Little Freudian slip there... "pubic service announcements"? Teehee....

I thought it was funnier than Zacharek did, but she at least doesn't burden the movie with the responsibility of carrying a clear, consistent satirical message (and how could it when it's a running series of Candid Camera moments?).

I also think Zacharek raises an important point: That so much of the comedy depends on things being a surprise. If you've heard in advance that the movie's the greatest thing ever, or if you know the setup of most of the gags, much of the fun is undercut by concern over whether expectations have been met or missed.

In Borat, I didn't realize it at the time, but because of the format you're kind of geared to think that you're laughing at Cohen's 'innocent' dupes, but looking again its clear that Cohen is what is funny. The movie may as well have been scripted for all the laughs the background players offer. The other people in the movie just provide him an opportunity to behave.

Haven't seen Brüno but I wonder if its similar?

You should put that next to your name on everything that you write.

Is it really satire, or is it simply mockery, buffoonery and assholism?

As the talking penis might say: Read my lips.

What the hell are you on?

I'm gay. I have no tolerance for homophobia. But I know a joke when I see it, and I think I'm pretty good at telling the difference between a joke for me and a joke at my expense.

I get a kick out of clips I've seen of the Bruno character, who's here, queer, deal with it. He's funnier than Jack on Will and Grace, if maybe not as funny as Jasper, Brian's gay cousin on Family Guy. It's great to see a character so satisfied with himself, so unafraid, that his lets his bright fushia self shine forth.

Part of what makes a difference between a homophobic joke and a non-homophobic one is that homophobes rarely know enough about gays to pick out the telling details to exaggerate and spoof. Under the excess, I've encountered enough Brunos in my time to recognize the source of humor.

Of course, your larger point is that comedy shouldn't have to fit some "accountability test." And I agree. I'm always surprsed when people deride Mickey Rooney's great comic turn in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's about the best slapstick anyone did that decade (yes, better than Peter Sellers in The Party, which was also rooted in racial caricature), but we're not supposed to laugh anymore because it's "wrong." Are we supposed to think there was a time Rooney actually convinced audiences he was Japanese? Or that his low-down mugging is the same as putting Asians in interment camps?

We Americans are often too quick to react self-righteously.

While I usually enjoy Stephanie's column, her take on SBC's style of humor (along with other prominent reviewers such as A. O. Scott) is mystifying.

Cohen is the high school clown who's part of the cool kids clique; he makes his friends laugh by ridiculing kids from the wrong side of the tracks, especially those who are slow, inarticulate and unlikely or unable to fight back.

While occasionally he'll do something nervy, such as mock a teacher or principal at an assembly, he is essentially a bully who picks on kids who because they are so unpopular, few will dare to stand up for them.

Likewise, the Kazakhs are out of luck if they hope to gain any real sympathy, or at least that is what SBC can count on from the majority of his audience. Ditto the rest unfortunate 'players' who were punked in Borat. SBC has correctly bet that no one who considers themselves sophisticated (one of the cool kids) will be bothered too much if the unwitting participants end up feeling abused and humiliated.

Admittedly, I have not seen Bruno but from what I gather, it follows much the same premise; SBC makes as many innocents look as foolish as possible, all while playing the idiot himself to soften the meanness of the joke.

Although I'm probably too sensitive for this kind of humor, I wonder why the cultural bias has flipped in favor of putting down the less fortunate and ignorant among us, as opposed to the Chaplinesque style of making fun of the rich and powerful who make the little guy's life a misery. From the cop with the truncheon to the fuming boss, those are figures that are fun to laugh at, because in real life we don’t dare. With SBC and other contemporary comedians, it is the hapless schmuck that’s the target. And while we might feel superior for a moment, it is an illusion.

Agrippina: "Although I'm probably too sensitive for this kind of humor, I wonder why the cultural bias has flipped in favor of putting down the less fortunate and ignorant among us, as opposed to the Chaplinesque style of making fun of the rich and powerful who make the little guy's life a misery."

Why is this an either/or division for you? Also, why do you think Cohen is putting down the little guy?

Charlie Chaplin's urchin characters were similar to Cohen in one way: He's the guy who stumbles into an ordered situation and turns it into chaos.

Chaplin's little-guy-hero element was the counterbalance to the subversion. It's the sentimental gloss that goes on top of the actual substance -- the mayhem.

In spite of the Borat mustache, Sacha Baron Cohen's no Charlie Chaplin (who could be?), and he is working in a different genre: A half-way zone between what's staged and what's reality. Chaplin's every move was staged and choreographed; Cohen has to work with multitudes of unknown variables and have a team of doctor, lawyers and getaway vehicles at the ready. It's performance art and pranks, posing as narrative.

I think what people will eventually realize about "Bruno" is that his antics are an in-your-face test of people's Christian principles as they apply to sexuality. The core concept of Christianity is to love your enemy. To the ignorant and those taught to be hateful, homosexuals are the enemy of all that is healthy, normal and traditional. When Borat waltzes into their world, their Christian principles come face-to-face with their bigotry.

This is as true for those in Borat's setups as it is for the audience. The movie doesn't have any answers about sexuality, but it shakes up your assumptions.

If that sounds a little too deep, it probably is. Part of thet ime I think Cohen wants to provoke a transcendent consciousness in his humor, and part of the time I think he just wants laughs however he can get them.

I appreciate the letter writer above who writes against the taken-for-granted idea that Mickey Rooney's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" depiction is offensive. I still lean toward thinking it is, but it isn't a simple judgment to make. A man dressed in drag (like on Monty Python) isn't necessarily mocking women, and a Caucasian appearing as an East Asian isn't necessarily putting them down either. A lot of it depends on the role, the words, the perfomance, and the effect. (The gentle, whimsical way Peter Sellers plays an Indian man in "The Party" didn't leave me thinking it was insulting to Indians.) Of course, I have the luxury of distance: It might be a completely different story to somebody from the ethnic group being depicted as caricature.

With "Bruno," I have a hard time believing gays would really be insulted by him, as he's a really extreme and bizarre creation. He talks like Dieter from the Sprockets, and he looks like the Little Dutch Boy. The Austrian angle makes it weirder: He refers to his butt as his "ass-chwitz." I don't think people who laugh at him are going to laugh at him for being typically gay; they're going to laugh at him for being on the outer realms of ridiculous.