MMFF 2012: Thy Womb

THY WOMB (2012)

d. Brillante Mendoza

s. Henry Burgos

dop. Odyssey Flores

mscore. Teresa Barrozo

c. Nora Aunor, Bembol Roco, Lovi Poe, Mercedes Cabral

Pitch: In a Muslim community down south, an infertile wife agrees to find another wife for her husband so they could have a child in the house.

Catch: ‘Yun na ‘yun. Maniwala ka bang the pitch is also the catch? Basa kung bakit!

Kasi ganito ‘yun teh. ‘Yung pelikula, maganda. ‘Yung scenery lalo na. Tahimik lang siyang nilatag, imahe after imahe, na ipinapakita ang buhay ng isang particular na lugar na ito sa Muslim community somewhere in Mindanao. Culture kung culture spectacle teh. May pinakitang kasal ng isang lalaki at babae (si Mercedes Cabral the indie cutie) na kahit parang may pumipilit na suma-subplot na naghahabulang saglit na military vs. rebels chuva, kebs pa rin si ati at may-I-dance siya ng ritual dance ng kinasal, to the tune of that dayang dayang song na sikat ay may rele pala sa kanila doon.

Tahimik ding pinakita ‘yung buhay ng mag-asawang ginampanan ni Kuya Bembol at ni Ate Guy. Na gumagawa sila ng mga special colorful na banig tapos binebenta nila. May moments na ‘yun lang ang pinapakita, na naghahabi lang hibla by hibla si Ate Guy. Tapos si Kuya Bembol nagluluto at nagkukulay ng hibla. Tapos tahimik ding pinakita na minsan, fisherfolk sila. May maliit silang bangka na may motor tapos nangingisda sila sa vast Mindanao waters, na minsan may rebels at nahagingan sila ng baril tapos kinulimbat ‘yung fishes na nahuli nila. Ganun lang.

Tapos tahimik ding nag-usap ang mag-asawa na ‘yun nga, kumuha ng bagong asawa para maanakan ni Kuya Bembol. Nalulungkot kasi sila na walang bata sa bahay kaya naghanap sila ng bagong babaeng may silbi ang bahay-bata. Enter frame si Lovi Poe the mainstream cutie. Pinakita din dito ang struggle ng mag-asawa na mahanap ang perfect yet affordable next wife na afford nilang bayaran ang dowry. Ito interesting for me as a feminist. Mas mahal pala ang gelay kapag titulado at nakapag-kolehiyo. Parang 120,000 pesoses yata siya or something. Tapos may extra pa, mga tinapay saka magarang belo saka reams ng yosi para sa padir at madir ng gelay. Interesting makita ang kalakarang ito.

In fairness, sa kuwento, affordable ang byuti ni Lola Lovi. ‘Yun din pala, tahimik na pinakita kung paano nag-raise ng 80,000 pesoses yata or more ang mag-asawang mananahi ng banig at sometime fisherfolk para afford nilang bayaran ang Lola Lovi dowry. Kelangang ibenta ang motor ng boat at nag-pitch in ang community for fundraising. Pero may request ang lola, na pagkaanak niya, palayasin na daw ni Kuya si Ate sa balur at silang dalawa na lang ang magsasama. Yes, finally, conflict! Na dumating mga makalipas ang isang oras at kalahati ng katahimikang paglalahad ng mga imaheng kultural.

Tapos eto na, nang manganak na nga ang lola mo, si ati ang nagpaanak at pinutol pa ang umbilical cord at tinago for souvenir. Tapos tinitigan lang siya ni kuya at lola and then pagkaputol ng cord, BAM! Pinutol na rin ang pelikula, literal. Credits na. The end.

And I was like, Thy Whut???

Napaganun na lang ako. parang naglalatag pa lang ang kuwento, naglalatag pa lang ng istorya, parang ang mga pangyayari sa naratibo ay nagsisimula pa lang maging interesante pero malabong tinapos na ito ni Brillante. Kamusta naman. Sige, maganda ang katahimikan ng mga imahe, fine. Magaling ang pag-arte nilang lahat dito impernez, fine. Pero naman teh, asan ang script??? Asan ang laman ng istorya??? Naman eh. Nalurkey akey. Di ko knows kung ano naganap. Kaya ayun, bitin lola mo. Buti na lang at biased ako at naisalba ang mga oras ng katahimikan ng pelikulang ito sa pagtitig sa ganju mode ni Mercedes my crush at ng alindog-in-a-shawl mode ni Lovi my lust. Pramis ‘yun lang tumawid teh. Haynakuh beks di ka na natuto. Di ba ganitich din naman ang reak mo sa ibang pelikula ni koya BM? Oo ‘pag naiimbey ako I talk to myself, di ka kasali dito, beh.

Hay Lovi, why so pretty?

Hay nakuh. Sayang. Andun na sana e. Maganda na sana ‘yung mga katahimikang subtleties na sinusubukang isaksak ni direk sa pelikula. Pero walang direktang story consciousness ang pelikula. In short, wala kang masyadong kakapitan na kuwento. Scenery na lang, fine. Konting filmic nuances (esp. acting, cinematog) fine. Pero kuwento? Wiz! Balik sa workshop ‘yan. Now na.

Saka sana Tinagalog na lang nila ang titulo. Saka lost ako sa choice na “thy” kasi di ba associated itich sa Christian/Catholic writings? “Thy will be done/on earth as it is in heaven.” Um mga followers po ni Allah ang characters. May counterpart ba ang thy chuvaness sa Quran? Just wondering. Parang mali, eh. Maling-mali.

Hayst. Sayang. Wala, ang lola Mercedes at ang lola Lovi ay nasayang lang ditich. Anyway kebs, naka-rampage naman sila sa Venice Filmfest saka sa Cannes din yata. Hm bakit kaya nanalo ito sa Venice? Siguro relate ang judges dahil puro tubig ang nakikita dito sa film. Di ba Venice canals chorva mode? Wala lang, wafung na akiz. Naubusan ng popcorn.

Next!

Iyo na! Iyong-iyo na!

Or in short, my review of SA ‘YO LAMANG. Sa ‘yo na talaga! Iyong-iyo na! Baunin mo na, iuwi mo na! Chos.

SA ‘YO LAMANG

d. Laurice Guillen

p. Star Cinema-ABS-CBN

story by five people, script by three people

dop. Lee Meily

c. Lorna Tolentino, Christopher de Leon, Bea Alonzo, Coco Martin and a bunch of ABS-CBN TV talents

Pitch: A seemingly well-to-do family’s life suddenly flips when their father — who abandoned them and was absent for ten years of their lives — suddenly returns and moves back in the house. Imagine the drama. Ho-hum.

Catch: It’s like watching your garden-variety nightly melodrama series. Ho-hum.

Let me share something I picked up in the becky world recently. The beckys (bakla) have this new expression of jest whenever someone seems to sound like they are grandstanding, intended or not, when they’re telling a story. Sort of like the pabidahan “wala ka sa Lolo ko” hirit. The beckys would say “Ikaw na! Ikaw na ang __!” Insert your own adjective in the blank, depending on the conversation you’re having. Ikaw na ang maganda at tinitigan ni Piolo nang nag-jogging siya sa UP Oval! Or maybe Ikaw na ang sikat na bineso-beso ni Angel Aquino sa La Union! Something like that. A variation of this is “Iyo na! Iyo na ang ___!” which also means the same thing, but to take it up to a level, like Miss Universe level, they could say “Iyo na ang spotlight/korona/scepter dahil __!” State your own reasons in the blank. So that’s like an added interpretation whenever someone would say “Sa ‘yo na!” and all that.

You learn something new everyday, noh? Chos.

But anyway, this film didn’t really fare well for me, having just participated in a regional meeting of the IAWRT or the International Association of Women in Radio and Television last week, where I entered as a happy observer and ended up as an impromptu speaker on the portrayals of women in Philippine cinema. Wadapak! But of course we pulled it off, since this topic is right up our alley — which doesn’t seem to be up the alley of the filmmakers of this here film. Hay.

Where do I begin? Hm, the producers?

Ikaw na! Ikaw na, Star Cinema, ang gumagawa ng pelikulang may gloss! Sure, call it high, clean production values. At least the people who work in their production design dept. seem to have a good handle of how to PD things. And Lee Meily’s lighting helps, too. So that’s a strength.

Ikaw na! Ikaw na, Lorna T. ang magdala ng universal women sufferance role! Sabi nga ng aking co-CINE CHICHIRYA host last Friday where we discussed Filipino families in film, women who were left behind seem to be the martyr who needs to carry this sufferance thing to the next level. I can’t imagine how a woman who was screwed over by her philandering husband not once, not twice, not thrice, but many times more, and then being left by that husband to take care of four kids for ten years, and then the husband comes back when his mistress leaves him, and then discovers that the husband is still trying to take care of the mistress who came back with a baby on the way, hay… I’ll stop myself. Sino’ng tanga ang tatanggap sa kanya? Eto, ang karakter ni Lorna T. Kaya ikaw na! Ikaw na talaga ang martir!

Ikaw na, ikaw na, Tope, ang hari ng mga macho shit double standard! When it was revealed that, during one of the first times his character had an affair, the wife — probably in retaliation — also had an affair that bore a child. When she was confessing this to him, he had the gall to say “Walang lugar ang batang ‘yan sa bahay na ito! Pini-pendeho mo lang ako!” Yeah, fuck you, too. When the wife commits adultery, she is shamed here to no end, to the point of having her abandon that child and give it up for adoption for the sake of keeping her legal family intact. Ano’ng intact? E iniwan nga rin sila ng nag-pendehong padre de familia, e. Nubah! Bullshit macho shit!

Ikaw na, ikaw na, Bea Alonzo, ang magkaroon ng ultra-schizophrenic characterization sa buong pelikulang ito! Her character, being the eldest child, takes on the padre de familia role with resentment, and she doesn’t let anybody forget this fact in like every other sequence.  The hardworking, successful, no-nonsense interior designer persona in the beginning suddenly takes a nosedive when a lover from her past, Diether Ocampo’s character, suddenly comes back, and she just throws all things in abandon as she dives into a beginning of an affair with him, leaving the poor, kind fiance of hers hanging on the side. And then she lectures her siblings of responsibilities and not forgetting them and being an adult and taking care of things? Ikaw na, ikaw na ang malabo!

Ikaw na, Coco Martin, ang mag-portray ng chick boy na nakabuntis sa karakter ni Shaina Magdayao na bigla na lang sumulpot (literally, under an umbrella on a rainy day, just standing there outside this bida family’s house without saying anything, hanlabo). Since Shaina’s character was somewhat a meek and mild-mannered poor girl, the mother figure let her stay in their house for the duration of her pregnancy, to the resentment of Coco’s character, of course. But one freaky night, he undresses and forces himself on her, and she can’t do anything about it, and after a few humping and pumping scenes, close up on his and her face as he slowly realizes that he loves her, and they kiss, like lovers. Wow. Now how’s that for covering up rape? Bali-baligtarin mo man ang pelikulang ito, ang ginawa na iyon ni Coco ay rape. It wasn’t planted anywhere earlier that he still likes Shaina’s character, so this is clearly rape. And this is clearly scary. And this is really maddening. My nostrils are flaring as I type this. It’s so infuriating! What message are you trying to relay with this one? Na dahil nabuntis na naman niya ang babae, puwede na niyang halayin ulit dahil nasa kama naman niya sa bahay naman nila at buntis na naman ng batang siya ang ama naman? Naman! Tumbling talaga ako dito.

At ikaw na, dear audience, ang manood ng pelikulang ito para ipagpatuloy na hanapin kung may kagandahan nga ba ito o wala. Aside from being religiously preachy (the Santo Nino/Mama Mary/various saints and religious icons designs in almost all scenes, plus that let’s-pray-while-hugging-the-sick-instead-of-calling-the-ambulance scene – OMG this scene is so fucked, wait for it, don’t walk out yet), this film is a failure in its execution of a story that sounded so contrived to begin with. Aside from questioning the other gender-based double standards of this film, the story plots out like a super-fast weekly television teleserye drama where plot point upon plot point upon plot point are unraveled so fast that it seems to be anticipating the next upcoming commercial gap. It doesn’t help that most scenes, especially the dramatic ones, are always framed in close-ups and medium shots and scenes just get dumped one after the other that you would think the filmmakers are allergic to this cinematic device called the establishing shot were you should put at least some semblance of contextualization of what’s happening in the scene, or where it’s taking place, or who the leads of that particular scene are. Ang gulo, ang labo, ang bilis.

This is the problem when people work too much on television; they forget that cinema has a different set of aesthetics altogether. Review, guys, review. Let the scenes breathe, and give the characters some pacing, so that they won’t resort to the usual melodramatic histrionics of releasing angst shouts on an open space or magdadabog ng walang kaabog-abog at magsisisigaw sa inis at magsisira ng gamit sa kuwarto. Puwede niyo namang i-execute ito ng maayos at maganda, e, without resorting to the old and ho-hum tricks. For instance, two bright and shining examples of this is when Bea Alonzo’s character confronted the father for the first time and just cursed at him, a curse that has been ten years in the making. That was good. Another was when, after the mother told Bea of a secret, she just cried there in the rain, under an umbrella, her hand silently covering her mouth, because they are outside a church after all, so no noisy histrionics there. E puwede naman palang ganun, e! Aside from those two scenes, I can’t find anything redeemable about this dangerously anti-women film.

Which got us thinking last Friday. Ito ba ang pamilyang Pilipino? We thought of asking ourselves, since cinema seems to depict Filipino families this way over the years — histrionics, ma-drama, and all that. Sure, some families are even worse than this, but is this representative of what the Filipino family is like? Hm, that’s up to you to find out, and see.

As for me, the main regret in watching this film is not having any chicha while watching it. I certainly needed the distraction. Oh well, you watch, you learn.

Next!

Blindsided: sa mata ng pitik

Or in short, my reviews of two current Philippine cinema releases: IN YOUR EYES and MAMARAZZI. Sabi nga ng isang Carlo J. Caparas film — God, save us! Chos. Teka, siya nga ba iyon?

Whatevssss!

IN YOUR EYES

d. Mac Alejandre

p. GMA Films-Viva Films

s. Keiko Aquino

c. Claudine Barretto, Richard Gutierrez, Anne Curtis

Pitch: Americanized older sister petitions younger sister who brings along boyfriend who, upon younger sister’s prodding, marries older sister for US citizenship only to fall in love with older sister which wreaks havoc in young sister’s life who turns out hating older sister and brings boyfriend back to Manila but they also split so she reunites with older sister and flies to the US for good, only to casually bump into ex-boyfriend who’s there legally now and tries to rekindle his thing with younger sister. O ha, one-sentence pitch, kaya mo iyon? Charut.

Catch: Lumang panutsa sa bagong palara. Er, siomai saves the day? Or bring chicha when you watch this. You’ll need the distraction.

Where do I begin, sabi nga ng isang movie theme song dati. I don’t know if current film scriptwriters don’t watch old, old, old, old, old movies, both local and foreign ones, especially local ones. I think it should be required of them that they watch old films so that they’ll know what has been done, to give them ideas and cues as to what they could rework with what has been done, so that they won’t end up repeating, concocting and cooking up and serving us tasteless and stale cinematic fare.

That is basically what this film made me and my girlfriend feel. She kept on saying that it’s just like DUBAI, Claudine’s earlier film in her former home studio, where she as the woman comes in between two brothers in a foreign land setting. But that’s the thing with scriptwriting in Philippine cinema. Just change the location of the original story, change the names or switch the genders of the characters and voila! You have a “new” story-script. And yes, they option and greenlight such projects even if they suspiciously sound and look like other existing works. Don’t believe me? Ahem, um, ask Lualhati Bautista na lang kaya? But I digress.

I was quite excited to see this film because of the trailer. I saw where they shot part of the American scenes — in Los Angeles, California — and I was curious to see how they would pull off shooting there. Plus of course I also wanted to reminisce about my recent summer trip there, where I was left alone to explore the Hollywood area on my own by my friend. Yes, I wanted to see how they would treat it, shoot it like a tourist or from a local’s point of view and such. I guess it’s the filmmaker in me that created that curiosity. But even with those scenes, I felt shortchanged since they really didn’t show much, plus a lot of this-is-in-America scenes were obviously shot here. And that would have been okay, but sometimes, halata siya, at pangit iyon. So that’s a failure of the PD, I think. Hay, production design na naman? You know what I think of that now. Read my previous reviews for more insights.

But what about the story? Hm, like I said, old fare cooked up anew. Lasang panis na, teh. Iyan ang masama. The marrying-for-citizenship storyline is as old as the OFW phenomenon, sobra. And then magkaka-inlab-an ang dalawang arranged marriage folks? Ngorkzzz. Wala na bang ibang conflict? Tumbling ‘yan kung biglang sa boylet nainlab ang character ni Richard, na pinangalanan nga pala nilang Storm (Ewan ko kung bakit – binagyo niya ang buhay ng magkapatid? Chaka kung iyon, ha!) o kaya sa girlash nainlab ang character ni Anne Curtis. Hm, I think I’d like that storyline better. Or biased lang ako.

But a bad script could sometimes be overlooked if the directing saves the day, or fantastic special effects and superb acting. Sadly, this film had none of those. I guess if Claudine was handled by another director, say Lino Brocka maybe (yes, this is wishful thinking), then we could have felt more heartfelt hugot ng emosyon ng character niya. Her crying scenes look so automatic, like she just turns them on and off as she sometimes does on TV dramas. Iba ang on-off switch ng acting, iba ‘yung iparamdam mo sa audience na malalim ang pinaghuhugutan niyan kaya kami mas maniniwalang dama talaga ng karakter mo ang nararamdaman sa eksena. And sorry pero hindi lang ako echoserang frog na namimintas dahil I also underwent acting lessons for one whole semester back in college. So yes, may pinaghuhugutan ang critique kong ito sa acting. And yes, 1.5 ang final grade ko dun, but I digress…

You’d also think that Anne Curtis could give something extra here, besides her usual pretty looks and sexy body, which they obviously wanted to flaunt by the way she was shot in this film. At oo, gets na naming endorser siya ng GSM Blue na tinungga niya sa bar kung saan na-pick up siya ni Storm. Pero teka, ‘yun nga palang pick-up line. I don’t know much about current heterosexual pick-up practices but my goddess, Storm’s pick-up line was so lame that I don’t know if it actually works on pretty girls like Anne. “Excuse me, do you know where Legaspi Village is?” sabi ni boylet. Tinuro naman ni girlash. Tapos alis si boylet, tapos sabay balik, at sabing “One more thing. Could I have your number? Just in case I get lost?” Kill me now! *tumbling tumbling tumbling* Oh wait, I already died, and landed on the nth circle of hell where people with bad pick-up lines are punished! But man, I ask you, does that work, with hetero women these days? Hetero women with Anne Curtis looks?  Kakaiba. I mean haller, I was also once a  heterosexual girl out in bars and I’ve heard better pick-up lines than that! Susmaryosep. Kalurkey.

So with their characterizations, you’d think that what was established with Anne’s character was someone who’s strong, who didn’t need a man to make it happen, as the Pussycat Dolls sang. E pucha pini-pick up nga sa bar, e. Tapos nang tanungin siya ni Storm about their status, “Paano tayo?” ang sagot ni girlash e “May tayo ba?” Tapos kelangan pang i-rattle off ang characterization niya while driving in a badly executed scene where Storm was driving a rugged jeep without a roof and Anne’s character suddenly sits on him as he drives. Talk about unsafe driving practices, to which he says “Ganyan ka ba talaga?” at sinagot ni girlash like reading out her character mapping “Ano, fun, independent, spontaneous?” or something to that effect. If you’re not familiar with a character map, eto ‘yung sheet kung saan nakalista ang characters sa script with matching descriptions, like:

Anne – 25 years old, Claudine’s younger sister, fun, sexy, spontaneous

Ganun. And then all of a sudden, she’s spewing lines reminiscent of early classic cinema’s “Ate, mamamatay ako ‘pag nawala siya sa akin…” “Ipalilibing kita!” She said something to this effect, which I really didn’t understand, because it didn’t match her character mapping of fun, independent, spontaneous as earlier mapped.

But I think Storm’s was the character that is the most badly-written, and even horribly executed. I know that for dramatic purposes, they heighten the actions. But if they did some research as to how Pinoys behave in the US, especially non-legal ones, they stay out of perceived trouble there. So that scene where Storm got an under-the-table job as a photo processor in a photo developing store, where he showed attitude towards his American boss, to the point of bumping into him, as in bodily contact, when he stormed out of there when he was fired, is not very realistic at all. They could have shown his frustration in another way, I think, and that wasn’t the best behavioral execution of all. The director could have called that one. Plus need I mention Richard’s tuod style of acting pa ba, where, at the height of the sisters’ drama of discovering the infidelity, he just fucking stood there??? Like he wasn’t part of it all??? And let the sisters mouth off??? Ang labo, potah.

And this brings me to this dangerous implication of women in cinema as propagated by this scene. How come the man is spared from sin? How come the women are the ones punished? I was surprised to see that this was scripted by a woman, but I guess she’s not as enlightened as we want her to be. Even when Anne’s character went home, tagging along Storm, the guy still lived with her for a year in utmost misery??? As if his jowa was punishing him for falling in love with her sister? Ang labo potah. Again, why do they have to make the women weak (that they needed a man like Claudine’s character) or vengeful (like Anne’s character hating her sister and latching on to the guy afterward). Pero teka, reality check, bakit hindi na lang hiwalayan ni Storm ang girlash pagbalik sa Manila? Kasal ba sila? Hindi naman, di ba? At saka kung kasal man, e payag naman si PNoy sa legal separation, a, huwag lang divorce. But I digress again.

Hay naku. There are several other things wrong with this film, but it’s just wrong for me to belabor over them without having lunch first. Or baka kelangan ko nang matawa.

Ay, matawa ba kamo? Then… oh well.

Here goes the other one…

MAMARAZZI

d. Joel Lamangan

p. Regal Films

s. Ricky Lee, Chris Violago

dop. Mo Zee

C. Eugene Domingo, John Lapus, Diether Ocampo and a host of slight cinema newbies whom you see to death naman in TV shows

Pitch: An unwed single mom mortician dotingly raises triplets who have individual issues but is bound by their insatiable curiosity of knowing who their father is. O parang ganun.

Catch: You know there’s something wrong with Eugene’s film when our common friends in the theater circles don’t publicize it to death on their Facebook accounts. Seriously. I’m just saying. Pansin ko lang naman, mga teh hehe.

I was actually surprised to see the trailer of this film, that our reigning comedy queen of Philippine cinema, theater-trained Eugene Domingo, was top-billing a comedy film financed by Regal Films. Now you know you have arrived when Mother Lily trusts you enough to give you such a project. And sadly, you also know you have arrived when you actually have to star in a badly written and horribly directed film reminiscent of badly written and horribly directed ’80s comedy films from the history of Philippine cinema, complete with an uncalled for song-and-dance number. Yes, even if it appears in a (day)dream sequence, it’s still uncalled for, plus it was done in utterly poor taste. I mean hey, if we were still in the ’80s and I saw this, I would accept it gladly, because during that time, it was kitsch-y “cool,” in a way. It had (quirky) character. It was pastiche. But it’s 2010, and I’m not willing to travel back in time to experience kitsch and pastiche like that anew.

But that’s the thing. I thought Philippine cinema already graduated from these kinds of portrayals, treatments and executions. I don’t know why they are trying to revive it like how Sarah Geronimo or whoever’s popular at the moment revive and revive and revive old pop songs.  I mean hello, we have dozens of uber-talented writers today, still alive, living in the present, who could write you newer songs or newer scripts or newer storylines. Why hark back to the oldies? Labo.

So now you know why Uge’s (Eugene’s nickname as called by her friends) theater friends didn’t publicize this that much. It’s crap. It’s unlike what they did with HERE COMES THE BRIDE but of course that might be biased because that one was penned and made by one of their own, too. But regardless of the bias, that film was good. (I reviewed that before, see my older posts. Pak!) But hey, come to think of it, if you gave MAMARAZZI kaya to Chris Martinez, what would happen? Hm, flashback ako bigla sa isang segment ng Sesame Street, a. What would happen if I prick this balloon with a pin…

Well, for one, I think the comedy would have been better written. I don’t know what they find funny in a mother uttering her dialogue when all of a sudden her skirt is torn off to reveal her floral undies, to the horror of her only son. Or her son won’t be obligated to utter the title of the film so it would somehow fit into the scheme of things, during that scene where she was trying to convince her son to ride on their hearse after he talked to the girl of his dreams. And then when he said “Mamarazzi,” the mother said “Ay, mamarazzi? Ano ‘yun? Bago ‘yun, a. Ay, gusto ko iyon, gusto ko iyon, ahihihi!” and then proceeded to dance like a crazy woman who had no iota of intelligence in her persona. Hay mahabagin…

We already discussed to death–habang namatay kami sa kabagutan–the women in comedy characters of Philippine cinema in our Friday night Cine Chichirya radio show last week, so I’ll spare that. But there’s one characterization I so wanted to discuss, because I believe it is disturbing and dangerous regarding how homosexuality and bisexuality are portrayed in this film.

John Lapuz’ character is a respectable gay barangay chairman or something. He is not the macho-acting type of gay man but not swishy either; just right and discreet, but a bit flirty in private quarters with his babylove (their term of endearment), Diether’s character. I don’t know what type of portrayal they intended with Diether, but the first time he is introduced, his buff bod was overly displayed as he bantered with his babylove, and he was sweet but he was also asking for money. So are we going back to the straight guy-who-hooks-up-with-gay-men-for-money storyline? Ano nga ‘yung sabi sa kanta ng Disney film? Tale as old as time… Kaloka. I don’t know why gay writers or directors continue to characterize and portray gay men in films this way. Why are they insisting on putting homosexuality down? This really baffles me to no end. Fine, granted that there are still set-ups like this, but then again, this is an old, old, old story.

And what happens to the gay man in this film? He “donates” his willing babylove to his single straight best friend so she could have her wish of being impregnated by someone — doesn’t matter who — before they take out her ovaries or something reproductive health-related like that. But what does babylove do? He goes to bed with her, sure, but also runs off after, robbing her of money to boot — which is later redeemed as money he used to help his sick grandmother. Yes, you can roll your eyes now in disbelief. My own suspension of disbelief in this film already ended after the first 10 minutes.

So both gay and single straight girl best friends lose the guy, only for babylove to reemerge later on which mars their friendship. Babylove says he realized his mistake, is sorry for the robbery, and wants to be an active father to the children of the mortician, whom he says he realized that he is in love with her pala. Jusme. So of course, gay bff gets mad at mortician. Hay jusko, need I say more? Nagtapos din ito sa kasalan — heterosexual na kasalan. Luhaan nung una ang becky pero nagpaubaya na rin sa bff at sa ex-babylove. Horrible.

Again, why do they continue to put their own kind down??? Why do they insist, even??? Hay. Ako ngang becky in spirit lang e offended na offended. Paano pa kaya ang mga tunay na becky??? Kalurkey.

Hay jusme. I don’t know. Mag-iisaw na nga lang muna ako, para mas masaya. O siya, bahala ka na. Babu!

THE BRAVE ONE

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com

—————–

dahil hindi na ko makapaghintay…

…chichichiryahin ko na itong bagong pelikula ni jodie foster my love.

yes, my love, dahil ang tagal ko nang itinakwil ang debosyon ko sa kanya mula nang mapag-trip-an niyang maging mas action star-ish (FLIGHT PLAN, PANIC ROOM) o kaya’y dekorasyon sa mga pelikulang kelangan ng pag-aayos ng kwento (THE INSIDE MAN, DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTAR BOYS). pero mula pa noong bagu-bago pa lang ang internet sa buhay ko e nauna na ang debosyon ko kay jodie nang masilayan ko sa sinehan ang kagalingan niya bilang aktor (THE ACCUSED, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, NELL, CONTACT) at minsan din ay direktor (LITTLE MAN TATE, HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS) kahit sa sige na nga, magaling siyang umarteng hetero kahit ang ka-akting niya ay banban (SOMMERSBY) o sobrang bilib sa sarili (MAVERICK) pero alam naman naming lahat na ang tawag niya sa co-parent ng kanyang mga anak ay partner at matagal nang inaabangan ng sangkalesbyanahan ang kanyang pag-amin na siya ang aming numero unong diyosa.

but i digress. let’s go to this film.

THE BRAVE ONE
d. neil jordan
dop. philippe rousselot
c. jodie foster

it’s been a while since i’ve seen a neil jordan film. i like the way he directs because he knows how to visualize a well-written material. he knows how to communicate with his production people, his dop most especially, and the actors of course, that’s why he could get the most out of all of them and make one great concoction that is so meaty, refreshing, satisfying, and thought-provoking. similar examples are THE CRYING GAME and INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE.

hm, is it strange or is there a lot of homoeroticism going on in the characters of these two films? so it might not be a wonder if jodie herself appears so freakingly dykey butchy here in the film, which made me — and i’m sure a host of other jodie-devoted dykes out there — fall in love with her anew.

and fall is right. because finally, after years of hibernation, jodie emerges with a film that befits her stature as a great thespian. finally, good material for jodie! at eto na nga yun.

the story is good. she plays erica, a talk radio host who ruminates on the essence of new york city and its streets chever. she even records sounds of the city. at ang ganda kasi it’s been ages din since i saw a film focus on sounds as life ek. at okay ito. tapos maganda rin ang discussion na “why don’t my hands shake” chever na na-feel niya when she makes killings with her 9mm automatic gun. boy, would i want to do that din, no? kaya i’m sure daming babaeng relate dito kaya nga sabi niya regarding the many outraged women out there e marami kami out there. at tama siya doon. hundreds, if not thousands of women are harassed, abused or downright killed just because they/we are seen as weaker than men. kaya when she makes killings vigilante style, men, sarap lang ng feeling kahit visceral lang. as in. well, not really. kasi ako i also target shoot as a hobby before (rifle, not pistol) , pero not anymore, since i got my glasses. at saka wala akong tinamaan na tao. although i really wish… some people…

natatawa lang ako kasi iba talaga ang nakikita ko sa pelikulang ito. o masyado bang purple-colored ang lenses ko? pero kasi naman ati, sobrang dykey lang talaga ng hitsura ng lola jodie dito eh. from the simple colored shirts to the straight cut jeans and the fitting jackets, especially the leather ones! ang simple pero ang cool! and ang lesbian! hahahahaha. and the way she walks din. postura baga. sometimes she’s so andro, sometimes she’s so butchy, soft butchy nga lang, the kind i’ll make patol to hahaha and the kind i have been accused/labeled from time to time. hahahaha. hay…

nakakaaliw lang din isipin na ang galing niyang i-shake off ang kanyang clarice sterling fbi agent training of holding a gun at kaya niyang palabasin ang first time gun holder chever dito. winner!

winner din ang support cast, from mary steenburgen to that detective dude. okay rin yung interracial ek na ang fiance niya ay isang indian national. cool.

saka hindi mo iintindihin ang haba ng film. 2 hours lang siya pero hindi siya mahaba. maganda kasi ang storytelling pace, plus i also like to look at how rousselot, one of my favorite dops of all time, lights the scene. siya rin ang nag-ilaw sa INTERVIEW and other films i also visually love like CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, LA REINE MARGOT (with another of my loves, isabelle adjani), CONSTANTINE and HENRY AND JUNE.

gusto ko rin yung discussion na you become someone else when something tragic or traumatic happens to you. tama siya doon. kaya maganda yung characterization because it’s real and it’s honest. and most important of all, it’s valid. kasi tama, you never go back to who you are after you experience something traumatic, lalo na sa mga babae, be it as “simple” as being mugged or maholdap ka sa fx, ma-harass ng isang manyak, as emotionally complicated as experiencing the death of a loved one (relative, parent, friend, sibling) or having your heart broken for the first, second or nth time, or worse, being molested or raped. no, my dears, you never go back to who you once were. tama yung film, you become someone else, and most often, that someone is indeed a stranger. like how many of you out there feel that you don’t know yourselves anymore after such a traumatic experience? think about it.

that’s what i like about this film. kahit simple lang kung titignan ang string of events, marami siyang insights na papag-isipin ka deep down. kaya keri ko siya.

o bilis, nood na! dapat big screen. sayang dop ni rousselot kapag sa dvd lang pinanood ito!

THE INVASION

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com

————–

THE INVASION
c. nicole kidman, daniel craig

based on the ’50s sci-fi novel Invasion of The Body Snatchers, i watched this one because the trailer seemed promising and the storyline also had that old movie appeal, but with a modern touch. maybe that’s because the concept of this body snatchers thing interests me a lot, ever since i saw the original b/w INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS in my film genres elective class eons ago. i particularly liked that discussion about how hollywood used sci-fi genre flicks, usually B movies, to scare the hell out of stupid americans with communism as the big ghost. and that is the underlying project of this body snatchers film, that everyone loses their free will to think and be and they become a robotic homogenized entity that follows one program from above. that’s how americans saw communism as brainwashing. epektibo naman; natakot ang mga ‘merkano at ayan, cold war. the rest was history.

dami nang remakes and all ng konseptong ito sa pelikula, pero yung peas in a pod type ng original ang okay pa rin sa akin. kaya interesante sa akin itong bago kasi i want to see how they rework it, much like how most of stan lee’s superhero devices get reworked with modern technology (ie imbis na aksidente lang na naapektuhan si ordinary dude ng extraordinary thing kaya naging superhero, may scientific basis na yung ngayon). so this one involved the simplest and easiest to prove: dna alteration, spread via viral infection parang common cold. galeng noh. simple lang pero plausible, somewhat, sa day and age nating ito. it works for me.

hindi mabagal ang film pero hindi rin mabilis. tamang tama lang actually, saka nakakaintriga. well-acted naman except yung ending part ng doctor played by jeffrey wright ba yun, yung nasa angels in america na theater guy. madrama masyado akting niya nung iniinterbyu siya ng press. but i’m happy with nicole din. kahit ano naman yata gawin niya, keri lang. di lang maalis sa isip ko na bakit pag may ganitong brainwashing the madla film e siya ang bida, parang yung another sci-fi novel into film nth remake na rin ng STEPFORD WIVES a few years back. but hey, whatever works…

gusto ko rin yung tagline ng movie: “do not trust anyone. do not show emotion. do not fall asleep.” man, sounds like my motto in life! feeling nicole kidman akesh hehehe.

LIE WITH ME

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com

———–

LIE WITH ME
d. clement virgo
s. tamara berger from her novel of the same title

this is a very interesting film. i saw it when i was rummaging through my girlfriend’s boxes of dvd collection. she recommended it so i took it with me.

what caught my eye was not the provocative poster design (but it helped a bit) but the casting of lauren lee smith as the sex-positive protagonist. but it also disturbed me that her love interest was played by this guy eric balfour, na if i am not mistaken was in the cast of SIX FEET UNDER’s first season and was in a scene with the main daughter doon, involving toe-sucking at that. basta something weird like that, noong panahong okay pa ang pagkakasulat at pagkakadirek sa show na yun. but i digress.

wala, di ko lang kasi bet ang fez ng aktor na ito. pero sige na nga. matapang kasi siya. kung hubad, hubad! kahit bumuyangyang ang nota! same with lauren. ayuz. kaya siguro sila na-cast kasi wala silang kiyeme sa pag-arte…at maganda ito kasi walang kiyeme ang pelikula sa pagpapakita ng sex. sensual at hindi siya pornographic men. kaya i likes.

this film says it was also based on a novel. interesting to see how the novel was written, but i have a feeling it had a first person pov narrator, yung girl, na walang kiyeme sa sex. when she needs it and wants it, she gets it, sometimes without even caring about the other party involved, in this case she only sees it as the dick that will give her pleasure and make her come. man, how feminist! ayuz. ayoko lang yung medyo parang spacey floating characterization ng girl, pero okay rin na di siya ginawang super definitive sa stance regarding what she likes and hates. may konting air of mystery, childishness, sensuality and strong-willed pursuance of what she wants. and this would have fallen flat if not handled well by a good actress. and lauren is that. lezzies probably remember her best as that super malakas ang dating out and proud sous chef lara na crush ni kloseta dana the tennis player sa first season ng THE L WORD. andun din siya du sa tv series na MUTANT X ba yun na di ko mawari kung pinsan ba sila ng XMEN o ripoff galore. basta. di baga sa kanya ang mga ganung superhero chuchu role. but i digress.

simple lang ang story. tungkol lang sa pagkakilala ng guy sa girl. e yun guy may jowa na pero keber lang, tapos ang treatment sa buong pelikula e quiet lang, hindi scandalous affairs chenes, hindi pa-intelektwal o pa-philosophically emotional chenelyns whatnot na typical sa isang indie film — and this is indeed an indie film. medyo dragging nga lang ang pacing. it could have used some cuts.

ayun. okay siya. not so great pero puwede na.

STILL LIFE

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com.

——–

STILL LIFE
d. katrina flores

pitch: suicidal visual artist gets a new lease in life with the help of a familiar female visitor chenes

catch: winner si ron umarte, as usual. saka maganda yung painter’s pov visual chenes. saka andito yung song ni cynthia? hm, nupaba?

well, other than that, this one doesn’t fly for me. siguro sawa na kasi ako sa mga storyline na suicidal artist chenes. ron capinding just gives the character new life kasi magaling siya umarte. nakasalamuha ko siya when i was hanging out in the late 90s with anton juan’s theater group as their photographer, at saka kasi ex-jowa ko e umaarte sa tropa nila nun, but i digress…

luma na storyline. may sakit siya, di na makapinta, gusto nang magpakamatay, bakasyon sa secluded bahay-bakasyunan, may makikilalang tao dun na bago, at dahil sa heterosexist ang earth ay babae ang makikilala niya… tapos may twist. di ko na sasabihin baka ma-spoil senyo. pero kahit ang twist ay hindi keri. i guess it’s because of the elaborate ang very elongated set-up of a story often told. kaya you won’t miss much if you don’t see this one.

TUKSO

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com.

—-

TUKSO
d. dennis marasigan

pitch: the investigation of the death of a provincial lass examines the circumstances beforehand through multiple characters’ perspectives

catch: RASHOMON it ain’t! please lang! magagalit si kurosawa niyan e, name drop kayo ng name drop ng rashomon…

yet another theater person directs a film. this is his second, i think, with cinema one’s SA NORTH DIVERSION ROAD as his first. that one i really love, because i love the material. i was thinking nga how that was staged, considering the set-up, although i get hints.

i guess mr. marasigan works brilliantly well if given a brilliant material. kaya lang…huwaah. ano nangyari dito? i think on paper, it was brilliant, pero execution-wise, hindi nag-fly. kasi kung talagang rashomonic ang type niyang mangyari, there’s such a thing, a basic basic thing to consider, and that is film language. as in pov, or limited pov kung literature itong pinag-uusapan natin, which, incidentally, RASHOMON was (a novel turned into a film, about an investigation din as seen through three distinct povs).

ito kasi, hindi distinct ang pagkakagawa. nag-iba-iba lang ng anggulo ang camera etc. oo nga’t intersecting siya sa ilang eksena pero ang labas nito e parang kieslowski’s RED WHITE BLUE lang e. yung pang pinanood mo yung tatlong pelikula e sasabihin mo “uy yan yung anggulo ng storya ni ganyan” over and over again kasi nga parang nag-i-intersect lang. parang ganito ito. napaka-impersonal ng approach na yun at pinapakita lang ang connection ng isang eksena sa isa pa sa kabilang pelikula, unlike rashomon na attached ka kasi nga you are trying to solve a mystery. sadly, walang ganito sa tukso…

which brings me to my biggest beef of all this fest. bakit ito nanalo ng best screenplay?????????????????????????????????????????????????

labo. kahit yung ibang co-faculty kong friends na nanood e ganun din ang komento. hanlabo talaga men.

maganda sana yung pelikula. it was saved by brilliant moments nga lang of actors who were acting for film, not theater. kasi like ricky davao and that mayor woman, napaka-teatro, much like the rest of the peeps except for the talented irma adlawan and ping sobrang-mana-sa-tatay medina. sila lang yata ang nagfi-film acting dito e. hm. kasi innate silang magaling? hindi rin…e bat si ricky davao, ang artista ng cinemalaya 2007 (dami niyang nilabasan), shines in some films but pans out in some? hm, siguro nga depende sa direktor…

oh well. on to the next film. sana makatagpo si mr. marasigan ng better material to film. at saka sana magsanay pa siya ng paghasa sa pagkilatis ng film language. ayan na o, may artista na siyang magaling sa film e, si ms irma… winner na yan pag nagkataon.

REKADOS

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

orginally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com

————-

REKADOS

written and directed by paolo herras, this is a film about women’s containment in philippine society as represented by their usually designated societal role of being cooks in the household kitchen. spans three generations of cooks, from lola boots anson roa to daughter eula valdez to apo meryll soriano.

three great actresses from three generations of philippine cinema and media. i’m impressed. i just love eula’s kikay mode here. pero i always love eula anyway kahit ano’ng gawin niya. hello sa BAGETS pa lang inlab na ko sa kanya no as the palengkera gf ni uber-cleancut-siguro-gay-sha raymond lauchengco. sayang lang at na-trap siya sa mga roles na kapatid ng bida, tita ng bida o kaya kontrabida. love to hate her sa BUKAS LULUHOD ANG MGA TALA nung winawarla-warla niya si megastar. achieve! kaya labs ko mga nakaisip na gawins iyang amor powers sa PANGAKO SA YO soap which relaunched her career in a way. achieve! at pretty pa rin siya! tanga tanga tanga tanga ko lang dahil hindi ko pa rin napapanood siya sa stage musical adapatation ng ZSA ZSA ZATURNNAH.

meryll naman is good here. her character is good. hindi siya jaded (sa overall way that life is treating her), hindi siya cynical (dahil sa poor siya at hindi bombshell), hindi siya apologetic (sa mga decisions niya sa pang-araw-araw na pamumuhay), hindi siya damsel in distress at lalong hindi siya nahihiyang kamutin ang libog. i love the characterization. she carries it well. at maganda ang acting-sparring nila ni mario magallona dito ha. for the first time, i like this dude on cinema. chaks kasi ng iba niyang nilalabasan e. pero bet ko siya ever sa mga teatro stagings.

at syempre walang ibang maasabi kay miss BAR kundi galing. okay din yung character niya, simpleng lola na naghirap etc. maganda ang treatment niya, subtle at hindi siya hysterical whatsoever. okay din yung development ng character niya mula pa nung younger days na si ana capri ba yun ang nag-portray. ayuz din. although kadiri lang yung magluto ng dinuguan na hahaluan ng patak ng unang regla niya ha. kakaibah! only in da pilipins… peo okay ang uniqueness na yun. kaya siguro nagustuhan sa india. may sasalihan kasi si pao na fest doon.

ang beef ko lang dito ay yung overall story treatment. okay yung may magic realism touches siya minsan a la COMO AGUA PARA CHOCOLATE saka yung ie-enumerate yung ingredients ng dishes sa screen. pero i’m not sure if the voice overs work. i don’t think it does. i think he has to rewrite it in such a way na it won’t appear like the characters are overly-intellectualizing or “over-philosophizing” (kung may word mang ganto) yung state nila sa life at the moment. insights ito oo pero awkward yung pagkakalagay e. feeling ko if it remained as a quiet movie, baka mag-work pa better than have the characters narrate to us their inner thoughts chenes. look at what happened to BLADERUNNER when ridley scott scrapped the VO totally. nag-iba yung mood and mode! baka it’ll work din with this film. awkward kasi minsan e. pilit baga. but well, knowing pash, ganyan siya minsan kasi.

pash is pao’s pseudonym sa ’98 o ’99 ba yun na UP writers workshop. met him there the first time i worked as a “workshop slave” doing photo and video doc. he’s but, what, 17 ba o 16 at that time? the kid’s totally gifted. and i’m glad he’s writing still, and continues his art now in this medium. happy for him.

mmff2005: talagang ONCE IN A BLUE MOON na may magandang pelikula

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

NOTE: REPOSTED FOR POSTERITY’S SAKE. GOING TO DELETE THE OLD BLOG THAT HOSTED THIS. (from anti-rust punditry january2006)

——–

finally got to watch ONCE IN A BLUE MOON starring a bunch of talented young and old actors of philippine cinema, and directed by joel lamangan from a palanca award-winning script. sorry forgot to get the name of the writer but i think it was a guy. and i think upfi’s lecturer lyle sacris was also the cinematographer here, kasama ang isa pa naming lecturer, si nap jamir. tama nga ba ang pagkakaalala ko? i’m just basing this on the poster credits kasi i had to rush out of the cinema immediately after it finished. lesson learned: huwag magbabaon ng wendy’s biggie-size iced tea sa sinehan.

the film is a good one. and lest i tell you some spoilers, i can’t really do a tell-all of this film. basta from my point of view, everything was great and worked well — the acting (or the non-acting, like polo ravales still enrolled in the wooden school of acting but again, like in ROOMBOY, it worked well here. also super derma-faced christopher de leon’s usual trademarks which are getting tiresome kung ang ka-sparring acting niya ay walang kalatoy-latoy. pero buti naman and that dennis guy who portrayed his son can hold his own, as well as the other veteran syempre esp eddie garcia and ms boots anson roa.), the script (except sometimes na meron sanang pataas na red flags of slip-ups pero pa-raise pa lang naman, hindi naman tuluyan kaya keri pa rin ang suspension of disbelief somewhat), the cinematography (i’m a sucker for sepia/amber-toned lighting design, and it worked well to give the flashback scenes a texture of ‘feeling old like an almost faded photograph of a bucolic scene’ also good work on lighting night scenes NOT using blue tones — dahil ang moonlight ay hindi color blue, unlike what old dops insist before! however, i’ve a thing to say about winter-blue cold lighting texture when doing scenes supposedly in America. hindi naman laging ganun ang tone ng atmosphere doon. unless during winter siguro.) and the production design. there were also some cgi work done here, if i saw it right, notably in the ww2 dogfight scenes. that was a good effort kahit hindi gaanong believable na fighter pilot si mark kilay herras ba yun? si polo pa believable.

i just noticed that in our local films, sometimes the one thing that they neglect is the accuracy in the language, notably in the accents. like i don’t think a 1945 filipina would say “thank you” in a 2005 very americanized tone, unless nanggaling na siya sa US or may training/exposure na ganoon. and the way they should speak tagalog, dapat hindi parang contemporary tagalog. iba ang accents noon. for research, period film actors should be made to watch actual films filmed during the old times. hindi ba sila nanonood ng mga sampaguita lvn classics noon? they use words lke “siya nga?” instead of “talaga?” or “siyang tunay” instead of “tama!” or “minarapat kong pumarito” etc. it was more poetic back then. saka less ang conjugations hindi tulad ngayon. like yan, the don’t use “di” but they say “hindi” most times or “doon” instead of “dun.” just watch the films na lang kaya ni gloria romero noon, nina paraluman, you’ll get that language nuance. importante kasi yan e, at least for me ha. sa hollywood, there is such a job as dialect/dialogue coach na ito ang tinatrabaho, especially pag crucial ang language sa storya. dibala ang galing lang ni kate winslet, russell crowe at nicole kidman mag-american english kahit medyo halata pa rin ang aussie accent nila pag interviews?

well, okay lang yun. medyo dedma na rin. basta in totality, maganda ang film. uber-romantic nga lang siya pero romance disguised like a mystery thriller kasi kaya parang okay ang twists. mystery thriller kasi may quest/journey storyline yung characters at ma tinatahak silang misteryo, na maku-curious ka rin kung ano ang resolution in the end.

another impressive thing about the film is the way it handled the male lead characters. it’s so very filipino at okay siya, very realistic and natural. good character build-ups. kaya matibay ang tayo. saka the way they all interacted, magaling din yung delivery ng ensemble nila. it’s romantic but not sappy mushy dahil nga siguro parang typical pinoy middle class males ang bida. the demographics worked well for the story it was trying to tell.

ah basta, panoorin niyo na lang. worth it siyang panoorin sa magandang sinehang mataas ang bayad hehe. pero beware of the overkill of the song, of course. e ako biased, i like those types of songs from that era (“blue moon”) kaya tolerable for me.

ito dapat ang na-rated A ng CEB. na-rate kaya? instead of that ILUSYON film last year sus puwede be.

but again, that’s another review. na ayoko yatang gawin.