uh, pardon me but if you consider whipping out your appendage numerous times, and allowing said instrument to say your name while attempting to sell your brand of crude to daytime television "something SUPER GAY" then you have the wrong understanding of what people may think of as "super gay." There are very few people who have "enough tolerance" for this kind of ridiculous behavior...if there was a talking vagina on the silver screen, or a vagina-in-your-face enlarged then I'm positive there would be the same effect; the laughing stops, the whispers and gasps begin(which is what happened the evening I was at the showing, with a vastly progressive audience).

The huge issue with this centrally gay character is NOT that he's gay, but that he's an uninformed and superficial gay who exploits others for fame. Need I mention his swap of the African baby(for a suped-up Ipod), the scenes of interviews for child actors for his politically incorrect photos, his unexplained love of Hitler(perhaps only for his Austrian birthwright). this character could have been straight, and would have ellicited the same reponse. But because he is in the margin, and already a subject of debate, it represents the GBLT community poorly. there are certainly awful stereotypes of these persons in the world today, not to mentioned what you called "magnified" personalities of other races and cultures.
the stage was set for the ultimate fighting sequence: as it was a "straight man's" ring-Cohen's character entices the crowd to proclaim their hate for homophobia...so if man and a woman did kiss within the layers of that barbed wire the audience reaction in that film SURELY would not have been as riotous..,.more than likely perplexed, and possibly anrgy that they hadn't gotten the fight they had spent their George Washingtons for.

I truly doubt Cohen's antics will induce any catharsis in it's viewers. Instead, it just makes them feel uncomfortable, like it did Ron Paul, the people in the television studios, the group of hunters in Alabama. and not uncomfortable because they were confronted with homosexuality, or whatever bawdiness it may entail, but because of the lack of respect for their own personal space, and.....absurdity is a fine word. And aren't there enough mirrors to shine the light on "our population's ugliness?" What a cop-out. I'll watch the news for that.

Cohen is not purporting to debunk stereotypes, he's intentionally exaggerating them to bring uncharacteristic reactions out of people. His aim in doing so (at least in my opinion) is that this is not casual, everyday homophobia... it's the kind they only let out of themselves when confronted with something SUPER gay. Basically, folks who have 'just enough' tolerance, unless, you know, a gay guy is especially flamboyant or offends their delicate sensibilities.

"Is this really the time to use a character who may actually contribute to homophobia among those who don’t get the joke?"

Yes, you bring up Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen, Gay marriage, etc. as being indicative of a groundswell of tolerance and us being on the precipice of breaking down that wall of ignorance, but I think the entire point of the film. is to point out, while things are, in fact, getting more progressive in this country in regards to homosexuality, there's still a MASSIVE portion of this country that is intrinsically, viscerally REPULSED by gay people and HATES them.

As for folks who won't get the joke, should we really avoid certain types of art because they might be misunderstood or the lowest-common-denominator might not get it? Should we not have published "Catcher in the Rye" because it would result in the murder of John Lennon? Or should society have not gotten to experience "Natural Born Killers" or "The Matrix" because one day right-wing moralists would scapegoat them for the Columbine shootings?

Do you sincerely think, though, that this movie could potentially instill homophobia in someone who doesn't get the joke? Firstly, it's common knowledge that Cohen is a straight man portraying a homosexual, and I don't think anyone could take Bruno's actions sincerely anymore than they could Borat's (did you have an issue with that film's potential creation of anti-Kazakh prejudices?).

Generally, I think folks will bring in their own prejudices or open-mindedness, and largely leave with them intact; If ANYTHING, I could see those audience members who are carrying a bit of homophobic baggage seeing themselves in some of the less savory "victims" of Cohen/Bruno and perhaps being a bit embarrassed. While this might be a bit idealistic, I think it's more realistic than the concept of a homophobe seeing his viewpoints validated by this satire.

"And frankly, in many of the film’s scenarios, Brüno’s behavior is so beyond the pale, that a straight man doing the exact same thing would elicit a similar response. In that sense, Brüno is not an expose of our intolerance toward gay men. It’s an expose of our intolerance toward socially unacceptable behavior."

Sure, SOME of it is played just for laughs, and what's funny about many sequences is simply "oh, he's wacky and they respond weirdly." Not every single scene or gag is intended to be an indictment of homophobia. But i think it's naive and wrongheaded to state that certain reactions are indicative of anything besides intolerance. For example, if a man and a woman (or even a woman and woman) started kissing in public in front of a crowd at an Ultimate Fighting cage match, the crowd wouldnt immediately get FURIOUS, VIOLENT, start SCREAMING, CRYING and throwing BEER BOTTLES. In inumerables scenes in the film, the reactions are uniquely homophobic, not just 'offended by generic tastelessness' (e.g. Ron Paul's "queer" comment, the God Hates Fags folks' reactions, the African-American audience's revulsion at Bruno's desire to find "a good man," etc., etc.).

Some/many might be willing to just laugh it all off (and understandably -- the film is VERY funny), but I think it's all a bit more socially significant than folks might be willing to give it credit for. Much like Borat -- though, perhaps to an even greater extent -- I found the movie to be putting up a mirror to a large portion of our population's ugliness, making us deal with it, and grapple with our own feelings about whether or not we're comfortable with letting such attitudes persist and thrive. Labeling it "a call to arms" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not far off.

This one I was looking forward to seeing. I still am. We probbly would have disagree. I'll waive judgement until I see it.

I also noticed that Bella is not really an anti-feminist person. I had the impression that she does what she thinks is right.... and the fact that she is so into Edward is just expression of her age.