Brüno – den ‘sofistikerede’ elites hoveren

Nej, jeg har ikke set Sacha Baron Cohens nyeste epos, og jeg har heller ingen planer om at gøre det, hvis jeg på nogen som helst måde kan blive fri. Jeg hadede Borat, og selv om jeg principielt mener, at man kan lave mange gode ting med skjult kamera, kunne jeg ikke lade være med at sympatisere med de mange almindelige, små hverdagsmennesker, der blev lokket til at blamere sig for åbent kamera.

Hvis man absolut vil lave den slags, så gå dog efter magthaverne – som Michael Moore f.eks. gjorde i Bowling for Colombine – ikke efter privatpersoner, for seven da. Men Baron Cohen tør faktisk ikke, så vidt jeg kan se, for alvor rette sit skyts mod de store – i stedet kan man jo så altid komme med millioner i ryggen og udstille almindelige mennesker, der dårligt nok har til terminen eller pensionen. God, gedigen humor, der sparker nedaf, med andre ord.

Nå, men hvis jeg ikke selv vil se den, er det jo godt, man har folk til det. Barbara Ellen når i The Observer frem til nogenlunde samme konklusioner om Brüno, som jeg selv drog om Borat:

Make no mistake. Brüno is bad art, and depressing, even boring, with it. What promised to be a lampooning of the fashion industry, a dark-hued Zoolander, at least a scathing exposé of the rich and famous, turned out to be a relentless, sour trashing of the white and black US underclass for their supposed homophobic tendencies.

I say “supposed”, because with many of Brüno’s stunts (giant dildos, talking penises, shit handprints on hotel walls, baiting Republican politicians and churchmen, placing an adopted black baby in what appeared to be a mocked-up gay orgy), there is a nagging feeling that one doesn’t have to be a drooling redneck to wonder what the point is.

For example, the climactic scene, featuring Brüno and his male assistant, half-naked, simulating sex in front of heckling “white trash” at a cage-fighting event, would arguably have created as much consternation at the Ideal Home Exhibition, the Last Night of the Proms, even the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square.

Like much in the film, it says naff all about homophobia, preferring to lift up the rock of the US underclass to titter along with a liberal elite audience. The intimation is that if one is not amused, one has a “problem”: one is narrow-minded, repressed, unsophisticated. Voila! The cultural bully’s credo in full. […]

Even more damning are the final scenes of Brüno singing a Live Aid spoof with Bono, Sting, and Snoop Dogg. If Baron Cohen was doing his job properly, these celebrities would be terrified of him, at least wary, as they once were of Paul Kaye’s Dennis Pennis. The fact that they’re not, that they’re cosy, says it all.

It seems to me that by making Brüno, Baron Cohen has ceased to be a satirist and exposed himself as a careerist. He’s an A-lister who lets off the rich and famous and sets up the powerless poor for the delectation of the elitist liberal stalls. Worse, like all cultural bullies before him, he then tries to make his audience take the blame for how misguided and unfunny it all is.

Mine fremhævelser – og netop de fremhævede pointer er som sagt spot on i mine øjne.

Link: Try picking on someone your own size,  Brüno

AlJazeera – Mellemøstens New York Times.

As’ad Abukhalil alias Angry Arab har et interessant indlæg om AlJazeera og deres store og i hans øjne journalistisk velfortjente indflydelse i den arabiske verden:

Politics aside, AlJazeera Arabic is an excellent channel. Forget about all the political biases that afflict all news media, Aljazeera makes more effort to check in political biases than mainstream US media, like the New York Times. To compare Al-Arabiyya with AlJazeera is like comparing Muhammad Dahlan with Nelson Mandela. The comparison in itself is unfair to both sides.

The other day, I kept AlJazeera on for a while working out and I was most impressed with the depth and scope of its international coverage. I mean, they would have a report from the US and then they would interview some Arabic speaker about some aspect of US politics, and then they would move to the elections in Mauritania, and on and on. If you switch while watching AlJazeera, you are most like to see a long and tedious report on Michael Jackson on Al-Arabiyya TV (the station of King Fahd’s brother-in-law).

Yesterday, AlJazeera was on and they had a flash about shooting outside of the Capital in DC. I switched to Fox New and they did not have anything on the matter for five long minutes. Don’t get me wrong: I have my own criticism of AlJazeera and wrote about them here. But it is all relative: if I am to pick a newscast in any language that I can understand, I would not hesitate to select AlJazeera “mid-day” newscast. There is nothing like it: and the BBC which I used to like has been deteriorating and mimicking US network, albeit with more dignity.

The reason I write about all this is the war between the tyrannical regime of Abu Mazen and Aljazeera. As you all know, the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime shut down AlJazeera offices (and I am glad that the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the closure). But you need to read the Orwellian official statement that was issued by Salam Fayyad (the same guy who was dubbed “reformer” because he strictly follows orders from the World Bank and from Elliott Abrams). The statement justified the closure in the name of “the Supreme Palestinian interest”. The language used was the same as that used by Saddam Husayn’s regime or the regime of Enver Hoxa. It was classic terminology of tyranny. And it was quite amusing to see the PA talk about biases of Aljazeera when the blatant pro-Dahlan bias of Al-Arabiyya TV is admired by the same collaborationist regime. Azmi Bisharah spoke very well on the matter on Al-Jazeera yesterday: he said that the closure should be analyzed in terms the growing tryannical powers of the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime. He also reminded viewers that the Abu Mazen regime acts very much like the tyrannical Arab regimes and that its behavior during the Israeli terrorist war on Gaza was symptomatic: even public demonstration of sympathy with the people of Gaza were banned by the collaborationist regime.

I recently spoke to a colleague who teaches at a universtiy in the West Bank: she described to me the behavior of the Dahlan gangs during the protests in solidarity with Gaza. She said that the oppression and repression in the West Bank has become quite effective. She watched as Dahlan gangsters/army moves to beat up and quickly overpower each demonstrator by himself/herself. She said that people are now afraid to speak out. As Azmi Bisharah said yesterday, the West Bank office of AlJazeera only hosts Fath propagandists because the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime only allows voices of support for the regime. It is fair to say that the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime has decided after the last parliamentary election to rule by force, and by force along. This is why they are now so upset with Faruq Qaddumi: because he is the most senior Fath person and represents dissent within the movement. Why did I title this post “The Revenge of AlJazeera”? Well, because you better not launch war on AlJazeera: they can really sway Arab public opinion more than Hasan Nasrallah and Yusuf Al-Qaradawi combined.

Jeg har tilladt mig selv at indsætte afsnit i teksten. Det gør selvfølgelig også godt at læse As’ads befriende åbenhjertige beskrivelse af Abu Mazens Quislingestyre i Ramallah. Det er lige før, man ærgrer sig over ikke at forstå arabisk, så man ikke selv kan følge AlJazeeras dækning.

Link: The Revenge of AlJazeera: on its war with the Abu Mazen’s collaborationist regime