Shakesville - Latest Comments in The Reviews Are In

Re: The Reviews Are In

Kris — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:23:33 -0000

Thank you, CaitieCat. It's insulting to even insinuate that a straight man playing up a dangerous stereotype for laughs is a gift to the gay community -- it's not.

We don't need SBC's "help", thank you very much.

Re: The Reviews Are In

CaitieCat — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:16:46 -0000

Sorry, krantz345, I just don't buy it. Were that to be true, where are the efforts to show the homophobes they're wrong?

This is, plain and simple, exploitation of an oppressed group by a privileged straight white man, for his commercial benefit.

A simple thought experiment should make it clear: Imagine, if you will, if instead of pretending to be every damaging gay stereotype he could imagine, that SBC had performed the entire movie in blackface, imitating a gangsta, talking about the cops he'd like to kill and so on. Or that he did it in yellowface, giving us the tired old "me so solly" crap? Would it be okay to remake Amos & Andy, with two white comedians hauling out tired bullshit stereotypes about black people, and claim it was anti-racist?

As made clear in several of the reviews, this is basically SBC performing in gayface. And when gay people all over are telling you that a) it's not alright, b) it's not funny, and c) that it's making their lives more dangerous, then people with even a tiny bit of empathy, or even basic awareness that human beings come in types other than the "default" white straight man, would listen to them.

Sorry. I call bullshit. It's plain and simple: SBC is exploiting the troubles of an oppressed group for his own commercial gain. It's not funny, it's abusive.

Re: The Reviews Are In

krantz345 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:55:28 -0000

I hate to be the cynical in-power type, but doesn't it make sense that the main way to attract people to contemplating social issues is to trick (entice) them into watching something advertised as entertaining. Doesn't middle america now know about the plight of Indian poverty because of Slumdog? Take a documentary and wrap it with a hollywood package so it's consumable to further social discussion.

Now, I'm not saying Bruno is comparable to Slumdog but I think the purpose of the films may be the same. Both elicit discussion. Maybe Bruno was a good idea that is improperly executed but at least it elicits discussion and I guarantee you my in-power white male friends will go see it. Maybe, just maybe, they'll cringe when they should or ask me what I thought about it.

I think realizing social justice is a progression and even if we're taking baby steps, I think it's better than not confronting the issue at all. Though Bruno so far sounds like a more like a Michael Richards blow up...

Re: The Reviews Are In

krantz345 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:51:19 -0000

Re: The Reviews Are In

$165396 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:40:54 -0000

What is this new trend in comedy wherein comics misinterpret the twitters and giggles people utter when they are uncomfortable as genuine "that's funny" laughter? Or is it all the same to them?

Re: The Reviews Are In

rachael1978 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:10:59 -0000

I loved Lane's review in part because he called out the idea of forced laughter. So many people will laugh at this crap, because they're afraid of being called prudes.

Re: The Reviews Are In

Kevin Wolf — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:43:59 -0000

For those interested, Anthony Lane's New Yorker review is here.

A paradox: It seems from the reviews I've seen that a negative like Lane's would probably dissuade me from seeing the film, while the positive reviews (such as quoted above) would definitely dissuade me from wasting my time. Funny, no?

Re: The Reviews Are In

essen — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:20:34 -0000

The lyrics urging North and South Korea to stop fighting since they both look Chinese

Not only is it immensely racist, it's also *stupid*

Let's have a little look about historic enemies of the British (I'm English myself) shall we:
Germans, French, Vikings, Americans, Spanish for a bit, Italians for a bit... *

Yes, we look so totally different from them - I can see why we were fighting. It was ALL about race. That's the only people have wars, after all.

(* plus a lot of people who didn't look like us, whom I'm excluding simply because I want to make a point)

Re: The Reviews Are In

Glauke — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:55:13 -0000

I think The Guardian's Nirpal Dhaliwal is spot on in the Film Blog:
"The film doesn't challenge social prejudices – it is simply smutty public-school trash"

You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/f...

Re: The Reviews Are In

Mr Furious [not Todd] — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:01:59 -0000

Oh, not "pass" as in the opposite of fail..."Pass" as in "No freaking thanks."

Re: The Reviews Are In

Mr Furious [not Todd] — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:01:06 -0000

"Pass."

Re: The Reviews Are In

Esme — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:01:15 -0000

That New Yorker review is wonderful.

Re: The Reviews Are In

rahxephon — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:06:30 -0000

About the only thing I can approve of is the makeover. I'd love to have Bruno's hairstyle, but everything else? Total garbage.

Re: The Reviews Are In

D. Potter — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:49:10 -0000

Insensitivity is probably a requirement for gaining power.

And next-life regression doesn't work.

Re: The Reviews Are In

CaitieCat — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:40:39 -0000

Well, no, because the people who find it high-larious tend to be the in-power types, they're the default, so how could they possibly be "not sensitive enough"? They're just as sensitive as any other in-power type!

Honestly, it's revolting.