Bruno and the Perils of Interpretation

The impending release of Sacha Baron Cohen's film Bruno, which follows in the semi-scripted, quasi-documentary footsteps of the wildly successful Borat, re-ignites an old debate about activism and popular culture. Like his goofy, lovable and - oh yeah - scathingly anti-Semitic Borat character, Cohen's Bruno is designed to dredge up the worst bigoted feelings from the average Joes and Jills he encounters and play them for laughs. In Bruno's case, the title character is a homosexual fashion expert from Austria whose cartoonish flamboyance unearths the vile undercurrent of homophobia in certain segments of society. 

To expose and then ridicule prejudice is a noble goal, and one could argue that there's almost no better way to eradicate it. Laws are important, obviously, but laws alone don't change minds. And although the legalization of gay marriage is sure to result, over time, in greater acceptance for homosexuals, releasing a Hollywood blockbuster that makes fun of the haters is a more immediately satisfying way to advance the cause.

Of course, one could also argue that Bruno doesn't so much make fun of homophobes as provide them with another target, a character who embodies all they think they know and love to hate about gays. I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I've read it could very well be possible to see Bruno and come away not with the notion that hatred of homosexuals is stupid, but rather that homosexuals are indeed worthy objects of derision. Will people laugh with Cohen, or at Bruno? These two reviews, one positive and one somewhat negative, outline the parameters of the debate.

The reality is probably that people will probably laugh both with and at Bruno. Which is unfortunate, in the sense that a film with a very pointed message will be viewed by millions of people who will take away the exact opposite of that message. But that's the deal with pop culture. Kurt Cobain, for example, changed the entire music scene with music and public statements denigrating bigoted meatheads, but no doubt a huge portion of the audience that made him rich were bigoted meatheads of the highest order, responding to the volume of Cobain's screams but ignoring their content. 

As an artist, one ceases to own something the moment they put it out to the public. So in the end, it matters very little what Cohen's intent is with the Bruno character (it says here that, since he's a comedian and not an activist, he's probably happy to have it both ways - to play shamelessly and comically into gay stereotypes while at the same time making fun of those who hate and stereotype). It only matters what the audience does with it. 

Moreover, Cohen can't be held responsible for those who misinterpret the film. To force artists to censor themselves based on the potential reactions of society's most ignorant members would mean the end of any truly provocative art. And we deserve better than to be held hostage by stupidity.