Warning: clips in this article contain language and scenes that may offend
So the secret is out. Brϋno, the new comedy from Sacha Baron
Cohen, is offensive. But hilariously so. The film (released on July 10), say
the reviews leaked online, “pushes boundaries further than Borat
ever did” (according to the BBC). With the aim of exposing hypocrisy, the
movie sends a straight man (Baron Cohen) under cover as a gay man (Brϋno)
into the heart of the American psyche, armed with rubber vibrators, PVC
hotpants and campy putdowns. Hilarious, yes? Well, not according to the Gay &
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation which, after a private screening of the
movie, issued a statement saying that it had “mixed emotions about the
movie,” which often “hit the gay community” instead of defending it.
What makes a movie offensive? The well-noted irony is that from within the
parody comes the validation of the very stance that was originally up for
ridicule. And Baron Cohen is not alone in falling into this trap. For
decades, movies from Pink Flamingos to Life of Brian, have
toyed with offensive material. And yet today, from the constant stream of
gay jokes in the comedies of Judd Apatow, to the daring racial gag in Tropic
Thunder (Robert Downey Jr goes black!), the free-for-all aesthetic is
proving increasingly problematic. When, for instance, does a gay caricature
stop being inherently laughable and become a vehicle for exposing hypocrisy?
And why do racist jokes cease to be racist jokes just because we know
they’re racist jokes?
The defence, naturally, is that of irony and awareness — we’re all in on the Brϋno
joke. We know that not all gay men are like that. It’s just a film, don’t
get so het up! But many movies, the ringleaders listed below, are still
guilty.
1 Life of Brian (Terry Jones, 1979)
The offence: The Monty Python stalwarts Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones,
Palin and Chapman take humorous pot-shots at the New Testament. Chapman
plays Brian Cohen, a jaded Jewish boy on the run from the Romans who is
mistaken for a Messiah and eventually crucified.
Case for the prosecution: Brian was mostly, and erroneously,
depicted as parodying the life of Jesus, rather than featuring a luckless
man called Brian. The final crucifixion scene was deemed distasteful too.
Case for the defence: The reflex “It’s not about Jesus!” defence
eventually wears thin, and the film-makers rightly claim that they’re making
satirical points about organised religion. And crucifixion, notes Jones, a
classical scholar, was not at the time exclusive to the Christ story.
Verdict: The mother of all movie offenders is not guilty. Here the
satirical attack is too precise, and too well-judged to be boorish and
hateful. In short, there is no comedic collateral damage. KM
Watch a clip
2 Kids (Larry Clark, 1995)
The offence: The acclaimed stills photographer Larry Clark makes his
movie debut with this New York-set tale of rampant teenage sex, casual drug
use and date rape. The film revolves mostly around Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick),
a 17-year-old HIV-infected “virgin surgeon”, who specialises in deflowering
teenage girls, often as young as 12.
Case for the prosecution: The camera of Clark, then a 52-year-old
film-maker, seems to have a leering interest in the skinny bodies,
spread-eagled limbs and heroin chic demeanour of his adolescent cast. The
film, said The Washington Post, is “borderline child pornography.”
Case for the defence: Clark is keeping it real. “A wake-up call to the
modern world,” warned The New York Times.
Verdict: Not guilty. Though it’s hard not to feel that someone
somewhere is getting a kick out of watching nubile kids at their most
decadent. And it’s not the kids. KM
Watch a clip
3 The Idiots (Lars Von Trier, 1998)
The offence: Von Trier set out to push as many buttons as possible with his
Dogme film.
Case for the prosecution: Erect members wave around like flags and the
film is a minefield of unsimulated penetration shots (porn actors performed
those duties rather than the cast, much to Von Trier’s disappointment). But
it was the film’s thematic conceit that caused most offence. A group of
anti-bourgeois Danes gather together in a commune with the aim of exploring
their “inner idiot”. Which in effect means they wander around bothering
people by pretending to be mentally handicapped.
Case for the defence: Von Trier reveals the hypocrisy and lies at the
heart of the commune’s ideology by employing his favourite device – a
put-upon woman who is sacrificed upon the altar of her own sexuality and
vulnerability.
Our verdict: Guilty. Von Trier’s raison dêtre is to provoke. But does
he have to do it in such a tiresomely cynical way? WI
Watch the trailer
4 Jackie Brown (Quentin Tarantino, 1997)
The offence: While telling the story of a flight attendant, Jackie
Brown (Pam Grier), and her burgeoning relationship with a down-at-heel bail
bondsman, the writer-director Tarantino feels the need to sprinkle his
screenplay with the word “nigger” 38 times.
Case for the prosecution: Spike Lee said it best: “Some people speak
that way, but Quentin is infatuated with that word. What does he want to be
made — an honorary black man?”
Case for the defence: It’s only a movie, guv! Both Tarantino and his Jackie
Brown co-star Samuel L. Jackson claimed that the movie was primarily an
homage to other earlier “blaxploitation” flicks.
Verdict: Guilty. As with everything in Tarantinoland, it’s overkill and
needless provocation. KM
Watch a clip
5 Borat: Cultural Learnings of American For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of
Kazakhstan (Larry Charles, 2006)
The offence: Kazakhstan took issue with the fact that Sacha Baron
Cohen’s riotous mockumentary depicted them as goat-loving peasants who rated
incest and anti-Semitism among their favourite pastimes.
Case for the prosecution: Who can blame the Kazakhs? The American
subjects of the film were equally dismayed to be depicted as small-minded
bigots and racists.
Case for the defence: Borat was a harmless fictitious creation. The
reactions of the small-minded xenophobes that Baron Cohen set out to
provoke, however, were real and revealing. The film is an anarchic comedy
but also holds up a mirror to the very worst tendencies of American society.
Verdict: Not guilty. However, the studio’s lawyers were kept
exceedingly busy. WI
Watch the trailer
6 Cruising (William Friedkin, 1980 )
The offence: A New York cop, Al Pacino, goes undercover in the city’s
gay community to catch a serial killer who is targeting young gay men in the
West Village. Get out the sex-drenched leather and moustaches.
Case for the prosecution: The film was denounced as having a homophobic
message. The gay community attempted to disrupt filming whenever possible.
Gay-owned businesses banned the film-makers from their premises and mirrors,
whistles and air horns were used to ruin shots.
Case for the defence: The film has achieved some cult status and has
even been acknowledged by some gay cultural theorists as being historically
significant in the way Hollywood depicted gay life.
Verdict: Guilty. Homophobia aside, it’s just not very good . . .
although some gay men confess a secret liking for it. WI
Watch a clip
7 Team America: World Police (Trey Parker, 2004)
The offence: An adult-themed puppet movie that announces itself as an
equal opportunities offender, Team America parodies both US
militarism around the globe and the movies of Michael Bay, and yet it
reserves its most demeaning jibes for its Arab villains, who are seen as
bearded aliens muttering manically.
Case for the prosecution: Yes, the creators have a scattergun approach
to parody, and true they hit everyone from Kim Jong Il to George Clooney to
Hans Blix along the way. But there’s something damning, and indicative of
America’s former foreign policy, in the dehumanisation of all Arabs.
Case for the defence: Have you seen what they do to Matt Damon?! Or how
they depict an opening Broadway musical based on Rent (“Everyone has
Aids!” is the big musical number). No one gets out of here unscathed.
Verdict: A hung jury. The reluctance to parody George W. Bush (who is
absent from the film) is unfortunate. KM
Watch a clip
8 Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003)
The offence: Bill Murray stars as an ageing American movie star killing
time in a Japanese hotel while filming a whisky commercial. There he meets a
luscious young thing played by Scarlett Johansson. Together the pair spend
some quality time laughing at the locals, at how small they are, at how they
like karaoke, and at how they can’t pronounce their “R”s.
Case for the prosecution: Not since the heyday of TV’s Mind
Your Language has such racial stereotyping been seen as mainstream
entertainment. Here the comedy highlight involves a call girl ordering
Murray to, “Lip my stocking!” She actually means “Rip my stocking!” But
she’s Japanese, and you know what they’re like!
Case for the defence: Japan is like that. Full of small people who
can’t say “R”.
Verdict: Guilty. A low blow in high art for the sake of a cheap laugh. KM
Watch the trailer
9 Pink Flamingos (John Waters, 1972)
Offence: Does the world really need a film featuring a singing anus? Or
a toothless crone, Edith Massey, playing the simple-minded egg-obsessed
Edie?
Case for the prosecution: Was the cameo by the transsexual flasher
justified by the narrative? And did we need to see the transsexual Divine
bend over to snack on a freshly deposited pile of dog excrement?
Case for the defence: Waters tapped into the cynical zeitgeist of the
post-hippy era. His film is a protest film of sorts. It was billed as an act
of art terrorism designed to shock its audience out of their intellectual
inertia. And let’s face it, the film is pretty funny. It’s now considered a
cult classic.
Verdict: Not guilty. Waters’s intentions were honourable and just think
of the joy he brought to the lives of numerous teenagers whose first act of
cinematic rebellion was to watch this film. WI
Watch a clip
10 There’s Something About Mary (Peter and Bobby Farrelly, 1998)
Offence: This comedy could be condemned just for the tide of body-fluid
gags and humiliation that followed it. PostFarrelly brothers, the experience
of watching a teen comedy was something akin to wading through slurry.
Case for the prosecution: Nothing is sacred here: the not-so-tender
Farrelly touch was applied to everyone, black or white, disabled or
able-bodied. The gratuitous “penis-caught-in-the-zipper” joke is a low-water
mark in cinema; the “ejaculate-as-hair gel” became an iconic gag.
Case for the defence: There is a kind of innocence to the Farrelly
oeuvre that somehow defuses the worst of the offence. Sure they like to see
people humiliated but then they like to give them a hug.
Verdict: Guilty. The Farrelly brothers are responsible for a multitude
of sins. WI
Watch a clip
