07/13/2009
Did Twitter Cost Bruno Filmmakers $20 Million?
On Friday morning, Hollywood Daily was declaring Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno a potentital $50 million hit: "Sacha Baron Cohen has done it again. Based on $1.6 million in post-midnight shows in nearly 700 theaters this morning, and pre-sales for its weekend release into 2,757 North American theaters, Brüno looks like a big hit for Universal. 'If it holds up, we'll do $50 million,' one insider tells me. 'Yet this is a movie that people may or may not attend spontaneously.' That's double the $25M to $27M which Universal and even rival studios have been predicting for the mockumentary's weekend debut."
Turns out, Bruno did a not-so-shabby $30.4 million after plunging 37% in its box office from Friday to Saturday. TIME wonders if Twitter was the culprit:
"Bruno's box-office decline from Friday to Saturday indicates that the film's brand of outrage was not the sort to please most moviegoers — and that their tut-tutting got around fast. Bruno could be the first movie defeated by the Twitter effect."
Finally, was Bruno "below the belt" (as GLAAD suggests and CNN asks, AFTER THE JUMP) for you? Please let us know if you think Bruno enforced stereotypes, or were the bigots (or those who paid full price for a ticket) the butt of the joke?
Watch CNN's weekend report on gays and Bruno (and let us know how you felt),
AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 8:12 AM EST by Andy Towle in Film, News, Sacha Baron-Cohen, Twitter | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Bruno was annoyingly 'inoffensive' to me. I think there are many aspects of gay life that could have been skewered with satire, but instead were completely ignored.
Maybe being a gay man, I'm just not shocked by dildos or male nudity. And many scene's felt staged, or others, pointless.
Funny, yes. Biting satire, no.
Posted by: Chad | Jul 13, 2009 8:21:21 AM
We are at the point in our movie technology where we can say anything - that is, make any point, explore any issue.
But we are also at a point in our movie making where many of the makers have nothing even moderately worthwhile to say.
Brune is an example of that. Useless, worthless, disgusting.
But you will see young, mindless, gay men acting out Bruno-type scenes. Well, some already have. Pathetic.
Posted by: Joel | Jul 13, 2009 8:21:57 AM
I think all the advance publicity over-prepared me because the movie didn't shock me that much. Everyone was talking about the nudity and sex, I kinda yawned. Don't get me wrong, it was over-the-top, but I think all the GLAAD comments, etc. prepared me for the worse. It wasn't bad in that respect. The movie is really hilarious in some places and I'm sure the DVD will have some good extra material. Some scenes which were "shocking" by GLAAD were only that way because you knew the people involved were gay. If they were straight, it wouldn't have been any big deal. In that respect, I think GLAAD over reacted. We aren't cookie cutouts of our straight counterparts. It's suppose to be a comedy, people need to relax a bit and calm down. If you want offensive lines, what about what was said by the "gay-conversion" guy about women... that was priceless. It quickly showed just how ridiculous those people are...(as if we all didn't already know...)
Posted by: Mike | Jul 13, 2009 8:36:49 AM
It was hilarious for the most part, 3 out of 4 stars from me. Not offensive at all. I think the softer (but still great) opening is due to the fact that homophobes stayed away and yes, full frontal does still spook a lot of people, both men and women, along with all the hype. BORAT was the first, so BRUNO was bound to suffer from the "that again" factor. But the whole anti-gay controversy was silly. GLAAD was so far off on this. As I wrote on my own site or somewhere else, where is GLAAD when movies like THE HANGOVER toss out anti-gay slurs in a non-ironic way? (Or if they did issue any comment on that film, I never heard it.)
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 13, 2009 8:43:17 AM
Aaron Hicklin from Out Magazine "You really have to be quite dense or idiotic to think that this is the way gay men live their lives"
Wow, he sure does have a lot of faith in the American ~Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity~ lovin' public.
I wish I could say as much, but I live in Georgia. Maybe Aaron needs to live in the Midwest or the South for a bit and his views might change dramatically.
Posted by: Keith | Jul 13, 2009 8:48:16 AM
If Time thinks this is the first time the internets and social networking sites have influenced box office sales they are wrong. I quite often use my friends on the internet to help make the decisions of a movie is a must see now, go see sometime, watch when out on DVD, only watch if you happen upon it, or avoid.
I do agree that movie theaters will need to start factoring this in. They use to have a week now only a day. There are plenty of movies that have big opening weekend numbers but drop quickly as word of mouth spread. Now studios can spend millions on PR only to find that after a Friday opening too many people know the movie sucks and don't go.
Posted by: kujhawker | Jul 13, 2009 8:59:42 AM
Matthew R., I totally agree. Why didn't GLAAD get up in arms over the "Dr. Faggot" lines in "The Hangover"? Those lines alone were more offensive to me than the entire, hilarious "Bruno".
Posted by: freddy | Jul 13, 2009 9:06:21 AM
I saw Bruno this past weekend and loved it. I was literally crying from laughing for the first time ever in my life. I agree with other commenters about not being shocked, but the subtly killed me... P. Abdul talking about helping people while sitting on a 'Mexican chair'. It was awesome.
Posted by: wilburforce | Jul 13, 2009 9:11:55 AM
I think the GLADD representative was more of a harmful stereotype than the fictional character Bruno. It's a movie... it was funny... those people in Arkansas are not going to see the movie... "hello" - unrumple your panties and stop whining!
Posted by: JIM | Jul 13, 2009 9:13:25 AM
I've said before Bruno is the classic postmodern performance piece that skewers with the use of absurdity. I asked my always-astute brother (for a straight man's perspective) if he thought these concerns were justified. He said absolutely not. However, what he did offer was the astounding gullibility of the people on the receiving ends of Bruno's pranksters. Who, for example, could ever take Ron Paul or the terrorist ever so seriously again? And, the absolutely ridiculous posturing of the two ministers shown in the film? These people are rendered completely powerless because of their own significant intellectual deficits.
Posted by: Les | Jul 13, 2009 9:22:12 AM
My B/F insisted we see this film this weekend and even 1$ is too much to give to such a boring, unimaginative film. It was like the drunk guy who keeps farting at the party trying to make people laugh... you just feel sorry for him and the person who invited him and want to get away as fast as possible. Are people really this easily shocked or fooled these days? Maybe they should watch a few early John Waters films if they want to know what "over the top" and "outrageous" mean. This was just sad.
Posted by: Vincent-louis Apruzzese | Jul 13, 2009 9:22:29 AM
I think that GLAAD and others need to get over themselves. Sometimes funny is just funny.
Even the homophobes who do go to see this are going to get the message. Bruno was an idiotic character, but the plentiful rednecks in the film looked dumber.
Bruno is going to enter the popular lexicon in innumerable ways, and if you don't see it, you won't get the joke.
Laugh and move on.
Posted by: Tim from Texas | Jul 13, 2009 9:24:10 AM
My partner and I saw it with a friend yesterday. We all agreed it was pee-in-your-pants funny and that the Bruno character was so over the top that no one with a triple digit IQ would believe Bruno represented a realitic protrait of gay men. (It may, however, offend Austrians, as Bruno repeatedly references Austria's most infamous son.)
The groups skewered in this film are rednecks, politicians, and celebrities - which is exactly what Cohen intended, I'm sure.
There were parts of the film that dragged, such as a talky scene dealing with Bruno and his incompetent assistant.
Posted by: Hank | Jul 13, 2009 9:44:22 AM
Sacha Baron Cohen is a comedy genius. I loved BORAT. However, BRUNO ain't no BORAT. It's just plain dull. Poorly edited, not offensive, not homophobic, just boring which is the worst thing you could say about a comedy. It's under 90 minutes which is about 60 minutes too long. What a disappointment. Wait for it to show up on TNT.
I'm in total agreement with Joe. "You've already seen BRUNO": http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/07/youve-already-seen-bruno.html
Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Jul 13, 2009 9:44:54 AM
I think what GLAAD was missing was a very tender love story between two men Bruno and Lutz, and the journey that Bruno took getting to accept that love. I think people are going to be offended no matter what, but I thoroughly enjoyed Bruno. It was a big "fuck you" to the sexually repressed and homophobic. Sure it was over the top, but what good comedy/parody isn't?
Posted by: shawn cotter | Jul 13, 2009 9:44:55 AM
Sure, gay liberal and gay friendly folk will get the joke. The poster who said Hicklin overestimates the American public is right. Maybe they won't go see it, then again, with the internet and Twitter, etc., I felt as if I'd seen the film before it opened, and even those who aren't old enough to see it in the theater will still be subjected to its imagery. If SBC did a film in black face and acting like Amos and Andy, I think we'd be having a very different discussion. Sad to see the gay community embrace those who mercilessly lampoon us.
Posted by: Mark Squared | Jul 13, 2009 9:45:19 AM
My partner and I saw Bruno over the weekend. Let me first say that I love Sacha Baron Cohen. I think he's a brilliant satirist. I loved his HBO show and the Borat movie. BUT, Bruno is simply devastating for the gay community. I went into the film with an open mind and was actually prepared to find the GLAD assessment too harsh. It wasn't. The film really does reinforce very negative stereotypes about gay men. Our community really didn't need this. I'm sure Cohen didn't intend it, but this film really does gay-haters a new one-word put down to attack gay men with -- Bruno. Sasha, I really wish you hadn't.
Posted by: Laurie | Jul 13, 2009 9:47:45 AM
I went to see it this weekend and, well, it wasn't as funny as I had hoped. Maybe my expectations were too high after Borat, which I thought was hysterical. It had it's moments for sure (I'm sure the Ron Paul supporters will be quite surprised and disappointed in their man.) But it just didn't hit my funnybone quite right. Meanwhile, my straight female companions walked out with sore throats, red eyes and migraines from guffawing from beginning to end.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jul 13, 2009 9:52:15 AM
I think a lot of people are missing the fact that if Bruno was a "politically correct" gay man, i. e., not an over the top queen with in your face sexual fetishes, the film would have neither been funny nor confrontational.
I agree with Shawn Cotter: Bruno was a "fuck you" to the sexually repressed and homophobic.
Posted by: Hank | Jul 13, 2009 9:53:46 AM
At the showing I attended, the audience (made up of mainly straight people) broke into uproarious applause when Bruno and Lutz kissed in the fighting cage. This is the first time I have ever experienced this. Even at Brokeback Mountain there were audible gasps.
Posted by: monkeyboy | Jul 13, 2009 9:54:27 AM
Bruno is a magnificent film. On the surface -- hysterically funny. But underneath that, forcing the audience's level of comfort with homosexuality. It's this "push the envelope" type of film that advances our acceptance. My bet is that Bruno will not be nearly as entertaining in 5, 10 years -- because society is becoming rapidly more accepting of homosexuality / gayness.
Posted by: PB | Jul 13, 2009 9:59:52 AM
I saw Bruno on Friday night in a packed suburban theatre. The audience laughed at all the "right" places and were definitely on Bruno's side throughout. My partner and I came away with a similar thought: the movie actually showed how tolerant people can be. For example, Bruno had to really push the three hunters to get a reaction out of them and even then it was because they were tired of being made the butt of a joke. This, to me, seemed to be the point the movie was trying to make in several scenes.
I'm still not sure what exactly I watched on Friday night but I did not leave offended - and I was deeply apprehensive about seeing Bruno in the first place. The opening, buffoonish sex scene was hysterically funny and got the whole "when is there gonna be gay sex" anticipation out the way in such a broad, farcical way. The audience I sat with howled with laughter. That scene reminded me of stuff done in Austin Powers movie...
Anyway, those are my impressions, for what they're worth.
Posted by: seeldee | Jul 13, 2009 10:48:38 AM
I felt it was really funny, and I think one real side effect will be that those that are already okay with us will now be much more aware of the very real homophobia that exists in the world.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 13, 2009 10:56:56 AM
Boring! Too offensive to be remotely credible and that is what we are supposed to believe - that ANYONE would accept Bruno at face value, even momentarily.
Paula Abdul was well aware that she was being "punk'd" so to speak. She's no actress and SBC obviously had a very hard time fooling anyone in Hollywood following Borat - Abdul was the best he could get to play along (besides the silly song at the end, which was the frosting on this fraud cake).
I'm not in the least bit offended nor do I think anyone that isn't already an asshole is confusing me with Bruno. There is no resemblance in fact, theory or delusion between anyone I have ever met and that character.
Bottom line: there are some uproarious and hysterical moments in the film, but the narrative is lacking and inconsistent when present leaving the viewer with nothing more than a vulgar film version of Candid Camera with cocks.
Posted by: patrick | Jul 13, 2009 11:03:50 AM
I really love satire (whether it's easy to swallow or not), so I didn't find Bruno offensive.
It was largely about the lengths people go to be famous - i.e. Gay people trying to be straight; forcing their children into a Hollywood lifestyle, etc.
However, while Bruno was good, I thought Borat was way funnier.
Posted by: damien | Jul 13, 2009 11:23:29 AM