Is Baron Cohen's BrüNo "Baby On A Cross" Fake Talk Show A Scandal Too Far?

06/07/2009 16:20 | Updated 22 May 2015

A fake talk show about family values filmed for Sacha Baron Cohen's hotly anticipated Borat follow-up Brüno, released this week, has angered guests who appeared unwittingly. Some are threatening legal action and one even reported the event to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

Baron Cohen upsetting "victims" of his guerilla approach to filming is about as predictable an event as Roger Federer winning Wimbledon.

Brüno, full title Brüno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt, has been described as "the gutsiest, craziest and most dangerous comedy to be released in mainstream theaters".

North Texan admin assistant Susan Leseman, 52, who attended the family values talk show a year ago, has this to say about the experience: "I feel very violated by being led to believe that this would be a talk show on family values...and having it turn out to be what it was."

Apparently, guests were paid $50 to attend the talk show. reports this account of the event from attendee Amy Wheaton:

Brüno brought out a black baby that appeared to be about 18 months old. The baby wore cowboy boots on the wrong feet and a T-shirt with the words "GAYBY" across the front. He told the crowd that the baby ate sushi and guzzled Starbucks lattes and was taken often to all-night parties.

Brüno said that, if the baby wanted to have a sex change when he turned 18, he would support him wholeheartedly, but if he turned out to be straight, he would disown him.

Brüno showed slides from a family album, such as the baby wearing shackles to symbolize the slavery of his ancestors, being attacked by a swarm of bees and the baby on a cross, which caused some guests to walk out.

Susan Leseman reported the event to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services when the baby stood up in the carriage apparently unattended.

What do you think? A hilarious and clever expose of prejudice or outrageous and dangerous behaviour? Please leave a comment.

Suggest a correction