Is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation past its prime? GLAAD's reaction to the movie Bruno makes them sound like a bunch of crotchety old fussbudgets who could use a toke of medical marijuana.
Their press release on July 7 grudgingly noted the movie is "apparently intended to skewer" homophobia, but GLAAD couldn't get past the fact that gay teenagers are still "bullied, beat up and ridiculed." GLAAD's Rashad Robinson cranks that up to 11 in an op-ed for the LA Times. Straight people can laugh at the movie, then go back to their normal lives; but not gay people, who must suffer interminably:
It could come up in the form of jokes about gay parents at the office. Or gay teens taunted with the name "Bruno" in school hallways. Or in fanning the flames of anti-gay campaigns and laws, like California's Proposition 8, pushed by those who exploit discomfort, and the "ewwww" factor, for political ends. . . . For a major studio film with a massive cultural footprint to pile even more stereotypes and discomfort onto an already hostile climate -- despite what are inarguably the best of intentions -- doesn't make the work of changing and overcoming it any easier.
I think GLAAD turns Bruno on its head. They're confusing the way people might misperceive the movie with the message the movie is sending. Bruno wants to make fun of homophobic cluelessness, and GLAAD doesn't seem to want to let it. Unlike the sexless pansies in movies past, which GLAAD helped the general public contextualize, Bruno goes Full Dildo on the puritans.
Ironically, Bruno is the kind of movie GLAAD paved the way for - gleefully anti-homophobic. But now it's GLAAD who's become orthodox. If GLAAD doesn't get itself a sense of humor, they may wind up being the subject of Baron Cohen's next movie.
13 Comments for “GLAAD: The Cross I’d Bear”
posted by avee on
I’m no fan of GLAAD — they are unwilling, unable and completely disinterested in debating the religious right, preferring instead to spend their energy bestowing awards on Hollywood airheads. It’s as if the battle of ideas is seen as beneath them. Or else directly confronting social conservatives is simply viewed as too hard. They need a John Corvino!
But I also do feel that as regards “Bruno,” the joke is on us. It’s not enough to claim that you’re taking on homophobia when your “hero” is an embodiment of every gay stereotype imaginable. Sasha Barron Cohen wants to have it both ways ? like a lot of straight comedians ? mocking gays under the guise of mocking homophobia. So, like a stopped clock, it may be that GLAAD is actually on to something, this time.
posted by The Gay Species on
Frankly, GLAAD, HRC, NGLTF, and Lambda are all a bit “off.” The A.C.L.U. does more good for homophiles and transgender than all these alphabet soups stuck in minestrone do. If GLAAD really had a conscience, it would join the anti-torture porn bandwagon (free of donuts, of course). But who would buy all that kink?
posted by Frankster on
Glaad’s you can’t do this on television kind of attitude has helped pave the way for the future of today. When we sit to watch a box and eating everything up it’s good to have “Parents” watching just to make sure media doesn’t get out of line.
posted by mgh on
(1) I don’t see how you can ever put GLAAD, HRC, and Lambda in the same boat and somehow exclude ACLU…
(2) Have you seen Bruno? If the movie did what it claimed it did, I wouldn’t have much of an issue — but it’s pretty bad, and it’s not good for is. It’s not anti-homophobic — it’s pretty much just homophobic.
posted by tristram on
Have not seen the movie, but ate at McDonalds today and found myself next to three college-age (hetero) couples who had just come from the movie. Four of the six (including all three guys) were in strong agreement that “That’s what I ‘hate’ about gays” as they discussed several of their apparently gay friends/aquaintances and identified traits or actions that reminded them of Bruno. Nothing these kids said was really hateful, but the movie seemed to reinforce the negative side of their attitudes.
posted by richard on
GLAAD and HRC are two organizations that have always cared more about their high profile as “leaders of the community” than the actual community they supposedly are here to serve. I saw Bruno and thought is was sooooo dumbstupidfunny that for anyone to take the stuff seriously-has to be wound up a bit too tight. yea, it gets a bit outlandish, and i even had to squeam once or twice–BUT DAMN WAS IT FUNNY.
as is usually the case with the so-called “leaders and organizations” they pick a movie to bring attention to themselves instead of concentrating on the real needs of the communities they serve. i am gay, 58 years old and my friends all seem to see it as just a really funny movie.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Try going over to
http://www.pamshouseblend.com
And checking out the account by “Fritz’ regarding how straight people perceive gay people because of this movie.
SBC might be making certain people the butt of his jokes, but at what cost to the validation of gay lives NOT to be?
In a perfect world, we might all be able to laugh off this movie and not take it so seriously.
But it’s not that world, and some things we just can’t afford.
posted by Carl Hendrickson on
I saw Bruno in Redding, California this past weekend. Yes, Redding! I went alone to an evening screening while there on family business.
I can report that the theater was packed with date-nighters who yipped, woo-hoo?d and otherwise oh-yawed the films ?satire?. They liked it and not for the reasons gay people do.
Having lived in Los Angeles, San Francisco and now Seattle my husband and I have had a relative rarified life insulated from those homophobic. We are not naive however. Everyone processes media from their individual point of view.
My experience in the theater Saturday night confirms my prior notion that gay people are not the target audience for this film. Sadly the producers targeted the audience that will haul in the bucks, one that largely misses the satire and latches on the stereotypes which support their homophobia.
Some argue that the film?s producers were well intended satirists. I disagree. The producers did exactly what they intended to do, cleverly exploit gay stereotypes.
posted by Bobby on
My date forced me to watch Bruno and I must say I LOVED THAT MOVIE! It was so politically incorrect, I specially love it when Bruno meets the ex-gay counselor and asks him if he can play the clarinet after becoming straight. The audience at my theater was laughing more at Paul Cameron and the other ex-gay counselors than Bruno himself.
I also like the fact that they show a penis, twice. That’s breaking a cinematic barrier that rarely gets crossed.
I can’t stay this movie is “homophobic” because Bruno exceeds traditional gay stereotypes. And yes, sometimes you laugh at Bruno but other times you laugh with Bruno and the people that confront him.
I think a straight person would have to be retarded to think all gays are like Bruno.
posted by Mark F. on
Maybe Cohen is really pro-gay, but does a scatological gay minstral show with an vulgar, ammoral prancing and mincing straight man in absurd gay drag really advance the cause of gay rights or enlighten anyone? To ask the question is to answer it.
Maybe Cohen will do his next movie in blackface wearing a 1970’s style pimp outfit in order to point out the racism in this country.
posted by Bobby on
Mark, I didn’t see that many people complaining when Cohen made fun of Kazakhstan with his Borat character.
As for minstrel shows, one only needs to look at some of Spike Lee’s movies to see a minstrel show.
posted by bruno@gay.mil on
If GLAAD possessed a little political sense, they would take the opportunity of this movie to start a dialogue. The real problem with homophobia in the Red States of America is that nobody ever talks about homosexuality except the preachers and right-wing politicians who stir up hate for their own good. You can fool yourselves into thinking that Gay Pride gets reported on by local news stations in Kansas but it just ain’t true.
Well, somebody just started a conversation about homosexuality but not in the confining context of “marriage”… and GLAAD’s agenda is to whine as if somebody had just drawn an offensive cartoon of their prophet. How sad.
posted by Bobby on
Come on, Bruno. Start a dialogue? People already watch Oprah and Dr. Phil, they can learn about those issues on those shoes, 20/20 has done specials about it, so has 60 minutes, the truth is the issue of homosexuality has been covered ad nauseum. Besides, “homosexuality” sounds too sexual, it’s better to talk about same-sex marriage, gay adoption, gay families, and gays in the military.