DISQUS

RobertFure · 7 months ago

Still taboo for "middle America" eh? There's plenty of people all over America and the world where some sexual content is still taboo. Singling out "middle America" as some sort of defined zone of ignorance is just as ignorant as those whom you're criticizing as being uncomfortable or against some sexual relations. I don't know why, but when people pick on "middle America" like it's some sort of strange, foreign land of ignorant racists, it bothers me. For some reason, it's also okay to do so. If you could see me now, I'm making the jerk off motion.
But I'm always doing that, so that's not really a comment on anything.

Anyway, I already saw Bruno when it was called Borat and instead of doing men he did sheep, so I'll have no trouble waiting for this one on DVD, where I can see it unrated anyways.

Scanain · 7 months ago

'Middle America' much like 'The Civilised West' is a generic term to describe a group of people defined by characteristic as opposed to geographical location.

This at least is how I would view the term - but I'm Irish so what do I know!

Your second statement really could apply to almost any sequel (quasi sequel)l:

"Anyway, I already saw Transformers 2 when it was called Transformers 1 and instead of Robots Fighting there were Robots Fighting, so I'll have no touble waiting for this one on DVD, where I can also be making jerk off motions to a poster of Megen Fox."

Or something along those lines. Both films highlight people's prejudices more than their ignorance. Whilst prejudice is a direct result of ignorance, its still entertaining to see the different flavours, and I'm happy to sit through another 2 hours of that!

Killianblount666 · 7 months ago

Sacha Baron Cohen should make a new character where he fucks sheep-men like in Black Sheep. That's something I'd go see.

BrendonConnelly · 7 months ago

Listen, there's a complete lack of perspective on this issue from inside the US. In the UK, this film could be released wide and uncut and people would go. The difference isn't down to the MPAA, it's down to the studios/distributors and exhibitors. They are limiting the kinds of films and content on films that can be screened to adults in cinemas and this article just accepts that.

You know, here's a starting point to unravel your argument: that a film like Bruno shouldn't be relegated to a shelf when it was made, and funded, for a big screen release.

The system in the US limits what adults can see on the big screen. If you're happy to be controlled like that, fine. I'm just glad that we in the UK are being treated with respect.

Mack41 · 7 months ago

No offense to the UK, but the film has a higher probability of making more in the US than in the UK, so they want to play it in as many theaters in the US as possible. Now, that shouldn't stop them from releasing a harder version any where else but it might. I personally don't like the fact that I am restricted in what I am seeing, but until theater chains loosen up and give the people a chance to see a film the way the filmmaker intended it to be seen, we're going to have to deal with it. It's a compromise, and I believe that because they compromised on Borat and made it a success they were able to go ahead with Bruno which might be a little more raunchier. Maybe in a couple years the MPAA will get some sense and get off their high horse of dictating what Americans can see in a cinema. Its the same with the FCC who censor TV and I really, really hate censorship.

RobertFure · 7 months ago

Actually, a fairly significant part of distribution is played by the MPAA. Most Americans trust the rating and nearly all of the major theaters have agreed not to display NC-17 or unrated films. Also, the MPAA invented the NC-17 rating. If it didn't exist, there wouldn't be a problem.

The MPAA is established. As long as it exists as it does now, they will always be able to stop certain types of movies from going to wide release. You can't blame the studio for holding back on a release when a huge portion of the audience won't be let in. NC-17 isn't debatable. If you're not 17 it doesn't matter if you have a parent with you, you're not going in. This isn't one to blame the studio for. Blame the MPAA or the theater.

RobertFure · 7 months ago

I'd also like to point out that if any "free Western nation" (to borrow the term from above) has been more active in censoring or banning films, it would be the UK (followed by Germany). The UK has a long history of literally banning films. Not giving them age restrictions, but flat out banning them.

Screen Rant · 7 months ago

I am sick to death of being called ignorant, repressed or prejudiced because I don't want to watch two guys get it on.

Seriously.

ERoBB · 7 months ago

You think thats what this movie is about? Thats probably why you'd be called prejudiced. As with Borat, Cohen will be pointing out the repressed ignorance of most Americans. When he did it with Borat, it was through the guise of an immigrant, during a time of immigration issues.

Now he'll do it as a gay man, in a time of sexual repression and unrest. Theres a point behind it all, not just "two guys getting it on."

Screen Rant · 7 months ago

ROFLMAO!

Yeah, thanks for that - you hit on every one of the items I mentioned, right from the playbook. Well done.

Sexual repression, right. Have you BEEN outside your house? Turned on a TV, spent any time online?

Give me a freaking break.

Mack41 · 7 months ago

haha sexual repression what a joke! ERoBB are you an American? Have you been to America? Are all of the 300 million Americans ignorant? Are only Americans ignorant? I find you ignorant for assuming that all Americans must be ignorant. And not wanting to watch two guys get it on is not sexual repression and unrest. Some people may find that uncomfortable to watch. That's fine. They don't have to watch it. Stop sounding like such a prick.

ERoBB · 7 months ago

First, stop using the word "all". No ones talking about that big a scale. And My point was that this movie wasnt about two men having sex. Re-read what I said, and get back to me.

ERoBB · 7 months ago

Republican? Right? Did I nail it? Ever been out of the country? Nudity and sexuality isnt considered in the same vain as profanity, as it is in America. While there might be more sexuality in America compared to say 1950. But we're still the turtleneck of the free western nations.

Watch Bruno, I'm sure it'll come out. Loudly.

RobertFure · 7 months ago

Knock off the qualifying statement. America is the "Turtleneck" of free Western nations? Please. In the UK, you can't carry knives outside of your house and posters for Wanted were taken down because they "glorified violence." Go spend some time in Germany and see if you can call them free and wild at heart. Better yet, don't compare America to whatever one or two countries you think you know - compare it to the rest of the world, you know, the other 5.5 billion people. Good luck even talking about homosexuality in China or the Middle East or the Phillipines. You won't get laughed out, you'll get a body part cut off.

Just because in America we don't walk around with our balls hanging out on the beach, doesn't mean we're prudes. You need to understand that some people just don't care for things. If a movie is about some guy being ultra-gay to make light of a situation and someone doesn't want to see it, it's not because they're anti-gay, its because that doesn't sound funny to them. I'm not anti-unicorns, but I won't watch My Little Pony.

RobertFure · 7 months ago

I'd say the vast majority of American's don't care about anyones sexuality, as long as its kept mostly in the bedroom. And if you can point out how "Borat" was in any way relevant to the immigration debate, I'll but you a cheeseburger. Then not give it to you and eat it myself. Borat didn't make a point, at all, about immigration.

Mack41 · 7 months ago

Hahahaha exactly how I feel

mts · 7 months ago

Remember the good old days of Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy can shoot a guy point blank in the face and still be PG.

Cole_Abaius · 7 months ago

Brendon, I disagree with your claim that it could be released as is and people would go, and I don't see that you have any points to back that up. My point is that historically, people don't go to see NC-17. You're forgetting another crucial element to what gets into theaters - the audience. With freedom - you could release a movie about fisting kittens if you wanted, but that doesn't mean that people (even adults) would go see it. This is the factor that the studio has to take into consideration.

My article accepts limitations, yes, because the system demands limitation. There's a give and take between art and commerce, and I accept that instead of just blindly championing art for art's sake.

As for unraveling, Bruno won't be relegated to a shelf - but a few of its scenes will be - and I'd rather go make a BLT than get my hackles up about that.

RobertFure · 7 months ago

Valid argument, but I love robots and making jerk off motions (but not masturbating) to Megan Fox.

loganj723 · 4 months ago

Bruno sucked and should have been NC-17 still. I thought it was a comedy - not a porno.