My partner in crime recently said that she might not see the current Sacha Baron Cohen opus "Bruno" in the theater because she didn't like films that made her cringe, and his previous effort "Borat" was certainly cringe inducing in its execution (outright shocking, even) when it was unleashed on the unsuspecting public in 2006. Having just seen "Bruno", I can safely say that Cohen hasn't dulled his comedic edge when it comes to making an audience feel like crawling under their theater seats during just about any scene in the 83 minute running time.
This, however, is a good thing. You see, film is a powerful art form, one that can literally change the direction of your life. You might want to pay attention to the emotions that rise to the surface when reacting to this, or any art form for that matter.
Why are you cringing? What is it about what you are seeing that makes you uncomfortable? Is it the midget who gets a fire extinguisher enema? The talking penis? The simulated fellatio act? Two grown men making out on camera?
As we know, being human is a complicated gig, and this changes from day to day. Moment to moment, even. We shed skin, hair, and wake up with a brand new stomach lining each morning. We are never the same person twice, so it's very nourishing to challenge the definition of the soul as much as possible. I like being shocked, force to sit up in my seat and pay attention, and I like to explore the 'whys' of how that reaction came about.
Film critic Roger Ebert recently said that we take the experience of who we are and all the films we've seen whenever we enter the theater and view a new film. We judge this experience on what has gone before, and then figure out if the film had anything new to offer us. I have seen plenty of cringe inducing films in my time ("Cannibal Holocaust" immediately comes to mind), and even though "Bruno" isn't nearly as polished as "Borat", there were more than a few moments that made me audibly gasp, and I was delighted to find out that after logging so many film 'road miles' I could still be shocked by a man who is clearly fearless in his execution of comedy.
This is how we all should live. Fearless. Yet many of us are far too comfortable inside our own boxes to allow anything in that might change our delicate perception of how we view the world. Personally, I say break the glass, then go ahead and break it again. We're only getting one go around in this life, and I for one want to know why I cringe at such sights, and how I can embrace that uncomfortableness as a positive and make it my own.
In a theater filled with less than 20 people, there was still one person who walked out of my screening of "Bruno", and that was early on. I'd like to claim some film 'street cred' that I made it to the end of the movie and they didn't, but the truth is that for every one person who chooses to live outside the box, there are countless masses that never will. That's too bad, for how much more enlightened would that person had been if they watched the entire film? What new insights could they have learned about the nature of their soul? Should their last image of the film be that of a midget launching himself ass backward in a rolling chair towards Bruno's erect cock? I could only imagine the conversation around the dinner table that night...
Go forth and be cringed! Find out what makes that clock of yours tick. You never know, the sight of a champagne bottle jammed halfway up someones rectum might open up your whole universe...
I'm not sure it is fair to say the person who walked out is living 'inside the box.' That person made a conscious decision. They spent money to see a movie, decided it wasn't for them, and left.
ReplyDeleteI never leave movies because I paid the money, I get what I deserve - good or bad. I'm also one of those nerds who sits through the credits, in part out of respect for the hundreds of craftsmen (and women) who contribute to the whole of a film.
But I digress.
The person who leaves the theater isn't necessarily living inside the box. This is a misunderstanding in general society. We've become a culture that embraces 'open-mindedness' and as a result shuns those who have a world view. Those who have a worldview are often mistaken as being 'close-minded', that is, not willing or able to see another viewpoint and potentially adopt it.
Am I close-minded if someone tries to convince me slavery is good and I reject that? No, of course not! But I am 'close-minded' if someone tries to convince me that marriage is a traditional construct that shouldn't exist any longer. What's the difference? Well, in the first example, there is a socially (and by way of that, morally) accepted standard. Humans enslaving other humans is WRONG. It wasn't always wrong, but it is now, because as a society, heck even as a species we determined that was so. Doesn't mean we've completely eliminated slavery, but if it exists, we, as a society, agree that it is wrong and it should stop. It's non-negotiable. We do not consider it part of 'their cultural heritage' and make allowances for that. No, we've made a decision as society that slavery is wrong and that's that. That doesn't make us close-minded about slavery. It makes us resolute.
So of course, 'slavery' is a far blown out example to narrow back down to the point and focus of this diatribe...that is, the person who walks out of Bruno. Why did they walk out? We don't know. Maybe they were bored. Perhaps the movie was too passe' for them. Unless they loudly announced their reasons for walking out or indicated their disgust in some way, there are any number of reasons one might leave a film. Perhaps they didn't feel well. Or maybe they got an urgent phone call. But because this is a socially 'controversial' film and not, say, 'The Proposal', we associate the walk-out with close-mindedness, or, living inside the box.
Now, let's assume for the moment that the person DID walk out because they were disgusted or uncomfortable or just weren't inclined to watch anymore of the film. That person made a decision - they had seen enough of the movie that they decided they didn't like it and weren't interested in seeing any more. I watched 10 minutes of 'Gigli', decided it was awful and I'd gain nothing from watching it, and turned it off, never to see the whole film. Again, does that decision mean that I am 'living inside the box', not allowing myself to be 'enlightened' by whatever Ben Affleck and JLo have to say to me?
Again, social norms comes into play - 'Gigli' is generally accepted as a terrible film, and no one blames me for shutting it off. What if I decide I hate 'The English Patient' (as Elaine does on 'Seinfeld')? She was ridiculed for hating it, right? But to what end?
My point, which I know is taking forever to get to, is that we all grow and learn in our own way. Sometimes what may appear to be close-minded is merely resolution, as determined through personal experience. We, as you said, are shaped by our experiences. I sat through 'Borat' and decided I didn't particularly enjoy the experience. I don't care to repeat it with enduring 'Bruno'. Does that make me a bad person? No! If I hate riding a roller coaster, should I ride it again? No!
Anyway, this is just a long-winded way of saying, "can't we all just get along?"