Discuss: Why is 'Borat' Funnier than 'Brüno'?

I actually found Bruno to be just as funny as Borat. While I would agree that Bruno is certainly more staged than Borat was, that doesn't change the fact that it's still funny as heck (I didn't find the non-participatory scenes to fall flat). Even if the whole thing were written, it would still be a funny experience-scripted or not, Bruno the character and Borat the character are both (in my opinion) very funny creations. The reactions they get from people are what make them funny, sure, and if that's what you want, then Borat is certainly the more reality-based. But talking on a pure funnines scale here, I think both contain just as many hard laughs as the other.

Reply

Brüno, as a character, is funnier if you're gay. I'm not sure if that's simply because of a desensitization to some of his behaviors and remarks (the underlying concepts, at least, not the magnitude) or if it's because nobody else in the audience is.

Still, Borat was funnier not only because the character's low-brow humor was more varied and unexpected, but because there was so much more high-brow social commentary as a result of him. Borat made unwitting people comfortable enough to say stupid things, whereas Brüno made them uncomfortable enough to react as if someone was making them very uncomfortable.

Most of the Borat-esque interviews in Brüno were at the very beginning, such as when he gets the fashion model to talk about how hard it is to put one leg in front of the other. Perhaps this is because Brüno was less out of place at a Milan fashion show, not to mention that he was acting slightly more "professional" at the time.

Reply

The explanation for me seems to be that, as a country, we are still far more xenophobic and racist than we are homophobic - which is one of the reasons that Bruno has to go so extremely far in its crudeness in order to elicit laughs and this is why Borat is funnier: foreigners are funny, and their ignorance makes us feel superior particularly when it shows that the same elitism exists in our own country. The joke works both ways, in that we laugh at Borat because he's stupid, but also because his shocking stupidity reveals an even more extreme stupidity in our own culture, which is reassuring and lets us think the movie doesn't view us with as much contempt as its unwilling participants. Bruno doesn't have this kind of resonance and complexity.

Reply

The funniest thing about Borat is how he made others look bad. He drew out the racism, sexism, antisemitism in them. He exposed the American society.

Brüno attempted to do the same, and draw out the homophobia in people, but mostly failed at it. So he had to resort to extreme measures. For this reason, Brüno is not nearly as funny as Borat.

Reply

My biggest problem with the movie was that it literally had no plot. In Borat, he's working his way across the country to make Pamela Anderson his wife and encounters things along the way.

In Bruno, he gets kicked out a fashion and then tries to be an actor and then tries to host a TV show and then tries to turn straight. It was all over the place.

Reply

When it comes down to it for me, Borat had me laughing so hard I almost threw up on the people next to me. Bruno had some big laughs, but no near vomiting moments. A strange way to decide between the two, but it's an honest way.

There is a vital difference in the characters too: Borat, for all his sexist and racist behavior, still came across as misinformed and, in a way, sweet & likable. Bruno is not likable. Bruno is pushy and shallow (which I think is part of the joke). These differences in character make Borat easier to watch.

Reply

I think it's mostly a been-there done-that kinda thing. I for one am finding it hard to get excited about Brüno, even though I'm sure it's funny. It's just not as ground-breaking the second time around.

Reply

Borat is funnier because he is not really a character. He is a blank slate for people to impose their own ignorance, and in doing so expose the dark and hilarious side of our less enlightened citizens. Borat is so good at this because he does not know any better. Bruno, in my opinion, fails mainly because he is a character that SHOULD know better, and the ignorance portrayed in the film is mostly his own, not imposed on him. Bruno is more of a "character" in that he does not rely as much on other people's opinions to make the film funny; Bruno carries more of the film on his back.

Reply

Borat, as a character, is an innocent and extermely non-threatning. Even his journey in America is far more realtable - boy falls in love (Pamela Anderson) and wants to impress her (or capture her). Bruno on the other hand is shallow, driven, gay and has an German-like accent. For most audience members, there is nothing to relate to. His journey is far more direct and focused (which makes the movie feel more scripted when in reality, Borat is just as scripted). Also, Borat, sounds ignornat because of his accent - this isn't a judgement but a way we as human beings percive people with accents not only from other conutries but our own. How many times do we make fun of Southerns? Or Mexicans? Or urban African Americans? We relate how one speaks to how intelligent they are. So when you laughing at Borat, you're really laughing AT him and your programmed sense of how you perceive foreigners (or people who are foreign to you no mater where they come from) comes to the surface. Bruno is very intelligent, (nothing to do with the accent merely his actions) confident and just the sound of his accent is direct and piercing. So when people say Borat is much funnier, I think we should take a step back and ask what are really laughing at? The situations Sacha Baron Cohen puts people in as the character of Borat or the silly little foreigner with the funny accent who does silly things to make us laugh? Cohen's movies say far more about the people who watch and laugh than the people who are exploited. In the end, the joke is on us.

Reply

Sorry for the grammatical errors and some of the misspelled words. It's been a long day...

Reply

Bruno didn't work for me because with Borat, you were in on the joke and you were laughing at him. With Bruno, you were laughing at him. Borat brought out people's prejudices, but he was friendly, funny, and (kind of) a nice person. Bruno is like watching Paris Hilton for an hour and a half. I didn't laugh at the hunters, focus group, or psychic. I just felt bad they had to sit there and put up with it. I love dick jokes as much as the next person, but I wasn't sure what was Bruno's point. Now, the scenes with the reality "star" and the women he spoke to about setting up a charity, were hysterical because he used his character to show how they were morons.

Reply

1) Bruno was too staged
2) Borat was funny because he didn't seem to know any better. He was completely clueless. And the strange customs made us laugh (jars of gypsy tears, the wedding sack, the kissing men upon greeting etc). Because Bruno wasn't clueless, and was not from a totally different culture, he just seemed crass and arrogant at times.

** However, Bruno made me laugh more because it was more shocking than I could have imagined! It's just that Borat was the better film.

Reply

I just saw Bruno not more then a 1/2 hour ago. I liked it but I found myself almost forcing myself to laugh at some scenes. I think Borat was funnier because we didn't know what to expect really unless you watched trailors of the film. This time with Bruno even though I hadn't seen it yet I sort of knew what to expect from Cohen. Yes there were some scenes that were just very funny, like the swinger / dominatrix whipping him and the Richard Bey show with the Black Baby etc. Having said this I left the theater almost disturbed by much of it. Quite frankly I don't know how this film was able to get an R rating. I aslo thought that some of the scenes may have been staged but I'm not quite sure. Some think they were however I don't think so. All in all I'm glad I went to see it but I think Borat was very original and Bruno wasn't so much and maybe because of it's format.

Reply

Borat is much, much funnier.

I don’t think there is anything funny about 'trading' a black kid from Africa (importing him in a cardboard box with holes), passing it off as your own, calling him “OJ”, having photos taken of him on a crucifix with other children dressed up as Nazis, have photos of him on your shoulder as other guys in the hot tub are rimming each other, taking the kid on a Vespa (without a helmet) and almost having an accident with a car…. I can go on and on and on. As a gay single parent, I think this movie stinks.

Honestly, the gay camp stuff was sort of haha funny (I mean, we’ve seen the sketches about a ‘fruity’ guy who goes to a fashion show a million times. Fine.). Some of the other stuff just isn’t funny at all.

Borat looked much more spontaneous. Bruno was contrived, desperately trying to wring a laugh out of every scene, but often not succeeding.

Give it a miss, folks.

Reply