of wrong timings and wasting time

Cinema-watching, for me, is not really a waste of time as some people treat it. Kanya-kanyang habit lang iyan, I suppose. We all have our favorite ways of spending our time or we have techniques in wasting time. Walang basagan ng trip, ‘ika nga.

But it’s a totally different thing if a film wastes my time. Of course it’s not guaranteed that all films that look promising will make it worth your while. Some are truly time-wasters. But there are also those you will value for a long time.

Anyway enough segue. Here are two samples of how I spent my time one rainy evening in Cubao, while waiting for traffic to subside (which, in Metro Manila, is a loooong time).

Heniweyz…

PRAYBEYT BENJAMIN (2011)

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Star Cinema and Viva Films

c. Vice Ganda and a bunch of talents that appear as stringers in local cinema, meaning they string along as a cast of an ensemble to pad the story even if it’s not necessary

Pitch: an openly swishy gay man turns discreetly closeted, but not really, when he enters the military in order to represent his father and continue their heroic (read patriarchal) family lineage in combat

Catch: I sincerely hope the makers of this movie know that Goldie Hawn has a Private Benjamin film in the ’80s. If this is where they got the title, they need to buy a new pair of things needed in this industry, namely creativity and imagination.

I don’t know why I wasted my time watching this film. Maybe it’s out of curiosity. I like Vice Ganda’s humor which I saw on film for the first time in the PETRANG KABAYO remake. I found that totally funny even if it was ludicrous. But somehow, this time, this film doesn’t do it for me.

Sure, it’s a comedy not to be taken seriously, but lately, Philippine cinema doesn’t know how to do funny comedies anymore. They’re all crass, pander to the lowest of the low, full of cheap thrills for a few laughs. In short, we’ve lost the intelligent kinds of comedies. And I don’t mean lowbrow; what I mean is comedy that really makes us laugh because the humor is in the situation, and it’s not even pure slapstick. Something like that.

Sadly, this BENJAMIN film doesn’t cut it for me. Aside from having such a silly plot (simple doesn’t mean silly; this here is just plain pffft) of having the country under the rule of rebels who want to kill the top generals of the land that every misfit imaginable in crass cinema fare (don’t even get me started on characterizations) had to be drafted, the film carried very outdated views on being gay. Of course they milked this for whatever it’s worth, using it as a major plot device to heighten the dramatic irony of the plot, but it’s also dangerous because they’re propagating homophobia once again. I mean sure, the gay guy saves the day in the end, but to reflect deeper, quieter realities that discriminate against gay guys is just the pits.

What I’m talking about here is the fact that, in the end, the gay guy’s love interest — a hunky straight man (Derek Ramsay) — reveals that he has a girlfriend, and that girlfriend looks a lot like Benjamin (actually, it’s Vice dressed as a woman playing a woman). When Benjamin asked why his captain chose to be with this woman which looked like him instead of just choosing him, the captain answered “Because she’s a woman!” So dahil may keps and boobs ang babae, kahit kamukha siya ng gay guy, doon na ang het guy. How progressive. Please lang. Stop spreading this shit that LGBTQs are doomed because, in the end, the people they fall in love with will eventually end up with straight people din naman. How irritating.

What’s also irritating is the fact that the pa-macho lesbian is being promoted here. Not all lesbians are like that. This is also a step backward but hell, the pa-macho lesbian was more accepted in the military than the pa-girl gay man. Can you spell patriarchy? Sumasakit bangs ko sa pelikulang ito, sa totoo lang.

Another disappointing thing in this film is perhaps the humor. I don’t know if Vice Ganda is already overexposed on television, but I find the style waning na in punch. Or maybe that’s just me. With the ticket sales skyrocketing, I guess there are more people who enjoy his brand of comedy now more than ever. But that’s also cool. Maybe this part is just me. But that’s also why I’m worried, because as popular as this film is becoming, so is the spreading of discriminatory plot lines about gays and lesbians. Hay naku bakit pa ba ako naninibago? But the thing is, I sincerely hope that filmmakers become more responsible next time. It’s just sad because maybe they also carry the same prejudices in their body. I just hope they keep it to themselves na lang.

Anyway, win some, lose some. While that was such a freaking time-waster for me, this next one was not.

IN TIME (2011)

d., s. Andrew Niccol

dop. Roger Deakins

Costume design. Colleen Atwood

c. Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried

Pitch: In the not-so-distant future, people need time stamped on their being as currency to stay alive and buy things, but what happens if one gets an overload of time, and one runs out of time?

Catch: Nothing!!!!!! This film is plain awesome! Why wasn’t it hyped up!

And this is why I love this film: THE TRUMAN SHOW, GATTACA, S1M0NE, THE TERMINAL, LORD OF WAR. The dude who directed this film wrote all of those earlier films, which I happen to like a lot, especially THE TRUMAN SHOW and GATTACA. Are you freaking kidding me! Whoever could think up of such set-ups is plain brilliant for me.

Gosh, opening sequence pa lang, I already love the concept — people stop aging at 25 years. Once it kicks in, they are time-stamped, literally, on their arm, to reflect how much time they have remaining on earth. Once they reach 25, they’re given one more year lang. Thus, they have to work on it, like hard labor or stuff, and they get paid in time (haha gives a whole new meaning to working time and a half and such!). So of course they also use time to pay for stuff, like “How much is a bus fare?” “Two hours.” And if you didn’t have that much time, you’re doomed. Galing!!!! To use time as currency like that! Sheer genius.

I am completely blown away by such concepts because I always like concepts that play around with time, especially messing with it hehe or toying with it like in time travels and such. Plus I also have a similar concept in development (er, for years now) which also tells of playing with time just like this film. Grabe, I should finish writing that concept na! Hehe.

Anyway, I also liked the idea that people run out of time, literally, and they die if they do. The there’s also that concept of having people — Big Brother types — control how much time a person could trade around, kinda like oligarchs of time, to which Seyfried’s character belongs: the rich and the elite. Then we have Timberlake’s proletariat working class character who lives in a second-to-second kind of existence, because having one whole day’s worth is actually a luxury. This is where the concept of “I don’t have time” kicks in, especially when it’s taken both literally and figuratively, especially when Timberlake’s character Will Salas says that he doesn’t have time to fall in love or have a girlfriend. Oo nga naman, you’re dying and you have a girlfriend pa — time waster! Haha! Wagi lang.

Anyway, the premise and act one is interesting enough, but then here’s the inciting moment that changes everything: Will helps a stranger in a bar and in return, the stranger gives him a century. Yes, you can live forever in this concept since if you have much time on your hands, er, arm pala, then you’re set for life. But it also makes you suspicious because people can give each other time and people can also steal time from each other (by locking wrists).  Grabe, take away one’s time, literal! Sobrang benta ang concept na ito!

And then it gets complicated as Will crosses specific time zones where you have to pay for each boundary you cross, kind of like economic zones in a way, since you need more currency to pass through each one, the higher the zone, the higher the pay. So his goal is to reach the top zone where the rich people are (to discover how to redistribute the wealth–or time–which the stranger said the oligarchs are controlling), and one girl, Sylvia (Seyfried) notices it, also some of the workers in this rich zone. How could they tell that he doesn’t belong there? Because he moves too fast, always rushing as if he’s running out of time (which he is, in his lower class existence experience). But these rich people have lots and lots and lots of time on their hands, so they have time to take things slow, move slower, stuff like that. Wagi lang sa concept, teh!!! I tell you, I was so engrossed in this film’s details that I forgot to eat my obligatory chichirya hehehe. Yes, that’s how good this film is!

What I like about a film that has some sci-fi bent is the fact that it could tackle philosophical things like this on a practical basis. You know, without being highfalutin about concepts that make us stop and ponder or without being too melodramatic or cliche in approach (or appear as being “pa-profound” and hence “pa-deep”), such as having time, wasting time, and other more complicated things. And yes, being existential without being pa-profound lang. You know what I mean. S1M0NE revolved around manufactured existence, THE TRUMAN SHOW revolved around manipulated existence, THE TERMINAL revolved around an interrupted existence, and GATTACA revolved around a borrowed existence, and then IN TIME is about making one’s existence meaningful and relevant before time goes out. I mean my gosh, Niccol, can I sit down with you and have coffee while we chat about these things!!! Seriously!!! I am happy you exist! You are my man right now, my cinematic man. I can’t wait to discover what you’re going to write and film next. Grabe lang!

Anyway, enough fan girl mode-ing. I’ve never been excited about a film’s concept in a looooong time, so I have to celebrate these things in my own little cinematic way. What the hey. I hope they put this film back when the current (over)run of that film with that unsmiling girl with the sparkling undead boyfriend is over. I hope that’s tomorrow. Skipping that one! But please don’t miss this one. It’s really worth your time, I kid you not.

Go!

can I get caught between the moon and New York City instead?

But no, I had to watch a remake of a film made 30 years ago, back when I was 8. Eight! Like eight years old eight, you know. I mean, if people need to age and grow, so do movies. Especially remakes.

Jeezus where do I begin?

ARTHUR (2011)

s. from the 1981 film-story by Steve Gordon

c. Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner and that Greta cutey girl

Pitch: Rich brat and drunkard British dude living in New York City gets conflicted when threatened with disinheritance if he doesn’t marry an alpha female businesswoman in the wake of waking up to the real world because of falling in love with an “ordinary woman” chorva.

Catch: Who died and appointed this Brand guy as funny? He should die again.

If you’re going to update a film, Hollywood, please update it in style. The 1981 version of ARTHUR starred actors with class. Hello Dudley Moore as Arthur? Sir John Gielgud as Hobson the “nanny” (or maybe man-ny in this case) and the, the Liza Minelli as the love interest. Yes, life was a cabaret in that film, man. And hands down, Dudley Moore is funny! Like one-liners galore funny, in the same thread and tradition of how Robin Williams is just a walking one-liner funny guy. Hm, when did comedy go out of style?

Oh yes, maybe this month. Like 2011.

Dudley Moore was better in playing a drunkard, a spoiled rich playboy, and a British dude.

Fine, granted that this remake has the Helen Mirren in it and a useless Jennifer Garner who could actually be better given a better role. But casting doesn’t seem to be the major problem of this film; it’s the story — the very outdated one.

Sure, I know there are still rich billionaires loitering around the world, specifically New York and oh let’s include Manila as well, who live off of their family’s riches by being playboys, buying expensive things, living the nightlife and loving no one in particular. But there has to be some kind of logic to it (or at least something deeper, more dramatic a premise) if these playboys will get disinherited. Merely saying that they cannot live the high life without the money doesn’t cut it anymore. There should be another motivation that will raise the stakes for such a storyline to take off. Oh I don’t know, like maybe let them discover that they are gay, for instance? Now that’s another story, di ba? Or give them more realistic conflicts like fathering dozens of children? Or they have to take over the family business against their wishes? I don’t know; I’m just pitching ideas here. But you get the drift — fluff up the conflicts!

And let’s face it; if these uber-rich bachelors of today are indeed bachelors of today, then they will also be into the latest technological gadgets like computers, video games (!!!) and other luxurious eccentricities, not merely collecting movie cars like the Batmobile or the time-traveling Delorean (which I’d like to actually own myself but I digress). But the playboy bachelor in this remake didn’t even know how to use a computer. Dude, they teach that in grade school and high school, right? And yes, we’re in 2011, folks. By now, I would have figured that he has wifi-powered his high-tech pad with 24/7 porn or something. You know, rich dude eccentricities. But no, all he has is a magnetic floating bed (which is cool BTW in fairness, I want this at home!) and a rotating lighted replica of the solar system (okay I want this at home, too!) on his ceiling. No computers. No technological extravagance like a huge plasma TV connected to some latest state-of-the-art gaming console. But he has a mini-movie theater inside his pad. And it’s grossly decorated with gold plants and stuff. Oh man, a disaster of production design that didn’t know how to characterize a character as well. That, or the art dept/director/writer are so hung up on nostalgia that they forgot to develop this film to fit the 21st century.

So what we get in this film remake is a flimsy excuse to show New York City scenery at its finest. If only for that, I prevented myself from dozing off from watching ridiculous plotline after ridiculous plotline. In my mind, I was like “Oooh hey I walked down that block/area (near Grand Central/Empire State bldg.) last year!” or “Oooh wow I was inside that building (MoMA) last year!” Yeah I re-lived my own NY nostalgia with this film, a good survival tactic for badly scripted movies.

with my friend A as we got caught between people and cars on the way to Times Square / March 2010 photo by x

So what’s essentially bad with the plotlines? The fact that it reeks of uncalled for patriarchal cliches, that’s what. With lines like “She will take care of you, Arthur” or something to that effect, it’s like the women in this film are born to take care and/or serve this prick lang. Bleh. This film had actually a lot of good potential to explore such heterosexual interplays in this day and age but sadly, it had to fall back to tired devices that don’t really excite story consumers anymore. Yeah in short, I don’t buy it!

I admire and find believable the original plot since the Arthur character had a father who was trying to disinherit him and he had a butler for a sidekick much like Bruce Wayne had Alfred. All patriarchal systems in check, and highly justified for the story it was trying to tell. Plus there’s a matriarch figure in the British family, and that’s a given because hey, they’re British? Hm. But remake that into the Arthur 2.0 with not a father but an alpha female mother figure who doesn’t exchange warm hugs but warm handshakes with her son (who has a change of heart towards the end, an uncalled for one), and then replace the butler sidekick with an aging British nanny (update this; even Prince William had a Filipino nanny. Just saying.), and you get an emasculated playboy who isn’t truly cute and lovable at all, but who actually acts like an idiot lang. Unlike the original Arthur who answers, when asked what is his job, he comically answers “I play tennis” and other lewd things you’d expect from such a character, the Arthur 2.0 just doesn’t do anything or give witty retorts. And he’s just characterized as an overgrown kid. Not bad if it’s created and played well but it falls flat here, and he just acts like an idiot lang. For instance, when given a job in a candy store, he can’t even focus when being given directions but wants to badly wear the candy mascot costume and thinks that’s the coolest job ever.  Geez, 21st century idiot at its finest. Truly unbelievable a character.

Of course he gets thrust pa with a love life dilemma of being between an alpha female in an arranged marriage (I mean come on! Who marries for business deals these days? If you’re using this plotline, please refer to the brilliantly written film SABRINA for pointers, both the original and the remake!) and a plain Jane of a girl who actually rides subways and eats pretzels in New York. Geez.

And if my blog post title is lost on you young ‘uns, it’s a reference to the nice theme song of the original movie sung by Christopher Cross, entitled “Arthur’s Theme.” Listen here. I miss songs like that; romantic in nature but not kill-me-sappy, unlike pop songs of today. Plus there are great lines pa. Yes, they had me at getting caught between the moon (an image I adore and respect) and New York City (a place I miss right now). Sankapa! But okay, they play a rocked up done-for-the-OST version of this song at the end. It still doesn’t cut it.

Hmp o siya that’s about it. Will just wait for better films next time. And better remakes.

and the Oscar goes to…

It’s Oscar day today as I type this, here in Manila, that is. But back in the US, it’s Oscar night. Same same.

I remember where I was a year ago today. I was here, inside Stonewall bar, the birthplace of queer pride in New York City, watching the pre-Oscar red carpet show with a couple of cool queer friends up to the first couple of awards of the main Oscar show.

Inside Stonewall, March 2010 NYC.

Read my full Stonewall visit story here and

look at my Stonewall photo essay here.

 

Has it been a year now? Wow. How time flies.

But with movies, it doesn’t feel that way most times. Pictures freeze memories. What more moving pictures? That is what movies are all about — endless strings of moving pictures. And thus, movies make you flashback to times once forgotten and make you excited to look at scenes up ahead in time — regardless of the kind of movie you watch. Suspension of disbelief? Of course, movies have to be escapist fare sometimes; that’s why we follow stories in different art forms, actually.

Imaginative escape through artful storytelling.

I guess that’s just how movies work for me. Perhaps that is why I chose to study it in college, and why I — despite the negativity interwoven with the art form when it comes to the business side of things — continue to be involved in it right now, albeit indirectly, through teaching in a film institute (dubbed as “one of the best film schools daw outside Hollywood) and working around its allied technology called television.

Yes, I guess it’s about telling stories, with pictures and sound. That’s how I want to look at movies. That’s also why I love watching them alone or with people I care for and care about. And no, we don’t have to like the same kinds of films because that’s also the beauty of a film — you can agree to disagree with people about how you view such films. My film school buddies and I used to stay up all night until the wee hours of the morning just talking about films. This habit of movie marathon watching and talking endlessly about films never died, and I don’t think it ever will, for me, even if the people I watch movies with and talk to afterward change from time to time.

I guess like change, the only constant thing in this world is movies.

This is why sometimes, I feel a bit sad when some people immediately dismiss the (inherent) commercial aspects of films while some vehemently reject mainstream Hollywood(ized) films without looking at their merits first, or when some (former) friends and colleagues stubbornly deny the benefits they reap from working in the mainstream and hide in that easy disclaimer of  “Here I am, a sellout!” to avoid their perceived disdain from colleagues who chose not to engage in the mainstream full-on like they did.

This is also why I feel sad when people outright dismiss watching the Academy Awards as well. I know that as a structure and as an institution, it has its flaws, like the films it honors every year. But still, sometimes we just have to step back and enjoy the show, for this show is also a constant reminder of what movies are to people who watch them — movies as memories, movies as fun, movies as cultural products, what have you.

I have my own reasons for liking films, and most of them are rooted in deeply personal reasons. Yes, sometimes watching films became a lifeline for me when I needed it during certain parts of my life. And no, even if I dissect it for a living these past years, I still am able to enjoy watching them.

I guess for me, I can re-appropriate that feminist slogan of “what is personal is political” to one that says “what is cinematic is personal” as well, for that is how movies make such marks on me. Yeah, call it romanticizing but that’s what this art form manufactures most times — dreams. Why do you think they called it “Hollywood dream factory” in the 1940s? And yes, to this day, we still buy these dreams. And that’s not a crime.

So it’s time to relax once again, just chill with the images and sound, and just let the magic of dreams begin. No harm in enjoying the good stuff of life, right?

Roll credits.

if the kids are all right, then houston we have a problem

Or in short, here’s my elaboration on my disbelief about why why why whyyyyyyyy this film is thought to be great! AND AND AND if you haven’t seen this, don’t read this because I’m giving spoilers. Boo hoo you.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

d. Lisa Cholodenko

s. Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg

c. Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and the two kids with cool character names (Joni and Laser – and dykes name their kids in a cool way huh hmmm)

Pitch: Longtime lesbian partners (alpha female-ish — yes, there’s one in any lesbian partnership) Nic and (artsy kinda insecure-ish — yes, there’s one in any lesbian partnership) Jules experiences a rocky ride in their relationships when their birthed kids find and connect with their sperm donor of a dude who then ends up disturbing the “alternative” family’s equilibrium shitz.

Catch: A lesbian is unsatisfied with her relationship and begins to have sex with a heterosexual man, just because. I.Rest.My.Fucking.Case.

*

Once upon a time in a magical writerly place called Dumaguete located in the south of the Philippines, a poet once told me while conversing, “Uh-oh, here comes Libay…” in reference to what others in our literary community have seen me as “the angry feminist so don’t dis lesbianism in front of her or you’ll never hear the end of it”  when he uttered something not-so-nice-to-hear about something we were talking about which irked my lezfem writerly self blah that time.

You know what? I only get tense about lesbianism when there seems to be something derogatory attached to it. So yes, with the state of the patriarchal world then, and now, I am still angry.

Especially about this film. And it doesn’t matter that the filmmaker made a positive dent in the queer cinema movement before. (Insert dramatic irony here — duh, yes it matters! She’s one of us haller!!!) Well, people reinvent themselves all the time, so fine, sige. Yes, Cholodenko directed that dykey film HIGH ART. Just google or imdb it.

But we’re not talking about that dark, depressing but still a good dyke depiction-film. We’re talking about this one where the story focused on a very homonormative family in a very cool and seemingly contented homonormative set-up (meaning that population of the queer community which also strives to parallel the heteronormativity we see in society — oh you know, the whole get-married-with-one-life-partner-and-live-in-a-house-with-a-picket-fence-and-raise-kids-while-having-fabulous-careers thingies). Nothing wrong with our fellow queers who want to achieve this homonormative set-up, hey. To each their own. If this works for you, this works for you. And for me, too, meaning I could be happy for you but don’t pull me in to live that way because I’m through with all kinds of hetero/homo-normativity or any kind of that kind of normativity in general for that matter. But that’s another blog post.

What doesn’t work for me is when people outside the queer community are given tools to dissect us queers with tools we ourselves created. And this is what irks me the most with this film. Sure, Cholodenko said some parts are loosely based on her life, but which parts? The part where she also got a sperm donor and got pregnant and had a child? Yey that’s great, good for her. But why throw in a heterosexual-based tool that has been used over and over and over and over and time and time and time again to bash us queers in the fucking head????? And what am I talking about? The disgruntled artsy insecure-ish one of the lezzies — Jules or Julianne Moore’s character which is by the way the femme-ier looking of the two so is perceived as “more girly” by the outside world (meaning yay she can still be “saved” and get turned back to the more enlightened way of heterosexuality because she doesn’t look totally like a dyke naman e) — releases her frustrations with her relationship with the alpha female-ish kinda butchy-looking partner of hers by “accidentally” smooching with a heterosexual man. And not just any garden-variety heterosexual man (but okay, she was literally working on his garden actually as his landscape architect so hmmm film semiotics symbolical pun intended there? Peut-etre.) but the sperm donor whose genes run inside their kids. And the smooching began when she said “You look like my kids in that angle” or something shitty like that. Um, so if I see someone resembling the genes of Angelina Jolie in someone inside a jeep, can I freely smooch her then? I’m just sayinnnnnnnnnnn’…

See how ridiculous that start of a premise was?  Sorry but I just reread Audre Lorde’s essay about how we can never dismantle the master’s house by using the master’s tools. The thing is, the heterosexual masters here just bashed us again in the head because the filmmakers gave them heteros the tool to bash us with. I thought we were all about emancipation, folks? What gives???

So okay, given that Jules had a momentary thingie with a hetero man, maybe we have to overlook it because it was momentarily, plus in the film, she repeatedly says that she’s gay, she’s gay, it can’t happen (the dude fell in love with her and wants her to go with him — yay another tool! Bash! Bash!) so clearly she’s not bisexual (and there’s no actual reference whether she has been with guys before though, so weird characterization too — dramaturgical tools fail! Which the women at afterellen had fun dissecting hehe.), and she sincerely wants to fix up her booboo with her family. But then again, the momentary thingie actually escalated because they had sex several times and they both obviously loved it (and it started weird because she obviously was depicted as sooo hungry for dick that when she finally zipped the dude’s fly open, she had that strange and ridiculous “welcome gasp and utterance” blah — frak! Sucks!). So was it a sex thing? Meaning if a lesbian is dissatisfied with her partner in bed, she will then run to or turn to… a man!!! Like a “real man” with a dick! (Fucking a woman with a strap-on is not an option here! Woooo! Where are the other lesbians in their community then???? None were shown! They are alone! Wooo!) Nothing wrong with choosing a sex partner or queerily blurring the gender/sexual orientation/hetero-homo desire divides–by choice!–as long as you set it up properly in the story but the parameters of choosing (read: jumping?) a sex partner here was so off here that I was just enraged. Why? Hay, need I elaborate? In a world where lesbianism is still regarded as a phase which girls would outgrow once they have had a real man (read: sucked a dick or was fucked by a dick or worse — they just need to get raped to snap out of it, hey, nothing to it), then story set-ups like this one proves to be very problematic as it reinforces several problematic discourses that we have been trying to counter over the freaking decades. Hay naku… Emancipation, where art thou???

*laslas*

More bashing tools? Okay, how about that bit when the kids suddenly resented their parents — the butchy one in particular — because, as the kid said “The lesbian family set-up was destroyed/not working for you!” or something to that effect. Oh.My.Fucking.God. If a child is raised and reared in a very loving and caring lesbian family like theirs, how come she will all of a sudden treat herself as an outsider of that happy family set-up just because she was happily-rebelliously bonding with the sperm donor dude. Was she looking for a “father figure” then? Or was she looking for a “mother-father” family set-up then? In this fucking film, yes, the kids were somewhat depicted as such although it wasn’t verbally articulated. But film is a visual medium, and that tool was set up very well — the kids’ homophobias against their own lesbian parents were clearly felt and seen, two things that cinema does well than spoken words. *bash!* *bash!* Even if one argues that that reaction was just “typical” of any teenage kids against any parent, no way, Jose. This set-up is different AND WE ALL KNOW IT. Now why didn’t Cholodenko?

So this is why I think this film is so problematic in terms of setting up its scenes. Sure, these things might happen in real life — and some of it actually do happen/did happen to lesbians/queer women out there — but legitimizing homophobia and promoting it in this way, in this day and age, just purely sucks.

And then the film ends with the dude saying sorry sorry sorry so boohoo we should feel for him because he wants redemption after fucking the dyke, encouraging “his kids” to be a bit rebellious and going to their house to say sorry? Boo! And then when things are slowly settling down, one of the kids say to the lez parents “I don’t think you should split up. Because you’re both too old.” Parents look at each other, hold hands, and drive off. Roll credits. Yehey. So lesbians should stick together because they’re too old to score a new partner out there? Again, maybe it’s because there are no other dykes in this community where this family lives!!! Anubeh!!!!!!!!!!

Kill me now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Winner ang premises ng film na ito! *laslas*

Haaaaay…

O siya ayoko na. High blood na ako. The thing to do is hope that this film doesn’t win any Academy Award come Oscar night. Because frankly speaking, Hollywood would then be legitimizing homophobia again when they do that. I hope that doesn’t happen.

Next!

and an Asian saves the U.S. caucasian’s ass!

…or in short, here’s my review of the first movie I saw for the year. And yes, sometimes I watch films accidentally, meaning I saw how horrendous the traffic was going home so I thought of killing time in a cool place and letting myself willingly suspend my disbelief for two hours or so in another time, place and dimension… aaah whatever. I’m blabbering. Just read my damn review. Chos.

You missed this, didn’t you? Yeah I know you did. Admit it. Hahaha joke lang!

GREEN HORNET

d. Michel Gondry

s. based on the radio serials eons ago when radio was da bomb, plus perhaps a whole lotta comics stuff and of course the TV series where *the* Bruce Lee played Kato

c. Seth Green, Jay Chou and some great actors who should headline more films with meatier roles but were wasted here like Edward Furlong, Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson and Edward James Olmos

Pitch: happy go lucky son of newspaper mogul inherits real-world responsibilities and then turns into a bungling superhero that smartens up in the end (what else is fucking new???) but is always saved by the Asian dude who can do kung fu and other brainy tech things!!!! hay naku…

Catch: Michel Gondry! What were you thinking directing such crappola of a superhero film???????? You can do better than this! Write the damn script next time!

Okay please resuscitate Michel Gondry and make him make better films, films we were so used to, and we liked a lot because of their brilliance and their heart! Not familiar? Think ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND and this super-funny “small” film BE KIND, REWIND which was so freaking hilarious even Jack Black was tempered here in order to fit the film. Read my review of that film in a previous incarnation.

And why do we need to slap Gondry here? Because this is the worst superhero film I’ve seen in my life!!! And he is such a freaking cool filmmaker. And that says a lot because I love watching superhero-themed films because I always like to see how they will treat the hero-ness of the “hero” and how they will explore his/her demons and travails and such before becoming a hero. (Plus I also like to escape to that comics-inspired visually appealing world of having extraordinary powers — another ball of discourse altogether; some other time. ) But of course, that all depends on how the filmmakers handle the material as well, especially the story, like how Christopher Nolan just handled THE DARK KNIGHT with such sheer freaking genius, with the help of the late great Heath Ledger of course, goddess bless his beautiful tormented soul. Or how Joel Schumacher just treated the George Clooney starrer BATMAN AND ROBIN so fucking queerly heheh. But I digress.

First off, I never could really remember the Green Hornet character Brett Reid as this happy-go-lucky super-konyo rich kid who was just wasting his precious time on earth with things that don’t matter to the world, like getting laid, partying all night with booze and not contributing anything substantial to the world. And then he gets thrust with the super-responsibility of being mature?????? Hay, characterization fail! Sorry but I grew up watching bits and pieces of the Green Hornet TV series reruns of the ’60s (replayed in the ’80s) where our coolest Asian idol of all time, one inch punch kung fu master Bruce Lee, starred as the caucasian superhero’s sidekick. Funny that I don’t remember much about the Green Hornet’s antics but I remember most of the Bruce Lee antics, especially the fight scenes. Well maybe it’s because growing up, I was such a martial arts fan (and trying hard practitioner, my asthma notwithstanding/hurdling) and I grew up watching many Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan martial arts-laden films, so I remember these things more than the other aspects.

But still, I don’t remember the Green Hornet being this stupidly crazy and bungling like how Seth characterized him. I actually remember him as some sort of simple yet somewhat Bruce Wayne-like-ish dapper dude. It was a huge disappointment for me. And this film reeks of a lot of uber-problematic discourses that I don’t even know where to begin! But okay, since there is an Asian in the cast, let’s start with the issue of race.

This Kato character, obviously having a huge deference to the Bruce Lee character, was thrice referenced with the Bruce Lee homage, where first, he was characterized as an artist who drew sketches of his tech designs and innovations while at the same time making figure drawings of humans like Bruce Lee.  Second reference was seen when he was seen “practicing” kung fu moves a la Bruce Lee in the Black Beauty car while his stupid American caucasian boss was busy making a fool of himself outside. Third reference was the actual one-inch punch Bruce Lee was identified with and he actually did that during the rising action-to-climax scene where he met up with the thugs at the restaurant scene outside. For non-Bruce Lee fans, the one-inch punch is where one would make a fist and hit an opponent from one inch distance yet the punch is soooooo fucking powerful that even with just a one-inch distance, the opponent hit would freaking fly in orbit when hit! Yes, Bruce Lee could really do that and that was a big “secret” of his. But obviously, for this film, the one-inch punch was shot with state-of-the-art filmaking technology–meaning shot not in close-up and using wire harnesses to have the opponents fly to the air when punched. Sorry, I’m in on your special visual effects secrets, Hollywood! Been there, done that!

Anyways, aside from this, I was sooooo fucking offended as to how the white dude just treated the Asian dude with such disdain and disrespect that he was treated as just another fucking stupid non-excellent English-speaking Asian immigrant who makes up for this lack by his excellent display of sheer genius in designing technologically-advanced gadgets and stuff like the awesome car, the cool weaponry, and other awesome stuff only Asians in America could possibly think of, since Asians as a race are all lumped together in one minority category anyway and hence assigned this stereotypical Hollywood trait of being mathematically and scientifically gifted, even with their English being not so excellent. And how about that stupid pa-intellectual joke when Kato was narrating his back story as a youth growing up in Shanghai (in China!) then the stupid Brett slips that Shanghai is in Japan! What the fuck! That’s not even remotely funny! Sorry but any arrogant display of stupidity isn’t funny to me. Go back to world geography class, dude!

And by the way, why did they have to treat the Asian in a non-sexual way (again!), like he was the one whom the white chick Lenore character of Cameron was obviously interested in, but the fucking white supremacy of the Brett character just *had* to insert his way in that equation, again promoting that stereotypical sexless desire-less asexual Asian minority. Hay… like Fil-Am Jessica Hagedorn’s pioneering diaspora entitled fiction anthology echoed, Charlie Chan is Dead, you white American non-Asian immigrant loving Hollywood dudes! Get with the freaking diaspora program!

Yeah, it sucks big time that way. I should have bought more fucking popcorn!!! Sorry but this was a freaking superhero film! I wanted to be entertained! Waaah I should have just went on free wifi somewhere in Gateway Cubao and watched online porn!!! Nubeh!!!!

But as an aside, it’s also cool to note that the original origins of the Kato character is not even Chinese, or Japanese, but freaking Filipino! Okay I know it’s in wikipedia but still, the reference to Kato being of Filipino descent is fucking awesome to me!  Hm so maybe that bit about nunchucks, which is a Japanese weapon if I am not mistaken, could have been arnis altogether, which is a Filipino martial arts practice/weapon, and actually my martial arts of choice (practiced it before and will pick it up again really really soon! Excited!).

And don’t even get me started with how they wasted real talent here, like the pretty Cameron Diaz who actually had better roles than this one, and with her character being sexually taunted all the time!!! Sorry but other superhero films treated women better! Aaaahhh! And no, sorry, that “I will sue you for sexual harassment” bit towards the end doesn’t count for female empowerment of a character! She was still treated here as a freaking bimbo! I mean, where else in Hollywood fiction land would a 32-year old journalism major with a minor in criminology apply for a temp secretarial job serving a good-for-nothing dickhead!!! She should have been Lois fucking Lane by that point in her professional career!!! Anubeh! Aaaaahhh my feminist film practitioner sensibilities smart!!!!!! Where’s the fucking popcorn!!!!

And the there’s Edward Furlong, he of the TERMINATOR 2 film kid, who turned out to be such a talent in AMERICAN HISTORY X (super-genius acting sessions here with another underrated actor, Edward “The Fight Club” Norton), and even that bout of his in CSI New York as the brother of a killed bartender. Oh my freaking goodness, how could you waste a talent like that and cast him as a fucking ordinary drug dealer who owns a meth lab and then gets killed by the drug lord after like 5 minutes of screen time!!!! Injustice!!!! He should have played the Green Hornet!!!! Fiercely! Like how Heath played The Joker!!! Fiercely!!!! Hay…

Puso mo, Bayli… breathe in, breathe out… wax on… wax off…

And do I even have to point out the stupid bromance moments that turned homophobic here (i.e. many references to man-on-man “more than friends/brotherly” love which were made into punchlines that weren’t remotely hilarious to begin with, but fucking homophobic and sexist)? No. Such a fucking waste of time.  And please please please, don’t watch this on freaking 3D cinema like I did. Waste of money.

In all, you can do better without this crappola. Watch another movie. Maybe that Angeline Jolie-Johnny Depp starrer. Okay will report back when I’ve seen that one, okay?

But for now, there’s only one thing I could say about this: NEXT!

Megaqueer! No kidding, kids! :)

I don’t know about you but this film just shouts queer! queer! queer! to me hehe. That, or I’m overreading hehe. If Judith Butler’s ideas came to life, wore tights and a cape, they’d be Megamind! Hahaha I kid you not. Chos.

Heniwey, here goes.

MEGAMIND

p. Dreamworks

music. Hans Zimmer and another dude or dudette

ep. Ben Stiller and a bunch of other dudes

creative consultant. Guillermo del Toro and some others

c. (voice) Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Brad Pitt

Pitch: A supervillain seeks a new challenge when he finally overcomes his superhero nemesis, and takes a turn for some, um, change. Ek. Whatevs.

Catch: This film’s subtext is not for kids!!! I was laughing harder than the kids in front of me! Hahaha! Not that that’s a bad thing, but… I’m just saying.

Heniwey, yeah, it’s true. I was laughing harder than those pesky 4-year olds in the row in front of me who won’t sit down and hence their heads were like bobbing up and down, distracting me in the beginning. Yes my sitting arrangement in the cinema is included in my film review heheh.

But like I said, this film is not for kids much like UP wasn’t either. This one has queerness written all over it. And no, I’m not just biased because I’m queer. Jeez. Let me count the ways?

1 – Megamind is blue! Um, can you say blue balls? Like he’s the personification of some uber-repressed (erotic) longing and (sexual) desire that, due to years of non-release, turned him the way he is. And that head shape of his, looks like an inverted… well, figure it out. I rest my case. Hehe.

And then of course there are those supervillain gadget thingies which are mostly phallic in design. And then there’s a piece of a city landmark that gets thrown at Megamind in a battle which also looks phallic… Well, I’m just saying. Too many pointy things in this movie.

Well, the thing is, there’s this rivalry between Megamind who just took over the designated “bad guy” role in a story because the designated “good guy” role was already taken by his (future) nemesis even if , later on, we will discover that they have other roles they want to play in their life other than the ones designated for them, no less by society. Plus they mention “he’s the yin in my yang” at least twice. Read between the lines, right??? Hmmmm, talk about gender as performance. How about superhero-ness/villainy as performance? More of that later.

And that scene where he was not chosen to be part of a play team during his school days (it was a choice between him and a kid with disability who was eventually chosen over him) somehow reminds me of stories surfacing these days about how gay kids are constantly bullied in school at a young age. I dunno. Maybe that’s just me.

2 – Metro Man is white! Looks shiny and gooey kind of white, kinda like what gay guys excrete when… oh shoot I watch too much MSM gay porn huh? Next!

No seriously, Metro Man’s portrayal here was so over the top good guy that when you look at it, he looks like he’s “peacock-ing” you know? Like how gay guys would strut and stuff during White Parties at Malate. I dunno. Maybe that’s just me.

3 – That “Loving You” song! You know, Loving you/is easy ’cause you’re beautiful... That song. There’s a scene where Megamind’s assistant Minion would play bad-ass music in an ’80s-’90s style boombox in an anticipated battle with Metro Man. But when he mistakenly presses another button, the lines of the song “Loving You” plays instead, obviously ruining the bad-ass villainy moment. Yes, up to the part where it says lalalalala/lalalalala/lalalalala la la la la lala. I’m sorry but that song is just so queer to me hehe. And they repeat this like twice!

4 – That final battle when another supervillain arises and Megamind battles him, in full costumed glory, complete with super-mega-sparkly shiny balls mosaic-type designs of his face in the sky, where he comes out from the mouth area, specifically the tongue, and says to the other one “You can never be a supervillain because there’s one thing you lack” or something to that effect. When the other asks “What?” Megamind answers “PRESENTATION!”

Bongga lang teh! Hahaha. Like I said, performance!!!!

And more of that performance thing, how about that supervillain watch gadget which Megamind uses to turn himself into other human forms he wants to imitate for a specific purpose, like the jail warden (when he escapes), the museum nerdy guy (to escape the reporter girl’s detection) and the mother of all performances — to turn himself into Metro Man.

Uh huh. Queer, huh? Hm.

Well, I’m just having fun with this review because I obviously had fun watching this. I thought this will be your run-of-the-mill 3D animation film but after the first 20 minutes of the film, you’ll never know where the story would take you. That’s somehow refreshing to see. Not so new, but refreshing, kinda like how THE INCREDIBLES was refreshing back then. But that, to me, was also new, in terms of the kind of story it was trying to tell.

But as I said, the subtext is not for kids. Or maybe even some of the things mentioned in the obvious context. I’m sure the 4-year olds in front of me didn’t laugh when Minion asked something like “What’s wrong?” and Megamind answered something like “I’m having an existential moment here” or something like that. I dunno but I just laughed. Benta, teh! Hehe.

Plus again, I like the introduction of some science stuff here, Hollywood’s favorite being Tesla coils of late, like what they did in THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE, remember? At least let’s hope the 4-year olds would nudge their mom and say “What’s a Tesla coil?” and their mum would answer “Read your science books!” Yay for education!

And this, children, is the Tesla coil. Oh, and that's my sister. Took this at Griffith Observatory in California, April 2010.

Well, that’s about it. Just have fun. Don’t mind me. And if you see the things I saw in this film, well… Enjoy? Enjoy! Hehe.

Mga dakilang imbentor

Sino ba ang mga dakilang imbentor ngayong mga panahong ito? Dalawa ang napanood kong sine na may mga kanya-kanyang imbensiyon silang pinapalaganap — sa kasamaang palad man o sa kagandahan ng, um, mga anik-anik sa buhay. Echos.

Or in short, here is what I think of two recent movies I saw in cinemas here in Metro Manila.

Unahin na natin ang imported.

SOCIAL NETWORK

d. David Fincher

sc. Aaron Sorkin based on the book “The Accidental Billionaires” by Ben Mezrich

Pitch: The film chronicles the life of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues, beginning from its controversial inception to its eventual launch to the world.

Catch: So far, I can’t see any, accuracy or no accuracy involved, in terms of content. Daw.

Give it to David Fincher to give us an excitingly paced movie about an otherwise humdrum series of events if followed in the real world, mostly involving lawsuits, mediation talks, delivery of deposition statements in an ongoing case inside a conference room, and so on. You get the picture. SOCIAL NETWORK was mostly that. After all, one would think that the main subject of the whole lawsuit thingie is just this online site that nobody has heard of — Facebook. Bah, what’s that? Charut!

But because it is Fincher, and because it is Facebook, ay, F to F itey. No, not femme to femme, you lesbian you! (Or ako lang ‘yon.) Fincher and Facebook. Nice combo meal. Let’s chicha.

Dubbed as “The Facebook movie,” it was fun to watch as you get to know the story behind the invention of the latest online craze to capture the world. It was fascinating to see why it was indeed such a fascinating and addictive site, this Facebook thing, which started in the annals of ivy league schools in the US of A. Mostly, scenes were just about people talking, talking and talking, like a he said-they said type of narrative. Potential snooze-fest as I said, but surprisingly, it was not.

Perhaps that’s because one who is familiar with FB will find it curious enough, how the site started, and all that. And I think that is where the charm of the film lies — sa intriga. Aminin, intrigera lang tayong lahat, at nakiki-chismis lang tayo sa mga kaganapan sa Harvard noong mga 2003-2004 na nagaganap ang lahat ng ito sa isang dorm room ng mga geeks. REVENGE OF THE NERDS anyone? This is so ’80s, right? But technology today makes it possible to make the nerds and the geeks rule the world. And actually, they already are. Like hello, Bill Gates? Wala nang iba.

So yes, this film is fueled by the intrigue behind it, and Fincher’s directorial pacing helps in delivering this story, aided of course by the writing of Sorkin, a longtime Hollywood reliable in terms of cinematic storytelling. His was A FEW GOOD MEN. Again, another courtroom drama in the military set-up, producing good lines there like “You can’t handle the truth!” and all that jazz.

It’s basically a simple story of intrigue, one that is countered by the real-life subject of the film, Zuckerberg. Only no matter how hard he denies these events, it’s still dramatic to us, whether real or imagined. And that was what Fincher delivered. It’s time to humanize something as cold and impersonal as a website. And it was actually touching, to a certain extent, to learn that the reason behind the creation of such “cold and impersonal” things are motivations that are warm and very personal — as simple as being turned down by a person you like. It’s that plain and simple, and also the stuff of the good basis of a good narrative for a good movie. Hehe oo na OA na, but obvious bang I like it?

Yes, I do. I like this. I like it. I like Fincher’s work naman in general kasi. At buti na lang hindi si Brad Pitt ang ta-artits dito ha hehe. But Justin Timberlake was kinda channeling Brad in his role as the Napster founder, don’tcha think? Bringing sexy back in his image hehe. Kebs.

So there. I guess I can’t say anything more here, kasi wala, gusto ko siya! No room for improvement? Well, it’s just also a sad reality that even in such new media realms, sexism rules, like what a New York Times review said. Totoo naman, na ganun ang kultura. Pero siyempre labas na iyan sa film. Nakita naman natin sa pelikula at sa kuwento, e. Pucha, yung Facemash na lang, e! Misogynistic indeed. Well, let’s just hope that Zuckerberg also underwent na some gender sensitivity trainings over the years. Para maiba naman ang landscape. Sana.

But still, good movie, good invention.

Um, which segues into this local film.

Imbentor indeed.

 

‘TILL MY HEARTACHES END

d. s. Joey Reyes

dop. Jun Aves

e. Vito Cajili

c. Gerald Anderson, Kim Chiu

Pitch: A no-boyfriend-since-birth new nursing grad finds it hard to balance life and a newly discovered lovelife with a former chickboy of an ambitious young condo selling agent. Daw. Heh nahirapan akong isuma itoh.

Catch: Parang walang katuturan ang kuwento, kaganapan,at hay, ang buong pelikula.

Ang isa sa mga unang tinatanong naming faculty bilang kaguruan sa UP Film Institute sa mga batang gumagawa ng pelikula ay ito: What’s the purpose of your film? Parang gusto ko ring itanong ito kay direk Joey.

Direk, what’s the purpose of this film? Reply in 3-5 sentences lang. Chos.

The reason I ask is because the narrative unfolding is so askew that you don’t know what’s first, what’s next, and what’s last. Not that nonlinear storytelling doesn’t work. It does, but not in this film. Hay, bakit kaya?

Well, this is because of that imbentor thingie I mentioned at the beginning. I think Direk was trying to reinvent the concept of cinema. Imagine that! Imagine watching this film, the operative word being “watching” dapat. But no, pagpasok mo sa sine, pagkaubos mo ng cheezey fries, iced tea at siomai (mga chicha ko hehe, oops buko!), dapat e tumutok ka sa pinilakang tabing para manood ng mga kaganapan. Manood.

But even if you close your eyes, you can actually follow this film, because it mostly ran on dialogues. And sadly, nothing else. Yes, it was like a 100% gabfest, with the film being opened by a scene where Kim’s character waits in a coffee shop to talk to Gerald’s character. And when they begin to talk, another scene cuts in to feature the talking mag-ina Boots Anson Roa and Matet, or was it mag-jowa Matet and this guy who plays her jowa? basta in another time frame, presumably one after the coffee shop scene. Dapat. Ewan, basta ang kasunod, pinag-uusapan nila si Kimerald lang. Ganun lang. That’s the whole frigging film! They just talk, talk amongst themselves, talk about the Kimerald couple’s love story beginnings and its eventual end and the effect of its ending on the girl, and that’s it. Talk talk talk. Lahat ng drama, lahat ng conflict, sa laway lang dinadaan. At wala nang iba.

So yes, Direk was able to reinvent cinema here, kasi this is not a film to be watched, but a film to be heard! Imagine that. Audio cinema, anyone? Ito na ‘yun. Para ka lang nakikinig ng radio drama sans the cool special foley-in sounds. Ewan. Labo. Scene after scene, people are just talking. Talking and talking. Buti nga kung may portions na interesting ang usapan. Pero kahit kuwento ng mga karakter, parang di mo trip sundan dahil inconsistent ang characterization.

Hay, barkada ko pa naman nung college ang editor nito. At least may pulso. Pero a badly-written script can’t really be salvaged by the good pulse of an editor’s cuts and stitches kasi. Hay. Sayang. Sayang pera. Sayang oras ko.

Well, at least hindi cookie cutter acting moda sila rito. Maybe it’s because it’s a drama, unlike the past local comedies I’ve seen, excluding Vice Ganda in PETRANG KABAYO ha. He has a category of his own hehe. Yes I’m still a fan.

Anyway, wala, olats. This film is not even so ready that it needs to  be workshopped heavily. It looks like a first draft! They were discussing this briefly in TV5′s Juicy chismis show kanina, sabi “Ginawa lang ni direk yan ng 6 weeks!” meaning sinulat daw niya in that short span of time daw. ‘Sus. Tita Cristy, may script akong sinulat in one month lang, nanalo pa ng award, not once, but almost twice! Hehe. Paano ‘yun? Chos.

Oh well. Isa lang masasabi natin…

Next!

Isang bagsak: hagalpak, ligwak, wapak!

Or in short, here are a few movies I’ve seen in recent weeks. All in one go. Isang bagsak! May funny, may hindi, may ayos lang, merong swak. Pero all in all, iisa lang ang silbi nila sa akin — movies always save my life. In a manner of speaking. Ah basta!

Unahin natin ang may tatak-Academy Award, shall we? Well, at least the actor in the lead.

EAT PRAY LOVE

d. Ryan Murphy

story based on the book by Elizabeth Gilbert

c. Julia Roberts

Pitch: New York writer gets fed up with romantic relationships and separates herself from the New World to go eat pasta and pizza in the Old World, meditate with one of the oldest  civilizations/religions of the world, and hies off to expat isle. Wala bitterocampo lang ang synopsis-writing ko kasi I haven’t been to Bali and Italy. India yes pero not to pray though nagpa-ayurvedic massage ako. Authentic!

Catch: Well, who do you see? I see Julia, not Elizabeth. Aye, there’s the rub.

If you will re-imagine this film to fit any of the other Julia movies, it might be an interesting mash-up.

Roll cam, shall we?

Seq. 1. Ext. By a beach in Bali. Sunset.

Julia stands in front of Javier Bardem who’s still ruggedly handsome even if he looks unkempt. Julia smiles her Julia-smile and speaks.

JULIA

I’m just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to take me out to an island which an expat can buy but the locals can’t afford.

JAVIER

Ah mierda. Sorry, I thought you were Vicky. Or Cristina. Woody, what’s the next scene? I don’t like bitches. I mean beaches.

Seq. 2.   Ext. Streets of Italy. Morning.

Julia wanders around the narrow cobblestone streets on her first day in Italy, a few people scattered doing their businesses of the day. A dark-haired lean-looking Italian man in a scooter passes by and whistles at her.

ITALIAN MAN

Bella donna! (whistles) Kees meeh! Mwaaah!

Since Julia is still learning Italian, she frowns. She spots a huge-eyed blond woman also wandering around the streets following another woman, and stops her to ask.

JULIA

Uh, excuse me. You look like you’re American, so… W-what did that guy say to me, the one that whistled?

WOMAN

Oh, bella donna. Pretty woman. Kiss me. That’s what he said.

JULIA

Okay thanks. (to man) Not on the mouth! I don’t kiss on the mouth!

WOMAN

Hmp. Cinderfuckinrella.

JULIA

Excuse me, did you say something?

WOMAN

Nothing. I’m following that girl. Those that write letters. They seem to be sticking it to some wall of some building… addressed to someone named Juliet.

JULIA

Juliet? You mean Julia! I am Julia!

WOMAN

No, Juliet. Like Romeo and Juliet, duh.

JULIA

Wait, what set is this? We’re shooting Eat Pray Love, honey.

WOMAN

Excuse me, my name ain’t honey, it’s Amanda. We’re shooting Letters to Juliet here.

JULIA

Oh shut up and get your own street of Italy somewhere else, you tourist!

WOMAN

Oh shut up and do something else! This American-in-Italy shtick was already done, and in a better way, by Frances Mayes in Under The Tuscan Sun!

JULIA

Oh yeah? Well, I’m going to India!

Seq. 3. Int. Meditation place in India. Afternoon.

The hot afternoon wakes up Julia, who fell asleep during the group meditation. Richard from Texas who looks like James Taylor walks near her and nudges her.

JULIA

I… think I fell asleep.

RICHARD

Ya don’t say. Good thing you’re still neatly seated on that cushion on the floor despite dozing off. How’d you manage not to fall or tip over? Like ya got some sort of body balance thing or somethin’.

JULIA

They’re called boobs, Ed. I mean Richard from Texas who looks like James Taylor.

Okay iyan lang kaya ng powers ko hehe. Don’t let me go on. Aabot tayo hanggang MYSTIC PIZZA sige ka hehehe. At isasama ko ang STEEL MAGNOLIAS nakita mo.

And for local distributors, may suggestion ako. You could actually subtitle this as –

“Eat Pray Love”

Or, ano ba ang nais mo sa buhay, teh?

Okay end of review. Hehe.

Hay naku, ligwak. Wala, wala talaga akong napulot sa pelikulang ito. Siguro maganda ‘yung librong pinagbasehan. Makahanap nga sa Booksale.

Pero kebs dahil ito pa rin ang rerebyuhin namin bukas ng Biyernes sa aming CINE CHICHIRYA radio show. Listen to us. Live kami, via AM radio or streaming sa internet. Click here!

Buti pa sa isang pelikulang di ko inaakalang magugustuhan ko. May napulot akong isang golden nugget kahit di ko inaasahan.

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

d. Oliver Stone

c. Michael Douglas, Shia Labeouf, Carey Mulligan

Pitch: Young dude who works in the stock exchange chorva gets his baptism of fire by interacting with his fiancee’s dad, the erstwhile Wall Street old dude. Oh man don’t talk to me about stock exchange and other economics/business/financial-related thingie because my eyes just glaze over, like I was zapped by a raygun. Pramis. Hence this synopsis.

Catch: I still don’t like that Labeouf dude. He can act better than Keanu pero ewan, may kulang e. Di ko shia bet.

Oliver still has that directorial touch. Imagine making me interested in a topic that usually makes my eyes glaze over.

Since this has been in the trailers rounds for like the longest time, I felt I had to watch it, just because. And since there was no good release the week I watched this, well, no choice.

But I’m glad I did. It was interesting. When I was in New York last March, the thought of stopping at the subway station marked “Wall Street” didn’t interest me as much as stopping at the subway station marked “Christopher Street” so I never really saw all those buildings and stuff, the subject and location of the old movie version of the same title but with Charlie Sheen in the lead with Douglas. And oh yeah, Sheen makes a cameo here. So did Oliver. Kakaiba ang mga boylet na ito, ‘no?

I still think this Shia guy is not all that, since he seems to be taking over a lot of good second-lead roles in Hollywood lately. My first protest was his being in the latest version of Spielberg’s classic INDIANA JONES line, where he seems to be channeling the coolness of an earlier second-lead young actor in an earlier Indiana Jones film named River Phoenix. He doesn’t compare. Hay, I miss River and his films during the ’80s tuloy. Now that’s real talent.

Siya, ilang saglit ng katahimikan. Magbigay-pugay sa maagang namatay…

That’s me in front of Johnny Depp’s club where River dropped dead from a drug overdose years ago.  (April 2010, along Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. Photo taken by my friend Hazel)

So imagine the agony in this film. But fresh out of AN EDUCATION is Carey Mulligan, who sports this really trendy bob cut, and don’t be surprised if my hair looks like that like tomorrow, okay? She just looks nice here. And yes, it was her character’s nagkaroon-ng-lamat relasyon with Shia’s character that produced that golden nugget I was telling you about. It just blew me away when, habang mega-crayola siya sa harap ng jowa, she said:

CAREY

We’re supposed to make each other feel safe. If not, what’s the point?

Sabay alis at hiwalay na sila ng jowa.

Can you say WAPAK!!!

Kill me now!!!!! *saksak sa puso* Hanep, right? But that illuminated the whole month of September for me, something EAT PRAY LOVE didn’t do. Hmp.

Wala, ‘yan lang ang review hehe.

Tawa naman diyan.

PETRANG KABAYO

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Viva Films

c. Vice Ganda

Pitch: Isang baklitang batang inampon ng hacienderang may kabayuhan ang lumaki bilang malditang baklita kaya pinarusahan siya ng diyosa ng mga kabayo para turuan ng leksiyon sa paggalang sa kapwa at pagmamahal nang tunay. Echos.

Catch: Kung wala si Vice Ganda dito, bagsak ito!

Vice Ganda, the host/judge of the near-noontime show Showtime on ABS-CBN, brings his stand-up comedy bar-sharpened wit and punchlines to make this sorry excuse of a remake of a very funny ’80s film come to life. If not, dead on arrival na ito sa first day-last day moda sa takilya.

As usual, the characters are based on the story originated by legendary comics writer Pablo S. Gomez, so you know it’s good. Well, at least the origins siguro. Or maybe it was the way this film was directed. The film really didn’t have clear-cut direction and it again harks back to the old days of ’80s pastiche and kitsch, sans the good storyline aided by the presence of Roderick Paulate. Na-miss ko naman bigla ang Tonight with Dick and Carmi days anubeh.

Pero winner lang ang lines ni Petra aka Vice. Puma-punchline, all the time.

Ama: Anak, patawarin mo ako.

Petra: Tawad? Sa palengke na lang uso ang tawad!

*

Julalay: Ser, ipapasok ko na ho ba itong mga papeles sa loob?

Petra: Hindi, ipapasok mo sila sa labas! Kaya nga ipapasok e, o, sa loob kasi. Sige nga, lumabas ka, at subukan mong ipasok sa labas!

*

Secretary: Sir, gusto niyo ng coffee?

Petra: Sige…

Secretary: Black coffee po?

Petra: Blue, kaya mo? Sige nga!

Actually marami pa ‘yan hehe. I don’t know why pero benta siya sa akin hahaha! Kasi siguro bakla rin akong may caustic wit. May ganung factor.

I’m mostly paraphrasing some but you get the drift hehe. Makes me think that the scriptwriter actually just wrote the lines of the other actors and then Vice’s dialogue lines are left blank para makapagsaksak siya ng sarili niyang brand ng witty but sarcastic retorts. Hm interactive scriptwriting kung ganun! Puwedeh!

Well other than that, I like the animation inserts of the comedic horse. And then I don’t like the way the discussion of Petra’s father hurting him because of his homosexuality was just dropped during the latter half of the film. Walang closure ang mga plot points at cause and effect chains here. Wala, deus ex machina lang karamihan. Na naitatawid ng punchlines nga. What did you expect?

Oh well. Siya sige, isa na lang.

For the tanderrifics!

RED

d.Robert Schwentke

story based on the DC Comics graphic novels

c. Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman

Pitch: Retired extremely dangerous (hence RED) kinda oldish agents get roused from their quiet retirement when they become the targets of their seemingly old company (the CIA) under the covert bidding of a high government official.

Catch: Wala, cute siya. You know what to expect and it’s delivered to you, neatly packed in a sealed container.

It’s nice that they’re tapping more graphic novels and turning them into films. Even the not-so-popular titles I’ve picked up over the years in some book sales have good stories naman. E siyempre pina-sosyal lang naman na komiks ang graphic novels. Kinda like the old days of komiks in the Philippines during the ’80s where we all grew up reading them and, for some of the more imaginative and enthusiastic of us, devouring them. Ayus.

Dito, I like the way my favorite actors seem to gather together in a cool project that is reachable to audiences of today, whether young or old alike. Imagine Helen Mirren firing high-powered weapons while elegantly wearing a white dress. Sankapa!

Lavet, lola!

That made my night. Or John Malkovich in a rather one-dimensional but funny portrayal pa rin of a kinda-neurotic ex-agent, in contrast with the dapper gentleman agent of Morgan Freeman. Panalo ang casting. At hindi kailangan ng extra doses of testosterone to pull it off. Ahem, cough cough, EXPENDABLES ba kamo? Cough cough. But I digress.

And then there’s Mary-Louise Parker, a fixture of films of my youth since, discreetly, the films she has been in were touching upon–if not glossing over–some sapphic themes.

Like haller FRIED GREEN TOMATOES? Talagang nawala ang lesbianic subplot sa movie version ng book noh.

Or BOYS ON THE SIDE na siya pala ang kras ng tibamchi character ni Whoopi Goldberg. O devah sumubplot talaga ang ateh sa review na ito hehe. Wala lang. She’s just hovering over Hollywood, in TV and films, and I’m glad she’s surviving. Para lang may nag-iba sa fez ng lola mo now. Di ko mawari. Nose job? Pa-banat? Parang di nag-age, e. Oh well, good for her.

Maganda rin naman ang role niya dito. A necessary plot device to get the film going, which is typical of any male-female conflict-driven plot. The not-so-complicated espionage story was handled with a breeze by the director, who also directed THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE pala, and Jodie Foster my love’s FLIGHT PLAN. Puwedeh.

*

O siya, hanggang diyan na lang muna at magandang gabi. Hanggang sa susunod na sine. Kapag kaya na ulit ng powers.

Hollywood layering… and no, it ain’t cake

It’s not also about clothes. Recently, when I went to the USA for a vacation, I learned that there’s such a thing as “layering” when it came to wearing clothes, especially when you’re adapting to the colder weather there. Like dapat may thermals ka sa loob ng main clothes, and then on top of that, dapat may coat o jacket ka pa, and all that. Layering.  But yes, I am digressing so much already.

So that layering thing, yes. What I mean is, Hollywood has this tendency to have such a one-layered narrative plot in almost all of their films. It’s easier to follow the story this way because you are not bothered by the complexity of a story’s multiple layers, which is what actually happens in real life. As humans, I guess we also have this tendency to want to keep things super-simpler. And for Hollywood, that’s a good thing — the simpler the story, the better, and the wider the audience reach. But one-layered could also be monotonous, formulaic, and sometimes nakakasawa.

Let’s see how this layering thing fared in the two recent films I saw.

INCEPTION

d. s. Christopher Nolan

c. Leonardo diCaprio and a host of good American, European and Asian character actors as support players

Pitch: Sci-fi mode of storytelling as an agent struggles with inner conflicts to pull of a heist — how to plant an idea inside someone’s head through his dreams.

Catch: Leo should lose some weight. I’m just saying.

Other than that, I don’t find anything wrong with this film. Maybe it’s because I generally like most of the films Chris Nolan directed and wrote. I always use his MEMENTO in my scriptwriting class when I want to mess up their minds about dramaturgy hehe. But actually, INCEPTION is like Memento on drugs. Mind-altering drugs. Well, sort of.

The story is simple enough, and it seems like it is multi-layered, but when you look at it, it’s just really one simple thread: that this guilt-ridden father wants to go home to be with his children again. It’s just like Memento, when the lead character simply wants one thing: to discover who killed his wife. But what gives the plot this illusion of multi-layering is the multi-layered character, especially the lead, as we try to discover what his secrets are, what his past was like, what the other layers of the other characters that affect him are, and what he’s contradicting about himself and his actions. In short, the multi-layering thing appears to be working within the characterization and not the plot. It’s clear where the plot is taking us — to the subconscious side of things within the dream within a dream within a dream etc etc mindfuck devices Nolan seems to be pulling. But no, the premise is simple even if the main character’s persona isn’t. Ganun lang ‘yun, teh. So if you got a headache from trying to understand the layers, the thing is, try not to. Try to just watch this and enjoy it as it unfolds, and just watch bomb after bomb of secrets that the plotlines and the characters will reveal eventually, in perfectly timed sequences and narration of events.

Sabihin na nating sans rival cake ito. When you take a bite, kahit saan mang layer mag-ooze ‘yung laman, matamis pa rin ang matitikman mo. Ganun lang siya. Illusion of layered narrative. But still, it works well for me.  This is because I’ve always liked how Nolan’s characters were tortured, most times tortured by themselves, their own demons, their own ghosts. Take his take on The Joker. Brilliant lang din ang directing niya kay Heath Ledger, sumalangit nawa. But there was also this character ni Guy Pierce nga sa Memento, and then the character of Al Pacino dun sa INSOMNIA. Grabe aliw din ‘yung film na ‘yun. Imagine being an insomniac in a place where the sun doesn’t set. Ligwak! Saya. At doon ko natutunan ang konsepto ng “sleep debt.” Ayuz.

But anyway, kung nalito ka pa rin, click this link dahil may isang adik diyan na walang magawa at gumawa ng illustrated guide to the Inception dream levels hehe. Award din siya in fairness!

So anyway, yeah, this film works for me because it was entertaining, but not really in your usual manipulative Hollywood filmmaking-by-numbers approach chuva. And yes, ganju fatale si Marion Cotillard hehe. Yes that helps. Ah basta. Yes I am gay.

Bakit ka maganda kahit dapat mukha kang haggard, ha? Not fair.

At dahil laging dapat double bill ang panonood ng sine, eto pa isa…

THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE

p. Disney Films

c. Nicolas Cage and that newest dorky lead actor in Hollywood

Pitch: Underdog nerdy kid has to accept the fact that he is Merlin’s prime heir, so he needs to live up to the magic ek.

Catch: Damn, it made me miss New York. ‘La lang. Feelingera.

With these kinds of underdog-saves-the-universe type of plots, you really can’t say much except that it really has that thin a narrative. Yes, the underdog dude saves the universe in the end. Kahit di mo siya panoorin, parang alam mo na ang mangyayari sa end. And you don’t have to be a psychic to know it. Or a sorcerer.

So why bother watching this? First, let’s give Nicolas Cage a chance. Hamu nang umaksyon-aksyon ang lolo mo; at least lead role pa rin siya dito, at di pa tuluyang nasapawan ng Jay dude na bida rin. Although I have a problem with that dirty pa-cool costume design look and all. the rawhide trench coat doesn’t work. Well, sa akin lang iyon. If you like your men dirty, then sige, kanya-kanyang high lang iyan. Kung saan ka masaya, go.

But then again, this is a Disney-made film, so of course kailangang bumenta sa kiddies, dahil baka maging future theme park attraction/ride ito sa Disneyland. Plus it also has its roots sa isang piece of literature produced somewhere not in America, kaya maganda hehe. Chika. Di naman. I think it was also based on where Disney based Mickey’s famous FANTASIA film. Siyempre iba lang ang treatment. The kid’s story works here somewhat, kasi nakakaaliw naman siyang panoorin kahit di ka kid. I guess anyone who had or has or harbors a desire, secret man or otherwise, to have magic of some sort, will enjoy this film. Plus of course the underdog kid thing works, as always. We can always relate to the loser who triumphs in the end, and gets the pretty girl pa to boot. Saan ka pa!

And then of course there’s Monica Belluci. Hay, Monica Belluci. If she had you at MALENA, ‘yun nah! At least she was utilized here, kahit konti lang screen time, malaman naman at may silbi, unlike what the Wachowski brothers did to her sa isang MATRIX sequel, chaka. Dito, bet siya, at may-I-kumpas-kumpas siya ng magic circle chenes dun sa gitna ng Battery Park. I say go, sago! Kumpas all you want! Si Malena ka e, so you can do no wrong heheh. Yes I am so gay. Kebs mo.

Zoo-wee mama! Can we say "rawr?"

And then there’s that science geek connection. I loved the way they weaved in his being a physics nerd, doing all those Tesla coil thingies and such, and using it as a device for the magic chorva in the end. Keri itey. If only to have the kiddies take an interest in science and physics, game tayo diyan! Para they could start young, so that next time I visit the periodic table of elements come to life display at Griffith Observatory, the kid next to me won’t point at the box “containing” the gas elements and say “But there’s nothing inside the gas! There’s nothing inside the gas!”  *himatay* Pramis true story ‘yan. Ask my sister.

Hay naku. ‘Yun na muna. On that note, if you want to hear us make puri or daot INCEPTION, tune in to our Cine Chichirya film review radio program this Friday night 6-7pm Manila time, at DZUP 1602AM band if you’re in Manila, and on this link if you’re somewhere else in the world.

keri ba ang pag-Carrie on?

I guess this is the perfect time to review SEX AND THE CITY 2 because it’s that time of the month for me. May kinalaman ‘yon? Oo naman noh, depende sa pelikula. Swak ito, I tell you. Basta.

Bago ko sinulat itong review, binasa ko muna ulit ‘yung 2008 review ko sa unang pelikula. Ire-repost ko na lang din sa baba after.

SEX AND THE CITY 2

d. s. Michael Patrick King

based on the characters from Candace Bushnell’s book

c. Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis

Pitch: Two years after, we follow the girls — from New York to United Arab Emirates and back — in their new roles as mothers and wives, but also rediscovering their refined roles as girl friends for each other.

Catch: Please fire Carrie’s stylist and wardrobe manager. Yes I know it’s fashyown-fashyown but it’s better two years ago! What’s with the eyeliner?

I was excited a few months ago when I saw the actual trailer of the film, and I couldn’t believe that they’re bringing the girls back. But I had to backtrack a bit and think of what actually happened in the first film that they could connect to this second one.

It’s hard to believe that Carrie is already hitched, to Mr. Big at that. But that was actually the goal of the character, but not the show, I think. That’s why I think it was such a “clever” message that Carrie had to dedicate her newest book “I do; Do I?” to “all the former single ladies out there” or something like that. Because when you say Sex and the City, it’s all about the travails of being an above-twentysomething single girl trying to find love, or trying to fit in love, even within a marriage.

So it would be ridiculous to have the girls roam around New York with their non-single (un)blessedness in this film, because the thrill of the single gal blah would disappear. Hence the one-week getaway-from-it-all trip to Abu Dhabi, cleverly written in as a backdrop/comment to the recent recession in the US, as Samantha was able to impress a rich hotel owner to be her newest PR gig (sabay sabi ng kelangan nilang pumunta sa isang lugar na “bago,” up-and-coming, and most of all rich). So dahil nagkaka-issue na rin sa marriage house rules si Carrie, si Miranda sa sexist chorva sa law firm nila, and si Charlotte sa ingay ng toddlers niya, sinama na ni Samantha ang mga girls sa trip, all expenses paid. In short, maraming tinatakasan ang girls sa kanilang regular na buhay sa New York kaya kelangan nila ang trip na ito — at kelangan din ng audience, lalo na ng longtime fans of the show like me, ang approach na ito.

And now I realize why some critics were too harsh on the film. Perhaps that’s because they are not huge fans of the show. The first movie felt like a real larger-than-the-TV-life movie of the girls. This second movie felt like a stretched TV episode of one of their earlier seasons, the better seasons I should add. It was also there in the movie, cleverly slipped in, when Mr. Big sat in his limo while waiting for Carrie to come down from her old brownstone apartment, and Carrie said, “And just like that, it was 1998 all over again.” Panalo!!!! Because it truly did feel like it was one of the original episodes, grabe. That is why I like it so much. The way it was shot says so, lalo na ‘yung recap-recap ng buhay nila and where they were headed na towards the end, that felt like one of the TV eps. The first movie didn’t feel like that kasi.

The dialogues also felt like it was from the TV eps. Siyempre kelangan may mga one-liners ever, like Samantha’s “Lawrence of my labia!” and all that. Too bad they had to cut some shots here, bad trip. As usual, si Samantha na naman ang naka-cut.

There were lots of scenes here that just made me flashback to the old eps when the girls would just bond and all. Panalo ‘yung eksena when they were having breakfast and Carrie was dissed sa New Yorker review ng book niya, then tumayo siya at hinampas lang niya in a non-melodramatic way ‘yung magazine. Grabe ang galing. Simple pero panalo. Saka ‘yung inuman session ni Charlotte at Miranda bilang bull session ng mga newbie mommies who want their own time off from being a wife and a mother and all. Grabe, what a very relevant issue today. I don’t know if mommies of before had this kind of angst, but I guess they did, pero di lang sila nabibigyan ng time or panahon to air it out.

What’s great lang siguro about being non-single ng mga tao sa show na na-translate sa film na ito ay hindi exclusive sa hetereosexuals ang marriage, as evident in their bonggang-bonggang opening sequences ng kasal nina Stanford at Anthony. Now that one is good, I like that, it’s also like a stab at the inequality dividing the US about gay marriage. I’m glad that was also written in there. Surreal lang ‘yung Liza Minelli appearance ha, but I digress. Basta.

And of course I guess we can’t end this review without a comment sa Middle Eastern sojourn nila, where they were almost harassed by the Arab men. Kinukuyog pala ang tawag doon, sabi nila (read Giselle Sanchez’ own kuyog experience sa blog niya sa pep.ph, ‘under sa “review”/kuwento niya ng SATC 2 din), na talagang haharangan ka ng mga lalaki kapag sa tingin nila e indecently dressed ka, indecent meaning naka-tank top or off-shoulder or something that shows a lot of skin. Yeah sexist I know, but I like the way they handled that portion. What I don’t like is the part where the Arab women undressed and were wearing fashionista clothes. While that could be true, it’s kinda over the top, but strangely enough, it also still fits in the scheme of things in this show-turned-movie.

Well, during the first movie, I thought it was the end of an era when it finished. I think with this one, puwede pa ring magpatuloy, pero medyo stretch na ito ng kaunti if they do that. I hope they just let it be, and let the memories of the gals linger na lang. Unless may makita silang panibagong angle to show, then let’s see. And will I still watch that one? Aba, abso-fucking-lutely! ;P

—————

And for more reminiscing, here is my review of the first film (combi with the series and book na rin, hodgepodge), originally posted somewhere.

—————

Flashback review (written 10 June 2008):

SEX AND THE CITY(2008)

(movie, TV, book)

bear with me, mahaba ito.

i guess i  have some kind of denial in seeing the movie version of SATC. perhaps it’s because when i see it, it will finally be over for me. the show, the girls, the cosmopolitan, the shoes, the sex, the insights, everything.

my friend cenon already did his own postmortem of the series months ago, when he ended his connection with the series. i then borrowed his dvds and tried, for the whole summer, to watch the whole show. all six seasons. well, it was only two weeks ago, i think, that i finally concluded the show’s run. at grabe lang ang ending. okay naman for me. the girls are still their usual selves, but upgraded, and more quality-controlled, so to speak. miranda, of all people, got married to steve the bartender. charlotte’s her usual quirky WASP-y way. samantha’s just samantha and carrie is, well, such a writer hehe.

see, the reason why i stuck with this show are the cool storylines. minsan hit and miss din naman sila. like the first two seasons were great. the third and fourth i’m not so hot about, especially the one where samantha was with this lesbian latina artist. parang nakakainis ang treatment ng lesbianism. but coming from a fashionista gay guy’s perspective, what did i expect? siyempre ganun e. oh well… mas gusto ko pa yung treatment ng lesbianism kay charlotte, yung nag-drag king siya na kukuhanan ng photo. pero once again, i didn’t like the way she was shunned by the lezzies, although partly true naman iyon. kasi she was hanging out a lot with this lesbian barkada, and one of them asked her bluntly if she’s crossing over na, and she said no siyempre (gotta make middle class hetero happy america happier!) and then one les said parang “if you don’t eat pussy, you’re not a lesbian.” a harsh told-off, to think, but, well, flashbacking to my own past hehe, this is SOOOOO TRUE! but that’s another blog post hehe.

well anyway, lesbianism aside, the thing that hooked me to the show was carrie’s writerly muni-muni as she writes in her desk in front of her apartment window ek. relate ako sobra sa set-up at sa modang ito. been doing that even before i learned of this show, kaya sobrang happy ako when i found a show, a well-written sitcom at that, that features a female writer as protagonist. rare ito during the 90s, kahit late 90s.

i think i first heard of the show from my sister in 2001 who just relocated to california that time. even though the show started in 1998, medyo huli ata itong na-distribute sa HBO asia. i caught some eps one time in my lonesome in my ex’s province house, at totally relate ako agad sa issues and concerns ng girls. well, except for the blahniks and such. but yeah, there is a certain vanity to this being that the show kinda addressed din.

relate din ako kasi for the first time, i saw a show that focused on women talking about sex and love as candidly as the girls did. about a half-decade earlier, my high school friends and i had this kind of bonding before, na we’d tlak about sex and stuff, pero tatlo lang kami, kasi parang kami lang ang mas sexually mature sa rest ng barkada namin that time. we even named ourselves tuesday night chika club, a take-off from sheryl crow’s popular album then called tuesday night music club or something like that. so yeah, it was about time tv focused on issues that we could relate to, because we were paying for cable and all and we can’t see ourselves in it.

so when my lesbian friends and i started UP Sappho Society in 1999, we were all addicted to this show. yes, kahit lesbians, universal pa rin ang issues and concerns ng show na nakaka-relate kaming lahat. basta babae ka at nagka-problema ka sa pag-ibig, sa sexuality, sa dating, sa sex at sa expression ng sex, relate ka sa show na ito ever. EVER! case in point: it doesn’t matter if lez o het ka, basta if you saw that episode of samantha gagging because the guy she was dating had funky-tasting spunk hehehe, wala relate ka dito! it could happen to girls, too, y’know! i’m living proof! hahahahaha. too much information na ba? hehehehe.inuman tayo, ikukuwento ko sa yo minsan hahahahahaah sobra lang itoh!

heniwey, naaalala ko lang nung 2004, when the show ended, my sister texted me from the US saying alam na daw niya ang first name ni mr. big — john. at kakapanood ko lang nun, kasi pinakita yun sa caller id ng cell ni carrie.

which brings us to the movie. well, ganun din. ang maganda sa movie, ang mga gumawa ng tv series ang humulma nito, kaya ang spirit at essence ng show ay naroon. at maganda ito kasi yung movie ay natural progression at escalation ng show. cool siya, it literally took off where the series ender left off. yun nga lang, if you were not a fan of the show and didn’t go through the struggles of the girls sa series, baka lalabas lang silang flat or shallow sa movie.

case in point: when mr. big stood up carrie on their wedding day. grabe lang ito! parang take three na itong pag-dump sa kanya! waaaaah. remember that episode nung nagpakasal si big sa bobo model, tapos they were referencing him to robert redford’s character in THE WAY WE WERE, tapos they all sang the theme song, tapos si samantha parang nahihiya sa kanila hehehehe. nakakatawa iyon. tapos nung bago maghiwalay si carrie and big, sabi ni big “i don’t get it” and she answered “and you never will.”

hay nakuh! kaya yung eksena lang sa movie na hinampas-hampas ni carrie si big ng bouquet, putangina sobrang significant iyon. sa ordinaryo watcher, wala lang ito pero putangina parang sinaksak ako sa puso when i saw it, with matching tulo ng tears (what the hey, i’m a sap! now you know!). sheeeeeet. tangina ka mr big! season2 pa lang, i hate you naaaaa! that’s because in the season where there was aidan the furniture maker, i somehow could relate to that scene, being i found myself in that same situation before. like i was aidan, someone else was big, and our carrie was a stupid moron of a girl. well, sabi nga ng isa kong friend, she was stupid not to choose me blah. oh well. that’s so 1990s.  c’est la vie.

isa pang parang shallow sa ordinary moviegoer yung eksena ng nabuntis si charlotte. kung di alam ng audience ang mega-frustrating background ni charlotte sa pag-reproduce, this scene will fall flat on its face for them. but for me, again, touching siya. same with samantha’s struggle with keeping her lust bottled up ek. same with miranda’s struggle to forgive steve’s one-night stand tryst. pero i guess that one is more universal than the others.

may isa lang glitch dito. bakit si stanford e hindi masyadong nabigyan ng airtime dito? hm. protesta ako dito. to think malaking bahagi ng buhay ni carrie ang kasama siya, tapos ganun lang dito. ngyar. basta.

aliw din ang pinanggalingan ng materyal ng lahat na ito, although mas journalistic iyon more than creative nonfiction for me. i read the book by candace bushnell at malayo nga ang ibang situation at characters but that’s the beauty of reinvention. everything worked well for the better for all of them in the end. look at how iconic the show is, and the franchise, everything.

isa pang gusto ko dito e yung walang kiyeme-kiyeme sa age thing. in fact, yun nga ang point nila. thirtysomethings kas sila, and for societies that value the young all the freaking time, it’s time we showed them just who really has buying power in our society di ba? wise buying power, that is. ang generation ngayon, nabigyan lang ng pera dahil sa call center jobs, but so what? after that, where do they go? is that a career in itself? not really. marami nga silang disposable income pero walang valuable knowledge na naiiuuwi at the end of the day. kahit thirtysomethings na hindi ganun kalaki kumita kami, so what? bottomline is, happy at may track itong career choices namin. na pinakita nung show. bottomline is, huwag ma-threaten sa mga bata, kasi pana-panahon lang talaga iyan, period.

oh man. there’s really a lot to say about the show, the movie, about SATC. grabe lang. pero gusto ko pa rin ang diskurso ng love na hinahain dito. may magulo, may tragic, may realistic, may hopeful. in the end, it could be summarized in what carrie said “it’s not logic; it’s love.” how true is this. for those of us who have experienced rationalizing feelings, it’s a fruitless exercise because, like dreams, love really follows its own logic, and it’s up to us to decide if we want to subscribe to it or not.

it’s the end of an era. hay… so what will be next? we’ll see… we’ll see.