Apparently the new Sacha Baron Cohen satire Bruno has offended members of the Hollywood gay community enough to warrant reshoots. While this sounds about as legitimate as the G.I. Joe firing (which ended up being “untrue”), it’s still the hot story of the day and brings up the interesting topic of “queerface.” In an email tipped to both The Wrap and Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily, Baron Cohen’s caricature is likened to blackface and argues that subversive intentions don’t excuse the grotesque level of mocking.

In a way I can see why the film might be unfair and even offensive to gays. Bruno could be the homosexual equivalent of Soul Man, albeit more direct and documentary-like, rather than the homosexual Tropic Thunder. Would it have been better received if Baron Cohen was gay? Probably. Will reshoots help? Who knows. Again, this may not even be a true story, so we’ll just have to see what happens when the movie hits theaters next month.

Find out what the rest of the film blogosphere is saying about this story after the jump:

…Read more

Even though no readers bothered to guess the answer to the question asked in yesterday’s Bloggery post, I’m going two-for-two this week with another hot mystery: who will Fox get to fill the role of “B.A. Baracus,” originally played by Mr. T, in the A-Team movie? Regarding the trades’ confirmation that Bradley Cooper will likely play “Face” in the Joe Carnahan-directed TV adaptation, along with the disappointing news that Liam Neeson may be cast as “Hannibal,” many film blogs have reacted mostly with indifference. These aren’t the casting announcement we’re looking for, after all. We just want to know who the hell is going to try to take the place of someone as iconic as Mr. T.

I actually pity the poor fool whose job it is to make the casting choice. I also pity the person who has to decide if the new B.A. will sport Mr. T’s signature hairstyle and jewelry. And of course I pity the fool who has to play the part. He (Common, probably) is going to have to endure a lot of scrutiny long before he’s able to show audiences if he’s actually worthy.

While we’re waiting for the official announcement, though, bloggers are already on a roll with jokes about who should get the gig. Check out their ideas after the jump:

…Read more

With Halloween less than a month away, it’s time to start thinking about what to go as. That is, if you haven’t already. A good costume-loving cinephile typically knows well in advance what he or she will dress up as for Halloween (and Comic-Con, too). But if you’re one to wait until the last minute, and also one who likes to be a lot more contemporary than, say, dressing up as a Ghostbuster or Edward Scissorhands, I’ve got some suggestions for you for costumes based on recent films.

Check them out after the jump.

…Read more

Yesterday’s list dealt with Tom Cruise’s performance in Tropic Thunder. Today, a response to Robert Downey Jr.’s role in the same film as a white actor portraying a black soldier in a war movie (seen in the above clip). Doesn’t it seem such an original and shocking idea? I guess not if you see it as an update on blackface. Fortunately, it’s different when it’s an actor playing a character who makes himself up to look black. It’s funny. But isn’t it typically more acceptable when the make-up isn’t quite as authentic-looking as Downey’s? He actually looks black. Specifically, he looks like Fred Williamson.

I’ve seen plenty of lists detailing the worst instances of one race or nationality playing characters of another race/nationality (John Wayne and Susan Hayward in The Conqueror comes to mind as #1), but I can’t recall any lists involving actors playing characters disguised as or playing another race. So here’s one:

…Read more

Above: the construction of a giant Tropic Thunder ad outside the Carlton Hotel in Cannes, captured by Variety. More pictures of Hollywood’s billboard invasion of the resort town at the Circuit blog.

When word got out that Angelina Jolie would be playing the French/Afro-Cuban Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart, a small but very vocal segment of the population jumped to decry the casting as racist. Labeling Jolie’s work in the film sight unseen a”blackface performance”, the blog Racialicious declared that Jolie (who is, you know, trying to save the world by adopting a bunch of kids of different races) should have known better than to accept the part. “Given that Jolie has two children of color, I would have thought that she might have been more sensitive to issues of race and the place of women of color instead of following in the footsteps of Al Jolson.” Even actress Thandie Newton (who was last seen in a paragon of cultural responsibility called Norbit) jumped into the debate, telling a UK tabloid that she was “shocked” Jolie had “been blacked up to play a black woman.”

Anyone who really knows the history of Hollywood blackface understands that it’s ridiculous to compare Jolie (who appears in Heart wearing a wig and a healthy dose of bronzer) to Jolson, who smeared shoe polish on his face in caricature of Black performers (a caricature that, it must be noted, was not generally considered racist at the time). Still, it’s been interesting to see how mainstream critics deal with the issue in their Mighty Heart write-ups. Newsweek devoted an entire paragraph to the issue:

The studio releasing Heart, Paramount Vantage, insists that Jolie’s makeup was not darkened for the role, and that any complexion variation is caused by the film’s lighting. If they are lying–which is probable–it’s only by a little. In costume and under natural light, Jolie looks, at most, a shade or two duskier than her natural complexion. Regardless, both Jolie and Pearl say they were blindsided by the charges. “I know that people are frustrated at the lack of great roles [for people of color], but I think they’ve picked the wrong example here,” Jolie says. Pearl is more pointed: “This is not about skin color. I wanted her to play me because I trust her.” She sighs. “Aren’t we past this?”

I haven’t found a review yet that professes Jolie’s makeup to be a problem. On the contrary: most high-profile film critics are male, and for them, a new Angelina Jolie movie is, like, the event of the year. Jolie dressed up as Mariane Pearl is not so much an opportunity to contemplate racial and cultural dynamics as it is an opportunity to fantasy role play. Anthony Lane, whose New Yorker review is devoted primarily to the “problem” of Jolie’s schizophrenic sexpot/saint split, contemplates Jolie’s “corkscrewed hair [and] tinted skin,” but is far more interested in her lips, which he dubs “the world\’s most recognizable mouth.” (He also makes the laughable suggestion that Jolie would have been somehow better suited to the career of blonde bombshell Jayne Mansfield.) Certainly, no one seems to be getting more pleasure out of this than New York’s David Edelstein, who comes close to crossing the line of common decency by suggesting that Jolie has been “dipped in caramel.”

On the whole, A Mighty Heart is very much a film about reflection, perception, and projection. As a star, Jolie often functions as a blank screen for the projection of the audience’s desires. As usual, despite Jolie’s efforts to generate interest in the issues that she deems important, it seems to be much more interesting to talk about what’s it’s like to look at her.

We’ll have more Mighty Heart chatter on Friday’s edition of FilmCouch.