'Brüno': What really went wrong with Sacha Baron Cohen's shtick

By now it's no secret that "Brüno" turned out to be a here-today, gone-tomorrow fizzle. As my colleague Ben Fritz noted in his box-office reportage, "Brüno's" 73% fall-off in its second weekend was the steepest drop of any movie this year. Despite months of free publicity from hungry media outlets and a pretty shrewd marketing campaign from Universal Pictures, the Sacha Baron Cohen film turned out to be a misfire, largely because nearly all of the people who adored the lovably buffoonish "Borat" had zero interest in the obnoxiously misanthropic and often mean-spirited Brüno, who proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are not enough masochistic moviegoers to propel a parody of a gay fashionista into moneymaking material.

There has been all sorts of media speculation that "Brüno's" slide was hastened by the Twitter Effect, with audiences quickly alerting their friends to stay far, far away from a comedy stinker. But I'd argue that something even more fundamental was at work. "Borat" was a breath of fresh air, an artistic breakthrough as well as a wonderfully outrageous comic adventure. But it was a one-off, a fluke, a novelty hit. In fact, what sunk "Brüno" was that, by nature, it was a retread, the work of a comedian trying to capture what turned out to be lightning in a bottle. "Borat" had the effervescence of a great one-night musical performance by a band playing at the height of its powers, while "Bruno" was an attempt to get that performance down on tape, days later in the studio, when the spontaneity had all disappeared.

Universal Pictures paid $42.5 million for the U.S. rights (and eight foreign territories) to "Brüno," spending at least that much -- or more -- to market the film around the world. The studio was betting that "Brüno" was the second installment in a comedy franchise, as if Cohen were the equivalent of Mike Myers playing an Austin Powers-type character, easily marketable and translatable into virtually any language. But instead of getting Austin Powers, Universal ended up with Guru Pitka, the all too unlikable (and unfunny) character Myers played in "The Love Guru," who, like Brüno, insulted all comers and had a somewhat off-putting obsession with penises. It just goes to show that when it comes to comedy characters, audiences turn out to be very cautious shoppers -- they have almost a sixth sense about a product that turns out to be a pale imitation of the genuine article.

Photo of Sacha Baron Cohen as Brüno from Universal Pictures

Comments

[David]

So far this year, it's Friday the 13th (2009) and not Bruno which had the largest drop off in its second weekend. Friday the 13th (2009) fell 80% from its opening weekend compared to Bruno's 73%.

[David Poland]

I wish you could see past your own biases, Patrick.

Lifetime Worldwide Gross on The Love Guru - $40,863,344
10 Day Worldwide Gross on Bruno - $74,353,738

Cost of The Love Guru - $70 million to Paramount
Cost of Bruno - $42.5 million to Universal

You can certainly claim that Bruno performed to lower numbers than Universal hoped. But to smear a movie with The Love Guru is insanely unfair.

And interesting that the phrase "homophobia" never appeared in your story.

[sophie]

I loathe SBC and his mean-spirited "comedy." He is extremely un-funny, and Borat was just as derogatory, one-note and snide as this piece of garbage is.

[Jay]

I thought Bruno was every bit as funny as Borat. Bruno was nowhere near as terrible as The Love Guru.

[JeffH]

I saw Bruno and thought it was better than Borat. I didn't see Sacha Baron Cohen out promoting Bruno anywhere near as aggressively as he did Borat. I heard that one major network backed out of an interview with him because he'd only do it in character; they were afraid he might say or do something over the top. Was it a PR or personal mistake not to promote the movie just as himself? It would have been fascinating to hear him explain how some of the scenes were pulled off, and how he's using situations to poke fun at social, sexual and cultural mores.

[Kevin]

Clearly Mr Goldstein didn't enjoy Bruno, but many many people (and critics) found the movie to be hilarious.
It was just the concept of a gay fashionista, with such 'graphic' content, was always going to be a difficult sell among the straight population. Doesn't mean it wasn't funny.

[JD]

I saw Bruno opening night with a crowd that was, shall we say, lacking a significant number of post-graduates. They came to laugh with Cohen at gays...and were unpleasantly surprised when a majority of his gags were aimed at homophobes (sort of like themselves). That was the biggest difference vs Borat, not the fact that Bruno is a retread. It is ironic that the movie also ticked off many in the gay community, none of whom were skewered by Cohen's gotcha humor.

[chicanolovefest]

why......too dumb.....it is like Mcsame...The GW Bush III of movies.

[Derrick Cerge]

I have to totally disagree with this article... Yes there was a drop off... but probably because of alot of the penis that was all over the theater screen... Sacha Baron Cohen's Ali G show was one of the funniest shows in the UK and then on HBO the latter years... All 3 characters were used in the show... To compare Bruno to Myers' love guru is out of control and I highly disagree with you on this one....

[Chuck]

This was my impression, too. Not only was the ambush humor similar, the "American journey" motif was also there, as was the benevolent sidekick. Bruno felt like a sequel in all of the worst ways, and I say that as someone who thought Borat was great fun and a very smart film.