So David Rakoff is complaining about Sacha Baron Cohen doing the exact same thing he did in his collection of essays "Fraud". Wasn't that just a collection of how sad and funny others were to the effete, intellectual Rakoff - delivered with metropolitan superiority?

Have you actually seen the movie?

Rakoff's review misses so much of the point of the film and the character. "Bruno" not only exposes and sends up homophobia, but satirizes the acquisitive, assimilationist, and homonormative characteristics of modern Western gay identity and politics. Moreover, Baron Cohen's humor is a hell of a lot more interesting and funnier than Rakoff's own safely liberal Sedaris-lite variant.

Oh wait, he already did that? I guess that means he's run the course on all 3 of those "zany" characters he debuted nine years ago. Maybe after this, he can go do something with Tom Green.

Let's ask the triumvirate cuz I's curious: Obama/Emanuel/Ayers and their Kingpin Daley.

Asking Laurel to be aware of anything outside of herself is like asking the same of a lobotomized golden retriever. It simply ain't gonna happen.

If she found my story to be offensive-and all I was doing was recounting an incident that I witnessed-then I'd be more than happy to provide her with the name of the establishment so that she can sue them on behalf of all discriminated-against heterosexual folk in the world.

Seriously, I think the only times she drops her spooge on here is when Lifetime goes out on her cable or when the Golden Corral is closed. I can't imagine anyone with her record of batshit arguments being a productive member of society.

Speaking of which, today I'm not being very productive. It's nice to take a day off every once in a while, just to do it.

...can a comedy film be made about homophobia that is not itself homophobic? Maybe, but not when so much of its humor is based on a lead character who embodies every hateful, homophobic stereotype ever conceived of. That's not a send-up of homophobia, it's a send-up of gay folks, and it is very much the equivalent of blackface in my view.

Homophobia is the "last acceptable bigotry?" Hardly. Borat showed us not only the anti-Semitic sentiments of many Americans, but the blatant misogyny of many American men. The fact that misogyny is often neglected in discussions of bigotry just affirms how deeply it is ingrained in our culture.

and turn on the coffee machine, I ask myself; "How is this good for the gays?"

It is most decidedly NOT the law in most places in this country that "public places of business are required by law to serve any customer who arrives, regardless of...sexual orientation". Public places of business can choose not to serve anyone for any reason as long as they are not discriminating based on a protected class, and "sexual orientation" ain't a protected class in most places in this country.

I think your views about what life is really like for gay people is probably shaped by your lack of information about the extent to which homophobia not only exists, but is legally sanctioned in this country.

You can only get so far w/ hyper-individualism and celebration of otherness. In the long run minorities, whether they be blacks or gays are better served by being perceived as being a part of a national culture.Of course that culture may be somewhat gay and somewhat black but it will not be exclusively those things. This is simply accommodating human nature which has a natural avoidance of otherness.

Here's a perfect example of what you're talking about:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12790543?source=most_emailed

As a straight male with a few gay friends here and there (they happen to be my girlfriend's usually), I was shocked to read of this happening in a heavily Democratic city where I used to live. I guess I shouldn't have been.

and I did (laughed like crazy though um why did he have to nude wrestle that guy and why did I see this movie with my mom?? ack) I'm curious to know if you've watched the movie again since seeing it in the theater?

I haven't, though I don't usually watch movies over unless I find them particularly funny or worth the time. Looking back though that movie is hard to stomach. It was funny then but now I have to wonder of the damage it inflicted.

I'm not preaching, this is an article though that makes me feel ashamed I laughed: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/12/04/061204sh_shouts

Don't know if that's good or bad, I'll likely see "Bruno" but probably on DVD versus the full movie theater experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen

Sacha Baron Cohen is an Observant Jew who in the movie Borat plays a Muslim who is a racist, stupid, and has sex with his sister.

I would assert when he portrayed Borat as this stupid Muslim who thought Jews could turn into cockroaches he was actually demeaning Muslims-- not Jews .

It's rather interesting the media tells people the film is anti-semitic so people get on the defensive, without actually thinking about what they are watching.

yellowraincoatgirl. Thanks.

I used to watch his 30 minute show - from which the characters Bruno and Borat originate. Although I often laughed with delight when his wannabe hiphop SBC character interviewed politicians and pundits, I always disliked Bruno because those skits clearly showed that Bruno revealed more about Cohen's personal gender biases and misogyny than they did about those of society as a whole.

Misogyny? Sascha Baron Cohen is almost indistinguishable from Benny Hill in his treatment of women in his comedy. They are bodies to drool on, props - nonentities. And it's that dismissive and contemptuous attitude toward women that infuses his portrayal of Bruno - since Cohen has such contempt for women that an effeminate man is doubly contemptible.

It would be fine if Cohen continued his agitprop comedic satire to highlight anti-semitism - even racism. But when his own gender politics are less evolved and less sophisticated than the general American public, he should not try to illuminate gender issues. It makes him look like an ass.