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.

 

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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.  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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?  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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.  

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

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"...


"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

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.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

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.


"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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.)

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

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.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

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 ]

We take the good with the bad

And if you identify strongly enough with your ancestors to feel pride in their accomplishments, you must also face up to their failures.

And 5 centuries of genocidal mania directed at Slavs and Jews is a massive failure.

Now, as I said in my post, I grew up listening to German Americans, like yourself, who grew up here but identified very strongly with their heritage, give me pure hell over mine. I heard an endless stream of polack jokes as a kid, and the few people that called me kike or jewboy always had names like Hans or Fritz. Did I go ballistic about how horrible it was that I was being caricatured as an idiot or parrt of some global conspiracy? Was my hide so thin that I couldn't take it?

No, it wasn't.

To survive in this world, you need a very thick hide.

To quote my best friend, when he dispensed this piece of advice to a kid that got a black eye during a football match.

"Life sucks. Go get a helmet"

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 15:30:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did I miss something?

When did Fritz call you a naughty word?  

This whole thing is threadjacking.

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 15:42:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"This whole thing is threadjacking"

Yes. It is.

However, it does demonstrate exactly why Sasha Baron Cohen chose to make his Bruno character Austrian.

He knows that very few people will see his stereotypical character as offensive to an entire ethinic group -- and many that do will not feel sympathy for them.

This is also why he chose to make Borat a Muslim.

DaveB is absolutely rabid in his hatred of German people. There are many out there like him.

I won't continue to debate the issue with him. He's obviously committed to being a hater.  

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:50:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"We take the good with the bad" Who says I don't?

And if you identify strongly enough with your ancestors to feel pride in their accomplishments, you must also face up to their failures.

You are lecturing me and you know nothing about me or my family. You don't know where they are from or how they were treated by the powerful and elite in their place of origin.

That is called PREJUDICE.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about history or what you think my ancestors did to yours -- especially since you are totally ignorant of who my ancestors were. You're basing your opinion totally on supposition.

Just because you had some bad experiences with people you assume to be related to me, that doesn't mean that I had anything to do with it.

Did I go ballistic about how horrible it was that I was being caricatured as an idiot or parrt of some global conspiracy?

Ballistic? I think my essay is measured and reasonable. I don't indicate that I was angered in any way.

Global conspiracy? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth! That's just crazy -- but sadly typical at PHB.

I wrote:

It is going to take me a few days to get over this. Thank you, Sasha Baron Cohen for making my life just a little more difficult.

I don't think that what I wrote can be viewed as blowing this out of proportion. I did not exaggerate and write that this was the end of my world. My feelings were hurt. I'll get over it.

The problem with bigotry is that it comes with a lot of assumptions about people viewed as "other."

You don't know me. You don't know my family. I was raised not to be a bigot. I don't judge you based on your ethnic background -- nor do I assume to even know what it is.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:02:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I kind of told you what it is, didn't I?

Or do you not read things before you react to them?

If you are offended by the lampooning of German culture presented in Brüno, allow me to state that German culture is something Jews and Slavs would have been better off without.

Had you and I been from ethnic groups whose history is more well known in America-say you were White and I were Native American-and there were a movie lampooning white America, and you whined about it. And I told you to shut up, because of the genocide your ancestors perpetrated upon mine. There would have been nobody defending you.

These people do not know what Germans have been doing to their neighbors for centuries. Its not taught to them in school. Frankly, they don't teach American kids anything about the rest of the world prior to when America began to assert itself on the rest of the world. So they defend you, not knowing what they are defending.

If they knew, you would have no allies here.

Buck up, little camper! If Poles can endure polack jokes, and Russians can endure being tarred as Stalinists, surely you can take a friendly jab from Sacha Baron Cohen. Because you,re going to have to-its either his friendly barbs-or my not so friendly reminders of why you should not be so quick to defend the heritage of a people who were so quick to murder everyone around them for so long.

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 16:24:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're writing in a Germanic Language

The roots of the english language are buried deep in German. The evidence is simple

German - English

Hund - Hound
Haus - House
Bier - Beer
Ja - Yes
Nacht - Night
Gott - God
Engel - Angel
April - April
Bär - Bear
Blut - Blood
Buch - Book
Blau - Blue

In fact, like "april" above, a lot of words haven't changed at all from their original German.  Shakespeare students are often told to study german to help them understand, as old english and german have identical sentence structures and word usages.

If Germany is such an awful, awful place full of horrible people and ideas -- why are you dirtying yourself by speaking it's descedant language?

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:39:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Those horrible Italians!

You know they used to throw Christians to the lions. They conquered the world and brutalized everyone for centuries.

So, if someone calls an Italian person a "wop", he should just suck it up because of how terrible his ancestors were.

You know, my brother's former father-in-law is from the Philipines. During WWII he witnessed a Japanese soldier hack his father's head off with a sword.

Yet, he doesn't hate the Japanese. He hates war and intolerance.

DaveB could learn a lesson from that.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:58:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Speaking of language

Wop originated in America- it stood for With Out Papers, and referred to Italian immigrants who came to America looking for a better life, but were sometimes in  desperate position where they had to leave what is now Italy without any documentation-sort of like how many people from Central America come here and are slurred for being "illegal" (even though no human being should be "illegal")

Now, that is a slur directed at them because they were poor and immigrating to save their lives-sort of like how my great grandparents had to flee for their lives after the Third Partition of Poland by the Germans and Austrians.

To castigate someone for being poor and fleeing for their life is cruel. Therefore, I have never called an Italian a 'wop'.

To remind someone who defends German culture from a mild bit of slapstick humor in a movie that their heritage is not so glorious that it should be defended against every little poke of fun is not the same as calling someone a 'wop'.

History is a valuable tool-I suggest before you try to take me on that you study a little bit of it first. If you don't, I'll kick your ass in here.


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 17:08:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, you forget Russia in the third partition

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:22:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Catherine the Not So Great

Catherine the Great had such a huge twat
Compared to it, Poland was a minuscule dot.

Oddly, this couplet rhymes as well in Russian as it does in English.

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 17:59:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trapdoor Dropped

We were unable to communicate a warning to this commenter because the email address provided was no longer valid.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 18:29:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry DaveB, but you are a bigot, plain and simple.

And you are getting boring.

(But you have certainly done a wonderful job of hijacking this thread into your own little pity party, haven't you?)


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 17:23:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And why is it that threadjackers are always new members?

DaveB has been here for 3 stinkin days, and has already dropped the FU bomb and thoughtfully offered to "kick your ass" (a la Hank Hill, 'I tell ya what...')

Do these people come here after they have been banned from every other blog for this behaviour, or are we somehow magnets for these impolite creeps?

Jeez.

(And please do not bother replying with all your 'bona fides' Dave, Im tuning you out.)

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 17:34:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've been here for months, what are you talking about?

Shit, all you have to do is look at the posts I've made to see how long i've been here. Arte you that lazy?

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 17:44:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How strange is it

This guy posts a thread about how Germans are being poked fun of in a movie (Let,s call him Brüno because he's German too!".

I reply,

Hey man, Germans have done some seriously fucked up shit for a very long time. You have no right to say lampooning German culture is out of bounds, since German culture itself  went waaaay out of bounds.

You respond,

You're a bigot!

And I reply,

Maybe. But you're an idiot. Sacha Baron Cohen made a movie that poked light fun at an Austrian character. Austrians/Germans have done far worse than that over the centuries, and have no room to bitch about being made fun of.

When you weight the two; On one side, you have a kind of boring slapstick movie that goes about as far as "There's Something About Mary" did, and will probably be forgotten in another ten years. On the other, you have centuries of mass murder and genocidal rampages.

And you think the first one is worse?

Maybe you are a completely self-absorbed gay man, just like Brüno, if you really think genocide compares to this movie.

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 18:19:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

History lesson

You make far too many assumptions about me.

You don't know anything about me or my knowledge of history.

To tell me to study history, when you nothing about my education and background shows quite a bit about you.

If you don't, I'll kick your ass in here.

Where do you want to start talking about the oppression of the Jews? Shall we start witn the Egyptians?

Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? Romans? Byzantines?

How far back do you want to take your bigoted rant? The point is, what you're raving on and on about has nothing to do with the issue and only supports my fears that Bruno will encourage bigotry like what you are displaying.

To remind someone who defends German culture from a mild bit of slapstick humor in a movie that their heritage...

Exactly how have I defended German culture? I've not made one positive statement about German culture. That is simply your prejudice coming through.

As I wrote earlier, my brother's former father-in-law witnessed a Japanese soldier hack off his father's head with a sword. His people were brutalized by the Japanese.

Yet, he doesn't hate the Japanese. He doesn't say that he wishes they had never existed.

Instead, he speaks against war and intolerance. Why? Because he knows that all people are capable of the worst -- even his own.  

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:29:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brüno isn't about an Assyrian, is it?

It's a lampoon of German culture, not Assyrian culture.

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 17:45:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No

It is about a stereotypically gay man.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:53:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With an Austrian Accent, yes

Frankly, a vain and flamboyant Austrian man could have been played just a s well by the Governor of California.

Ja, I am the Governator, baby!

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 17:56:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nitpick

Hey, as long as the thread is already so thoroughly derailed, we might as well be educational with it ...

Shakespeare students are often told to study german to help them understand, as old english and german have identical sentence structures and word usages.

%cough%

Shakespeare isn't Old English.  Shakespeare isn't even Middle English.  Shakespeare is technically Modern English, just not a very modern form of it.

(Middle English was what happened when a bunch of Normans invaded and dumped buckets of French into mostly-Germanic Old English, and late Middle English even starts to look recognizeably like the English we're speaking now, compared to early Middle English which looks clearly no longer mistakeable for German but still somewhat opaque to Modern English speakers.  Yes, a lot of German remains in Modern English; I'm nitpicking the conflation of Shakespeare with the need-to-study-German stuff like Beowulf.)

Early (I think) Middle English:

Weilawei!  Nis king ni queene ssel escape dethes drench;
Man, ere thu fall of thi bench, thi senn aquench.

(the only two lines out of the entire song that I could make any sense of at all w/o reading the translation)

Late (I think) Middle English:

Edi be thu, heven queene, folkes froovre and engles bliss,
Maid unwemmed, mother cleene, swich in world non other nis.
On the hit is well esthene, of alle women thu hast the pris.
Me sweete levdi, here mi boone, rewe of me if thi will is.

(some unfamiliar words and strange pronounciations of familiar words, but the rest of the song doesn't get any more difficult than this)

Spellings approximate in both cases, both because I didn't feel like putting in all the þs, ðs, yoghs (looks like a '3'; most fonts don't have it), and umlauts, and because I'm quoting from memory and don't really speak Middle English.  Alas, I have no Old English memorized for comparison.  But it really does look a lot more like German than either of these.

Now compare both of those to:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts, [...]

or

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
  Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
  And summer's lease hath all too short a date [...]

Shakespeare, like the King James Bible, is in the same language we're using here, now, just a little older.  Learn regular conjugation, get used to using the second person singular, and you're three fourths done -- most of the rest is learning outdated slang so you'll get all the dirty jokes.  Not at all like learning a new language.

Yeah, it is, as noted, a nitpick, but it's also a pet peeve and the thread was already completely off topic from point it started with.

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:06:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another Nitpick

For the sake of accuracy, In Shakespeare's time, a lot of words were spelled completely differently, though most were pronounced pretty much the same way as today. Also, back then, the letter v = today's u/u = today's v. Modern printings of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, and other contemporary documents usually do not contain the original words, as they were spelled, in time they time when they were written.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:40:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spelling

Find me that sonnet in its original spelling, and I'd be surprised if it's alien enough to discount it as being more intelligible to a Modern English speaker than "Edi be þu heven queene" or "Man mai longe lives weene" ... I was aware that Shakespeare gets tweaked (in some editions) for more modern audiences (and wondered whether the version of that sonnet I found was thus tweaked, though I'd hoped that it wasn't done as much to his sonnets as his plays), but he was still writing in this language we nowadays call English, as opposed to Middle English or Old English.  He was born about a hundred years too late to have used Middle English, wasn't he?

I wasn't aware that the KJV had been adjusted similarly.  Now I'm going to have to try to get my hands on editions from different times and compare 'em.  (Unlike Shakespeare's plays, I thought the trend with respect to the Bible was to produce new, today's-English translations and label them as new, rather than revising the KJV and still calling it the King James.)  So I've learned something interesting and a little disquieting today.  (I'm well aware that the KJV is, well, a problematic translation for scholarship, and that some of the more accurate translations also use late XXth C. styles of English and are thus more accessible to today's reader as well as being more accurate, but I like the archaic sound and feel of the KJV ... so adjusting it like that seems like gratuitous meddling with an important work on the one hand, and a waste of time to make the language easier to read if you're not going to also replace it with something more accurate, on the other.  %sigh%)

---

by: d'glenn @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 04:40:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

English in Shakespeare's Time

Shakespeare (1564-1616)
The KJV was introduced in 1611. I don't have a copy of an original KJV, but I do have a facsimile reproduction of the 1599 Geneva Bible (a competing translation which was textually very similar to the KJV). Here's an excerpt:

Then gathered vnto him the Pharises, and certaine of the Scribes which came from Hierusalem,
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eate meate with common hands, (that is to say, vnwashen) they complained.
3 (For the Pharises, and all the Iewes, except they wash their hands oft, eate not, holding the tradition of the Elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash they eate not: and many other things there bee, which they haue taken vpon them to obserue, as the washing of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels, and of beds.)
5 Then asked him the Pharises and Scribes, why walke not thy disciples according to the tradition of the Elders, bvt eate meate with vnwashen hands?
6 Then he answered and said vnto them, Surely Esav hath prophesied well of you, hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with lips, but their heart is farre away from me.

The lowercase "s," when it appears at the beginning or in the middle of a word, resembles an "f" without the little crossbar in front. I don't have the character on my keyboard to reproduce that.

I should also point out that the letter "j" did not yet exist in the English language.


Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 15:44:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More Spelling ... and orthography

The eſſes you ſeek do not appear to have named HTML entities, but the lowercaſe one appears to be ſ.  (I have one friend even more of an anachroniſt than I, who routinely uſes them in handwriting!)

If I look at those verses from the Geneva Bible (and thank you for providing a sample, by the way!), the lack of 'j' and the lack of distinction between 'u' and 'v' are the biggest obstacles; the other spelling differences (other than a surplus of terminal silent e's), I don't know enough to say whether they're just from spelling not having been standardized yet, or a huge spelling shift -- but if I read the passage aloud (with post-Great-Vowel-Shift pronuncuation), it all turns back into much more familiar English.  (Okay, there's the '-en' ending for the past tense showing up more than the familiar '-ed' to make it sound old-timey; I'm not particularly tripping over that, though I do notice it.)

Then again, a friend pointed out on the phone that I may process language a little differently than most people, and this may account for my seeing so little difference between early Modern English and current Modern English (she referred to my gift for language, which I found a little ironic considering that it's mostly a gift for English in particular -- I can communicate en Francais, but it usually requires rather a lot of pantomime to be effective).

(I can't help thinking, when I see references to "intial/medial s" versus "terminal s", of medial versus terminal sigmas:  'σ' and 'ς', which do have named HTML entities.  Go figure.)

Retaining 'thee'/'thou/'thy'/'thine', regular verb conjugation, and the frequent '-en' (looks like passive past participle?), sound to me like a difference of dialect more than being a different language, and at least two of those traits persist in current, though small-population, dialects of English (at least one of which uses 'thee' differently from Elizabethan use, so it keeps sounding wrong to my ear and I have to constantly remind myself it's correct in that dialect).  The spelling issues, I'd need to do more research on to argue convincingly; I know that spelling wasn't regularized but I ought to try to suss out relative frequencies of various spellings.  

I'm not saying that there are no significant differences, mind you.  I'm just saying that early Modern English is essentially as close to current Modern English, as current American English, current British English, current Indian English, and current International English are to each other.  That there's a big difference (for someone who only speaks Modern English) between trying to read, "On þe hit is well eðseene, of alle wimmen þu hast þe pris," and "And when they saw some of his disciples eate meate with common hands, (that is to say, vnwashen) they complained." ...

... and that the cutoff I've seen in references by people who know a lot more about this than I do, list the Middle English period as ending roughly a century before Shakespeare (and the transistion from Old English to Middle English in the late XIth C., which would lend credence to the flippant description of (Middle) English as having been the result of Norman soldiers trying to pick up Anglo-Saxon women in the years after the Battle of Hastings).

Oh, a bit o' English trivia that you probably know but I bet a bunch of other folks here don't (if any but we two readeth this thread still):  when you see modern folks trying to sound Elizabethan, and using "ye" to replace "the", as in "Ye Olde Suche And Suche Shoppe"?  It was never really supposed to be "ye"; it was "þe", pronounced "the".  The 'y' substitution happened when the thorn ('þ' -- uppercase 'Þ') had fallen out of use, and printers either unfamiliar with the letter or just looking for the closest visual approximation they had a piece of type for, started substituting the 'y' for it.

Also, a lot of the English words with 'gh' in them originally had yoghs in them:  kni3t -> knight, for example.

---

by: d'glenn @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 21:31:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess I'm just a geek :)

But I find the Shakespearean period English quite faire in comparison to today's vulgar incarnation.

I have wondered about the pronunciation of "thou." "Thou" and "you" were both used in the same period, "you" being the formal address used for superiors in the social hierarchy and "thou" being the informal, for addressing equals or inferiors. So were they really pronunced Thow and Yew, or were they both pronounced the same way, either Thew and Yew or Thow and Yow? Thou almost looks like a contraction of "The You."

Anyway...

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 00:38:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Penalty Flag on the field!

Play under review...

(Sorry- a football term. I get antsy during the off season!!)  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But... but... Cohen says he's a fierce advocate for gay rights!

All evidence to the contrary, we must take him at his word, correct?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:07:15 PM CDT

he he

some fierce advocates get a pass, apparently.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:37:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't watch Borat,

and I have no plans to watch Bruno.

---

by: oddjob @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:14:02 PM CDT

Wow

I was really sorry to read about Fritz's experience, but something to consider is this: Was it the movie that made these boys homophobic, or were they homophobic to begin with? You noted that they shut up as soon as they saw you, which means that this probably wasn't the first time they talked shit about your being gay behind your back despite being nice to your face.

Somebody already mentioned "Brokeback Mountain" having a similar effect and becoming the butt of anti-gay jokes. This is something that's unavoidable, and as long as there are gay-themed movies and TV shows, there will be idiots who think they give them license to be bigots.

Again, I was sorry to read about Fritz's experience, but I'm getting a bit tired of people saying Cohen is doing "gayface" and taking cheap shots at gay people. Believe me, he isn't. He's satirizing homophobia, and an unfortunate side-effect of all satire is that there are usually people who don't get it. But at the same time, there will be people smart enough to know that while Cohen appears to be poking fun at gay people, he's actually using stereotypes to turn the joke back onto the homophobes themselves. "South Park," "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" all do the same thing.

---

by: AJD2 @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:22:09 PM CDT

I'm looking forward to his movie about the Hebrews.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:25:26 PM CDT

he's not the only media buffoon trafficking in stereotypes

Witness this, from the so serious commentator David Brooks. That really is him on Friday's MSNBC video, and he's just as offensive. Maybe there's a stereotype about horny, closeted Senators, but this kind of malevolent silliness is spreading.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/...

BTW, Brooks didn't elaborate on this when he appeared on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on Friday night.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 12:52:38 PM CDT

And Brooks just let it happen ?

Sounds suspicious for a writer who doesn't hold back on words.   He must have enjoyed it or wished that the Senator had gone further to the crotch.  Would this milquetoast hypocrit OUT the Senator ? No.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:12:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something to think about

I don't doubt the veracity of Brooks' claim, but he has no physical proof that this happened. A good reason for his not outing the senator is that he wishes to avoid a libel suit.

Also, from what I've read in Brooks' columns, he appears to support gay rights, so I don't know if I'd call him a hypocrite.

---

by: AJD2 @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:37:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Consider this

The Senator knew of Brooks being gay friendly, if not gay himself.  The Senator thought by making a gay advance, he would be sure to have Brooks wink wink nod nod favor, therefore Brooks would write about him in the New York Times in a favorable way.  The Senator could have been heterosexual, but like most powerful men, gay for career advancement.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:54:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Umm

I find that highly unlikely.

---

by: AJD2 @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 23:58:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come on, now.

did you listen to the entire bit?

If ever there was an example of equal opportunity ribbing, that would be it. Straight male senators as slobbering St. Bernard dogs coming on to female staffers? I really like his larger point, that these politicians who are so full of themselves are actually lonely people with really poor social skills.

As far as not doing the same shtik on The News Hour, I've seen him crack wise in that venue in the past.  But, in this instance, I'd imagine its just a case of knowing your intended audience.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:25:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i did listen to the whole bit ...

... and the best explanation for it was that Brooks had a few. The gist of the whole thing was offensive stereotypes of one kind or another.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:22:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not stalking you......really.....but

The gist of the whole thing was offensive stereotypes of one kind or another.

The fact that the world is full of men, straight and gay, who feel entitled to cop a feel of anyone who suits their fancy is a "stereotype?" Some of us would call it a "truism." :)

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:29:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well, yes

It can be a truism. And it can be offensive. Brooksy seemed to find it yet another inspiration for stupid jokes. QED for both our points.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:50:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no fan of Cohen

I saw him on a talk show doing his Bruno shtick, I won't be going to the film. Hopefully it'll flop.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

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

But how can you JUDGE?

Why, you "HAVE to go to the movie, see all of his work, and THEN you can say that"!!!

(serious eyerolling and snark...)

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:45:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You have some nerve throwing flags on the play

When you openly MOCK people on the site.  What is the difference Louise?  At least the person who you threw a flag at had the temerity to address the person directly, rather than mock them down stream, and yea, that's what I think you are doing, since your other statement with this theme was aimed at me...  

I guess the rules and civility expectations do not apply to you. only others.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:49:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dude... nag all ya want

I'm still not going to watch the movie.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:56:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

way to address the issue of my post.

By NOT addressing it.  Funny, I actually read your diary on civility.  Too bad YOU didn't.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:58:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have not said

a single thing here I would not say to your face, nor would it bother me one iota to read my words in a court of law. Yeah, I DID read my civility post and have been civil here.

I'm just not taking you very seriously at all and finding this highly amusing, actually.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:19:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mock away Louise, the perfect example of civility.

But see, you're part of the beloved clique here who gets to say what they want and then gets everyone else banned when they write like you do.  This place has it's select "A-listers" just like everywhere else, and it's a shame you get away with mocking people and being rude, while at the same time calling fouls on people.  Don't look now, but your hypocrisy is showing, and it isn't pretty.

Congratulations on your privilege.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:26:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's no making you happy

You are determined that I am today's target for your silly angst and foolishness.

Frankly, I could care. This has all been childish and rather pointless.

If this is what you call mocking and rude... oh my. LOL!

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:36:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the box office was so so...14 million

Rotten tomatoes critics gave Bruno a 55%

btw the new Harry Potter got a 96% rating, and some of the best reviews of the entire series....4 mo' days

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:34:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

THAT movie

I will go see and buy the DVD the day released.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:47:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oooh!

There you go, exercising your privilege again!  I'm tellin'!

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:51:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're... mocking me...

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:15:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's change the term "Moderator" to "Star Command"!

!

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 17:38:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

SBC is the big winner here

One of my first areas of adult political involvement was when the movie Cruising came out. I organized protests in Chicago and wrote article after article and leaflet after leaflet in the belief that the movie was an attack on gays.

Now, almost thirty years later, I think Cruising is a mediocre slasher movie that is also among the few documentary treasures of a lost era in gay male culture. I bought the DVD and despite the horrible acting and ludicrous plot truly enjoy the small window into the past the movie provides.

Sascha Baron-Cohen specializes in cringe humor: I've tried to watch it and well, I cringe too much. But what he also clearly specializes in is public relations. His movie machine has just generated millions in sales through this trumped-up controversy, and LGBT blogs and organizations have just taken the bait, making even more money for Mr. Cohen.

Remember that great independent lesbian and gay film you saw last year and couldn't stop talking about--you know, the one with the incredibly sensitive portrayal of our community that was in all the papers? Yeah, me neither.

I'm sure there are offensive parts. I'm sure there are parts that make fun of the haters and bigots. I'm sure it's all just so questionable, making money off of stereotypes of all sorts. But it's just a movie.

The movie "Cruising" didn't bring the world down on gay men. In retrospect, the visibility it provided proved we're eligibly normal subjects for a slasher movie. It didn't bring on a wave of anti-gay murders. Of course there was anti-gay violence afterwards--as there is today--because it exists in society. I agree strongly that Fritz's neighbors were not moved to become anti-gay by this movie, only given small license to make one of their anti-gay comments in a more public space than they might otherwise do. I'm betting if Fritz eavesdropped on his neighbors full-time he'd get an ear full. The haters remain the enemy and this, well, it's just a probably bad movie with a few laughs in very bad taste.

Anyway, how much money has this thread already made for Bruno already?

--ish

---

by: ish @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:58:29 PM CDT

I think people need to lighten up a bit

I've found Sacha Baron Cohen hilarious since he was on HBO. While I haven't seen Bruno and can't speak to it exactly, at the very least, what he's done in the past is clearly satire. He takes something people are unfamiliar about and shows how whacky their reactions can be because of their fears or intolerance.

Maybe Bruno's different than that; I don't know. What I do know is that next time, Fritz, you find your neighbors making offhanded comments behind your back, call them out on it, instead of slinkering away in the shadows. I promise the latter will win you respect, while the former will just reinforce existing impressions. We should always be challenging people on their homophobias, especially those who are basically good people and generally supportive of gay rights. Sometimes people just don't realize that the phobia even exists; calling it out can create that realization and help people deal with it.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 14:57:50 PM CDT

"call them out on it, instead of slinkering away in the shadows"

Yeah, right.

A 50 year old man is going to confront a couple of young men less than half his age.

That is not a smart thing to do. That is how gay people end up getting beaten and killed.

And I didn't "slinker" away. I simply walked by them without saying a word. I think that got my message across without being confrontational and exposing myself to unnecessary risk.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:09:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, Fritz I think you blew it

Obviously, there are situations in which it is dangerous to speak up, and no one would expect you to put life or limb at risk.  But nothing in your original post or in your subsequent comments indicates that you couldn't speak up for yourself on this occasion.  

These were your neighbors.  You know them by name.  You know where they live.  They have never been violent and in fact had always been polite.  They were with their girlfriends.  Do you honestly think they would physically attack you if you spoke up for yourself and acted like you had an ounce of self-respect?  So what if you are 50 and they are 22?  Do you hand in your dignity at age 49?  

Here's what I would have done:  When they turned to go into their apartment, I would have called out and said "Where are you going you cowardly little sh*t?  I thought you were having a conversation about me.  Why don't you continue it?  Or do you only talk about people behind their backs?"  

A more moderate approach would be to simply say: "I am not Bruno.  I am a man, not a funny character.  I would appreciate your not joking about me that way."

Point is, you could have shown them right then and there that you were not Bruno.  Instead, you scampered away.  

---

by: Daniel2009 @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:22:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're kinda stuck

aren't we?  In order to actually make an opinion about this movie, you have to go fork over the cash.  I didn't much care for Borat, so why on earth would I want to see Bruno?  SBC knew that the flareup of the LGBT community over this movie would line his pocket with pink dollars.  

I've been thinking about seeing the movie, but I'm not sure if I want to see it in the theatre.  It's hard to explain, you know how the audience morphs your perception about the movie?  I saw Brokeback mountain here, in this small town of Texas.  Kissing scenes?  You could barely hear the movie people were making noises like they were sick.  People got up, left saying homophobic comments loudly.

Now, Brokeback mountain, which isn't that bad of a movie, is ruined by that experience forever.  

What people will bring from this movie will also change based on the audience around them.  

I guess seeing this in the theatre would be a barometer of homophobia in your region.  No one else will pick up on it but those wearing their special gay decoder glasses.

---

by: flyerfier @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:02:09 PM CDT

I do not have to read every word of Mein Kampf to know I won't like it

When even the clips shown on the 'news' turn my stomach, I feel fully justified to condemn this piece of shit for the trash it is.

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 15:32:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I saw the film last night...

I was prepared to hear groans and "ewws" when male affection was shown.  I was prepared to hear at least a few people cheer on homophobes.  I was prepared, basically, to be insulted.  

Instead, the audience (comprised almost entirely of high school kids,) was unfazed by gay affection, and in fact cheered it during the finale.  It's worth noting that they were, however, revolted by one of the film's images of straight sex.  They didn't laugh at the gay stereotyping, but did laugh at the bigots' reactions to it.  Overall, I think it was  very clear throughout that Bruno was not representative of gay men, but of a homophobe's worst nightmare of what a gay man is.  

I left the theater feeling very relieved.

I do think Cohen makes an enormous mistake not including gays as targets of the bit--it would have been interesting to see how actual gay men would respond to this sort of stereotype.  Would they think he was mocking them, personally?  Or would they think the guy was just really, really flaming?  (I've definitely seen more than one gay man dodge, cringe at or mock another for being effeminate.  Is that not also a form of homophobia?)  It would have pissed some people off, but it also would have provided a much-needed dose of reality.

That said, there are two horribly disturbing scenes in the film.  In the first, Bruno (ready with an arsenal of jokes guaranteed to incite the anger of a nearly all-black crowd,) enters a talk show stage to talk about being a single parent.  He didn't have to use a single gag to get them going; as soon as they figured out he was supposed to be gay, they started to boo.  This was an urban, middle class audience.  It was rather appalling.  In the second, an Arkansas cage fighting audience becomes shockingly violent at the sight of two men kissing (and no doubt the realization that there would be no fight).  It's scary as hell to think these people are walking the streets. On the bright side, it couldn't have differed more from the movie theater audience's reaction.  Honestly, I would recommend the movie to any GLB or T person, just to see those two sequences.

What happened to Fritz is just awful, and sad, and those boys should be ashamed of themselves.  But I have to say that I doubt it would have happened if it weren't for the other similarities.  Given your description, I'm thinking high school kids might call you Bruno even if you were straight.  That doesn't make it right or perhaps any less hurtful, but I'm not thinking homophobia is the motivation.  (I used to wear big glasses and mid-length dark hair over the scar on my forehead.  That's right: I had to get Lasik because of Harry Potter.  Luckily for me, HP wasn't a collection of stereotypes I might find offensive.)

---

by: lw @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:30:35 PM CDT

That's the problem with all Satire.

Maybe Cohen is taking on the sexualized gays on the pride parade float to boot.  I haven't seen it yet so I won't judge.

There aren't just gay decoder glasses.  Take this example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

What is supposed to be a satire of rap culture becomes making fun of blacks in the wrong eyes (the same pimply adolescent boys laughing at Chuck and Larry I suppose).  It was made by a black poet but that will be lost on anyone that has their stereotypes confirmed  by watching this.

Extreme stereotypes are a version of satire but oftentimes they feed confirmation to those that want it.  Why do you think Colbert has so many Republican fans?

A sizeable majority don't have Satirical Decoder Glasses and often times they are the ones being satirized.  They won't get it and never will.

---

by: JBravoEcho09 @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 15:33:15 PM CDT

I think we should take the money/opinion link

a bit further.  We can't develop an opinion on Bruno until we pay to see it; SBC shouldn't be able to present an opinion on gay people until he pays us.  $10 each should cover it for the time being.

---

by: M @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:04:27 PM CDT

Stop the insanity!!

I thought this thread was about a stupid movie and what the responce the LGBT community should be and not who has the right to sing the blues.

Please! Enough!

Dena

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:48:59 PM CDT

A tad sensitive maybe

The hatred and vitriol that some of you are hurling towards this man, well its just a bit hypocritical.

"Dont hate me, you stupid straight son of a bitch" Is pretty much what the majority of you are saying.

Comedy opens dialogue much more successfully than these personal attacks. The fact is that many people, gay or straight, do not have a problem with this movie, so please dont speak for all of us. You are more within your right to say you feel this movie is evil, mean and whatever else, but please dont attempt to force the rest of us to agree.

I have personally had more than enough struggles in my life to learn to laugh at myself and anyone else I see fit. There are MANY gay men that live these stereotypes and do so loudly. I know many straight women who are horribly offended by drag queens because they feel gay men use drag to portray women as hyper sexual tacky bimbos. I dont see anyone here demanding sensitivity, while running to stop men from doing drag.

Bruno is no more offensive to gay stereotypes than Pride, Queer as Folk or the cavalcade of porno posters you can find in the Castro. The idea that his sexuality defines what he is allowed to say or do is the very act of discrimination you are all burning him at the stake for. It sounds to me that many of you are ashamed of these stereotypes because you personally find them unappealing, but are covering up for that fact by claiming straight people cant mock them. Many of these stereotypes are prevalent in gay society, just walk through WeHo.

This "black face" stuff is illogical. I didnt see anyone screaming or burning down buildings when two black men dressed as white chicks in a major motion picture. You know why? White people didnt care and thought it was funny. I wont accept any of this "well its different cause black people suffered more" bull either. If that movie had been made with white men, dressing as black girls, there would have been hell to pay. You can not have double standards if you are trying to make a valid point. There is NO exception to this rule.

All of these personal attacks and toxic comments are not helping your cause. I can promise you that "average Joe American" is going to leave with a much worse impression of the gay community, after reading these comments, than watching this silly movie.

Lets all take a chill pill. We dont need to be a victim of everything.  

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:02:41 PM CDT

We've heard this all before...

Shall I run down the list, folks?

The fact is that many people, gay or straight, do not have a problem with this movie, so please dont speak for all of us.

Why is this always the first argument out of the box? Everyone commenting here is offering their own opinion. That doesn't mean they are trying to speak for you or anybody else. And exactly how is anyone "forcing" you to agree? By simply arguing their opinions?

I dont see anyone here demanding sensitivity, while running to stop men from doing drag.

Yeah, we've actually discussed that quite a bit here at PHB. You'd know that if you'd been around longer than 5 days. Next!

Bruno is no more offensive to gay stereotypes than Pride, Queer as Folk or the cavalcade of porno posters you can find in the Castro...Many of these stereotypes are prevalent in gay society, just walk through WeHo.

You don't know what a stereotype is:

A stereotype is a type of logical oversimplification in which all the members of a class or set are considered to be definable by an easily distinguishable set of characteristics. The term is often used with a negative connotation, as stereotypes can be used to deny individuals respect or legitimacy based on their membership in a particular group.

We need to see people as individuals, not as stereotypes.

This "black face" stuff is illogical. I didnt see anyone screaming or burning down buildings when two black men dressed as white chicks in a major motion picture.

Not the old White Chicks argument! God, just about every racist on the planet throws that in the mix to defend his enjoyment of blackface. White Chicks was ONE very bad movie. Blackface minstrel shows were part of slavery, Jim Crow and racial segregation for over 130 years. How do you think those two things can even be compared?

In addition, the implication that black people would "scream or burn down buildings" over a blackface act seems horribly racist. Perhaps that's not how you meant it.

All of these personal attacks and toxic comments are not helping your cause. I can promise you that "average Joe American" is going to leave with a much worse impression of the gay community, after reading these comments, than watching this silly movie.

Just shut up and keep our oppressors happy, huh? We don't want to offend "average Joe" or make him uncomfortable.

We don't share our opinions here to please homophobes. Most of us are activists in some form or another. We're not just going to stay silent because we're worried our opponents may read what we really think. We know they're lurking about, some are even creating accounts and posting comments of their own just to stir up trouble.  

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:46:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm

I am not sure how being insulting is really going to sell your cause. Yet again, when anger and insults are the first thing we turn to when defending our logic, it speaks more of our own stance than our opponents.

When people make statements like, "This is very offensive to gay people" that is speaking for everyone. Stating, "I find this offensive to gay people" is very different. I would kindly ask you discern the difference, if you are done being rude and insulting. However, that is your right.

This isnt a reality TV show, there is no need to turn to phrases like "next" to show your witty sense of humor. While, I am sure its cute to some, it really just comes off as childish. It doesnt matter how often this topic has been discussed on this particular site, PHB is not the end all on gay themed websites. The fact that it has been discussed here in particular does not change the fact this particular sense of being a victim to everything deemed offensive is very prevalent in gay culture. While you boldly stated "next", you didnt actually address my question.

Your definition of stereotype is one of many my friend. There are many different definitions of this word, example. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type. Being that Bruno is considered a gay stereotype and many men embody these stereotypes, my statement is still true. Yet again, insulting my intelligence is childish. If you can not divorce your unbridled passion from a civil discussion, please dont respond. I came here for an adult discussion, not childish banter. Considering how much talk has been made of civil discourse in the last few days, when a commenter of 5 days has to remind you of what is to be considered civil, something is not right.

My mother is black, please dont insult me by calling me a racist because you are unable to properly answer my question or refute my statement. Saying, "Not this again, god" is not an adult response to a very serious statement or question. If you are not going to bring anything to the table, but insults and assumptions on my person, why bother responding? The "black face" topic is a very touchy subject in many communities, but that does not mean I am not allowed to ask about it. How much black do I need in me to ask the questions I desire? Is there a melanin test I can take? It seems to me that these types of irrational debate tactics only shut down the conversation, they dont actually bring a feeling of understanding. Considering that black face is not a problem with many of my black friends, who classify those offended by such a thing as "old specters of the past in which proud black men and woman were taught to be a victim of everything and always on the look out to scream racism", I can only assume its offensive to you and others, but not everyone.

Yet again, calling me a racist is childish and baseless.

I am not sure how stating that insulting and cursing at this man is a bad tactic, is logically defined as "keeping our oppressors happy". If I were to ask my protesters to refrain from cursing and spitting on the counter protesters because I felt it "dumbed down" our message, would that too be considered bowing down to "our oppressors?" I am not sure how anyone could logically state that keeping things civil, is somehow a throw back to surrender.

I hope that you learn to relax and remove your anger and insults from these sorts of discussions. There is nothing wrong with passion, but if your only weapon against a logical mind is to attack a person and not their ideas, you have already lost the debate. The people that we are fighting against do not always understand us, but many of them want to, even if only slightly. You are doing far more harm to our movement by spitting anger and hatred towards them, than anything this man is doing.

I await your response. Please keep it civil and of an adult tone.  

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:29:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

false comparison

"Your definition of stereotype is one of many my friend. There are many different definitions of this word, example. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type. Being that Bruno is considered a gay stereotype and many men embody these stereotypes, my statement is still true."

The fact that gay men exist who may share characteristics with Bruno does not vindicate SBC, it condemns him.

See, those gay men, that's who they are.  They cannot help but be themselves.  SBC is an actor, a comedian who CHOOSE to play a STEREOTYPE - a gross oversimplification of gay men.

The issue is with SBC's choice.  He chose to reinforce stereotypes.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 15:42:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since everybody is "educating" everybody else, Spartan...

may I point out that when you refer to males as "men," and females as "chicks" and "girls," well, you said it pretty well:

You can not have double standards if you are trying to make a valid point. There is NO exception to this rule.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:56:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I assumed it was apparent, I was speaking from the view of the movie

The movie was called "White Chicks" Not "White Womyn".

If nitpicking for PC terminology is now the adult equivalent to discussion, you will forgive me if I find this thread lacking. This constant need to label everyone a sexist or racist or homophobe turns people off. I do not wade in the waters of the PC sea, that you obviously do. My apologies if I did not use your approved terminology, when discussing my point of view.

And to be fair, I never claimed to educate anyone. I simply asked adults to act like adults instead of turning to words like "troll" in a silly attempt to shut down the conversation. I asked that we put down the crayons and answer some obviously difficult questions. I asked that people back up their egoistic assertions that this comedian had somehow made their life more difficult.

There are reasons that honest journalists and great thinkers often feel weary about the internet and its endless amount of blogs. When all we are doing is insulting one another, because we lack the ability to stand on our own argument, nobody wins.

I walk away with hours of wasted time and you walk away learning nothing, but an empty and false feeling of accomplishment.

The next time you respond, please do so to my questions and my concerns. While you are free to nitpick my spelling and use of words, you must understand that its nothing more than a dodging of questions to which you have no answers. I am also dyslexic, if you wish to point that out in your next response, feel free. It wouldnt be a mature response to a series of valid concerns, but considering the maturity I have seen thus far, I wouldnt be surprised.

I wait with bated breath

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 14:15:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since everybody is "educating" everybody else, Spartan...

may I point out that when you refer to males as "men," and females as "chicks" and "girls," well, you said it pretty well:

You can not have double standards if you are trying to make a valid point. There is NO exception to this rule.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 16:41:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Instead, you scampered away"

Scampered?

That's a very homophobic and inaccurate way to put it.

Do you really think that confronting my neighbors would have accomplished anything other than make me look like the bad guy?

So what if you are 50 and they are 22?  Do you hand in your dignity at age 49?

Only an idiot would cause a confrontation when he/she is outnumbered. It would be even more foolish for a middle age person to confront young men who are probably not more than 20.

I took the dignified approach. I've never been in a physical fight in my adult life and I plan on keeping it that way.  

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:56:34 PM CDT

There in lies your problem

You could have easily engaged them and told them how you felt or discussed how you felt what they said was inappropriate. The idea that you felt it was going to end in a fight shows that you subconsciously understand that you approach problems with a native state of anger, which is evident by your above response to said comment and my own.

Instead of discussing your feelings, you wrote about your experience and posted it online, which is a commendable approach. The problem is that the anger you felt towards them, you then aimed at those who disagreed that Bruno was such a horribly offensive film.

Hatred begets hatred and anger fosters only malice. Even if these men or these comments are attacking you, only you have the power to stop the cycle and hold your own head high.

I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor.  

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:35:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stop with the anger crap

I'm not angry.

This is a typical line used to derail a good thread.

The problem is that the anger you felt towards them.

Stop it.

No one here is buying it. Just because I don't agree with you and I suspect you've probably just come here to be disruptive or impress us with false superiority, that doesn't mean I'm angry.

We see this far too often. People think that they can toss an accusation of anger into the mix and discredit someone.

It won't work.

My response to the situation I described was not an angry response. I did not show anger. I was not angry. I had hurt feelings.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:54:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am sorry you were hurt

I mean that with all of my heart, but what I asked were very serious questions and valid concerns.

I am not derailing anything, as the topic of this thread was your experience with these boys, your feelings, Bruno, the questions is brings up and whether it is intrinsically offensive or not.

This has nothing to do with superiority, I can not apologize for being articulate. I am simply contributing to a topic you posted on a public website that I read quite often. I feel my concerns are both valid and without malice.

Again, I apologize that these people hurt your feelings, but I am not attacking you. I am simply stating my view and I am wondering why you are not discussing my views without calling me a racist or a troll.

Best

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:58:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wrote:

In addition, the implication that black people would "scream or burn down buildings" over a blackface act seems horribly racist. Perhaps that's not how you meant it.

You wrote:

I am wondering why you are not discussing my views without calling me a racist or a troll.

That demonstrates that you're not as educated and intelligent as you want us to believe. Because, you see, I am fairly well educated and moderately intelligent. I understand the difference between calling someone a racist and writing that something "seems" racist and adding perhaps that wasn't your intent.

But, you're trying to do what so many others come here to do. You want to color everything others write to suit your own agenda. Lord knows what that is.

You accuse people of trying to "speak for everyone" and write that people are "angry" and trying to insult and belittle you.

Paranoid much?

If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd write about something worthy of discussion rather than the same tired old crap we see from the myriad of abusive people we encounter on blogs every day.

I think it is important to call people out for behavior such as you've displayed because it is something that kills friendly discourse. The last thing we need around here is someone storming in and telling everyone why we're all wrong and he/she has all the answers.

Most of us here are pretty smart people. We don't have to brag on our accomplishments and trot our resumes out for the world to see.

That seems pretty childish to me.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be fair

God, just about every racist on the planet throws that in the mix to defend his enjoyment of blackface.

This strongly implies that you are calling me a racist, coupled with the statement about burning buildings below that. You are also a white male, so by commonly accepted logic, my view of black face is more valid because it affects me more personally than it does you.

To date, you have called me a racist, a troll, a stalker and insulted me because I had the nerve to ask some very important questions about this, obviously traumatic experience that you endured. If you had wished me to be snarky, mean spirited and sarcastic, you should have said so. I was attempting to be polite and show the respect I had for your view and experience, but stating my own.

You have yet to discuss anything I asked or tried to engage me like a well thought out adult. It was actually you who responded to my original post, so this idea of stalking is silly, is it not? As I do not personally find you attractive and you have continued to evade my questions,I am unsure how you could logically define me as a stalker. It might be best to turn off the comments for an article you do not wish to discuss. I can only assume you are still functioning off of emotion from todays experience and I apologize that it is still affecting you. I do not think that gives you carte blanche to be rude to a fellow human being.

Below you stated you were not going to engage me again and I think that would be best. I came here to discuss this topic and state my point of view and you are obviously not looking for educated disagreement. The fact that you are claiming Bruno is making your life harder, is a very strong statement that you see yourself as a victim. I apologize that I found this to be egoistic and selfish.

If we are just going to label different views as Bushisms or right wing, you shouldnt expect many mature adults to take you seriously. Nitpicking who uses LGBT OR GLBT OR GLBTAQII is silly. The idea that anyone here would judge someone else because they didnt use some silly acronym, that changes on a daily basis, is odd. Its very reminiscent of The Bilerico project.

I respect this site and this woman's views, even I do not agree with all of them. I will just have to remind myself this is not her article and to avoid yours in the future.

Thank you Fritz and good night.  

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:09:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With sincere respect, I think you are wrong

Bushism that I hear from wingers. We usually call them "rights" and use "LGBT" (inclusive of our trans allies) if we're actually involved in the community.

There are other things that just didn't seem right.

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:49:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Weird

We must have pushed the submit at the same time and got all mangled up.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:51:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow

Alas, I don't see what I did write anywhere, and the back button doesn't ressurect the preview (I think I know why but I had to try).  :-(

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:54:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WTF?

The above is not what I wrote, and not what was displayed when I clicked 'preview'.  Wha' happened?

---

by: d'glenn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:51:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What you're doing is trying to hijack a thread

This has already been done once on this topic.

If you want to voice your opinions on unrelated topics, please feel free to write a diary.

Yet again, when anger and insults are the first thing we turn to when defending our logic

Anger? Insults?

There is no anger or insults in my response to you.

You are just being trollish and trying to start a debate that has been done here time and time again.

You're new here. I hope you can learn to contribute rather than accuse people of being "angry", "childish", "insulting" or whatever else you can imagine.

I came here for an adult discussion, not childish banter.

I don't think so. Like many before you, you came here to bully and tell others that they are not entitled to their opinions.

You are one of many who never:

1) Use your real name.
2) Provide an email and/or web address

Because of this, you have little credibility in my book. You could be a right wing zealot coming here to stir up trouble for all know.  

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:43:46 PM CDT

Let me be very clear.

My name is Justice Blaine Wainwright

I live at 11303 Garrick Court, Bakersfield, Ca
My phone number is 310-384-1285.

My email address is JBWAINWRIGHT@GMAIL.COM

I am 28 years old. I have a boyfriend and I live in one of the most dangerously homophobic cities in the country. I work daily with various gay and lesbian groups that work to win the freedoms we all deserve.

I have been a state debate champion, written for the national library of congress and various other places, gay themes and not.

Now that I have given you all this information. I will ask one more time. Please discuss what it was I asked and the questions I presented.

If you are unable to see the anger and childish actions in your responses, I can not change that. Call me a troll as much as you want, but do so by reaching a point and addressing my concerns please.

Thank you.

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:48:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"I have been a state debate champion"

So, did you win many debates by accusing your opponent of being angry?

Is that your idea of a rebuttal?

If you are unable to see the anger and childish actions in your responses, I can not change that.

Obviously, you are a one trick pony.

I'm not angry. I am somewhat put off by your superior attitide and demanding tone.

Also, it probably isn't a good idea to place your phone number (or someone else's) on a website. That demonstrates a certain amount of childish instability.

Frankly, you're scaring me a bit. More possible stalker than troll at this point.

Please replace "anger" in your rants with the word "fear" -- and I won't be engaging you again.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:10:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your time Fritz

I hope you have learned something from today's experience.  

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:20:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

call me psychic

   http://wpcontent.answers.com/w...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:54:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your mature response Heather

I find your handle ironically appropriate to the level of discussion you have brought here today.

Who needs to be intelligent when you can hotlink?

---

by: SpartanofAuburn @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:11:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not Heather, but friends call me PEARL

   

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:25:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*note to monitors

Now isn't this video a much more civilized way to announce an exit....just saying

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:41:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This guy ain't family

Thank you for your mature response Heather

He doesn't know who Heather Small is?!

Puhleeeze!

Nice try Peter or Bam Bam or whomever.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?
~Heather Small

Ya see, that's a signature quote that features a song lyric that any respectable gay man knows.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:28:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

here's a nice QAF video intercut with Heather Small video

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 01:39:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

my what a busy little button pusher

pffffffft ya ain't worth my trouble.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:13:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah

Bushism that I hear from wingers. We usually call them "rights" and use "LGBT" (inclusive of our trans allies) if we're actually involved in the community.

There are other things that just didn't seem right.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 21:49:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was trying to write...

But, got all mangled.

I suspect that our enemies are coming here trying to derail our threads.

They are always new users, a few days old or less.

They always write that we're "not helping our cause" and use language that is far from progressive.

I work daily with various gay and lesbian groups that work to win the freedoms we all deserve.

"Freedoms" is a Bushism that I hear from wingers. We usually call them "rights" and use "LGBT" (inclusive of our trans allies) if we're actually involved in the community.

There are other things that just didn't seem right.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 22:00:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brüno

My one recurring thought is: How can the fake Brüno be any worse for gays than the real Perez Hilton?  I'm sure most, if not all, of the gay men here are 'not Brüno', but how many are Perez Hilton? Or George Michael?  Or one of the 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' guys?

I just saw Brüno and thought it wasn't as good as Borat - in no small part because the character was far more obviously fake.  I think I would have been fooled has I come across the filming of Borat; not so with Brüno.  Still, I think it served the same purpose as Borat: exposing very disturbing elements of the American populace.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 23:10:23 PM CDT

Does anyone think Perez Hilton

is good for the LGBT community?

That's not saying a lot for Bruno.

As for George Michael, he's looking pretty good these days.

Here he is performing If I Were A Boy with Beyonce last month.

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

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 23:26:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does anyone think Perez Hilton?.....period

the answer is NO.

Our community has ALL KINDS,from Ken Mehlman, David Dreier, Karl Rove, Roy Cohn, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Donnie McClurkin, Ted Haggard....those I listed, I wouldn't cross the street to p*ss on, if they burst into flames.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 23:37:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll always have Paris

That Hilton is always open.

---

by: coram nobis @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 00:47:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll always have Paris, and cold sores...neither make me celebrate

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 00:59:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm.

The movie only opened yesterday in this country.  So how can Fritz's story actually have happened in that amount of time?  It seems a little too of a perfectly written or scripted a situation to justify all the "outrage".  Just saying.

I have seen an industry screening of the movie.  And it is far the hate-vehicle that people here are so breathlessly up in selective outrage about.  It has more in common with John Waters then it does anything else.  And no one seems to be up in arms when Waters stereotypes LGBT persons in movies such as Desperate Living or Female Trouble...  And certainly one can watch any episode of Ab Fab for any number of gay stereotypes -- but it's Ab Fab you'll scream (so that gives it a pass.)  (And please just because a gay director does it, well, that's more selective outrage.)

Bruno is more like the Peter Sellars movie, "Tales Of Hoffman" -- a story of an extremely wealthy English anarchist / situationist who sets up elaborate stunts to take the piss out of middle class society.  In that movie, "Hoffman" pays two boxers to interrupt their nationally televised boxing match to instead romantically kiss on national television.  In another sequence, an elaborate boat cruise is staged for wealthy inhabitants who are trapped amongst male body builders tantalizing them.  Hoffman ends with the famous scene of a huge vat of excrement set up in a parking lot, where money is thrown into the vat and people encouraged to dive in for the cash.  And of course they do...

I doubt very much Bruno will be the Clockwork Orange of homophobia.  I dare few here have seen the movie and are basing their "outrage" on trailers, word of mouth and the hype of GLAAD.  Like any so-called cultural event like this, you might instead turn it into a teaching moment instead of a victim's moment.  

GLAAD seems to argue that Bruno is "influencing" people to be bigoted.  Or "encouraging" them to be homophobes.  Let me tell you something.  It doesn't take a movie to make anyone anything.  If your neighbors or co-workers suddenly "come out" as being homophobic, guess what, they were that what always.  The only difference is that with the movie, they feel empowered to say something.  So you have a choice to wither like a weed, or confront them and educate them.  

---