Brüno Banned in Utah Valley
July 18th, 2009
Are local theaters justified in selectively censoring films?
by Jacob Hodgen
He's been called "brilliant," "genius," and "perverted." This last weekend, Sacha Baron Cohen's latest film Brüno was the number one movie in America. But you wouldn't know it if you live in some parts of the state.
That's because Brüno has been banned in Utah Valley.
Brüno ist über famous
Brüno features the comedic adventures of a flamboyantly gay TV host who comes to America seeking fame and fortune. Staring Sacha Baron Cohen, writer and director of Borat (2006), Brüno is filmed mockumentary style and features Cohen's cringe-worthy interactions with everyday Americans unaware of their unwitting involvement in a brutal satire of American culture and their own earnest hypocrisy.
Highlights include Brüno's unsuccessful encounter with conversion therapy at the the hands of a misogynistic Christian minister, the attempted seduction of presidential candidate Ron Paul, a child modeling agency interview with a depraved mother willing to dress her daughter up as a Nazi to land a part, and a romantic ending to a mixed martial arts match that nearly starts a lynch mob. Brüno has been praised for its ingenuity, bravery, and poignancy as a social critique. But it has also been slammed as unnecessarily vile and offensive, which is a claim frequently voiced by even those who liked the film.
This is due to the fact that Brüno does not merely dance along the border of what is socially acceptable: it deliberately and gleefully leaps headfirst off the deep end of shocking cinema. Lloyd Kaufman has nothing on Cohen, who leaves naught to the imagination as he dances nude in front of the camera and lets his twirling, manscaped-penis do the talking in one scene--literally. Brüno's status as offensive and shocking is certainly not in question, which is clearly by design and is an integral part of Cohen's satire.
What is in question is whether or not the film justifies being singled out and banned by local theaters.
Selective Censorship: Murder < Homosexuality?
Once again, local movie theaters have decided to become a de facto bastion of morality and save Utah from offensive material. This week, Utah Stories attempted to speak with employees, supervisors, and patrons from the Orem Cinemark and Provo Wynnsong theaters looking for answers as to why they refused to show the film.
"We don't make the decisions on which movies we show," said a supervisor at the Orem Cinemark. "The executives probably didn't think it would do well here."
I spoke with a few people who agreed, like two friends named Hyrum and Darl. "I think it's a good idea," they told me. "Showing the film would make people apprehensive coming to the theater--they might lose business in the future if they showed it. Why bring something that the society might not want to see? I think it's a good business decision."
Fair enough, if this were true. Movie theaters are businesses: if they do not think they can make money off of a film, it would make sense that they wouldn't go out of their way to screen it. Unfortunately, any such benign, economic motive seems like a myth at best. First off, Brüno was the number one movie in the country. Even if only the non-LDS population in Utah went to see it, it would still be a money maker. Secondly, when Cohen's previous film Borat was released in 2006, it was a smash hit locally, and I witnessed myself as fans packed the Provo Cinemark to capacity its opening weekend. Call me crazy, but this seems to strongly suggest that Brüno would also do quite well in ticket sales.
So what then is the real reason the film was banned? Most of the patrons I spoke with were less shy about admitting that they thought it was tender local sensibilities and not cash that was at stake. But are Cinemark and Wynnsong really trying to shelter their clientele from morally objectionable material? Since when?
As odd as it sounds, this was the consensus among the people interviewed, though the strange logic involved in the decision is fraught with inconsistencies.
First off, Brüno is only banned in Utah Valley. Cinemark's Jordan Landing theater opted to go ahead and show the film. I asked the supervisor at Cinemark's Orem location why local executives would be worried about showing a film they felt was immoral in Provo but not in Salt Lake City. Were their souls too far gone to save?
She told me she wasn't allowed to talk about it.
Even worse, ticketing clerks at both theaters informed me that in the past their executives had no problem whatsoever showing films like Hostel (2005) and Saw (2004), which graphically depict torture and murder. Don't get me wrong--I'm not knocking these films myself. It just seems like Brüno is an odd place to draw a line when there are so many other movies that are much easier targets.
The film Hostel, for example, revolves around a fictional agency that allows its clients to pay to be able to torture and kill kidnapped tourists. The film was so violent that ambulances were reportedly called in at its initial screening after several patrons fainted; one woman claimed it was so disturbing it caused her to have a heart attack. Hostel also depicted multiple lengthy and graphic sex scenes featuring full frontal female nudity.
Timothy and Matthew are film goers I spoke with from Orem. They suggested that since violence is more common in mainstream film, it is less controversial than overt displays of homosexuality, which Utah culture is not accustomed to. "Gory films have been around forever, but these films with strong gay themes are cutting edge. A religious culture like Utah isn't used to it."
So is this how torture, murder, and ample female genitalia got the late Larry H. Miller's seal of approval, yet a film with no violence and a few seconds of a dancing penis are deemed verboten in selected counties by his heirs? Was this sense of corporate morality newly emerged just in time to strike Cohen's latest film down? Once again, history suggests the answer is less simple.
Another movie to be banned from local theaters in recent years was the Oscar-winning drama Brokeback Mountain, which was very publicly denounced by Larry H. Miller in 2005. Brokeback Mountain is a tragic love story of two men lauded by critics for it sensitive and heartfelt depiction of a forbidden relationship. Though the film included several intimate encounters, its presentation of sexuality was serious and subtle, making it the polar opposite of Brüno in style and intent, yet it was still considered offensive enough to prevent its screening in many places.
The Inconvenient Context
Though no one I spoke with could tell me why these films would be seen as more morally egregious than one depicting extreme violence, a look at recent headlines might yield an answer. Utahns, both LDS and otherwise, are still up in arms over the controversial arrest of two gay men who kissed each other on the cheek in Temple Square and the subsequent "kiss-ins" staged in protest. Also, the fallout from the LDS-backed Proposition 8 is still making negative news in both the national and local media spheres. Thus the answer seems to have less to do with the degree of one perceived "sin" versus another than Utah's current cultural proximity to one in particular. Recent comments by State Senator Chris Buttars also spring to mind. . .
Whether or not local cinema owners are justified or homophobic for making such a public stand against depictions of homosexuality in film while turning a blind eye to other potentially "objectionable" material is a matter of opinion. However, for whatever reason, this issue didn't make any of the local headlines as it did for Brokeback Mountain's release, which was covered extensively to the point it was referenced by Leno on The Tonight Show. No matter what side you find yourself on, it seems a culturally enforced embargo on depictions of a minority group deserves far more thought and serious reflection than it has recently been given, which is none.
Whatever the true reason for its placement on local blacklists, Brüno's success now has an altogether new enemy beyond the handfuls of crusading Utahns. . . they are soooo last weekend. This fresh foe is far more dangerous to his box office sales than they ever were.
His name is Harry Potter.
Reader Comments
Bryan Young
Having worked at movie theatres for a long time in Utah County, I can tell you that these corporate entities like Cinemark and Carmike DO NOT make decisions based on morals. It's all dollars and sense. They have people telling them which films do well in certain theatres and book based on that. It seems disingenuous to say that the film was "banned" because the local theatres didn't book the film. A ban would imply an active effort on the part of locals to prevent it from playing. That simply didn't happen.
I would bet that you'll see it at Movies 8 in a month or so.
Gordy King
It's fun to bash Utah Valley, but I don't blame them on this one. Sometimes, Sacha Baron Cohen just goes too far.
Stephanie Greenwood
That's crazy. But I guess no surprise!
