Parada parada!!!

Michael Bronski tem vários livros editados, infelizmente, nenhum no Brasil, até onde sei. Através dos seus (dele) livros, tive contato com diversos escritores, estilos etc.Tenho e recomento PULP FRICTION e FLASHPOINT, para quem quer conhecer o trabalho.

Nestes dias de parada, reproduzo um artigo dele, escrito para o The Phoenix.com. Ele era companheiro do Walta Borawski, poeta, morto pela Senhora Sida em 1994.

Como se vê e analisa um evento como a Parada varia muito, mesmo entre os membros da comunidade. Festa é uma coisa, parada outra, protesto uma terceira...O que queremos de verdade?

Rain on the parade
Even for an old radical, there’s nothing really wrong with Pride as a party — until AIDS takes the person who taught you to see it that way

BY MICHAEL BRONSKI

I AM THE only person I know who was openly gay in 1969, lived in the tri-state area, and does not claim to have been at the Stonewall riots. If you put together all the people who claimed to have been at the Stonewall Inn on the evenings of June 27, 28, and 29, when fighting broke out between New York City police and the enraged denizens of Christopher Street following a raid on the gay bar, you would have enough people to fill Yankee Stadium every night of a World Series. The two most-attended events in New York in the 1960s — the 1964 World’s Fair (held in the aptly named Flushing Meadows) and the visit of Pope Paul in 1965 — have faded from most people’s memories. Stonewall, however, has become an epochal milestone. It looms so large in the contemporary gay imagination that it has become, like rainbow flags and pink triangles, a worldwide signifier of same-sex community. And why not? All political movements need slogans and symbols. Stonewall works just as well as “Make love, not war.”

So where was I on the evening of June 28? Probably seeing a double feature of art films at the Elgin or the Thalia — two run-down but always well-attended Manhattan repertory houses — and then going out for a hamburger. No one announced the Stonewall riots; either you were around or you weren’t. I did hear about the first riot the next day, but figured that it was a one-shot deal and never thought the energy would be sustained — albeit greatly abated — over two more nights. And even then the riot(s) seemed like small news. Although I was to become very involved in the new gay-liberation movement only weeks later, Stonewall did not mean much to me back then. Nor, I must say, does it mean a whole lot to me now. In June 1970, when New York held its first Pride march to commemorate the riots of the previous year, I went with great enthusiasm. But I have not attended a Boston Pride celebration since 1992.

At Dartmouth last year — where, as a visiting scholar, I teach an introductory course in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender studies — I found myself spending an entire class trying to get students to attach less importance to the Stonewall riots, to stop fetishizing them as something they were not. After the class was over, I sat in my office and began thinking about my own relationship to Stonewall and to the annual Pride celebrations, both in Boston and around the world. There was a time when these events were vibrant and energizing for me. After I moved to Boston in 1971 (back when Pride was still a political rally), I attended every march here and in New York for over a decade. Why had I stopped going to Boston’s Pride?

The causes are both personal and political, threads so interwoven in my life that they seem not simply inseparable, but indistinguishable from one another. The most significant factor was this: Walta Borawski, my lover since 1975, became too ill and too weary to attend. Walta began exhibiting symptoms of AIDS-related illnesses in the late 1980s. By 1992, our yearly Pride outings were beyond his physical capabilities. Even if he used a wheelchair, the heat, crowds, and excitement took more out of him in fatigue than they gave him in emotional sustenance and pleasure. This was extremely painful, because Walta loved Pride. It was a time to dress up (well, more like dress less), to see people he had not seen for the past year, and to get lost in a cyclonic whirl of queerness that had been unimaginable to him growing up as a queer-bashed kid on Long Island. Pride was music, balloons, drag queens, cute men, and spectacle. A time to be out and outlandish. It was a carnival time — what medieval society would call “misrule,” or the world turned upside down. As a poet (who also read at Pride every year), Walta was entranced with the sheer otherworldly fantasy — not just the bar floats, marching bands, and fabulous drag, but the deeply subversive, antisocial, anarchistic side of Pride. Where the radical right would claim that Pride presented a portrait of the lunatics taking over the asylum, Walta saw it as the prisoners taking over — and dismantling — the prison.

Unless you grew up in the bleak, gray 1950s, it is difficult to understand the sheer exhilaration of Pride for someone of Walta’s (and my) age. The sheer size and communal breadth of Pride today was inconceivable in even 1969; in the 1950s it would have been truly unimaginable. For Walta and for many other gay people who were born in the decades before Stonewall, these celebrations were both dream and salvation — the redemption for years of abuse and scorn. That is why, when he became too ill to march, Walta’s pain and sense of loss were so acute. In 1991, he attended Pride with his AIDS support group; he did part of the march in a wheelchair, though he didn’t want to. By 1992, he covered the entire route in a wheelchair. He was determined to march — wheel? — the whole day. But I made excuses to stay home that year. I saw every day how much energy it took for him to get dressed, to eat, to do the simplest things around the house so as not to feel useless. It would have been too painful for me to see him gallantly holding on to this day that gave him such joy: on that morning, his valor, his emotional boldness, was as heartbreaking to me as it was inspiring. I knew that, barring a miracle, this would be Walta’s last Pride, and I was right. In 1993 he was too worn out to go even in a wheelchair, and on February 9 of the next year he died.

I HAVE thought of going to Pride in the years since Walta died. But not very seriously. I thought it would be depressing. I thought it would be upsetting. I thought it would be too painful. I did not want to go to Pride and think about death and dying. I could stay home and do that in the emotional safety of my own kitchen. But I have remembered how much Walta loved the march, our shared excitement about the day. And that led me to reach into the past to reflect on the part Pride marches have played in my life for almost a quarter of a century.

The idea of Pride made sense to me and my friends in the 1970s. It wasn’t because we were going to “celebrate gay pride” — we barely even knew what that might mean — but because we were accustomed to participating in political protest. I was in Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and worked on anti–Vietnam War projects. The idea of a gay march was simply an extension of being a leftist, a political radical. The 1971 march in Boston went from the State House, where we protested, to the Charles Street Jail, where we protested, to Boston Police headquarters, where we protested. Gay pride was, in many ways, not the only point of these marches: we were angry, and we wanted change; we were disenfranchised, and we wanted power. We were acutely aware of what was wrong with the world, and what our own government was doing. There may have been a degree of self-righteousness in this — although nothing near the self-righteousness represented by the war hawks or American foreign policy itself — but we felt we were right, and in the end we were. We were not, like Bob Kerrey, in Vietnam accidentally or purposefully killing civilians. We were on the streets demanding that yet another injustice, this one aimed at us, be stopped. The undeclared (and, according to international law, illegal) war in Vietnam was the backdrop to our new movement. So were the emerging waves of feminism and the civil-rights and Black Power movements.

One thing I have tried to impress on my students is that without the Vietnam War protests, without “women’s lib,” without the example of the Black Panthers, there would have been no Stonewall riots. There would have been no gay-liberation movement (at least not as it happened in 1969). The queens — and let’s remember that they were aided by the street people in the Village, men and women we would now call homeless — rioted at Stonewall because everybody was rioting; they protested because everyone was protesting. The gay-liberation movement did not comprise a group of nonprofits fundraising and lobbying to change laws; it was grassroots, a groundswell of women and men who had just had enough. The first gay activists’ group was called the Gay Liberation Front — a name we borrowed from the Women’s Liberation Front, which had borrowed it from the National Liberation Front, the Algerian popular front that fought French domination in North Africa. The phrase “Gay is good” was derived from “Black is beautiful.” Gay Power emerged naturally from Black Power. It wasn’t that we were copying other movements, but that we saw ourselves as part of a broader struggle. Gay liberation was possible because the whole society and culture was being transformed. Considering the enormous changes that took place as a result of these movements, it truly was the second American Revolution. There was a decisive break, and afterward things were different for women, people of color, homosexuals, and young people. It may not look like it now — or at least not all the time — but America changed in those years, and all for the better.

I am not — or at least I try not to be — one of those old radicals who complain that Pride has turned into a parade instead of a protest, that the assimilationists have taken over, that the original message of the gay-liberation movement has been lost. Some of that might be true, but I am over complaining about it and can appreciate the floats and the drag queens as well as anyone else. Yet some of my ability to appreciate all that came from living with and loving Walta, who — while having strong, doctrinaire politics — would much rather have donned a Hawaiian shirt and Mardi Gras beads, gotten stoned, and gone to the Pride parade than attended a political meeting or rally. In some deep way, Walta’s death punctured my ability to go to Pride and have fun. The advent of AIDS in my life — and in everyone else’s as well — brought me back to a time when it was clear that Pride events had to be overtly political and angry.

Times have changed. They have changed more than I ever could have imagined at my first Gay Liberation Front meetings in 1969. I never would have imagined Will & Grace on prime-time television. It’s junk, but I enjoy it. I never would have thought that an openly gay male novelist writing about gay people — Michael Cunningham — would win the Pulitzer Prize. I never would have believed that gay proms, gay-straight alliances, and gay support groups would be in high schools. I never would have believed that I could make a living writing (mostly) about gay culture. At the same time, we live in a world in which our most popular and profitable publications sell better by placing straight celebrities on their covers — a decision that makes perfect sense if that is what gay and lesbian readers want to buy. We live in a world where the electronic and print media — even alongside sensitive and smart coverage of homosexuality — have no trouble promoting a completely bogus, unscientific study about “reparative” therapy to turn gay people straight. We live in a world that is still riddled with queer-hating and bashing.

What I tried to get my Dartmouth students to understand is that Stonewall — as both event and historical legacy — was more than something to be celebrated. That Pride was about anger and fighting. And after AIDS came into our lives, it became about death. For me — personally and politically — this is simply the reality of Pride now. It is inseparable in my mind from carrying banners in 1970 that read bring our gay troops home now and wheeling Walta’s wheelchair down Charles Street in 1991 as the Arlington Street Church bells rang out. It is inseparable from reading letters in gay papers in the 1980s bemoaning the fact that drag queens were allowed in the parade, and thinking about the people who would not be there this year because they had died. Life, politics, and time move on. Walta is still dead. Today, gay people fight to get into the army. And drag queens are a mainstay in movies and television. It is still hard for me to think about going to Pride this year, but I am thinking about it. We’ll see what happens.

Pacto de União Estável

Alguns cartórios já estão fazendo o registro do pacto, o que pode dar algumas garantias, caso haja interferência da família. Como diz o presidente da Associação dos Cartórios:" Na escritura, deixamos clara a natureza da relação homoafetiva(?) e fazemos constar o que os parceiros querem que ocorra com os bens. Como toda escritura, tem validade jurídica".

Tá, tem validade jurídica, mas e legal, tem?

Vamos falar seriamente sobre o assunto, vamos usar as poucas aberturas legais que temos para fazermos valer os nossos direitos!!!

Enfim!!!

Caiu a resolução 153, da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa), que proibia que homossexuais, bissexuais e seus parceiros doassem sangue nos hemocentros do País.

Sangue não pode (ou podia), mas nossos impostos tudo bem!!!

em O Globo, de 27/07/06, página 15

Preconceito Oficial

O Globo não permite transcrição da matéria, então resumo aqui:

O CONAR- órgão que regula a propaganda- proibiu a veiculação de uma propaganda do Ministério da Saúde que mostrava uma família aconselhando o filho gay. A alegação é celestina: "choca o núcleo familiar, é constrangedor e tem impacto negativo indiscutível"!!!!!

Deve ser bem menos chocante ver um adolescente com AIDS, gastando os tubos dele e do Governo em remédios.

O pior de tudo: O Ministério nega-se a ceder o filme para campanhas institucionais!!!

(está em O Globo, dia 28/07/06, caderno O PAís, página 15)

Seriedade e Purpurina

O prefeito de Madri vai casas dois colaboradores. Aqui, sequer temos candidatos sérios, dispostos a assumir a luta por várias reivindicações.

O Globo não permite copiar a matéria, daí, segue o endereço:http://oglobo.globo.com/jornal/mundo/285047938.asp

Lucky Star

Joe Keenan
My Lucky Star
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY - $24.95

O escritor Joe Keenan - autor da série Frasier, que passa na Sony e vale a pena- acabou de lançar o terceiro livro com os personagens Philip Cavanaugh, Gilbert Selwyn e Claire Simmons. Os dois primeiros - Blue Heaven e Putting on the Ritz - não foram lançados no Brasil, devido à tradicional miopia de nosso mercado editorial. Esperemos que com o sucesso que o terceiro volume vem fazendo lá fora, nosso mercado se anime a lançar os dois livros.
Para quem gosta de tramas cheias de discussões, traições, luxúria, frases espertinhas, este é o livro!
Desta vez, Gilbert convoca os dois amigos para irem a Los Angeles, onde está desenvolvendo um roteiro sobre um episódio da Segunda Guerra Mundial. A trama envolve uma estrela de cinema e seu filho, gay enrustido, e se desenvolve através de traições, chantagem e jogos de poder. Tudo cheio de humor, wit e muito bem escrito.

Para quem quiser maiores informações, na Amazon tem, mas apenas a hardcover, já que a paperback ainda não saiu.

Leis...ora as leis...

Nova lei de união civil em Washington

Na última quart-feira a lei estadual de união civil foi derrubada, em mais um golpe no ativismo gay em prol de uma legislação mais igualitária. Mas um dos juízes votou a favor da apresentação de uma nova lei de igualdade de direitos sobre o casamentp. É um diferenciação difícil de explicar em termos leigos. Mas ninguém está otimista a respeito...

"Eu apresentarei a lei de igualdade do casamento", disse o senador Murrayu, o mais velho dos quatro legisladores abertamente gay do Estado, "mas eu não acredito que vá passar na próxima sessão ou em muitas outras à frente". Existe a possiblidade da presente legislatura reverter oato de 1998 chamado de Defesa do Casamentoe legalizar o casamento gay.

Embora Washington seja conhecido como progressista, as pesquisas de opinião mostram uma forte oposição ao casamento gay (ou união civil). Mesmo os políticos liberais têm uma posição neutra na questão. "O sacramento do casamento é uma questão entre duas pessoas e sua fé", disse o governador do Estado, " e não uma questão de Estado, em uma evidente "lavagem de mãos" pública.

É claro que é uma questão de estado, já que há uma diferença enorme em como o Estado trata seus cidadãos com orientação sexual não ortodoxa. E ainda acredito que o uso do termo "casamento" é contraproducente, já que traz à tona a questão religiosa, que não está em jogo.

o artigo completo está na The Advocate, em http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid34627.asp

Piratas Apaixonados

Depp and Bloom: Piratas Apaixonados??

Dizem que todo o público gay gostaria de ver os astros Johnny Depp e Orlando Bloon estrelando uma hot scene gay..Em recente pesquisa feita pela revista Jane, a dupla venceu a pesquisa sobre qual seriam os astros de sonho em uma cena gay. Bom, Johnny Depp já admitiu que o Capitão Jack Sparroy pode jogar em todas....falta o Orlando Bloom. Bom, se desejar as coisas ardentemente tem algum efeito na vida real...

Poesia

Difícil encontrar mais informação sobre o autor, mesmo nestes tempos de Net...mas este poema está no livro "Gay & Lesbian Poetry in Our Time - An Anthology", que é baratinho.


Making Love to Myself

When I do it, I remember how it was with us.
Then my hands remember too,
and you're with me again, just the way it was.

After work when you'd come in and
turn the TV off and sit on the edge of the bed,
filling the room with gasoline smell from your overalls,
trying not to wake me wich you always did.
I'd breathe out long and say,
"Hi, Jess, you tired baby?"
You'd say not so bad and rub my belly,
not after me really, just being sweet,
and I always thought I'd die a little
because you smelt like burnt leaves or woodsmoke.

We were poor as Job's turkey but we lived well -
the food, a few good movies, good dope, lots of talk,
lots of you and me trying on each other's skin.

What a sweet gift this is,
done with my memory, my cock and hands.

Sometimes I'd wake up wondering if I should fix
coffee for us before work,
almost thinking you're here again, almost seeing
your work jacket on the chair.

I wonder if you remember what
we promised when you took the job in Laramie?
Our way of staying with each other,
we promised there'd always be times
when the sky was perfectly lucid,
that we could remember each other through that.
You could remember me at my worktable
or in the all-night diners,
though we'd never call or write.

I just have to stop here Jess.
I just have to stop.

Aurélia!!!

Axoxique!!!
A pata que o pôs!
A Aurélia é totalmente aurélia!!!!
Se joga, bi!

Não entendeu nada?! Consulte a Aurélia? Apenas R$24,00, aqüé manso!

51, caso venha até aqui!

50 Ways of Saying Fabulous

DIRECTED BY STEWART MAIN


Filmes sobre adolescentes gays não são extamente um fenômeno novo. Existe pouco mais do que insinuações nos filmes dos 60, como O Senhor das Moscas, Last Summer e A Separate Peace. Mas hoje, filmes sobre adolescentes gays e a descoberta de sua condição se transformaram em um grande e moderadamente bem sucedido gênero. Muitos destes filmes são muito bons (Beautiful Thing, Edge of Seventeen, Tarnation, E sua mamãe também, A Little Comfort, Latter Days), e alguns são muito ruins ( Tropical maladay,Pretty Boy). 50 Ways tem muito de bom. Para citar Pauline Kael (uma das maiores críticas de cinema da história), crianças nos filmes nunca são tão interessantes quanto o que acontece com elas, e o autor Stewart Main claramente entendeu isso. Pelo menos, coisas demais acontecem com os personagens do filme.Billy (Andrew Paterson), um sonhador garoto de 12 anos, filho único de um fazendeiro na Nova Zelândia, não se encaixa na turma da pesada dos jogadores de rugby em sua escola. Não é segredo que as crianças são naturalmente cruéis, e este filme deixa isto muito claro. Mas a crueldade freqüentemente se transforma em pura maldade, com freqüentes e rápidas mudanças de lado. A atuação dos garotos é boa e qualquer um que já tenha dirigido garotos pode dizer que conseguir isto é um trabalho de cão. Há alguns momentos muito bons. Roy, com seus olhos tristes (Jay Collins) se apaixona por Billy, e seus truques para ficar um pouco mais de tempo ao lado dele são tocantes. Por sua vez,Billy cai de amores por um empregado novo muito sexy, - e não dá para culpá-lo -Jamir (Michael Dorman) tem um quê de brad Pitt e Juld Law! Muitos de nós vão se reconhecer nos esforços de Billy para ficar perto de Jamie, e vê-lo nu.A partir daí, o filme tem algumas falhas, principalmente devido aos exageros, que prejudicam a credibilidade. Mas, no todo, o filme maneja com esperteza as manobras que muitos de nós enfrentamos no campo minado da descoberta da sexualidade.

Tom Steele

Vem aí... será???

The Conrad Boys



Direção de JUSTIN LO
Após a morte de sua mãe, Charlie Conrad , 19 anos,(Justin Lo) precisa abandonar a faculdade em New York para cuidar de seu irmão mais novo, Ben. Suas asas atadas. um frustrado Charlie encontra excitação e romance com Jordan (Nick Bartzen), um charmoso trambiqueiro que se insinua na vida dos dois garotos. Quando o pai alcoólico de Charlie retorna para tentar uma ligação com Ben, o delicado castelo de cartas de Ben começa a ruir. As atuações e a direção são meio desajeitadas, mas o drama dirigido por Justin Lo é um raro retrato da juventude gay.

(Texto Dan Avery, tradução minha).

Será que teremos chance de ver por aqui?

Ars Gloria Ars

Another Wave: Global Queer Cinema

By ANITA GATES
Published: July 7, 2006 (New York Times)


Sori and Manga are young African men in love, which horrifies their parents, their school friends and the women who come to love them. You'd think their story, Mohamed Camara's "Dakan" (1997), made in Guinea, would be something like the West African "Brokeback Mountain." But, surprise, it's a gay "Splendor in the Grass." From the opening shot of a couple necking passionately in a parked car to the scene in which Sori playfully forces Manga to get down on his knees and declare his love, to the couple's final meeting, when Sori has a wife and baby, the movie is part homage to, part imitation of, "Splendor," the 1961 movie that introduced teenage sexual frustration to baby boomers. Natalie Wood's character, Deanie, was packed off to the mental hospital in Wichita, Kan.; Sori is sent away for years to a healer who tries to "purify" him into heterosexuality. Even the dialogue sounds an awful lot like William Inge's screenplay translated into French. "Dakan," which has its American premiere tonight at the Museum of Modern Art's "Another Wave: Global Queer Cinema" survey, is not exactly a masterpiece of subtlety, but as one of the first sub-Saharan films to deal with homosexuality at all, it is significant. The series includes feature films and shorts from more than two dozen countries, including Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, New Zealand, India, Israel and Ivory Coast. One of the best-known entries is François Ozon's "Water Drops on Burning Rocks" (2000), about a businessman in love during the 1970's. The oldest are Ulrike Ottinger's "Johanna d'Arc of Mongolia," a 1989 German film that has been described as a lesbian "Lawrence of Arabia," and, from the same year, Jim Hubbard's short "Elegy in the Streets."

(Roy and Niuta Titus Theaters, 212-708-9400.)

Lá vem de novo...

Sempre que sai uma notícias dessas, mesmo nos EUA, é um pouco triste para todos nós. Talvez se pararmos de usar a palavra casamento as coisas se tornem mais fáceis, este negócio de sacramento, religião, tudo fica mais difícil.
Para quem quer saber:
---
2 Courts Reject Same - Sex Marriage Cases

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 7, 2006
Filed at 6:56 a.m. ET
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Gay rights advocates said their fight to widen same-sex marriage rights beyond Massachusetts would not be deterred by dual setbacks from the highest courts in two states.
On Thursday, the courts rejected same-sex couples' bid to win marriage rights in New York and reinstated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Georgia.
The rulings become part of the nationwide debate that has continued to evolve since a 2003 Massachusetts court decision ushered in a spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco. Many activists viewed liberal New York as a chance for a court victory in a populous state.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the Washington-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged the sting of that decision but said the fight will continue.
''This is something that is going to work itself out over the next 10 or 15 years, ultimately through the U.S. Supreme Court or an act of Congress,'' he said.
The Court of Appeals ruled 4-2 that New York's law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman was constitutional.
''Clearly, in bringing the case and pushing it as hard as they did, it's pretty good evidence that they thought they had a substantial chance of victory,'' said Ohio State University law professor Marc Spindelman, who tracks lesbian and gay legal issues. ''It's hard to read the decision as anything other than a rebuff of gay and lesbian couples.''
In Georgia, where three-quarters of voters approved a ban on gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004, the state Supreme Court reinstated the ban Thursday, ruling unanimously that it did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that the ballot language was misleading, asking voters to decide on same-sex marriage and civil unions, separate issues about which many people had different opinions.
High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts.
Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.
The New York court said any change in the state's law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote. The decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. It also said the law does not deny homosexual couples any ''fundamental right'' since same-sex marriages are not ''deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.''
Advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other groups marshaled forces for the court fight and sued two years ago. Forty-four couples acted as plaintiffs.
''There's no question they looked to New York as a place where they could win,'' said Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group based in Florida. ''It would have been a major victory for them. Instead it's a stunning defeat for the same-sex marriage movement.''
Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the gay rights group Empire State Pride Agenda, said his organization would immediately launch a campaign to press the legislature to pass a gay marriage bill in 2007.
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat leading in polls in the governor's race, has said he favors legalizing gay marriage and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he would personally campaign to change the law. Spitzer's office argued in court in support of outgoing Gov. George Pataki's contention that state law prohibits issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Censura

Este texto estava na comunidade Cinéfilos GLS, da qual sou membro, no Orkut. Para quem quiser, é só visitar.


SEUL (Reuters) - Um executivo do cinema sul-coreano disse na terça-feira que o filme que teve a maior bilheteria na Coréia do Sul, sobre um rei tirânico e dois bobos da corte, teve sua exibição proibida nos cinemas da China por conter temática homossexual."O filme 'O Rei e o Palhaço' não foi aprovado no processo de deliberação na China devido às sugestões homossexuais e à linguagem sexualmente explícita que contém", disse um representante da empresa sul-coreana de entretenimento CJ, de seu escritório em Pequim.O filme já arrecadou mais de 85 milhões de dólares na Coréia do Sul e vendeu cerca de 12 milhões de ingressos no país, que tem 48 milhões de habitantes.Até 2001, a homossexualidade era vista na China como transtorno mental, e ainda hoje é um tema extremamente delicado.No filme, que terminou sua temporada em cartaz na Coréia do Sul no início do ano, as relações entre o rei e os dois bobos da corte não são claramente definidas. Não há cenas de sexo, mas fica implícita a existência de um romance.O momento mais "quente" do filme acontece quando o rei troca olhares de desejo com um palhaço efeminado, no momento em que apresentam um show de fantoches juntos.O representante da CJ, que pediu para não ter seu nome citado, disse que a empresa recebeu permissão das autoridades chinesas para distribuir o filme na China em DVD.O órgão de censura da China, a Administração Estatal de Rádio, Cinema e Televisão, não pôde ser contatado para obter sua versão dos fatos.Apesar de a China ter elogiado Ang Lee, o diretor de Taiwan que recebeu um Oscar pelo filme de temática gay "O Segredo de Brokeback Mountain", o filme não chegou a ser incluído na lista de trabalhos a serem analisados pelas autoridades, o que praticamente equivale a ser proibido.