Friday, May 24, 2013

Sobre humor e liberdade de expressão

“As pessoas que reivindicam liberdade de expressão para falar certas coisas sob a proteção do humor são, em geral, altamente contrárias a determinadas liberdades de expressão.”

A conversa, então, foi parar no bobo da corte – essa figura a quem historicamente coube a tarefa de divertir o círculo do rei. Para isso, recebia uma espécie de licença, ou de salvo-conduto, que lhe permitia difamar, insultar, esculhambar quem fosse. “Podia dizer que fulano dava para beltrano, ou que sicrano era um covarde filho da puta. O bufão era inimputável. Não era para ser levado a sério.” Além do mais, costumava ser fisicamente diferente das demais pessoas. Em geral era um anão, alguém deformado ou identificado com algo inferior ou ridículo. Suas roupas tinham guizos, adereços, itens carnavalizantes que o distinguiam das pessoas tidas como sérias e respeitáveis.

Tudo somado, o bobo da corte cumpria um papel corretivo: não era “um transgressor dos costumes”, mas, antes, “um corretor moral”, um elemento que servia a determinada estrutura de poder, reproduzindo-a justamente à medida que a avacalhava segundo as regras estabelecidas.

Ridendo castigat mores. Laerte recorreu à máxima em latim (algo como “o humor corrige ou castiga os costumes”) para lembrar que, etimologicamente, o verbo castigare deriva decastus e também quer dizer “tornar casto”. Fez então a ponte histórica com a atualidade: no seu entendimento, certo humor praticado hoje com muito êxito é herdeiro do bufão. Goza da mesma imunidade do palhaço da corte para “tornar castos” os costumes, ou seja, repisar preconceitos. Mas, diferentemente do bobo original, esse comediante contemporâneo se beneficia “da falta de fronteira entre a piada e a realidade, entre o discurso construído e a espontaneidade de quem pensa realmente daquele jeito”.

Laerte em trânsito, revista piauí #79

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 Sunday, October 21, 2012
Se uma pessoa emite um julgamento moral contra a homossexualidade, essa pessoa deve ser simplesmente confrontada com argumentos melhores. Mas, se ela pretende instalar sua crença na legislação ou desencadeie uma campanha de ódio e discriminação, entramos em outro território. Se essa propaganda homofóbica contribui para a instalação de um ambiente político em que gays, lésbicas, travestis ou transgêneros sintam-se moralmente depreciados ou fisicamente ameaçados, isso jamais poderá ser considerado “liberdade de expressão”. Na maior parte dos países europeus, o discurso antissemita é considerado racismo e contra a lei. E o discurso racista é mais facilmente identificado com a injúria do que o homofóbico. Eis o problema. Nos EUA, a liberdade de expressão tende a ser considerada um direito que se sobrepõe a todos os outros e, por isso mesmo, o último a ser passível de restrição. Então, mulheres, travestis e transexuais podem ser perturbados nas ruas sem que isso seja considerado contra a lei, a não ser que fique explícita a intenção de agredir. E o risco de se tolerar esse tipo de discurso é criar um ambiente público intoxicado. Judith Butler, professora da Universidade da Califórnia, em Berkeley, autora da comentada Queer Theory, que sustenta que a identidade sexual ou de gênero é resultado de uma construção social e não de papéis biologicamente definidos, em entrevista ao caderno Aliás, do Estadão.

(Source: estadao.com.br)

Saturday, October 20, 2012

We had many more interesting characters on screen in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s than we do now. And we really allowed women to embody all of the contradictions that make up a human being back then. They could be the femme fatale, and then turn around and be the mother, and then turn around and be the seductress, and then turn and be the saint. And we accepted that. They were complex human beings.

Now we really like to put people in boxes. (…) We tend not to write women as human beings. It’s cartoons, what we’re making now and that’s a shame.

biseinensenshi:

Paul Haggis about women in cinema, from the doc Miss Representation (around 27 minutes - the interview is background to beautiful clip of classic female characters in cinema). (via zilchica)

Haven’t seen the documentary, but offhand this quote is super problematic, because back in the day, representations of women of color were even poorer, more limited and more stereotypical than they are now. And homosexuality and interracial relationships could not be shown onscreen, thanks to the Motion Picture Production Code (1930-1968).

Absolutely! Of course there were millions of other problems in those days - even the same problems of female misrepresentation. 40s Hollywood was far from perfect.

The quote just got to me because it reveals something that even I, in all my feminist militance, never realized before: that female roles in cinema have become so limited and stereotyped compared to those classic movies.

I have felt bothered many times when watching chick flicks (which I love) how all those women have the same habits, attitudes and assumptions - there’s a lot of sutff that’s taken for granted by the American women I see in the movies that is completely foreign to me as a Brazilian. Dating rules - dates themselves (I’ve never been on a “date”, even though I have had relationships), the unnatural way people interact on dates, not farting in front of your husband (I know that’s not exclusive to Americans, but it’s never questioned, it’s considered obvious), how these women always wear heels, they are all EXACTLY the same and I don’t know a single woman who is like that or thinks like that.

Of course, I don’t know anyone like Gilda or Margo Channing, but you can’t deny they were much more interesting characters than today’s female movie characters, who aren’t real but are supposed to be seen as real, as someone you can relate to. I don’t think many women related to Margo Channing or Eve Harrington, but then, they weren’t trying to sell you something (well, at least not as directly).

Maybe that’s it - advertisers today are so uncreative they don’t know how to be subtle, or probably just don’t care anymore.

We had many more interesting characters on screen in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s than we do now. And we really allowed women to embody all of the contradictions that make up a human being back then. They could be the femme fatale, and then turn around and be the mother, and then turn around and be the seductress, and then turn and be the saint. And we accepted that. They were complex human beings.

Now we really like to put people in boxes. (…) We tend not to write women as human beings. It’s cartoons, what we’re making now and that’s a shame.

Paul Haggis about women in cinema, from the doc Miss Representation (around 27 minutes - the interview is background to beautiful clip of classic female characters in cinema).

More on the “supply and demand” myth that keeps women out of cinema: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo40Kwn1I-I&feature=share&list=PLnFnFSkDIervSMEkC8Htw1rdc6dox-1Gf

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Como contraponto ao meu post anterior. Because if we want acceptance, we must also learn to accept.

I am gay, any lifestyle I choose is technically a “gay lifestyle.” Mine just looks different than other gay peoples’”

thedailywhat:

Gay Announcement of the Day: Josh Weed is a devout Mormon, happily married to a woman — and gay.

The Washington therapist came out in a post on his blog last week:

Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?

This video reveals the reactions the couple has received since he broke the news: “We feel loved.”

[thedish]

Monday, June 11, 2012

Direito à indecência

Se eu tenho o direito de andar de mãos dadas com meu namorado, por que o gay não tem?

Se eu tenho o direito de beijar meu namorado em público, por que o gay não tem?

Se eu tenho o direito de pegar, me esfregar, beijar, dançar loucamente com um cara na muvuca do carnaval ou na balada, por que o gay não tem?

Se têm o direito de me cantar, mesmo que eu não goste, por que o gay não tem?

Se eu tenho o direito de me casar com meu namorado, por que o gay não tem?

É pedir demais que os gays tenham os mesmos direitos à indecência que os héteros? Ah vá!

Saturday, May 26, 2012

abaldwin360:

Do they really believe that abortion is murder? (a handy dandy chart, courtesy of Alas, A Blog!)

Almost none of their policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they’re seeking to make sure that women who have sex “face the consequences.” are punished. After years of seeing this pattern repeated again and again, it’s difficult to take them at their word.

Sunday, May 20, 2012
abrokenfishbowl:

villa-kulla:

Reporter: I have a question to Robert and to Scarlett. Firstly to Robert, throughout Iron Man 1 and 2, Tony Stark started off as a very egotistical character but learns how to fight as a team. And so how did you approach this role, bearing in mind that kind of maturity as a human being when it comes to the Tony Stark character, and did you learn anything throughout the three movies that you made?
And to Scarlett, to get into shape for Black Widow did you have anything special to do in terms of the diet, like did you have to eat any specific food, or that sort of thing?
Scarlett: How come you get the really interesting existential question, and I get the like, “rabbit food” question?
The respect given to you if you’re a man in the entertainment business, and the respect given to you if you’re a woman in the entertainment business: all perfectly summed up in one idiotically thought out line of questioning.

fuck, that is the only thing they can think to ask her
>:C

abrokenfishbowl:

villa-kulla:

Reporter: I have a question to Robert and to Scarlett. Firstly to Robert, throughout Iron Man 1 and 2, Tony Stark started off as a very egotistical character but learns how to fight as a team. And so how did you approach this role, bearing in mind that kind of maturity as a human being when it comes to the Tony Stark character, and did you learn anything throughout the three movies that you made?

And to Scarlett, to get into shape for Black Widow did you have anything special to do in terms of the diet, like did you have to eat any specific food, or that sort of thing?

Scarlett: How come you get the really interesting existential question, and I get the like, “rabbit food” question?


The respect given to you if you’re a man in the entertainment business, and the respect given to you if you’re a woman in the entertainment business: all perfectly summed up in one idiotically thought out line of questioning.

fuck, that is the only thing they can think to ask her

>:C