Did "Bruno" Get NC-17 Because He's Gay?

Sasha Baron Cohen's upcoming comedy (or is it a documentary? A docu-comedy?) "Bruno" was slapped with an NC-17 rating after the Motion Picture Association of America's ratings review board deemed it showed too much. And that "too much" was Bruno supposedly simulating (or really having?) anal sex with another man, as well as showing the gay Austrian fashionista (apparently played with hilarious aplomb by Baron Cohen) sneaking naked into the tent of an unsuspecting non-actor during a hunting trip. The MPAA's board said the scenes were questionable and objectionable but if this were a straight character, would it have received the same scrutiny?There are plenty of movies where the characters are straight and the movie shows "questionable" sex scenes or plenty of violence and don't get an NC-17. So what's the sitch?

Does it simply come down to audiences knowing that Baron Coehn will push the limits and push people's buttons, no doubt putting people into an uncomfortable corner without them really having any idea of what's happening to them? Baron Cohen is a genius in that he broaches subjects that make people think or that show people's true colors, and the rest of us get to laugh at it. In "Borat," he exposed anti-Semitism. In "Bruno," he hits on homophobia, and it couldn't have come at a better time, when America is entangled in a serious gay-marriage battle. But could "Bruno" pigeonhole gays and help fan the flames of the negative stereotypes? Ah, so many questions and not enough answers. I want answers, dammit!

We'll have to wait and see what the final cut brings, but in the meantime, we at least have the trailer -- and even that makes me uncomfortable, but in the best way.

In order to view the clip, enter your age in the boxes provided - MO-DY-YEAR. (The clip is NSFW):

(Image courtesy of Universal)

Comments

[guerre]

Oh yeah ! The movie should clearly be rated an 'R' for the strong sexual content, but NC-17 ? The current rating is a political statement, pure and simple. What's not clear to me is whether or not the makers of the movie actually wanted this rating to start a controversy. Great publicity stunt if they did, wink wink !

[bichface]

they got an C-17 for content. You can't spend 2/3rds of A film, gay or straight, waving around and hitting people with a dildo and think you.re going to get a PG rating.

[Ozzy]

So what?

[Scott]

Even without seeing the movie, I wouldn't doubt that the movie got NC-17 because it contained gay content.
I mean just look at Big Eden - it was rated PG13...

I'm not sure that I've seen a movie in the last two decades that's received a PG13 for two non-passionate kisses, a shirtless man swimming in a lake, and maybe three psuedo swear words.

[corrective_unconscious]

>"they got an C-17 for content. You can't spend 2/3rds of A film, gay or straight, waving around and hitting people with a dildo and think you.re going to get a PG rating."

The hope for result would be an R rating for Cohen's film. Are you impaired or just lying when you posit the choice as being a PG one?

Any gay content gets you moved one up the scale. A heterosexual R if transmuted to gay content would automatically be given an NC-17. The MPAA has made this perfectly clear over the years - any gay content, in their view, is likely to upset some viewers more than str8 content...that's what they claim to do, stand in for the judgment of "ordinary" movie goers.

[Carson]

After viewing the trailer, the film looks ridiculously crass regardless of rating. Since it likely will not be an airline movie (the only time I have to catch up on my bad movie viewing), I will not see it.

[Stephen]

Pure and simple it was NC-17 for the dildo waving and lewd direct sexual act. Orgasmo was rated NC-17 for the same reason.

Quit blaming everything on being gay. You are part of why we don't have equal rights - blaming anything bad on "being gay".

[Stephen]

Further - negative stereotypes? that's redundant. A stereotype is never meant to be positive. Of course, you are the type of person who can't laugh at something like that. You can't laugh at the slapstick. Guess that makes you the stereotypical gay who whines and bitches.

[Jared4everx]

No movie producer wants an NC-17 rating. It kills the movie financially. It won't open in most theatres. To suggest they wanted this rating for a "publicity stunt" is silly.

[Jared4everx]

Watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" It's an awesome doc. :)

[eb]

Yeah, I can't complain. The alleged "anal sex" looked like it was in the middle of a mall or some kind of public place. You have to wonder about movies like American Pie, but the sex scenes were pretty tame and occured in more appropriate places. Plus, I don't know any gay people that actually act that way. I think if I wasn't gay, it would probably be a hilarious movie but this guy's movies just always seem to rub me the wrong way. I thought Borat had a decent message all things considiered but it just *wasn't* funny.

[the_real_sweedie]

I'm so excited about this movie!!

[sirald66]

Zack and Miri Make a Porno originally was rated NC-17 then R on appeal.

[Jonnieboy]

"Guess that makes you the stereotypical gay who whines and bitches."
Whaaaat....

"You are part of why we don't have equal rights - blaming anything bad on "being gay".
What what what?????

The kinds of questions raised in this article are part and parcel of excercising "critical thinking". Blaming the questioner for the possible ills being addressed therein is...well...it's kind of strange.

As far as the NC-17 goes, yeah it's a kiss of death commercially. John Waters was really upset that "A Dirty Shame" got an NC-17, when there weren't even any sex acts depicted (only talked about). On that film's DVD commentary, he addressed the idea that the NC-17 rating might have helped the film as the nonsense he felt the idea was. I know the film only played in my town (Tucson, not terribly small) for ONE week.

[DOG]

Hmm...I agree the dildoes being waved about and the similated gay sex were probably key factors in the rating. However, there is no denying that making the central character gay (stereotype or not--unless they are killed at the end) usually moves your film up in the ratings. Afterall, we cannot risk turning any of those impressionable American teens gay just by exposing them to the fact that gays exist.

I am not sure whether or not to be bothered by this film just yet. I know people who are as 'flamboyant' as what is shown in the trailor. On the other hand, I am tired of that portrayal of gays being the dominant one in mainstream films. However, this film spends some time making fun of the fashion industry which could draw me in. (The fashion industry deserves to be made fun of.)

I will have to wait until I know more before I form a solid opinion of this film.

[2¢]

>> Further - negative stereotypes? that's redundant. A stereotype is never meant to be positive.

- Stereotypes are not, by definition, negative. The idea that people who wear glasses are unusually smart isn't negative (unless you consider being smart a bad thing), but is indeed a stereotype. People stereotype Jews as being good with money/numbers. Not a negative trait in and of itself. There are simply additional negative stereotypes that happen to go along with that one.

>> Quit blaming everything on being gay. You are part of why we don't have equal rights - blaming anything bad on "being gay".

- Definitely a legitimate factor to consider. I'm similarly of the opinion that racism is perpetuated (in part) by false claims of racism. The key here (and in Stephens original comment) is the word "part." We believe it's a contributing factor. That doesn't mean we're blaming these people entirely.

[NC-17?]

Dollars to donuts, the producers intentionally made sure their first-pass print would get an NC-17 rating in order to generate publicity. The producers knew all along they'd put in an NC-17 print to be rated then after the ensuing controversy they'd give MPAA the R-rated print which is the one they'd intended for theatrical release all along.

It's just a publicity stunt.

Gays should know as well as anyone that Hollywood loves queers.

[djfox]

as for John Waters's A DIRTY SHAME, the rating seemed kind of irrelevant since the movie was just kinda crappy, not up to par for Waters at all.

the NC-17 rating for BORAT 2, er, i mean BRUNO, is nothing but a fantastic publicity stunt. remember SHOWGIRLS? the movie had little to recommend it until it was rated NC-17, sparked media controversy (read: free publicity), then was re-edited into the R-rated version that was probably intended from the beginning.

regardless of the rating or the inevitable popularity of the movie, i will not be fooled into seeing BRUNO like i was into seeing BORAT. tired premises without relevance that are executed poorly do not a good movie make.

[Bryan Lovsness]

Good - just what we need another str8 guy trying to make a statement about gays. I find this to be gutter humour and I am afraid it will ONLY provide fodder for people to say that IS how they act. Why can't we grow up and make a movie of say - the "Front Runner" using gay actors.

[Jaq]

stupid movie-enough said. Next!!

[corrective_unconscious]

>"Quit blaming everything on being gay. You are part of why we don't have equal rights - blaming anything bad on 'being gay.'"

Noting the MPAA's heterosexist and arbitrary standards did not stoke homophobia. Perhaps you could take the day off from your reparative therapy program and check out "Big Eden," which someone mentioned as the ultimate example of double standards. And then see the documentary, "This Film is Not Yet Rated."

The MPAA ratings are anti sex and have greater problems with male genitalia than with female generally, but there's no question that their standards are tougher for films with same sex content.

BTW, I thought Borat's performance of our national anthem at the clueless, rabid rodeo was priceless. Almost as funny as the yokels who later tried to sue him 'cos they looked so moronic on screen. Praiz!

[Terry]

I can't wait to see this movie. It's good to see some straight people getting humiliated by other straight people. Instead of gay people always being the butt of the jokes, so to speak. I think this movie will do very well. Let the straight people beware. (In my best Sharon Stone voice.)

[Jared4everx]

The MPAA is a fascist, arbitrary and secretive organization that should have no business deciding what what my kids can watch.

[Brandon Cartwright]

I can see anything Baron doing getting an NC-17 rating. But this article brings up a good point... why is this movie labeled NC-17 and Borat wasn't?

I do not know if anyone saw Borat, but there were MANY instances where that should have led to that movie being NC-17... the mankini, the picture of him being held up up a barely-legal, naked (full frontal) European boy, and of course the naked fight scene in the hotel where his ass was basically submerged into some other fat guys taint.

With this movie I can see him pushing the envelope even further... so maybe he did cross a few lines to get a point across. I don't doubt this could be the filthiest, raunchiest film Sasha has ever put out. But it does seem unfair that Borat did not get the same rating and its a little too coincidental that the film review panel gave his first gay character role a NC-17 rating when it could have just as easily been applied to some of his pasts roles.

One thing I'd like to say... this could all be a publicity stunt as well. Directors aren't stupid...they know when there movies will not make the cut in terms of appropriate ratings. I would not be a damn bit surprised if this was just there way of getting the news out about the film before editing it (again).

[Joel]

The dildos flying around gave this movie that rating??? What the hell .. I was slightly offended with the SEX CHAIR in BURN AFTER READING with the dildo thrusting up as you rock it and that wasn't given the NC-17 rating. This IS all about being just a gay movie. Get a clue ...

[Chaz]

I always find it funny when self-righteous "fags" use a gay issue to make a racial dig. Racism is not perpeuated by false claims of racism (of which I doubt you can name three) it is perpetuated by racists.

[Landon]

This is fantastic for Mr. Cohen and his movie. As a gay man...This shouldn't even be a debate. The rating is not going to stop anyone from seeing it, if anything more people are going to watch it. Besides, it is very true, Sasha uses comedy to bring light to a lot of social issues. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, we are going to leave the theatre and "think". funny how that works out. Comedy is the best medium for change anyway.

[TheExiled]

Oh shut up everyone.

If you found Borat offensive, you'll find this offensive; it's as simple as that. Although homosexuality does tend to have a negative connotation to it, I don't believe it is the cause for the NC-17 rating. What does it matter anyway? It means Parent's can't take their kids to a tacky looking movie. Boo Hoo.

I think it probably should have gotten an R, but then again, we saw a preview that contains R material; we could end up seeing material worth an NC-17 rating in theaters...There are reasons why the preview isn't the WHOLE movie. Anyway if you're using this site, for one, it shouldn't matter considering you're at least 18 years of age.

[Blank]

I don't see how they can rate stuff like south park R but rate that NC-17 they seem to be about at the same offensive comedy level. if you ask me there are alot worse movies out their compared to that as far as age approprite rateing should go.

[nicocoer]

THe ratings system has been politically biased for the life of it's existance- for example, you get movies that would normally be pg as pg-13 for a kiss between two people of the same gender.

I don't see how this would go above an R. Really, I don't, not with some of the raunchy straight movies being an R- or even PG-13. D: D: D: D: If they are going to put an R rating on movies that routinely depict heterosexual RAPE scenes in poor taste, then there's no reason for this movie to get an NC-17 rating.

I know I'd expect it to be full out porn with an NC-17 rating. *rolls eyes*

[Chocbear]

All I know is that this looks to be even funnier than "Borat." I can't wait to see it and will go regardless of it's rating...

[Lil Miss Kate]

look...all this hullaballoo about the rating? thats what the producers WANT you to do. it looks like the movie will be funny as hell and thats pretty much the only point to it. people are stupid, and you can't change that. point is, it's just a stupid movie that would only remotely make sense if you were drunk and high...so shut up about it and get on with your lives. and NO im not gaybashing or w/e. just get over yourselves and have a life!!

[corrective_unconscious]

>"look...all this hullaballoo about the rating?"

Hey cretin. I can call you cretin since you don't mind being treated as less than, as evidenced by your idiotic remarks on the obvious double standards the ratings board perpetuates. Okay, moron?

[GreatGayStore]

He's so funny!