Not a member? Sign up now
Court rules Sacha Baron Cohen didn't cripple an old woman
By Delia PlessSeptember 14th, 2011, 6:00 pmComments (5)
Whoever says comedy is a victimless crime is probably right. Actually, it isn't a crime at all — I was thinking of jaywalking. But if comedy were a crime, today's verdict in the case of Olson v. Universal proves it wouldn't be a crime you could easily prosecute someone for. Yesterday, a California Court of Appeals officially closed a case filed in 2009 by Richelle Olson against Sacha Baron Cohen and NBC Universal, alleging the "Bruno" routine he performed (is that too strong of a word?) at her bingo hall in 2007 left her crippled for life. As a footnote in the verdict explains:
"Cohen, acting as 'Bruno,' was invited up to the stage to call out the numbers. The film crew was present, and all of the elderly people in attendance had signed a 'Standard Consent Agreement' to be filmed for a 'documentary-style film.'"
Once he was on stage, Cohen started the Bruno routine — basically just a lot of gratuitous gay jokes in quick succession. Most people agree that Bruno's not as funny as Borat, but surprisingly, that wasn't Olson's objection.
"As Cohen continued… Olson became alarmed at the vulgarity and concerned for the other Bingo players. So she approached the stage area and told Cohen to stop." As security officers escorted Cohen and his crew to the exit, she announced to the audience: "I will not have anyone make a mockery of this bingo hall." After that, Olson began to sob uncontrollably. She left the stage, lost consciousness, and hit her head on the concrete floor.
Maybe she wasn't right in filing a lawsuit, but you can't help but feel a little sorry for this woman. And, to add insult (to insult) to injury, the court ordered Olson to recoup Universal the $17,000 for their lawyer's fees. Score one for comedy?
Tags
Bruno
Sacha Baron Cohen
Commentarium (5 Comments)
The court of appeal opinion is here. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B221956.PDF Note the attorneys fee award is based on the fact that Cohen prevailed on a motion to strike the complaint as a violation of the anti-SLAPP statute -- that is, it was brought strategically to chill Cohen's expression because of the costs of defending a suit, even though there was no likelihood the plaintiff would prevail. I hope the fees award is enforced against the attorneys rather than the plaintiff, who obviously didn't know any better. It's shysters like her lawyers who give the profession a bad name.
No one cares!
Block these, please.
This reminds me a bit of Spinal Tap playing the military base. Entertainment Committees really need to do a better job of vetting the acts they book.
Wow.That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. And I feel kind of bad for killing myself laughing reading the link. OMG. To quote a commenter from the link:
"Brundlefly Swatter
So she was paralyzed AND she has to pay an uncaring media conglomerate’s overpriced lawyer fees? This story couldn’t get any better unless someone threw a pie in her face and a puppy peed on her (crippled) leg."
Is it Cohen's fault or is she just old? He could throw her a couple thousand dollars out of pity....