'Bruno': Relevant or Irreverent?

Before I attempt to answer the question posed in the title, I want to shoot down a comparison people have been making.

The comparison is Tom Green and Sasha Baron Cohen. City Pulse writer Cole Smithey said, "Sasha Baron Coen picks up where Tom Green left off as cinema's most cunning agent provocateur." Smithey's misspelling is fun to point out, but more importantly, how the fuck was "Freddy Got Fingered" cunning? How was Green an agent in that film? It is important to make a distinction between Green's television and film work.

Google around and you'll find more comparisons. Even though I should be a douchebag for the sake of entertainment, I'll be fair. You could describe both Green and Cohen as obnoxious. And their comedy involves interacting with real people beyond a controlled setting for wild results. That's where the comparison ends. And with those two criteria, you could bring in other names, like Triumph and Dave Attell.

Just as it doesn't make sense to say Triumph is influenced by the work of Tom Green, it doesn't make sense to state, in any way, that Cohen is continuing Green's work. Green is himself; Cohen plays characters. Green's comedy has no underlying social commentary; Cohen is a satirist.

There are two potential reasons why someone would make such a limited comparison. First, the person doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about. Second, the person doesn't find Cohen funny or insightful and either wants to use Green's name as an easy way to discredit Cohen or lumps all unfunny comics--from his or her perspective--into the same category (which doesn't necessarily make sense--for example, I don't like Carrot Top or Steve Carell for very different reasons). It's fine to think Cohen is a comedic failure, but it's a mistake to suggest he's not putting as much on the line as Green. And it's also a mistake to dismiss him with a simple "Well, he's so obnoxious" line. No, he plays obnoxious characters, and he does so for a reason. Instead, explain why his characters fail to deliver the satire.

With this logic in mind, I want to briefly analyze Cohen's newest film, "Bruno," and answer a question: Is it relevant or just irreverant? (I'm loosely defining "relevant" as an action that brings about social commentary or satire and "irreverent" as an action that just pisses people off.)

The answer is both. When Bruno pulls his pants down in front of politician Ron Paul, it's irreverent. I can't find any meaningful commentary in this scene other than Paul handling the situation about as well as you can expect.

However, when a disguised Bruno pleases a crowd by chanting ridiculous shit like "Straight Pride" before sending it into a frenzy--complete with a thrown chair and laughable expressions of disappointment--by stripping and kissing another man, it's relevant (and funny). An American crowd cheers when he champions heterosexuality but would have injured or killed the same bastard for stripping and kissing a man if a cage didn't separate spectacle from audience.

Bruno revealing that some parents will put their children through any horrible thing to make money: relevant.

Bruno showing a tape to a focus group that features a penis swinging around and yelling his name: irreverent.

Bruno taking his clothes off and trying to get into a tent with a hunter: irreverent.

Bruno convincing a karate instructor that a homosexual is going to attack him in a number of improbable ways (the last example involves a homosexual attacking him with two dildos and an exposed penis): relevant.

And sometimes an action is both relevant and irreverent. For example, a television audience commends Bruno for being a parent until he mentions that he's gay. This is relevant until Bruno goes out of his way to piss the audience off, with pictures of the baby in a pool with him and other men.

My message here is simple. You don't have to like "Bruno," but approach the material for what it is. It doesn't resemble Tom Green anymore than Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. (Granted, the dog is a puppet, but he is always irreverent, like Green.)

One more thing. While I watched "Bruno," a couple behind me said "That's it" and began to walk out when Bruno dropped his pants in front of Ron Paul. I laughed at them of course, but they soon disturbed me. Halfway down the steps, they called to another party, "Let's go." First, a girl stood up. She looked about 17. Then a shorter boy stood up. OK, he was probably only 13 or 14, but that's not too bad. Then an even shorter boy stood up, perhaps as young as 10. An important thing to keep in mind is that the parents didn't walk out when a penis was talking on the screen.

I'm sure that family has a fascinating future.

(By the way, Cohen's work is most reminiscent of Peter Sellers. The physical comedy [especially the velcro suit scene in "Bruno"]. The multiple accents. The satire. This is what you call solid intel, Mr. President.)