I’m trying to decide if this is the most controversial comic I’ve ever done or not. Some people really got up in arms about the Fahrenheit 9/11 comic from a while back, but I think this one may have trumped it. People tend to take religion pretty seriously.
Well, hopefully you all know how to take a joke and realize that I’m not implying Jesus was gay or anything like that. I’m just having fun with all of the ridiculous comparisons the media has been making to Superman now that Superman Returns is in theaters.
By in large, you hear more about the gay thing and the Christ thing more than the immigrant thing – but it all applies. Intrinsically, that’s the appeal of Superman. He’s the EVERYman. As a superhero, since he can DO anything, so he can BE everything to everyone. The fact that only certain facets of what Superman can potentially represent are being talked up in the media in order to stir up controversy I think is really lame.
After all, for every gay man living in the closet who identifies with Clark Kent and the dual life he leads, there is a 5 year-old kid out there who is just as enamored with The Man of Steel for the amazing feats of strength he performs – wishing someday he could grow up to be like him. I know that was certainly the case for me when I was growing up.
But no one talks about the aspirational qualities of Superman. It’s far more interesting to point out the gay thing or the religion thing or the immigrant thing because those are all hot-button topics in the “real world.” Was anyone talking about this kind of stuff when the original Superman movie came out back in 1978? Or even when he came back to television in Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman? Of course not.
You don’t need to associate the latest controversy de-jour to make Superman relevant. He’s always been relevant and always will be all on his own.
I know a lot of you have already seen Superman Returns. I haven’t be able to make it out to the theaters since it arrived on Wednesday and it’s killing me. But Cami and I are going to see it in IMAX on Saturday afternoon and it’s going to be great. I’m chomping at the bit to see the “bulletproof eyeball” sequence on a 70 foot tall screen. I’ll tell you if the Big Blue Boy Scout flinches!
I wasn’t planning on doing another comic about Bruno, but it was very interesting to read the comments from Wednesday’s comic. So I decided to ride this wave a little longer. Victor was the perfect character to provide an outsider’s perspective and deflate the situation some.
Generally, people seem conflicted about the characters Sacha Baron Cohen creates. I think everyone can see what he’s trying to accomplish in terms of social satire, but there is something about the persistence of his performances that makes people a little uneasy. Are people having a homophobic reaction to Bruno or are they just reaching a boiling point when confronted with a highly abrasive personality? Cohen doesn’t make that distinction, but he leads people to believe it’s homophobia at work.
In a pro-Bruno piece by Slate’s David Lim, Lim addresses the criticism that Cohen has been “indulging in gay minstrelsy” and suggests that the character is “a button-pushing social experiment in locating the tipping point of tolerance.”
“For his merciless ambushes to work,” Lim continues. “Bruno needs to be this flamboyant — and this moronic.
“The most discomfiting — and incongruous — aspect of Bruno’s pinkface masquerade is the character’s over-the-top sexual voracity… Bruno is a far cry from the prim and prissy old-school sissies, who were all innuendo and no libido. We have long been conditioned to regard effeminacy as a neutered, negative stereotype, but there are moments when Baron Cohen’s extravagant prancing… seems not grotesque but defiant, forcing his foils… to recognize the screaming presence of Otherness.”
Personally, I don’t know if I buy into this kind of analysis. Because the depiction of a sexually voracious homosexual is EXACTLY what some people fear most. In my opinion, it sounds like Cohen is trading in the winking, coy, guffawing Paul Lynde effeminate stereotype for another.
Granted, I could be accused of playing into the sexually voracious homosexual with the way I’ve written Victor. At times I’ve depicted him as a sadomasochist. But at the same time, this is in keeping with the authoritarian nature he projects – established early in the character before it was revealed he was gay. By equal measure, I have depicted Victor as lovelorn and pining from a distance.
I like to think that I am writing more than one facet of Victor’s personality with the limited amount of time that I use him. I don’t think Victor is a walking cliche like Bruno is and I think there is an interesting dichotomy between his strength, his heritage and his sexual orientation – all of which were effectively wrapped up in this one comic.
Cohen is almost a method actor in the sense that he often doesn’t drop character even while promoting the movie. I don’t think I saw him in an interview as himself once while promoting Borat. A few weeks ago he showed up as Bruno on The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien. But recently (and conspicuously) showed up as himself on Late Night with David Letterman.
What I’m getting at is maybe there is a little too much slight of hand or misdirection in Cohen’s satire and I kind of prefer to be in on the joke a little bit more.
Fundamentally, I think it goes back to the humor of embarrassment, which I have never been a big fan of. Whether Cohen is playing a gay Austrian fashion reporter or a socially clueless representative of Kazakhstan, I have difficulty settling in and enjoying the end result because I can’t laugh at people put in those situations. I can only wince.