In Brüno, Cohen arranged a sit-down with Ayman Abu Aita, whom he identified as the leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, an honest-to-goodness suicide-bombing Palestinian terrorist group that's responsible for dozens of murders. It was funny because he made fun of Osama bin Laden and pretended to be gay.

But Aita, who claims he's no longer affiliated with the Brigades and doesn't like the idea of being seen paling around with an Austrian gay man in a feature film, is threatening a lawsuit:

Mr Abu Aita's lawyer, Hatem Abu Ahmad, said that he is preparing a legal action against Baron Cohen and Universal Studios alleging that the Martyrs' Brigade reference could get his client in trouble with the Israelis and the homosexual association could get him killed by the Palestinians.

Of course, one way to avoid getting mixed up with gags like this is to not affiliate yourself with groups that launch suicide bombings in the first place, so—wait, that didn't work for Ron Paul, did it?

What's worse, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is making its own threats against Cohen—bafflingly enough, via the "Jerusalem bureau" of WorldNetDaily, the birther outfit that's rapidly overtaking Lyndon LaRouche's place in the taxonomy of American political paranoiacs. WND's Aaron Klein, whom we last saw engineering a fake Wikipedia scandal designed to promote his noxious and fanatical beliefs about Obama's birthplace, obtained a statement from the group:

We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man. This movie was part of a conspiracy against the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Islamist nutjobs complaining to right-wing nutjobs about a Jewish comedian.

[Via Intelligencer.]

Every new messaging has brought studio complaints about how they're being killed with "word of mouth." Before Twitter, it was text messaging, Facebook, MySpace, "the web," email and, for all we know, AOL, television, FM radio, the telegraph and the passenger pigeon, which prevented hucksters from getting people to hand over money for what they think will be a good show, but really isn't.

So, here's the latest incarnation: Did you tweet about your disappointment in a movie, like Bruno? Did all your friends tweet back in agreement?

According to social media specialists, Universal is mad at you for driving away 73% percent of Bruno's ticket sales! When movie-goers take to their micro-blogging sites and hurl instant critiques at helpless studios, all their marketing machinery is rendered impotent. Some of this summer's alleged victims have included Bruno, Land of the Lost, and Year One.

After mega advertising campaigns, months of free publicity from hungry media outlets (and web sites looking for cheap content!), specialists hired to create Facebook fan pages and Twitter feeds, people insist on slagging summer movies on Twitter. Like, all Sascha and Universal wanted to do was expose the ugliness that lives in your heart through various stunts involving dildos and terrorists. Then you had to go off and mean about it. What's a matter with you?!

So how have the studios tried to harness the awe-striking a wrathful power of Twitter? Here's an example:

With Year One, Sony at first tried to get in on the action and created a promotional Year One twitter account that would cull all the posts tagged with "#yearone. Sad for Sony, though, most of those tags were attached to disparaging statements. So they tried to pivot and create their own Year One twitter meme!

But no amount of tweet co-opting could save the floundering flick (full disclosure, I have a soft spot for Biblical comedies that have fantastic Oliver Platt cameos, so I dug it — you're welcome, Sony!) But let's be honest here, Studios. Just between you and me, nobody else is listening right now: you really didn't expect that many people to go continue to see a shitty movie after it opened, right? You must have known that eventually people would talk. They'd tell other people how little they liked Will Ferrell screaming at the sky. Again. And though the time between seeing said shitty movie and then telling your buddies about how shitty the movie maybe has shortened thanks to twitter, you must have known from the beginning that you were pushing a shitty product.

So really there's only one way to combat the Twitter effect: Stop making shitty movies.

P.S. I really laughed during Land of the Lost! Sorry no one else did, Universal!

1. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince — $79.5 million
Did you have to sit in the front row this weekend because all the cineplexes were packed with hooch-swillin hipsters and wonderment-enthusiasts? We did! But wasn't it grand (in spite of Snape's man bangs)

2. Ice Age: Dawn of The Dinosaurs — $17.7 million
What kind of fun-hating parent dragged their kid to see this CGI'd kind of dullness instead of Harry Potter this weekend? Shame on them! Is it because of Potter's pagan themes or sexually subversive undertones? It's a bewildering world when a project involving Dennis Leary is considered family friendly.

3. Transformers: Rise of the Fallen — $13.8 million
Bay's mediation on the illusory nature of plot still continues to resonate with movie goers. In the cacophony of noise and the visual abyss nestled between Megan Fox's chest orbs, the modern movie man can confront the terrifying absurdity of existence. I mean, it's tough now-a-days to get audiences to sit through an art flick so a drop to third place this week is still an admirable position to be in.

4. Brüno — $8.4 million
Aw, you guys remember Brüno? You know that hateful little mockumentary that shoved a mirror in Appalachia's meth ravaged face and said "Look! Look at what an ugly homophobic face you have!" And how we talked about it! As if it would be some kind of milestone in cinematic gay-straight relations. But now, just two weeks since Brüno's shoved his gadfly tushie in our bigoted faces, we realize that the culture has shifted beneath Brüno's Bavarian feet. Audiences don't seemed thrilled to witness others humiliated just to prove a political point.

5. The Hangover — $8.3 million
The man driven laffer continues to pull in the cargo-short set. And good for them! Warners hasn't made this much money with an R-rated summer comedy since Beverly Hills Cop — not to be confused with Beverly Hills Ninja which stared Chris Farley. Hm, is Zach Greekname the thinking man's Farley? Or is he like the hipsters' Eddie Murphy?

6. through 9. The Proposal Up My Sister's Public Enemies — various millions
Sandra Bullock's embargo on time travel movies has proved to be a wise decision with another $ 8.3 million for The Proposal this weekend. Public Enemies, Michael Mann's 2-hour love letter to boring made $7.6 million. What's Up is that Pixar is still being beautiful and rich at the box office with $ 3.1 million this weekend. And even though My Sister's Keeper, which made $2.8 million, looks like 90 minute paper cut we should all still think good thoughts about Abigail Breslin because she's just a walking glob of adorable talent.

Christian bingo enthusiast Richelle Olson filed a lawsuit against Cohen and the studio last month, claiming that a Brüno-caused ruckus at a supposed Christian bingo tournament (organized as a trap by the filmmakers) resulted in a head injury that caused brain damage, leaving her confined to a wheelchair or walker.

The producers of the film have since countered with a tape showing that Ms. Olson was not injured as a direct result of the cameras or the character (the scene was cut from the movie, so we wouldn't have ever seen it either way). But Olson and her dogged lawyer persist! Even if Dr. Fashion didn't push her down himself, it's his fault that she fainted and hurt herself. In a letter sent to Universal (and, we guess, to the Hollywood Reporter), Olson's lawyer says her case still has merit:

Click images for larger

Ohh, so it happened after. Hm. So the lawsuit is bullshit, but still the lady has a right to be angry. Sure a bunch of Christian idiots getting fussed about some gay dude is lame on them, but said gay dude really going to every extreme length possible to rile and upset people isn't really comedy in the same way a big fat bully slapping a kid over and over again and saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" isn't comedy.

Brüno had his moments in the sun during the long-ago run of Da Ali G Show, sure, but his big feature length movie just felt way too forced and booby-trapped. The laughs are supposed to come from the hideously unprovoked things Americans are capable of saying and doing. But haranguing three unwitting hunters for a few hours, then showing up naked, condoms in hand, at one of their tents? Totally understandable to get yelled at for that one.

So Brüno is dead. There you have it.

P.S.



P.P.S.

1) Brüno — $30.4 million
While it started really strong on Friday with $14.4 million, the film didn't quite hold on the rest of the weekend, and eventually fell significantly below expectations. (Some had even hoped for $50 million). What this has to say about America and the Gays remains to be discussed in myriad thinkies on Slate or in the Times. For now, though, we'll just mention that the movie got a lousy C from CinemaScore, meaning word-of-mouth sales won't be nearly as high as they were for Borat. So a strong opening day, then a slight fizzle. It'll probably fall even more drastically next weekend.

2) Ice Age: Dawn of the Dead, Fallen Machines or Whatever — $28.5 million
Man oh man, people just love them some computer animated weird animals in weird situations saying weird things. We don't quite get why this movie is doing so well ($120 million in two weeks), considering it and its predecessors have so little aesthetic value. People just inexplicably love Ray Romano. That's the only answer. That's all it can be.

3) Transformers: Dinosaur Salvation or Whatever — $24.2 million
$339.2 million in three weeks! Egads. Is Ray Romano in this thing? Did people get confused when they saw John Turturro in the trailer and though it was Everybody's Raymond? Or, wait, I don't know any 14-year-old boys so I haven't heard much about this aspect of the movie, but does Megan Fox blow something up with her tits or something? Is that what it is? Does Megan Fox blow Ray Romano up with her tits? Wait, but then people would be mad and wouldn't want to see it. She blows Doris Roberts up with her tits, right? That must be it. That's it.

4) & 5) Public Enemies: Nothing After the Colon, Actually No Colon at All & The Proposal: Canadian and Fabulous — $14.1 million & $10.5 million
So Michael Mann's art house popcorn film lurches toward the $70 million mark, and we can't tell if that's a success or a failure! For a summertime Johnny Depp movie? Failure. For an artsy, high-def-shot crime picture with decidedly no robots or magic Explode-O-Tits? Success! Speaking of success, Sandra Bullock has trotted gamely across the $100 million line for the first time in nine years, so good for her. Crazy thing is, because now is such a different time than then, this flick is going to surpass Speed to be her biggest movie yet. I mean, Speed! That was a phenomenon! Money just means different things now. Sigh.

7) I Love You, Beth Cooper — $5 million
This Chris Columbus-directed annoyathon did decent business on 1,800 screens. It won't become some summer sleeper, we don't think, but it's not a complete disaster either. What this spells for Hayden Paneepenty or whatever's career, we're not sure. But we're scared it might mean good things. Or at least it doesn't mean bad things. Which is what we were hoping for. Bad things. Sorry. It's just... Heroes. Ugh.

These are from many places—the New York Times, the AP, the AFP, and others. The multiple use of "sashays" just speaks volumes about how that word will never be used to describe anything but outrageous gay men. And the topping jokes! Oh the topping jokes do, actually, indicate that people are a little more "with it" when it comes to gay man parlance (topping is a sex reference, children) than some of us thought.

We're so proud of everyone.

New York Post/AP

New York Daily News

Variety

New York Times

Hollywood Reporter

Box Office Mojo

Examiner

Richelle Olson's scene (which was apparently cut, per the comments) has her hosting a charity bingo game with a mostly elderly audience when "Bruno" starts to call out the numbers with "vulgarities." Olson, her husband, and their lawyer Kyle Madison originally alleged that Baron Cohen and her camera crew assaulted her, which caused her to run off stage crying hysterically, falling unconscious, and hitting her head on a concrete slab, which caused two brain bleeds and now has her "confined to a wheelchair."

Universal then released that it was actually Olson assaulting Baron Cohen, and showed the footage of it to Madison. He's since amended the lawsuit to drop the charges of assault and battery. But they're still pressing on:

"The amendment to the original complaint does not change the cause of the injuries plead in the original complaint," Madison says. "Mrs. Olson's brain injuries were never alleged to have been derived from an assault or battery. She suffered two brain bleeds after the confrontation ensued with Mr. Baron Cohen. According to California case law, any injuries deriving from intentional infliction of emotional distress are recoverable. Mr. Baron Cohen and those associated with the production of 'Bruno,' are accountable for inflicting serious emotional distress and the resulting injuries to Mrs. Olson."

The movie is currently wiping the box office competition all over the place; they're slated for the third-highest comedy opening in Australia, and the film's now projected by the studio to make $35.8M in the weekend wrap, which, according to Nikki Finke, would make it one of the five highest R-rated comedy openings ever.

Again, if Borat's record shows anything, it's that Baron Cohen and his respective studios set up enough legal shields to protect themselves from almost any kind of liability, anywhere. Ambulance chasers and their clients are always more than suspect; they bring to mind a particularly bad episode of The People's Court. That being said, how fair is it of Baron Cohen and his team to descend on otherwise non public-figures and film scenes with them that can potentially change the way they live their lives thereafter? Maybe not at all; many of the people got in front of the camera under somewhat false pretenses. Then again, they're in front of the camera. There's always that.

'Bruno' bingo victim drops assault and battery claims [THR, Esq.]
'BRUNO' IST BIG: $14.2M Friday Opening; Sacha Too Shocking For $40M Weekend [DHD]

Both characters were from Baron Cohen's wildly funny Da Ali G Show, so either could have been made into a movie at any time. But we're just not sure that Brüno would be feasible as a market-ready comedy character had Borat not come and paved the pseudo-real, envelope-pushing path for him. Borat is awful—a misogynistic, racist, antisemitic boor—but, sadly, he's more palatable to a broad American audience than a gay Austrian fashion maven who exists solely to point out one of the country's most dearly-held prejudices: that most gays are just silly mockeries of themselves.

Borat certainly made fun of American xenophobia and jingoism, but those are things that people can't recognize in themselves as easily as a tetchy, and heartily defended, aversion to the gays. Borat was loud and political, whereas Brüno is an out, loud, and proud creation of a more immediate social hysteria, of an issue that's been at the forefront of the American culture wars these past few years. He teases at something far more tangible and taboo and unsettling to the popcorn-scarfing masses than Borat's buckshot blast at Stupid Americans that certainly aren't us. So had oh fashion friend come first... Well, Borat might not have been possible. Because Brüno is unlikely to catch the popular wave as easily, it's already been deemed a bit too dangerous and too outsider (plus aren't we all so sick of it already? We saw this one coming a mile away). And though Borat had its fights with the demands of decency (male nudity!), Brüno is all about those strictures.

And nobody likes to be taught a lesson, especially about themselves.

(UPDATE: The complete Top Ten has been embedded below.)

CBS posted the rather hilarious preview onto YouTube earlier and we'll post the full Top Ten here later after the show has aired and it's available online, but it looks pretty funny.

One last thing re: Bruno/Sacha Baron Cohen. We were chatting with a show business "insider" earlier today who offered an interesting tidbit as to why Cohen appeared on Letterman out of character earlier in the week—Word is that Bruno isn't tracking well in middle America where "viewers might not exactly be in on the joke," or, more likely, stricken with homophobia, so the studio may have been thinking that giving these people a chance to see that the star of the movie isn't actually gay may make them more willing to see the film. We'll see soon enough.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.

In an Entertainment Weekly profile by Tim Stack, Hilton says of his altercation with will.i.am,

I realize I said the most hurtful word. I don't believe being gay is bad. I'm not homophobic. I couldn't be any gayer and I couldn't be any prouder. I've got rainbow flags shooting out of my eyes.

Stack calls him "surprisingly chastened," but he doesn't really sound all that sorry in The Advocate, where he says, "I thought about calling him the n word, but I thought the f word was even worse." He goes on to say, "I reacted in the worst way possible," but the fact remains that Hilton basically wants, as Richard Lawson says, "to have us congratulate him for not saying the racist thing he was thinking." Or that he thinks gays are more marginalized than blacks? Or that homophobic slurs are worse than racial slurs? Or that the word faggot from the mouth of a gay man is worse than the n-word from the mouth of a non-black person? The mind reels.

It seems pretty likely that Hilton doesn't "believe being gay is bad." And he seems to understand that he shouldn't have said what he said. But what is the moral status of a homophobic slur spoken by a gay person to a straight person, presumed hurtful because said straight person is presumed to be homophobic? And is this homophobia ouroboros similar to the one created by Sacha Baron Cohen, a straight person playing a gay person who is (maybe) supposed to make fun of homophobic stereotypes?

Slate's Dennis Lim basically comes down on the pro-Brüno side. He writes that Hollywood has been offering up "square-jawed," humorless portrayals of gays for so long that it's refreshing and even subversive for Baron Cohen to portray a funny, no-holds-barred "sissy" — and an oversexed one at that. He writes,

Is any viewer really going to think that this hyperbolically crass and ridiculous narcissist-who wears mesh tops and eye-searing lederhosen, refers to his adopted African baby as a "dick magnet," and drops faux-Teutonic vulgarities about his waxed arschenhaller-represents "the mainstream of the gay community," as one troubled Hollywood "gay insider" put it? And are the gays who anxiously anticipate the mocking, hostile reactions of the unenlightened really that blind to Brüno's obvious counteroffensive strategy, which is to make that mocking, hostile idiocy the subject of his film? The beauty-and perhaps even the moral logic-of Baron Cohen's method is that those who're not in on his joke are invariably the butts of the joke.

And he calls the climax of the movie, in which Brüno makes out with his opponent during a wrestling match, "a brilliant tactic against homophobia: the gay-panic offense." The idea that an over-the-top joke based on stereotypes — whether racist or homophobic — is actually a joke on people who believe the stereotypes is hardly new. It's the basis of Sarah Silverman's whole career. And while Baron Cohen offers a twist on this by actually eliciting homophobic reactions and inviting viewers to make fun of those, it's hard to accept that a straight comic is totally on the gay community's side in making fun of obnoxious straight people. It's especially hard when a lot of his act revolves around talking funny and walking funny and wearing silly clothes. The idea that viewers aren't going to be laughing at these aspects of the film — or that they will be laughing at simply an exaggerated character rather than an exaggerated gay character — is a bit naive.

A homophobic slur spoken by a gay person — especially with the intent to hurt — is still a slur, and gay stereotypes are still gay stereotypes, even if they're meant to be meta. Ultimately, though, none of these things likely matter much to Perez Hilton or Sasha Baron Cohen. Hilton tells Tim Stack, "I don't care if you like me, I just care if you read my website." And Baron Cohen probably doesn't care if people like him, as long as they see his movie. Ultimately, Brüno isn't about challenging stereotypes are breaking down barriers — it's about getting laughs and selling tickets. And Perez Hilton is all about publicity — the love that loves to speak its name.

On The Offensive [Slate]
Perez Hilton Won't Shut Up [Entertainment Weekly]

Related: Perez Hilton Would Rather Be A Racist Than Bad for The Gays [Gawker]

Though he'd previously done his shtick for Conan O'Brien and arrived at the show as Bruno, Cohen trotted out to the couches as himself. Maybe the story he told—about meeting a real-life terrorist while preening as the outrageously gay Austrian fashion reporter Bruno—was just too good and could only be told in person. It's also possible that after years of his masked shtick, the real Baron Cohen wants some notice for being himself.

Or maybe the character is just a bit too outrageous? Not that Dave Letterman would mind either way, obviously, but it is possible that he's been asked by ominous Powers That Be to scale back the hard sell. Borat was a funny guy because he was a weird foreigner Muslim. Bruno is funny because he's a weird foreigner but he's also, you know, gay and that's just so tetchy these days, best to leave it alone.

Ah well. No matter what, it's a great story.

The new GQ has a story about Bruno, of course, cause what other stuff is happening this month? So they did a photo shoot of the gay-like character with an LA high school football team, and even paid the school a cool $500 for the privilege of handling their young men. Now the principal's in trouble!

"Rules were broken. The principal is ultimately responsible, but I also hold accountable the athletic director, who is also the school's filming coordinator and was present when the pictures were taken," [the head of the school district] said.

"I also want parents to know that this district will allow no one to take advantage of our students."

You know those boys liked it, heh, [MACHO]. Pretty dumb controversy considering the kids got permission slips and everything. GQ declined to give us a comment, although they did make sure we had a copy of the picture, so they must be pretty upset about the whole thing! Thanks, GQ!

The Wrap is reporting that the studio already has nixed the scene where LaToya eats sushi off a naked Latino gardener and Bruno fiddles with her PDA. Supposedly this kind of extremely last-minute (the film comes out on July 10th) edit will cost Universal millions.

Kim Masters writes about the "controversy" in a more speculative tone, wondering if the edit is even necessary.

"It so transgresses the question of taste-you cut it, I think," says a former studio president not associated with the film. "You certainly have a conversation about it. You examine it very carefully."

A veteran marketing executive disagrees. "It wasn't like they shot it and [Michael Jackson] was 85 years old and they expected him to die," she says. "It's just another one on the list of controversial issues surrounding Brüno." But if the Jackson family asks that the sequence be deleted, she adds, that will create a problem.

The point about the expectation of death is a good one. To avoid the matter entirely, to blot it out like it never happened, seems a bit scaredy-cat. The intentions are what ultimately matter, and while Sacha Baron Cohen's intentions are never altruistic, he certainly never intended to make a morbid death joke.

But, yeah, if the family asks nicely? We say cut the damn thing. There's always the Special Edition "Wacko Jacko" DVD, after all.

The question with Cohen's 'Bruno' act is how much longer is this sort of act funny, if it even is any longer? How much longer can he go around acting as the embodiment of every awful stereotype of gay men before he wears out his welcome with both straights and gays? Personally, each time I see a 'Bruno' press appearance, typically filled with furniture humping and crotch thrusts to someone's face, the less enthusiasm I have for seeing the film. It's just not as funny to me anymore. Certainly I'm not the only straight feeling this way?

Our strange, formless doppleganger The Awl has a Briton review roundup so we won't belabor the point and post our own snippets of the same notices. Though, this quote from The Guardian should be noted early and often:

There's an eye-popping montage of extreme gay sex practices (imaginary, one hopes), a surfeit of waving penises, dildos, fetish gear, anal bleaching, and an excruciating mime in which Brüno fellates the ghost of a deceased member of Milli Vanilli in front of a psychic.

Oh dear God, yes you did read that right. Terrific.

So if those cheeky (and, yes it's true, more sexually liberated) Brits responded well to the film, how will big dumb fat loud fried fuckwit America receive it? Well, we'll tell you this and it won't surprise you: Gay folks are awfully worried. Actors and comedians and social gays (like departing MTV exec Brian Graden) are pretty much freaked out that the film, while funny and crazy and manic and strange and intellectually rebellious as it may be, is going to ring in the wrong way with those who'd go to see it to stock up on anti-gay ammunition. If you have to explain that a joke is a goddamned joke, then it just might not be funny, as David Letterman so artfully put it this week after he tried to rape Bambi's dead mom. So if we're laughing, well good for Us for actually enjoying something we paid $12 for. But if They are laughing too, and in The Wrong Way, then we've cause for concern.

There's also the argument to be made that, hey everyone who's gay in America, let's man up and accept something that, while it might be a bit nasty, has a grain of truth to it. Is there a highly sexualized cultural subset of Gay Men? Abso-fucking-lutely. One could say that hey, Bruno is just the gay Stiffler, though that would assume a level playing field that has never existed and probably won't for years and years until we're consumed by the warm rising oceans. But still there is a bit of general good in that thought-adventure: Will the moderate lefties who like gays in an abstract sense recoil in horror when confronted in the face by gross things—like dildos and hotpants and, we're guessing, lube—that actually do exist in the gay world? Who the hell knows! And isn't that sort of the point: To find out.

The nervous Hollywood pro-Gay lobby has already turned its full attention away from maliciously trying to destroy the sacred bonds of the Johnson family of 12 Farmhouse Drive in Lenexa, Kansas and successfully pressured Universal into doing a recut of the film's ending, which now features a "Hey, it was all just a dream! A silly homophobe-skewing dream!" bit with none other than Elton John. But was it enough? Will it be enough? Will anything be enough? These are questions we're left to ponder as the film makes its horrid gay pink sparkly way across the Atlantic.

Now we're just waiting to find out if we'll embrace it like Sir Elton, or toss it away in disgust, like poor Robbie Williams.

The Hollywood Reporter's THR, Esq. blog obtained a copy of a letter sent by Bruno production attorney Russell Smith to Richelle Olson's attorney. Here are a couple of the highlights:

Mr. Baron Cohen never touched Ms. Olson, much less assaulted her. To the contrary, Ms. Olson assaulted Mr. Baron Cohen, grabbing his arms from behind and attempting to pull him out of a chair.

Your clients also allege that Mr. Baron Cohen used 'vulgar and offensive language over the loud speakers of the bingo hall,' that 'the bingo players are predominantly elderly,' and that they 'felt violated.' ... The footage shows that most of the bingo players were relatively young (like the plaintiffs), and that Mr. Cohen offered only light-hearted comments that were met with general laughter from the audience, and even applause.

Obviously anticipating a slew of legal proceedings coming at them with the film's release, Bruno lawyers seem to be drawing a line in the sand and are daring potential litigants to cross it. We wonder how much the film has to gross to cover the cost of the legal team they're forced to employ to defend it?

THR, Esq. has a PDF of the complete letter if you're interested in those sort of things.

Bruno Attorneys Threaten Olson and Her Lawyers [THR, Esq.]

Richelle Olson claims that an incident at a Palmdale, California bingo tournament two years ago left her disabled in a wheelchair. She is seeking unspecified damages of at least $25,000.

Reports the AP:

Olson's lawsuit contends Cohen has 30 sham companies that help him pull off his ruses and that is how the comedian and his camera crew gained entry into the Desert Valley Charities' bingo tournament in May 2007.

Cohen was invited to the event because his handlers identified him as a "celebrity" who was filming a documentary on bingo, the suit states. The event was to raise money for nursing students.

According to the lawsuit, Cohen - in character as Bruno - started using vulgarities while calling the second bingo game in front of a mostly elderly audience.

A struggle ensued after Olson tried to grab the microphone away from Cohen. She claims he then called his camera crew over, who attacked her for at least a minute, hoping to "create a dramatic emotional response."

Olson's suit states she ran from the stage and was found moments later by a co-worker, sobbing uncontrollably. She then fell to the floor, hitting her head on a concrete slab.

The suit states she suffered brain bleeding as a result.

We would hope that if this lady genuinely suffered brain bleeding that left her in a wheelchair that she's a asking for much more than $25,000 in damages, but why she waited two years to file the suit is anyone's guess—-Some would say probably because it's all a bunch of BS.

Woman Sues Comedian Over Bruno Skirmish [Google/AP]

Really people? Some of you actually fell for this?! Did the fact that cameras were focusing on Eminem while Bruno was early in his descension from the ceiling AND the fact that he was miked for sound not give that away to you? Geez! Well, just in case there was any doubt, one of the show's writers, Scott Aukerman, announced tonight on his Tumblr that it was definitely staged.

Yes, the Bruno/Eminem incident was staged. That's all anyone wants to talk about, so let's get it out of the way. They rehearsed it at dress and yes, it went as far as it did on the live show then.

So there you go! Bruno/Eminem = Mancow waterboarding. Totally fake! Aukerman must have spoken without permission though, because as Animal points out, the post in question has been deleted from his Tumblr. Woooo...controversy!

The bit was funny and all, but anyone who believed for a minute that this was real needs to immediately find a urinal and drown themselves in it. We're serious.

The Final Word on Eminem/Bruno: It Was Staged, Writes Head Writer [LA Times]
Eminem Was In On Bruno's Ass Stunt Says Head Writer [Animal]

Because, you know, as a movement, the gays are poised somewhat precariously right now. On the one hand, there's the uptick of states that have decided, finally, to invite everyone to the prom and allow gay marriage. And on the other hand, there's what happened in California and monsters like these—signs of an anti-movement that seems only to get stronger and angrier and crazier as the days and the fight wear on. So where are we, and what do we need? Is it a movie like Bruno which, again based on the little we know already, creates and amps up situations of extreme homophobia to cast light on the ridiculousness of the whole thing? Well, as always, the answer is both yes and no.

Yes because in an email-blast style of thinking, the more things we throw at the wall, the more that are likely to stick. If ten yukking teenage boys go to see the movie and four emerge thinking "Hey, maybe it is really dumb to dislike people just 'cause they're gay," then that's four minds changed. Sure the six others still remain, but it's a step in the right, weary direction for the war of attrition. That Sacha Baron Cohen, the man behind the hotpants, does play fast and loose and over-the-top with stereotypes is just the sort of agitprop tool that effective satire has to use, right? Something subtle and ruminative won't, by and large, have the same impact as gay kissing at an Arkansas cage match. If visibility is the name of the game, then Bruno should be considered an ally. A loud and ludicrous ally, for sure, but a valid one nonetheless.

But there's also an argument to be made that the Bruno character isn't so much debunking the stereotypes and peccadilloes of Gay People as it is just making it easier, more appropriate, codified almost, for people to laugh at them. Doesn't a movie like Bruno kind of, for those who want to see it that way, reinforce an idea that gay men are silly, frivolous, outrageous mincers who are vain and shallow at best and sex-crazed and oblivious at worst? Sure "we" (the liberal elite, the frippering coastals) get it, but there's no lesson guide handed out when you buy the ticket. Same as some people complained that Borat came, in its hyperbole, half circle and ended up being antisemitic, Bruno could be viewed as a benediction to those most rigid in their prejudices that, yes, they were right all along about those homosexuals. And if that's the case, then I'd say we really don't need another satire that only "we" get. Not right now. (And yes, I realize it's completely condescending and self-important to assume that there's a "we" who get it and a "them" who don't, but we do and there are. And a big blimpy summer comedy probably won't do much to muddy those distinctions.)

I guess, in a big over-thinking kinda way, that's the problem of gaydom in popular culture in a nutshell. How much is too much? Is there any such thing as too much? In the place of American Pie (at its core nothing more than a paean and prayer to hetero sex) should we take Bruno—a movie that, sure, makes fun of the gays but it also celebrates them, doesn't it? In lieu of Justin Timberlake (singing about ladies, bragging about doing ladies), should we humbly accept Adam Lambert—a guy who's basically gay but has so far refused to admit it—because we know that he's gay and it's important that he's gay, but also he shouldn't have to say he's gay because it should be, somewhere down the road, a non-issue? To the first instance I'd say yes, because a comedy about a gay guy should be funny. Because, you know, it's a comedy. Gays don't need to be painted as sad little saints just to win hearts and minds to the cause. Bruno don't care who knows he gay, and that's the whole point.

In the second example... Well, I got raked over the coals by the commenters for saying that, no, we shouldn't put up with Adam Lambert's reticence. Or rather, we should tolerate it, but not be happy about it. Because in this day and age... in this time when everything against us hinges on a widespread act of othering and segregating, the best thing anyone can do is openly be themselves and admit who they are (i.e. say it, because saying it does matter) without seeming to indicate for any one second that there's something to be ashamed of or worried about. Because playing to the machine means being part of the machine, which only makes it stronger.*

When Bruno comes out (heh), I hope everyone makes a point of saying that the film IS about homophobia, that it IS about tearing down walls. I'm sure everyone will, because it'll be the gay story of the gay summer. And I hope it does something. Because sexuality isn't a "non-issue" as so many commenters told me it was. For lots of us, it's the issue. Not because we want it to be or tried to make it so. Oddly, those who want the gay conversation silenced are the ones that really got it going. So I think, yeah. We should be glad that someone like Bruno has jumped in, pink rhinestone megaphone in hand, to preach his message of love, tolerance, and balls.

*Please go see "Outrage".