Title: UKRAINIAN OAK
Print Status: Available
|
|
Buy now!
Comic ID #2207
Title: UKRAINIAN OAK
Print Status: Available
Title: UKRAINIAN OAK
Print Status: Available
Discussion (7) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Comment ¬
Your last paragraph perfectly sums up why I don’t enjoy Cohen’s stuff. I got a massive kick out of Adam Sandler’s “Don’t Mess With the Zohan”, even though it was totally over the top, because no one was being played, and it was basically a really good-hearted film. Whereas Cohen clearly just wants to push buttons. Thing is, Bruno could make the most gay-friendly and open-minded person wince; there are some things that I just think are obnoxious and innappropriate, period, and I don’t care if it’s a gay or straight person doing it. And I think that’s where trying to pass this sort of in-your-face comedy off as some high-minded social commentary rings false to me. I don’t think he’d have to play him that over the top to make a point, and in fact I think the point falls flat precisely because of that, since, as I said, some behaviour is obnoxious and off-putting no matter who’s doing it. I’m sure redneck hunters would no more want to be hit on by some weird, outrageous female than by a gay Austrian supermodel, they just might react slightly differently. If anything, getting in people’s faces that way makes me more sympathetic with them, rather than exposing their ignorance in the face of a perfectly decent but different-from-them human being (though that would make me uncomfortable in an entirely different way, and still wouldn’t be something I’d get a laugh out of).
> We receive it as comedy, and to a great degree we’re supposed to, that is the selling point. But Cohen is a practicing anarchist from the school of Propaganda by the deed. I’ve really not looked into any of his own comments regarding this or Borat, but from my point of view (political theorist) I believe Cohen may not want laughs, so much as discomfort. The more popular Propaganda by the deed tends to favor humor, show them how funny the system is in hopes they’ll laugh it out of reality, but the more effective is to show just how down right uncomfortable the status quo is.
> Sorry, got to rambling there. I guess all I’m trying to say is, he played the comedy up to great success in Borat and gained a built in audience, Bruno will write a ticket for another movie, which could in theory be less comedy and more shock. Just trying to wake people up. But, thats just one opinion.
I’ll definitely wince, but I’ll probably still laugh. At the very least, the insanity of whatever situation he’s in will get me. Maybe. I’ll find out tonight when I see it.
And hats off to you for todays strip Tom, it really made me giggle.
I found Borat to be absolutely hilarious, but the situations were so intense I could only watch it once. Bruno will probably be the same for me.
To be brief, what I really appriciate about Theater Hopper and by extension what I percive as one of your great personality traits is that there is a deep seated earnestness in both. Decietful comedy to exposes the weaknesses in others by playing up a stereotype to the point of painful awkwardness is not very genuine. I can see where it would not appeal to people who value such honesty in themselves and look for it in others.
Having said that I will come back later an talk about how I do enjoy Sasha Baron Cohen’s humor even if I do not always agree with it and how I really do appreciate this comic in it’s development of Victor as a charater while still being funny and poignant.
As one of your readers who is in a relationship with someone of the same gender I obviously have a position on this. And as someone who does not believe in the “straigt” or “gay” labeling system I have a long and wordy opinion on that as well.
Hello, this is a bit long so I hope it is not much. Just my two cents on Bruno.
Having seen Bruno I will say that I did not find it that funny but it was interesting. My view of the movie is colored by a very specific interpretation that the Bruno character is not supposed to represent a functioning adult but the impulsive behavior of a child reacting to modern media.
Bruno is less a stereotype of a homosexual and more of a portrait of impulsive, vain and needy behaviors presented in non-culturally homogenized ways.
One example on an underlying theme which creates the perception of the homosexual stereotype is the play on the current common heterosexual stereotype in the media that focuses on women and breasts to gain interest with youth and sex. Bruno presents an abundance of male imagery and penises which is just as exploitive of a behavior for attention through gender specific physiology . It is not an exact corollary but comedy rarely delves into perfect parallels.
This and many other challenges to commonly accepted behaviors such as child rearing, entertainment and social acceptance present an awkward position for not just the “patsy” to this ploy but to the audience who may or may not feel a similar discomfort when presented with these challenges to socially diverse yet ingrained ideas.
Comedy differs from drama by the viewer’s ability to separate themselves from the difficulty presented by the character in the story. In broad comedy the audience is given the distance by unrealistic sounds or obviously pantomime actions and the idea of a person in physical danger is pushed aside with gales of laughter. Intellectual comedy or “parlor” comedy is about misunderstanding and social faux pas that are given distance by everything working out in the end with just a little embarrassment but no further social damage to the characters in the story. (villains not included unless they are to be redeemed at the end) It is the lack of harm that makes it comedy.
Early “candid” comedy would have unsuspecting participants tricked into a “parlor” type comedy situation. When the prank was played and the audience had laughed the participant would be let in on the joke by the host. The audience was able to see the person finish out the situation and they could see themselves in the participant showing good grace and having a laugh at their own expense.
However, in this sociological brand of “candid” comedy the participant is not the character, the Idea motivating the interaction becomes the character. People relate to other people not abstract theory. While the audience may laugh at the awkward situation there are two ways the “participant” can be viewed. As a prop in the comedy so that mocking them is like mocking an ugly lamp and the audience must side with the “host” or as a person the viewer can relate to in some fashion and as their feelings are bruised there is only empathetic discomfort as no salve is applied when the scene cuts to the next prank. It is often uncomfortable because there is no resolution with the person. Not on screen anyway.
So in this Bruno is not so funny as it is interesting and unfortunately because it is a “Comedic” movie and not a six week University lecture series it opens many cans of worms and lets them crawl around in the audiences mind with no intention of helping people deal with the squirming discomfort.
On the idea of candid camera-esque comedy, I’ve noticed a variation in my own reactions to skits in Howie Mandell’s show Howie Do It. It really breaks down into two kinds of gags:
The mark is the perpetrator — this involves such things as the mark knocking over a jar of ashes, or presenting a check to a family only to find out he has the wrong house. In this case the damage is never to the mark, only the sympathetic embarrassment of causing that damage to someone else. I find these hilarious, in part because you can see the look on the mark’s face as the tearful victim finally bursts out laughing.
The mark is the victim — a man is convinced to burst out of a box in a speedo and faerie wings as part of some magician’s trick, only to find that instead of onstage he’s in the middle of a crowded plaza. A “reality show” contestant is locked in a room and forced to endure psychological torture until the gag is revealed. Here, even if it’s only temporary, the harm is to the mark himself. This to me crosses the line from funny to cruel. You’re causing real damage to someone, then trying to undo it by telling him it was a joke.