.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:27:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I was young in the Bible Belt

with feminine characteristics, I would be very paranoid due to this film Bruno, whether gay or straight.  Some will be bashed or take their own lives due to lack of societal support.  

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:47:18 AM CDT

Not planning to see it

Here's why.  I used to watch the "Da Ali G." show where SBC did his three characters (Ali G., Borat, Bruno without the umlaut) in sketches that were no longer than 10 minutes each.  They all had a similar structure: he pretended to be someone clueless in some way and used that cluelessness to embarrass people, often without their knowing it, or with two levels of embarrassment, theirs and ours watching them.

After a while, it was "much of a muchness"--the same shtick in a different setting and it became tiresome.  There were some funny moments in "Borat" but it suffered from being a skit turned into a film, as I'm sure Bruno does, based on the reviews and simply watching the clips.  it's the comedy of shame.  You either dig it or you don't.  It wears thin for me.

Bruno's best episode in the show, however, was one where he attended a fashion show and asked designers questions whose answers the designers readily contradicted when asked something else.

BTW, in case you wondered, there is an Ali G. movie, and it stinks: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt02...

The momentum of a comedy sketch rarely can be transmuted into a feature-length film.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:50:21 AM CDT

oh god

I caught part of that Ali G movie while channel surfing one day (a rare luxury).  It is beyond stink!  It was a bit like watching a train wreck. Absolutely nothing works in it. It reminded me a bit of The Room, except The Room is actually unintentionally funny. The Ali G movie isn't intentionally or unintentionally funny.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:35:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On Brüno, bears, assless chaps and internalized hömöphöbia.

Sacha Baron Cohen's schtick is to be offensive to everyone  on all sides of any given issue. You can't really call him (or Brüno) anti-gay; its as much a satire of the stereotypical gay man as it is a satire of homophobia itself.  

The thing that makes alot of gay people uncomfortable is their own internalized homophobia, which is a target of this film. We're okay with bears and leather daddies- a 300 pound fat hairball in assless chaps is seen at least as being 'manly', even if he's not at all muscular. And yet, we all get uncomfy around twinks and queens. Why? Why are we more afraid of the latter than the former?  

And why is 'straight acting' the most popular self-description in gay male personal ads?  

If we so desperately wish we were something that we are not-heterosexual, or at least gay but very much like a heterosexual-to the point where guys that look sort of straight, even when they exemplify the very things about the heterosexual world we should be happy we're not a part of are admired and guys that are very obviously queer make us uncomfortable-what does that say about how we view ourselves?  

It says, we hate ourselves for being the thing we cannot face a caricature of. We wish we were the thing being caricatured by bears and leather daddies. Only we're not.  

How sad.  

The real barometer for how comfortable you are living in your own skin? If a gay caricature doesn't bother you-doesn't even register in your brain as something to revile or get away from-then you are over the whole gay thing. Such a person has no hangups about who and what they are. They are unfazed, unbothered by it.  

The same way we are not disturbed by Rob Halford.  

Fuck Judas Priest. Heavy Metal was a total caricature of gay culture-glam rock make up with bad hair-the only thing missing was the shoulder pads. Tom of Finland wannabes represent everything I'm glad I'm not. The biggest relief for me when I came out? I no longer had to prove my manhood, because I was no longer expected to be masculine.  

Is Brüno bad for the gays? No, its actually rather good for us. Just as it savages the Right Wing hate mongers for their unreasonable hate, it exposes our own unreasonable hate-for ourselves.

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 11:51:40 AM CDT

the problem is

that i'm not sure he is offensive to everyone.  seeing who he isn't being offensive to tells you something important about cohen.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:18:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You really have to watch his original show.

Because he WAS offensive to everybody.  This isn't his first time at the rodeo, and his past work shows that he has been equally repulsive about every segment of the population.  Borat was not a gay themed movie, and he was called offensive for that, so I don't understand where you are coming from in that regards.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:46:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is satire, right?

This logic makes as much sense as saying to someone next to you, "Ugh, this smells awful- here, see what YOU think!" and putting it under their nose.

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:43:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It makes more sense than

making judgment against and calls to boycott something one has not even seen.  Then going on to espouse opinions not based in actual fact.  

And sometimes your nose is wrong and it smells just fine to that someone next to you, and the someone next to them and so on.  Just because one person thinks it smells does not make it fact...  


The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:42:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I could get my money back

you'd have a point.

Once you pay for a film, any negative or positive opinion you have is null and void.  You've supported it with your wallet.  You've opened the gAyTM for a potential homophobe, one who will not give the money back if you're not satisfied.

Which is why we have watchdogs like GLAAD and film reviewers.  I have read nothing redeaming about this movie.  I've seen people try to defend it by saying:
"no really, he's making fun of them, not us."  
Or "Well, if someone thinks it's making fun of gays, they're misinterpreting it"
or "you just don't get how funny it is."  

It's a poor comedian who blames his audience for not getting his jokes.

Art is communication, and the artist DOES bear responsibility if he or she cannot articulate his points to his audience.  He does bear responsibility if he goes so far up his own asshole that only the true believers can find him.

When that crazy dude opened fire on a church, and wrote a suicide note saying he wanted to get rid of liberals and everyone else who's screwing up America --- when they found books by Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter in his home --- the first thing people were saying was how Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, were all contributing to this hysterical hostility toward liberals, that they share some burden of responsibility for creating this killer.

Yet we rush to defend SBC because "he's funny".

So what shall we do when the next crazed lunatic opens fire on a gay bar and we find the director's blu-ray cut of Bruno on his coffee table?

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:59:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see your point

And I'm not saying you do not have one.  I completely understand your position.  I just don't agree with calls to boycott this film.  And GLADD even talks about what they felt the intent of the movie was, and then mention that they think it fails.  That is a HUGE difference than just it being an offensive piece of trash that many would like to say it is, without having seen it.

It's unfortunate that "Brüno" ultimately misses the mark, particularly when there are still far too few positive images of gay people in major studio films. Some members of our community will not be offended by this film. Others, like those of us at GLAAD, find it frustrating and discouraging to be confronted with a movie that wants to increase America's discomfort with homophobia, but which for much of America, seems likely to decrease its comfort with gay people."

See, that puts it in a different category than just an offensive movie.  It TRIED and failed.  At least according to GLADD, but should we really be boycotting those who TRY to make a point, just because they MAY have failed?  And not failed completely, but in some ways.  

There will never be a perfect film, so what are we to do?  I have seen more gay made movies that are much more offensive and stereotypical than what I have seen of this movie, but because they are cult classics they get a pass.  Someone mentioned Waters, and having seen his early films, like Pink Flamingos, Polyester and most of the others, I found that gay icon to be much more offensive than this.  But John Waters is given a pass on his works, even when they failed.  Is it acceptable to support one person who sometimes fails because they are gay, and boycott another who sometimes fails because he isn't?  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:16:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're really reaching

and glossing over to other parts of their statement that are a wee bit more profound:

The movie repeatedly builds entire scenes around stock stereotypes and situations that make gay people and families the butt of crude jokes. I can't help but think of all the teenage kids already getting bullied, beat up and ridiculed for being--or for being thought to be--gay.. For these kids, this movie will give their tormentors one more word in the anti-gay lexicon of slurs: Bruno.

Instead of challenging stereotypes, it reinforces them for many of the those who voted to take away the freedom to marry from loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California.

And your point is rather peculiar here:

"See, that puts it in a different category than just an offensive movie.  It TRIED and failed.  At least according to GLADD, but should we really be boycotting those who TRY to make a point, just because they MAY have failed?  And not failed completely, but in some ways."

So, I'm supposed to pay money to see this out of...what...sympathy? Where's Baron Cohen's sympathy for me?  What on earth has he done to earn my sympathy?  Obama is failing us, too, but I don't see any grand support for giving him a pass.  

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:17:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, he isn't that offensive to me personally

And I have never met him.

Then again, the reason why I'm not offended by him is because I am not afraid of being accused of being effeminate.

Listen, Fritz... my family immigrated to the United States from Poland and Russia to get away from your ancestors. And this was long before WW2-Germany's been ragging our asses for centuries. I grew up with people calling e polack, kike, jewboy and commie, russkie, and all the rest. Alot of these slurs came from German-Americans, and people who were enamored of Germans from 50 years ago.

Do you want an apology? Why, because someone compared you to a movie character? Your ancestors murdered mine. I'd like an apology for that, but I never got it.

If I hear one more German complain about how they're being ridiculed for their heritage.. after what you fuckers have been doing to Poles and Russians and Jews for centuries, well... fuck you pal, okay? I grew up with people who didn't realize that 'dumb polack' was two separate words.

You have got to have tougher skin than that. I'm all for stopping GLBT slurs, because those lead to actual violence. But given what Germans have been doing for as long as anyone can remember, maybe you are not the best person to play the martyr.

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:54:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

God, I love me some good Oppression Olympics

If I hear one more German complain about how they're being ridiculed for their heritage.. after what you fuckers have been doing to Poles and Russians and Jews for centuries, well... fuck you pal, okay? I grew up with people who didn't realize that 'dumb polack' was two separate words.

And since that torch never seems to be extinguished around here, I'm wondering why someone hasn't yet come up with our very own Oppression Olympics logo. I'd suggest something with handcuffs to represent the five rings.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:04:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well said.

And I would hope that anyone holding a person responsible for what others of the same ancestry have done will accept personal responsibility for whatever people sharing their own ancestry have done or are doing today.  For example, Poland is one of the more homophobic countries in the European Union.  So much so recently that many gays are fleeing.  But it would be silly for me to blame any particular Blend reader for the conditions our Polish brothers and sisters are enduring, simply because his ancestors once lived there.

My personal heritage is Germanic, Irish, Scottish and east coast Native American.  I'm wondering how much time it would take me to decide which fraction of myself was most to blame for oppressing the other fraction of myself (in ancestral terms).

Fritz, that's just really sucky about your neighbors.  I hope the dignified bearing you seem to have held in the silent non-confrontation sent the message home to these twits.  Although it was hard on you, I'm glad you happened to walk by when they were talking behind your back.  Simple embarrassment like that can make young bucks realize that they need to think on occasion.  I'm glad their girlfriends were there and were disgusted.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:44:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, and....

bonus points for avoiding the Nazi reference by expanding the persecution time period to centuries.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:07:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow!

What a horrible bigoted rant.

You don't know anything about me or my wonderful family.

fuck you pal, okay?

I'm stunned. What happened to all the talk about civility around here?

Fuck me? I'm a dirty German who deserves to be called "Bruno"?

It is such evil prejudice to lump all Germans into one big group like that.

Your ancestors murdered mine.

Actually, my ancestors were American citizens during WWII. There are millions of people of German heritage who have no connection with Nazis or responsibility for the Holocaust.

But given what Germans have been doing for as long as anyone can remember, maybe you are not the best person to play the martyr.

Stunning bigotry. I'm really at a loss for words. This is simply the ugliest thing I've ever read on The Blend.

I deserve to be slurred because of my ethnic heritage? Like it is something that I chose?

What you have written is shameful and ugly.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:29:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pam

Some moderation, please?

Dena

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:20:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please see Louise's post below.

We're on it.






Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:32:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Lurleen

I think Louise and I posted simultaneously.

Dena

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:06:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fritz makes a good point

"Actually, my ancestors were American citizens during WWII. There are millions of people of German heritage who have no connection with Nazis or responsibility for the Holocaust."

...or were victims of the Nazi's themselves.  It's striking to me how easily people forget that there were German Jews, German Gays, German Handicapped, and German Political prisoners in the camps as well.  While all Nazis were German, that does NOT mean that all Germans were Nazis.  

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:36:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ecept that I never mentioned WW2

And it says something about how you think that the only period in which Jews, Poles and Russians were murdered was WW2.

Which could be due to a lack of understanding of European history. Excusable, since most Americans know next to nothing about Europe prior to WW1.

However, I would like to suggest that you read up a bit on what the history of Poland and Russia were like before that time. Hard as this may be to believe, Poland has been around for over a thousand years, and Russia for ajust a little longer than that. WW2 was one very brief period in our history. It is not, however, all of our history.

Go look it up sometime if you can spare a few hours and are bored looking for something to do. And check out what Germany and Austria did to Poland for over 5 centuries-and how they targeted Polish and Russian Jews specifically during that time.

Was antisemitism just a case of temporary insanity, for which the Germans can be forgiven, because 'we all have our moments'? Well, no, they've been practicing it for half a millennium.  

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:22:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so what?

Anti-semitism was fairly popular all over -- Witness Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" or hell, the very popular "Passion Plays" during the middle ages.

What you're doing is essentially racism against the Germans, but you want to hide it in historical context, as though no one else has done anything bad --- was it the germans who enslaved Africans?  Were the germans responsible for the crusades?  The spanish inquisition?  The japanese internment camps?  We can spend all day with what some are calling the "Oppression Olympics" and waste our time.  You're using the same logic to attack Germans that has been used time and time again, against the jews, against us, and so many other groups. You're using stereotypes to attack Germans.  I'm of German ancestry, as is my partner, and you'll be disappointed to here we haven't killed or oppressed anyone.  

Here's a hint, if you're pointing to a group based on their ancestry, sexual orientation, or gender and saying "you're all bad" --- you're not making a reasonable argument, you're being bigotted.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:26:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did Poland ever invade Germany?

But Germany did enslave Africans-the Germans had several colonies in Africa, the worst of which included what is now Namibia. Maybe they did not feel the need to bring Black people to Germany to enslave them, but they did enslave them right there in Africa.

Germans were also very much responsible for the Crusades. They were frequent donors of crusaders sent to fight the Crusades.

The Spanish Inquisition? Funny you should mention that, because the current Pope, a German, was the former head of what used to be called the Inquisition-which never formally ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ratzinger_as_Prefect_of_the_Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith)

Japanese Internment Camps? Only because there weren't enough Japanese in Germany to intern. They 'concentrated' other groups, though, didn't they?

So the answer to every one of your questions, except the last one, is yes-Germans did do all those evil things. And many, many more.

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:38:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Germans did in Africa was bad.

And other European nations with colonies did worse, like Belgium and Britain.

And for the rest of it: You are excellent in misrepresentation of complex history.

At the time of the crusades there was no German nation, but a multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore France and England also had a big share in the crusades.

But, hey, what I am doing here? You're ridiculous.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:18:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the Holy Roman Empire was none of the above

It was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor much of an Empire. But I guess bloodthirsty Franco-Germanic mob doesn't ahve the same ring to it, so maybe they just settled on HRE because it had a more lyrical quality to it.

But they were German as much as they were Frankish-and they contributed a great deal to the bloodshed.  

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:43:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whole Europe was ...

... extremely antisemitic (except some Polish rulers, I know). Jews fled from one place to another in Europe. I think one big player here was the Church.

And you forget that Russia was also an evil player in Poland's history, not just Germany and Austria.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:00:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was. I acknowledge Russian culture has some very bad aspects to it as well

But you should also state how the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the second country in the whole world to adopt a written Democratic Constitution, also welcomed the Jews while the rest of Europe was on a genocidal bloodbath against them. There is even a neighborhood in Krakow, named after the King of Poland that did this, where Jews fleeing the massacres were not only welcomed, but given land to own.

It is a great source of pride I feel when I state that King Casmir the Great made Jews landed gentry when everyone else was robbing them, murdering them, and denigrating them. They even got to hold seats int he Sejm-Poland's Parliament-when everywhere else they were kept away from power. And it is because of this that Poland became prosperous and powerful, even though it had few natural allies, and was constantly being attacked by Germany and Austria and Prussia.

The motto of the City of Wasraw is, "To Whether All the Storms". And we have. Despite the genocidal attempts to wipe us out, we have survived all of it. And I hope Poland will survive forever, because there is possibly no more beautiful a place on this whole earth.

Russia has always had problems, it is true. Autocratic in the extreme for as long as it has existed, they have never had a decent government. I acknowledge that,  and when someone lampoons Russia for her shortcomings-I myself do this frequently-I take it with the knowledge that maybe Russia needs to be lampooned once in a while.

Speaking of which, allow me to share a joke with you that I heard adfter Dmitri Medveev was 'elected' President.

Putin and Medvedev are at a restaurant. Now, the menu says that any meat dish comes with a free side order of any vegetable of your choosing. The waiter comes, and addresses Putin first. "What woudl you like to eat? Putin responds that he will have the steak. "And what about the vegetable" asks the waiter.

Putin replies, "He will also have the steak"

http://davegranlund.com/cartoo...

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:33:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...

It was divided between Prussia, Austria and Russia, because there hasn't been a Germany at that time.

You introduce nationalistic views of states and cultures at time they didn't exist.

And for intelligent people the age of nationalism would be over.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 18:42:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You obviously didn't read it

My family got out in 1881-Germans were killing Eastern European Jews even back then. It was kind of a sport for you guys. WW2 was just the tournament at the end.

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:44:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shameful? No my friend,. mass murder is shameful

All I did was point out who the guilty party was.

My dad was a steelworker
My mom was a kitchen girl
and that's why
I'm a socialist.
-from an old song I used to hum to myself

---

by: DaveB @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:47:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]