Now that Brüno is finished and in theaters, what is Sacha Baron Cohen to do next? Surely he can continue appearing in movies not his own, such as he did with Talladega Nights and Sweeney Todd, but will there ever be another shock-mockumentary in the style of Borat and Brüno? Even if he develops some new characters, people don’t believe he could make another one of these kinds of films stealthily enough to make it work.

Well, let’s hope that isn’t true, because we would love to see at least one more. And we think he’s enough of a chameleon that his increasing fame won’t get in the way. As Metromix recently pointed out, there are just so many people (live and dead) who still need to be interviewed and/or pranked by Baron Cohen. Also, there are so many more marginalized people out there who could use a Brüno of their own to challenge the stereotypes and expose the continuing prejudices of our country.

To help Baron Cohen come up with a new character and issue, we’ve selected five already existing scenarios — which should help garner funding since Hollywood is so into remakes — to inspire him.
…Read more

I refuse to believe that Sacha Baron Cohen’s stunt at last night’s MTV Movie Awards — in which he, as Bruno from the upcoming Bruno, flew through the air in an assless winged costume and landed with his legs wrapped around Eminem’s neck, was in any way unscripted — Completely lacking in genuine (and genuinely dangerous) spontaneity — and completely ripped off from a Howard Stern gag from 17 years ago — the incident feels of a piece with the carefully managed anarchy on display in the Bruno clips shown in March at SXSW. See it for yourself after the jump. I’ll look forward to your comments telling me to “lighten up.”

…Read more

While not as popular today as the Sarah Palin bikini video, the new red-band trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen’s Bruno is making its way around the blogosphere this afternoon to the delight of many a film writer. I was surprised by the video for two reasons:

1. Universal didn’t really need to release this thing so soon, because the NC-17 rating story brought plenty of buzz to the film for one month, let alone one week. As Steven Zeitchik wrote at Risky Biz Blog, word of the MPAA’s initial decision was already “like a really inexpensive trailer.”

2. Following the hype of the SXSW footage and the “objectionable” material referenced by the MPAA, this trailer actually seems a bit tame compared to what I was expecting, especially from a red-band trailer. It’s a perfectly funny ad and doesn’t do anything to my high expectations for the film, but considering all the excitement this week, I couldn’t help but find it disappointing.

Of course, as usual, few others agree with my disappointment. I know, I’m a cynical curmudgeon who is called a “goon” and a “muckracker” by his friends, but I’m just being honest. Anyway, I’m certain that I’ll be laughing my ass off when I see Bruno in its entirety, so my immediate — and slight — disappointment with the marketing isn’t affecting my anticipation whatsoever. Plus, the following bloggery ballyhooing is going to make more noise than anything I have to say, right?

…Read more

It’s certainly no accident that The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman found out about and reported on Bruno initially receiving an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. After all, what raunchy docu-comedy wouldn’t want additional buzz focused on how “objectionable” some scenes were? Universal and Sacha Baron Cohen obviously pushed the envelope in order to both see how much they could get away with and to draw attention to themselves with a desired NC-17. Hasn’t anyone been following Hollywood the past 10 years? Here are a few benefits to both garnering the unacceptable rating and having news of that “unfortunate” rating leaked to all the fanboy bloggers:

• Typical outrage over the MPAA’s dealings guarantee postings (including this one), which continue to give attention to the film.
• Excitement over how hard the ultimate R-rating will likely be continues the interest from moviegoers interested in raunchy content. And if they’re upset that it won’t be as dirty as the original NC-17 version they can always…
• …look forward to the Unrated DVD release, which will most definitely include the censored “objectionable” scenes either in the movie or as supplement material.

Of course, news of the ratings controversy does draw potentially unfair complaints regarding the MPAA’s reputation for typically having problems with homosexual themes. For once, though, the gay community can leave the ratings board alone on this one, since the studio and filmmakers most certainly wanted all of this. Of course, if you do decide to protest, make sure you mention the film title often. That will help the marketing, too.

And now some of the unnecessary complaints from my fellow internerds helping with the film’s buzz:
…Read more

“We think you’re the most special people in the entire world…so don’t even think about taking out your cellphone, because I’ve been working out, and I will fucking rack your brains into the back of your head. I’m gonna anally rape you. I’m not even joking.”

That was the inimitable Tim League, founder of the beery palace of world cinema nerdery in central Texas, the Alamo Drafthouse theater chain, introducing the SXSW/Fantastic Fest presentation of three segments from Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen’s upcoming follow-up to his surprisingly beloved Borat. It was an apt threat to procede a glimpse of a film that critiques the very American habits of posturing, stereotyping, and irrationally vilifying, but only via engaging in them. That’s Cohen’s schtick, of course: he sells ugly Americans their ugliness back to them, provoking shame and anger from his unsuspecting subjects and, from well-educated audiences of better-thans, horror that easily, almost unthinkingly, manifests itself in laughs.

But the 20-something minutes we were shown of the film (which is currently listed on IMDB without a credited director) indicate that Cohen has hardly been up to business as usual since Borat. That film, in turning its namesake Kazakhstanian “reporter” into a household name, made enough of Cohen’s potential marks wise enough to the star/social satirist’s working methods (and his litany of faux-foreign naifs that front them) to spark debate throughout the production as to how Cohen would, er, keep it real. The footage we saw suggests that “realness” wasn’t necessarily as strict a part of the agenda this time around.

…Read more

Don’t you just hate when the movies make you care about a bigot? Sure, racists are technically humans, but that doesn’t mean we need to sympathize with them, right? No matter how great the film, it should be very difficult to accept the softening of intolerant people.

Yet the lovable racist is not uncommon in cinema. In fact, out in theaters right now are two films dealing with this type of character. The Reader presents a cold Concentration Camp guard (Kate Winslet) for whom we’re meant to shed a tear, and Gran Torino focuses on a War Veteran stereotype (Clint Eastwood) who may evoke from the audience as much amusement as disgust.

Maybe it’s like picking a scab, watching these kinds of movies. Some great films, such as Downfall, may only welcome an understanding of someone so heinous as Adolph Hitler, but other films have allowed us to totally enjoy racist protagonists of lesser offense. Check out the following examples to see some of the many intolerant heroes we’ve easily tolerated.
…Read more

It looks like the pre-election battle over California’s Propositon 8 (which would render gay marriages illegal in the state) could provide the backdrop to a scene in Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen’s upcoming Borat follow-up. Cohen showed up at a Yes on 8 rally this weekend in character as Bruno, the gay Austrian fashion designer, and apparently initally blended into the crowd — camera crew and all — but was eventually recognized, at which point he fled the scene. The write-ups I’ve read don’t indicate that Bruno was doing/saying anything controversial or even contrary to the anti-gay marriage message of the rally, so one wonders what he was saying/doing. Can anyone make sense of that sign he’s holding above?

UPDATE: FilmDrunk says Baron was not dressed as Bruno at all, but as “his new character, Straight Dave.” The appearance at the rally suddenly makes more sense.

This review originally appeared during the Toronto Film Festival. We’re re-running it because Religulous opens in theaters today.

“I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame.

Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains.

Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse.

…Read more

“I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame.

Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains.

Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse.

…Read more

How did Bill Maher and Larry Charles get religious figures to agree to be interviewed on camera by the notoriously hostile-towards-religion Maher for their upcoming doc Religulous? According to an interview the comedian gave Patrick Goldstein, they didn’t:

It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it ‘A Spiritual Journey.’ … The crew would set up and at the last second, when the cameras were already rolling, I would show up. So either they’d be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they’d have to talk to me. It was like–’And now here’s … Bill!’ You could usually see the troubled looks on their faces.

This method calls to mind two recent films: the Charles-directed Borat, which used these deceptive documentary tactics within the framework of fiction, and Expelled. The extent to which the producers and star Ben Stein misled some of their interview subjects caused a minor firestorm––which didn’t do anything bad for the film’s box office, but certainly damaged the credibility of the filmmakers and their argument.

I’m fairly certain Bill Maher doesn’t care about ethical credibility––he’s probably primarily concerned with getting a punchline by any means necessary. But *I’m* kind of concerned about this growing trend of deception in ostensible non-fiction. Or maybe I just didn’t think Borat was that funny. Thoughts?

I keep forgetting that Mike Myers is not actually playing an Indian in The Love Guru, and yet I’m constantly reminded by the film’s commercials, which show that ridiculous shot of a little kid’s body with Myers’ giant head digitally superimposed onto it. Really, Myers’ character (Pitka) is a white American who is left on the doorstep of an Indian ashram when he’s a child. Then he’s raised as Indian, I guess (or simply Hindu, but then why the accent?).

Apparently the character, Pitka, couldn’t simply look and talk like Myers. He had to have that silly accent and the clothes and the facial hair, despite the fact that Deepak Chopra, who partially inspired the character (and who appears in the movie), is able to wear jeans and be clean-shaven. Because who would believe Myers as an Indian guru with just the voice, the clothes and his baby face?

Of course, Myers is not the first actor to wear or grow a beard and/or mustache in order to take on the guise of another ethnicity. Sure, it’s also the accent and the makeup that transforms the actor, but with the most recognizable faces, it’s the facial hair that really seals the deal for supposed authenticity.

1. Charlton Heston as Mexican in Touch of Evil (pictured above) - Maybe if Heston could maintain the accent he wouldn’t have needed the mustache. But then in photos he still would have just looked like regular old Heston. With the whiskers, however, he looks like regular old Heston with a mustache. If this look defined a man as Mexican, then many characters from the ’30s must have been Mexican. Rhett Butler? Mexican. Nick Charles (and anyone else played by William Powell)? Mexican.
   …Read more

• The Death of Film Criticism, Chapter Twelve.
• By the time you read this, that Roman Polanski doc will already have completed its secret Oscar qualifying run.
• Movies that make Yankee fans mad.
• Slavoj Zizek + Telluride
• On our podcast: Iraq fatigue and Wholphin.
• Josh Hartnett stars in the movie no one on the internet is willing to admit that they’re dying to see.
• New York has a Comic Con, too.
• Full House video art. No, that’s not a euphemism for an Olsen Twin sex tape.
• Heath Ledger, real estate agent from beyond the grave.
• Speaking of real estate: anyone want to go in on Phillip Marlowe’s duplex with me?
• The Tom Cruise fat suit pictorial you’ve been waiting for is finally here!
• Oliver Stone never met a freedom fry joke he didn’t like.
• Fassbinder + Nina Simone
• Tyler Perry wants to be taken seriously.
• Will Wall-E be the surprise flop of the summer?
• Who would you cast as Bingham Ray?
• It was April Fools, and we weren’t amused.
• James Bond causes Chilean unrest.
• Irony-deficient judge declares fake journalist Borat is protected by the same laws that protect journalists.
• Werner Herzog moves into the Oscar bait phase of his career.
• Anticipating the Sarasota Film Festival, memorializing the New York Underground Film Festival.
• Trailers: Blindness, Hitler Kaput
  

A U.S. District judge threw out a defamation case against the makers of Borat yesterday, on the grounds that Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake journalist schtick is protected under the same laws as real journalism. A New York businessman had sued for unspecified, claiming he was humiliated against his will when footage of Cohen chasing him down the street appeared in the film, and complaining that 20th Century Fox had no right to make a profit off of said humiliation. But the judge disagreed, citing a section of a NY State civil rights law that says  “nonconsensual use of a person’s image to depict newsworthy events or matters of public interest is exempt from the law.” If you’re scratching your head trying to puzzle out just how performance art built around the harassment of strangers qualifies as a “newsworthy event,” here’s Judge Loretta Preska’s explanation of her ruling:

[Borat] employs as its chief medium a brand of humor that appeals to the most childish and vulgar in its viewers..[But] the movie challenges its viewers to confront, not only the bizarre and offensive Borat character himself, but the equally bizarre and offensive reactions he elicits from `average’ Americans.

I’m alternately admiring of and infuriated by Cohen’s ability to exploit the right loopholes that allow him to get away with using real people as raw material for his act, which never seems to be as sharp as either comedy or social commentary as he thinks it is. But childish, vulgar, bizarre and offensive *does* sounds like a pretty accurate description of most televised news.

Last week, I posted about Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness, Laurin Federlein’s highly-improvised, Hi8-sourced, sorta-doc/sorta-musical, which wraps up its one week run at the Anthology Film Archive here in New York tonight. That afternoon, I got a Facebook message from someone associated with the film, urging me *not* to go see it. I don’t know whether or not he was being facetious, but in any event, I didn’t listen. I went last night, saw it in an empty theater, and I think it was the most satisfying movie experience I’ve had in 2008 thus far.

This is the kind of balls-out, so independent it’s essentially handmade work of art that’s notable missing from festivals like Sundance. It’s an amazingly beautiful (the totally unstable, borderline psychedelic look of the blown-up video isn’t going to work for everyone, but it works for me like crazy) story about the extremes we go to in the name of combating loneliness. And, just as a hidden-camera comedy, it’s way funnier than Borat.

I don’t know if I can be rational about Build a Ship right now––it was that mind-blowing of an experience, and I may go see it again tonight and then write something more in-depth––but I wanted to post something this morning to encourage anyone who has the means to try to catch the film’s final screening at Anthology tonight. I can’t bear the thought that something like this is playing to a virtually empty house.

For screening information, go here.