Cohen made a game of seeing how people would react to the buttons he pushed in his various guises. What did people’s reactions to him say about them and their values?  More than that, what do their reactions say about the country we live in?  Not the usual questions brought up by a half-hour comedy show.

With the spin-off film Borat, Cohen tackled the very real issues of being a foreigner in America — how to fit in and how easily one can be taken advantage of. The most terrifying and hilarious aspect of that film was the way in which people felt like they could espouse their opinions to this simpleton, hoping to impress upon Borat their own worldview.  It wasn’t that they genuinely wanted to teach Borat how to be an American, but how to be a real American like them so that this foreigner would be less threatening.

The aim of Bruno is a bit different. Of course, it is still about trying to point out hypocrisy and intolerance, but the character of Bruno is also a lot more in-your-face and confident.  Where Borat mumbled politely, Bruno yells proudly. If Borat was about fear of the “other” in the form of an “Arab-looking” man, then Bruno is about that very same fear in the form of a flamboyantly homosexual and shallow man.  Both of these characters are far from innocent, but compared to some of the people they encounter, they almost seem wholesome.

There is a bit in Bruno, where the main character is talking to parents of toddlers about what is and is not acceptable if Bruno chooses their kid for a possible photo shoot.  “Does your child like lit phosphorus?”  “He loves it!”  Around the time when one mother says that a week is plenty of time for her toddler daughter to lose ten pounds and that she’d be open to liposuction to get those last few pounds off, it dawned on me that this was not funny. I don’t think Sacha Baron Cohen thinks it’s funny either. It’s amazing the way he gives these parents enough rope to hang themselves, gently prodding them off a cliff like lemmings; I would be surprised if Child Protective Services doesn’t contact a few of the parents from this scene.  But, I was amazed at the way in which my laughter started to become more of an uncomfortable giggle as the scene progressed from one that was strictly humorous to one that makes me say, “holy shit, my country is damaged.”

There are quite a few moments like this in the film and to spoil them all would sap a lot of the enjoyment from you.  The wonderful thing about the film, however, is that it’s hard to tell sometimes who is in the wrong.  At first, it seems as if Ron Paul is being homophobic and unnecessarily angry when he feels he is being hit on by Bruno; however, when Bruno finds himself in a similarly uncomfortable situation later on at a swinger’s party, we see the other side of it. Of course, this does not excuse some of the language that Ron Paul uses.

There seems to be a lot more scripted action in this film than there was in Borat, rather than extended scenes of Bruno just talking to regular folks.  But as in Borat, the film excels when Bruno is playing the interviewer.  Whether he is confusing “hummus” and “Hamas” while interviewing an ex-Mossad agent and a Palestinian politician or he’s convincing Paula Abdulto sit on some Mexican…uh, “chairs,” the film really makes its most cogent points in these scenes.  When the Israeli and the Palestinian both agree that hummus is healthy and delicious, Bruno astutely points out that they were finally agreeing on something.  And as idealistic as it may sound, perhaps that’s the real trick, to find what makes us the same rather than what sets us apart.

There’s been some outcry lately that Bruno is a caricature of homosexuality and that he is doing a disservice to the cause of equality. I would have to disagree vehemently with that assessment; Bruno is a fool, to be sure, but it’s the people around him that come across as most foolish.  Nothing should make straight Americans more embarrassed than the scene at the end of the film, set in a wrestling ring.  People get angry enough that they get violent rather than turning away from what they don’t want to see.  It reminds me of every time I heard someone say, “I don’t care what they do in their own homes, but not on my streets!”  Well, maybe it’s because I live in New York City, but I always felt like nobody was forcing me to see anything.  We have the option of turning away if we see something we don’t like.

But the character of Bruno is clearly not representative of all homosexuals and the fact is that he’s buffoon that happens to be gay. I don’t think anybody with half a brain will walk out of this film and say to themselves, “yep, that’s what all them gays are like.”  Nor do I expect anyone to become more homophobic as a result of seeing this film. In fact, because of the way Bruno talks with a “gay converter,” it may actually convince some folks of the pointlessness of being homophobic.

All that political stuff aside, this film is seriously hilarious. I found it to be funnier than Borat in almost every conceivable way. Not only were the jokes more hit than miss, but I laughed harder at them.  The film covers a lot of ground in 82 minutes, dissecting celebrity, the fashion world and homophobia.  You may have noticed that I haven’t discussed the “plot” of the film; well, that’s because it’s barely there.  Basically, Austrian TV host Bruno becomes an embarrassment in the European fashion world and comes to America to be a celebrity, with the help of his assistant’s assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), who has an unrequited crush on Bruno.  Hammarsten nearly steals the movie too, providing enough pathos and soul to remind us of the wonderful work he did in Lukas Moodysson’s Together and I couldn’t wait to get home to make sure it really was the same actor.

Sacha Baron Cohen is in a league of his own as a comedian and a performer and where he goes from here is difficult to judge.  It would seem nearly impossible for him to make another film in this vein again, as he’s far too recognizable at this point.  It will now be interesting to see him make the transition into a regular film star in a scripted movie.  Clearly, he has the talent to do it and an amazing ability to stay in character no matter what, but I also think maybe it’s possible for him to make another one of these.  If there’s anybody smart enough to figure out a way how, it’s him.

10 Best Picture Nominees

I just wanted to say something briefly about the Academy’s decision to double the number of Best Picture nominees to ten.  My first thought was: that is unbelievably stupid.  But now that I’ve thought it over, I’ve come to the following conclusion: it’s not like the Academy is in the habit of making “smart” decisions.  I can’t really get up in arms over this when the Academy nominated at least one terrible movie every year when there were only five nominees.  Now, you could say that they will nominate even more terrible movies, but I’m not so sure.  If the Academy had ten Best Picture nominees last year, then I’m sure films like Doubt andRevolutionary Road and maybe even Let the Right One In or Wall-E would have been nominated and that wouldn’t be such a terrible thing.

Does this move devalue the worth of having a film nominated for Best Picture?  Well, that would mean that there was some value in it to begin with.  Aside from the amount of DVDs that can be sold because of a sticker on a box, for me personally it makes no difference if a film is nominated for Best Picture or not; it won’t make me love a film any more or any less.  The Academy will still continue to nominated films like The Reader and continue to ignore films like Hunger or Paranoid Park or A Christmas Tale, so I don’t really think all that much is going to change.