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.
I think the significant thing to consider is that there is no expectation that the character Bruno is "normal." I think the character is extremely exaggerated in a way that nobody leaves the movie expecting to find gay friends that act that way.
I expanded on this point and the successful way I thought Bruno exposed homophobia in my own blog post here: http://is.gd/1xiA2
Posted by: Zack Ford | Jul 13, 2009 12:12:17 PM
I loved Borat. The movie is way less funny than Borat. But worse, it reinforces the worst anti gay stereotypes. Imagine what a couple trying to adopt a child would feel after seeing that film. Folks, he is laughing AT us, not with us, and encouraging the audience to do likewise. Imagine if he had a stereotypical Jewish character, or a Black character. The movie would never have been made, or if it had there would be riots.
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 13, 2009 12:38:52 PM
I thought it was hilarious and didn't find it offensive at all, that said, nothing about it shocked me.
Posted by: John M | Jul 13, 2009 12:47:09 PM
I saw BRUNO yesterday (without my same-sex hubby, who was boycotting the film). After hearing GLAD came-out against the film I was feeling like a traitor attending, but I'd already made a date to see the film with my best(girl)friend, and I must admit I laughed so hard I had tears streaming down my face about 70% of the film. My friend too loved the movie. It's so wrong on every level. But I understand why some brother's & sister's in the community are upset about it. If you take it face value, BRUNO is not a good gay role model. But then again it's SO outrageous I can't imagine anyone taking very seriously, and found BRUNO still a likable character even in his offensive lunacy. Also, social comics have always been the center of controversy... they used to arrest Lenny Bruce.
It felt good to laugh that hard.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 13, 2009 1:06:14 PM
GLAAD should shut its collective piehole. The movie was hysterical and just one stroke of the brush in the larger cultural profile of gay people.
Posted by: Cyd | Jul 13, 2009 1:27:46 PM
Bruno was brilliant. When I read criticisms, they tend to fall along three lines:
1. That the satire in Bruno will go over peoples' heads and will turn into a mockery of queer aesthetics;
2. That the stunts in Bruno were mean-spirited and targeted the wrong people (like the southern ex-gay converter); and
3. That the controversy behind Bruno will interrupt (or reverse) recent developments in queer liberation (for example, the marriage scene at the end).
All three of these are wrong. #1 above is wrong because good satire will always go over someone's head - in fact, that's what makes it good. If all satire were as heavy-handed and overt as South Park, then audiences would write it off as "well that's just your opinion" instead of forcing people to confront their own eccentricities and prejudices. The superb works of satire - Dr Strangelove, Catch-22, Borat - were made irrespective of whether people "got it."
#2 above is wrong because the film targeted the ways in which heterosexism really functions, including through the actions of nice people with the best intentions. Think about the ways in which opponents of marriage equality speak about it. It's seldom (at least in the media or in politics) about queer sexuality being a perversion, but rather about marriage being "sacred" and needing protection from anything that would seek to change it. Clearly, the homophobia in that sentiment is latent, despite its noble guise. A film like Bruno, which sought to lower peoples' guards and show the ways that they hold prejudiced opinions of queer people, would have to target these people every bit as much as the wrestling fans at Straight Daze.
#3 above is wrong because so-called progress is never linear, and are not a reason to exclude other critical perspectives. To me, this is the same as saying that the court in Iowa should not have ruled on same-sex marriage because it would hurt the effort to overtun Prop 8. To say that an artist should not produce a work of satire because it may be "controversial" is its own kind of homophobia - one that suggests that there is only one valid queer position, and everything that does not jump on board with it is harmful to "real gays."
Posted by: Matt | Jul 13, 2009 1:50:03 PM
Bruno does not represent most gay men in his depiction of our lives and our morality. However, it's important to point out that every single prop that was used in the film, from the dildo machine to the handcuffs to the face masts to the costume ARE available at a store near you. To act like his portrayal is a TOTAL fabrication is simply not accurate. Get over it politically correct gay Americans, there are toy using, fetish loving, freak flag flying homos out there who swing, engage in all sorts of weird shit and are proud of it. Your discomfort is not so different than the discomfort of the openly anti-gay victims in the movie. You're just so much more evolved than they are...right?
Posted by: TOm | Jul 13, 2009 2:25:42 PM
I am just SO tired of the gay storyline I couldn't possibly go to this movie. For such a small proportion of our population, it seems remarkable (and overdone) that I can't turn on the tv, go to a movie, browse a website, open a newspaper, walk down main street, etc. without being inundated with someone pushing a gay story on me. Great. You're gay. I support you. But please SHUT UP about it. Prop 8. Gay pride. Bruno. Ellen. Michael Jackson. I've heard enough. Can we talk about something else please before my patience gets completely destroyed?
Posted by: Zach Swan | Jul 13, 2009 2:29:30 PM
The movie's director, Larry Charles, and I had a shooting match again in front the Vista Theatre in LA on Saturday night.
He had his camera, trying to get crowd reactions of people leaving, and we had our camera, getting crowd reactions to whether "Bruno" is a tool for change (as Universal Studios promotes) or just a movie.
Don't think Larry liked us being in what would have been his turf alone. Kinda messed with his game, a bit, having another crew - gay, no less - asking if his product was really about social conscience raising.
With Prop 8, Michael Jackson, GLAAD, Twitter and inquiring gay news outlets, Larry just can't seem to catch a break! Only $30 million on 3 times as many screens as "Borat".
And now, in England, they're recutting the film just to get teenage dollars in the seats to save face.
Posted by: Skiff | Jul 13, 2009 3:07:36 PM
"I think the softer (but still great) opening is due to the fact that homophobes stayed away ..."
Maybe they were just sick of ll the overhyping here on Towleroad (please Andy don't ever sell out like that again without a disclaimer)and other places? I was. I'll see it but I'm dreading it because of the hype.
My friends liked it.
Posted by: Derek Washington | Jul 13, 2009 3:45:14 PM
Cohen plays the same part he played in Borat. He's not a convincing queer. He's a vulgarian. The story is the same as well: weird foreigner descends on the US.
I totally enjoy vulgarity, having been trained by some raunchy queens in SF. I thought the movie was hysterical just because it was crude. And confronting the Phelps people in full harness was priceless. Beyond that, it didn't have much to do with gay culture.
Posted by: Wilberforce | Jul 13, 2009 4:25:47 PM
My biggest problem didn't come from its portrayal of gay men, but rather the fact that a lot of the movie seemed STAGED. I think the entire first half was fake (minus the Ron Paul bit). The second half was much better/more real, with the final couple of segments being the most effective, but I found myself rolling my eyes through a lot of it.
I didn't think the gay stuff was too offensive though. I thought the movie was more a commentary on fame & celebrity anyway. Though the last few bits sure made homophobes out to look like IDIOTS, which I liked.
And yes, Borat was much funnier.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 13, 2009 4:39:33 PM
Bruno, the homosexual Austrian fashion model seeking fame in the United States hasn't left anybody uninterested, much like Cohen's previous release, the similarly startling Borat. Vote - do you love or hate Bruno? http://www.votetheday.com/bruno/bruno-435/
Posted by: VoteTheDay | Jul 13, 2009 4:47:26 PM
Bruno was hilarious. Pride parades reinforce stereotypes more than Bruno. If you actually watch the movie it is pretty pro gay. Especially the part when he asks the martial arts instructor how to spot a homosexual..."They're usually really nice".
GLAD needs to go away. They are all over the news when someone uses their freedom of speech, but when Obama fires gay people they don't do anything. It's a bunch of uptight gays and lesbians who need to shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Seth | Jul 13, 2009 5:42:08 PM
Borat was funny. Full of gags. The views of American life it brought into to focus and forced us to call into question was an accident, albeit an effective accident.
In contrast, Bruno was designed to bring the absurd in American culture into focus. The gags and laughs flowed from this. As such Bruno was a much more politically subversive comedy and cast a much more severe eye on the fame-obsessed, bigoted behavior that makes up so much of our public discourse.
For example, what extreme measures are Americans willing to take for fame? Parents were willing to expose their children to humiliation and danger. Ron Paul was willing to meet with him. Swingers were willing to go on film screwing.
Another example is Bruno's depiction of the bigotry toward gays and the real danger to their well-being subjects them to.
The satire in Bruno was much more focused than Borat. However, Borat, being less serious, may have been a little more fun.
Posted by: Ursala | Jul 14, 2009 3:58:06 AM