Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > July > 10 > Entry
‘Bruno’ not as shocking as it thinks it is
By now, Sacha Baron Cohen has made it plain that he is a fearless provocateur who will do anything - and I mean anything - for a laugh.
And that’s exactly the problem with his new movie Bruno. Most of the sense of surprise and discovery Cohen had carried with him is gone now.
I wasn’t a great fan of Cohen’s breakthrough film, Borat, but I understood its appeal. It was subversive when the character made his subjects - and often his entire audience - into unwitting fools. I admired the boldness of the attempt, but thought the repetitive humor wore out its welcome.
Even though Bruno is not a sequel to Borat, it plays very much like a typical part two: It’s bolder, it’s brasher and it’s louder - but it’s not better.
Bruno is a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion commentator who gets fired, so he desperately seeks ways to make himself famous, with a camera always in tow. Along the way, he comes across several “real world” interview subjects, ranging from redneck hunters to presidential candidate Ron Paul, and watches them squirm at his outlandish antics.
When Cohen did this as Borat, the character seemed so guileless that it was easy to buy the idea that he could completely fool people. Not so much with Bruno. He’s so in-your-face, so ridiculously bizarre, that it’s hard to believe anyone fell for him. Instead of laughing at Bruno’s targets, I sat there incredulous at how gullible they were. Perhaps that’s part of Cohen’s point, but I didn’t usually find the endeavors funny.
On top of that, Cohen’s tendency to surprise has worn off. Because I knew going in that the movie was going to “shock” me, I ended up not being very shocked at all. No matter how deranged his tricks were, I watched most of them impassively. The genie was out of the bottle, and there was no putting him back in.
What little point Bruno has, Cohen takes too long to make it. He spends most of the early part of the movie staging “How sick is this?” sex gags, then engaging in stunts that have little or nothing to do with perceptions of homosexuality, such as Bruno’s attempt to broker peace between Jews and Arabs.
When Bruno finally does tackle gay-bashing, individual scenes stand out. Watching Bruno mingle with beer-chugging hunters is a hoot, and a scene in which Bruno tries to pass himself off as a straight man at a southern-fried Arkansas wrestling match is riotous when chaos ensues.
By that time, however, it’s too much, too late. What, I asked, was the point of all this? That many people are homophobic, whether it’s blatant or subtle? Sorry, but that’s not exactly front page news. In the end, I greeted Bruno with the reaction he probably fears the most: indifference. GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Fang
July 20, 2009 3:19 PM | Link to this
I loved it. It was better than Cats. I am going to see it again and again.By Karen Blakley
July 15, 2009 5:34 PM | Link to this
This was the worst movie I have ever seen - shocking and disgusting and completely ridiculous. I’d like my money back!By Allie D.
July 10, 2009 7:11 PM | Link to this
I continue to be amazed at the lengths to which people will go to battle semantics. “Homophobe” describes exactly the sort of regressive mindset inherent in people who fear homosexuals. P.S. Stephen, I apologize for calling you a moron, but your statement itself was moronic, and it irritated me.By SRCputt
July 10, 2009 5:36 PM | Link to this
Gee, Rev, what term would you like to use for people who are prejudiced against gays: bigoted, prejudiced, or idiotic? If phobic means irrational fear, then it seems to me homophobic is a good way to describe those who are so opposed to homosexuals.By Rev316
July 10, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this
Homophobic is a politically correct word invented in the 1970s to try to promote homosexuality by suggesting it is a mental disorder to not like homosexuality. This is from the same folks who declassified homosexuality from its former status of being a mental disorder, not because of research and evidence but merely because of homosexual activists who were protesting at meetings of the American Psychiatric Association. Let’s coin a new word, Brunophobic, meaning you fear wasting your money on a lousy movie.By Stephen
July 10, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this
okay truce. I might be a little oversensitive, but im not a moron…geesh.By Allie D
July 10, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this
Stephen — I think you’re being an obtuse moron, at best, if you could extrapolate homophobia from “he’s so in your face, so bizarre.” What in the heck is the matter with you? Seriously? I believe you yourself are projecting a homophobic attitude. You are the one, after all, who associated “bizarre” and “in your face” with Bruno’s homosexuality. NOT Eric. Seek help. Or at the very least, an English tutor.By Trent
July 10, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this
There’s nothing homophobic about this article. Being gay doesn’t mean someone is automatically “in your face” or “bizarre”, and being “in your face” or “bizarre” doesn’t automatically make someone gay.By Stephen
July 10, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this
This article is homophobic…thats the irony. “he’s so in your face…so bizarre”…enough said