MMFF 2012: Sisterakas

SISTERAKAS (2012)

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Star Cinema

c. Ai-Ai delas Alas, Vice Ganda, Kris Aquino

Pitch: Half-siblings get separated and lead different lives. They meet again as clashing adults. Tapos may isang entity na sumisingit sa kuwento na wala namang rele. Si Kris Aquino ‘yun.

Catch: Halatang tinipid ang prod, and of course if it’s from Direk Wenn, there must be a DJ Durano in here!!! Lech.

 

‘Yung wala naman talaga akong balak pag-aksayahan ng pera ang pelikulang walang kuwenta sa akin dahil sa mga past works ng mga involved dito. Ilang beses na ba naming inokray nirebyu ang mga pelikula ni direk Wenn? Na di ko na talaga alam kung ano pa ang mga katuturan ng ilan sa kanila. Heniwey tapos andyan pa si Kristeta na ang huli pa yatang good performance niya ever ay ang ummmm hmmmm FATIMA BUEN STORY? Pinanganak ka na ba nung pinalabas ‘yun? Ewan ko ba. Hayst.

Anyway wala akong choice kundi panoorin ito kasi andito si Ate Ai-Ai at si Vice. Na sila lang naman talaga ang tumawid ng kuwento dito, na medyo lame-o na rin naman. Kebs na sa pagka lame-o, kasi produkto na naman ito malamang ng Star Cinema kind of meddling the story brainstorming. Been there been that! But anyway, may saysay sana ang kuwento in fairness kung ginawa na nilang uber-camp sana ito. ‘Yung todo na sa pagkaka-satire sana sa kung anuman ang sina-satire sana nila dito. Ibig sabihin, sana tinodo na nila ang pagkaka-lampoon nila sa kulturang ito ng fashyown-fashyown, sa katatawanan o humor, at kung anupaman.

Eh ang kaso, wala, typical movie story lang ito of rags to riches kuning then ex-rags turned riches now fights ex-riches turned rags. Or something. Actually, ni hindi nga klaro kung bakit imbey ang character ni Vice sa character ni Ai–Ai, ‘yung exacting revenge type of imbey na dahil pinabayaan nito daw ang nanay ni Vice noong bata pa sila eh napilay and such. Whatevs! Hindi klaro ang mga motibasyon ng karakter na gawin ang mga ginagawa nila sa buhay teh. Wafung itey.

Pero mas wafung ang istilo ng pagpapatawa nila. Kadalasan, self-referencing na naman ang moda ng mga taga-Star kung magsulat ng script. Meaning kung di mo alam kung ano ang mga lintek na TV shows ng mga artistang ito, kung di ko alam ang mga latest commercials nila (lalo na ‘yang lintek na rubadabango potang ‘yan) at kung di mo alam ang latest chismax sa mga love life nila (lalo na ‘yang lintek na hiwalayang James Yap na ‘yan), hindi ka matatawa sa karamihan ng real-life references ng mga jokes sa pelikulang ito. Same old same old, Star. Chakaness.

Pero I swear, kung wala ang mga hirit-banat ni Vice dito, waley itong film na itich. ‘Yung mga one-liner hirit niya na tulad ng nasa PETRANG KABAYO dati, ganun. Lintek, nakakatawa!!! ‘Yun lang ang keri dito, saka ‘yung pagpapatawa din ni lola Ai-Ai mo. ‘Yun lang. Kaya ‘yung character ni Kris dito, puwede nang itapon. Palitan na lang ng iba, tipid pa sa TF.

Speaking of tipid, ito rin ang isang imbey sa production mismo. Halatang tinipid nila ito. As in haller, may isang eksena dito na ‘yung potangenang PE tshirt nina Daniel Padilla ay potangenang plain white shirt lang na potangenang dinikitan lang ng potangenang sticker(!!!) ng school logo. Potangenah!  Ginagago niyo ba kami!??! Halata siya!!! Tengeneng trabahong tamad.

That stupid PE tshirt. Yes isyu sa ‘kin ‘yan!

Hay naku. Tapos may mga linya pang obvious na self-mocking ang Kristeta sa mga maraming bagay patungkol sa kanya. Di kinaya ng powers ko ‘yung unang bungad niya na parang “this is worse than a Kris Aquino horror film” ba ‘yun or something? Leche, self-deprecating humor doesn’t become her. Huwag na muling subukang sulatin; nakamamatay.

Ewan. Labo. Hayst buti na lang talaga andun ‘yung humor ni Vice Ganda. For that, naisalba. As for naitawid, o siya sige, highest grossing film siya chenes. Kayo na. Kung gagawa kayo ng sequel, utang na loob paki-chugi na ‘yung character na walang silbi.

At bumili ng totoong potangenang PE tshirt! Lech.

Next!

Are we ready ka na ba Pinas?

O ano mga teh, MMFF 2012 season na naman soon. Magkakaltas ka ba ng pera para manood ng pelikula o aabangan mo na lang ang mga ito sa dibidi next year?

Naaliw ako sa tallying ng Wikipedia kasi andito sa page nila ang list of entries, na impressive naman kahit papaano. A far cry from earlier years in recent history. Tapos meron ding list ng independent films na kasali at mabuti naman may slots na for them.

Pero tumbling din ako sa list ng rejected entries hehehe. And if you’ll check them out, aliw at nod to the nth levels lang akesh kung bakit sila na-reject hahaha! Taray. Yeah, next year na ‘yang mga yan teh hehe.

O siya, kitakits na lang sa sinehan mga teh. Yes, yes, I will start reviewing na ulit, actively, soon. Abangan!

Film whiz whizzing wishes

Not that I haven’t been watching films — I have been watching lots, actually — but I have been reluctant to say things about them. I don’t know why. Must be the weather.

But you can take a peek at the film-related articles I have been writing for Philippine Online Chronicles’ Pinoy LGBT channel where I regularly contribute. Of course they are queer-centric but still, they intersect with movies and filmmaking so it might be worth your interest.

I will be back in reviewing films in this space soon. In the meantime, enjoy these:

Si Pidol sa pelikula ng sangkabaklaan part one and part two written during the comedy king’s demise. Also discussing some controversial issues there.

My Cinemalaya 2012 salvo-ish take on the gay depictions and transwomen discourse in some films I saw.

 

Unrealistically yours, officially

So much hype on a film that’s supposed to present “taboo” subjects in local cinema. Ang tanong: define taboo. Baka tabo – tumabo ng konseptong di naman talaga bago sa kultura natin pero dahil konserbatibo (read: takot) ang ating media gatekeepers, wow, hype it up yo! Wasup wasup! Lech.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

UNOFFICIALLY YOURS (2012)

d. Cathy Garcia Molina

p. Star Cinema

c. Angel Locsin, John Lloyd Cruz

Pitch: Boy dentist turns lifestyle journalist trains under a former one night stand fling and of course love is renegotiated.

Catch: Aside from Google, my dear creatives, real-life research is your best friend. Just sayin’. At ang chaka ng poster design. 

So of course my main beef with this film is its authenticity in depicting the world of lifestyle-entertainment journalists. And why is that? Because I belong to that beat, is why! Like haller, you don’t go to coverage events to ambush interview like political beat reporters noh. Most coverage work in this beat are pre-arranged or writers and editors are invited to a press event where we don’t have to outscoop each other. We are spoiled like that.

So to have that kind of trainee-reporter-trained-by-veteran-writer blah is truly not not not authentic. Not to mention accepting a newbie writer without the benefit of, er, previous sample writing works??? That he needed to be trained to be a writer??? Hello naman sa non-suspension of disbelief sheesh. Puwede na kong himatayin sa portion na ito teh. Please lang. Lifeline: show me the popcorn.

But of course that’s just for people like me who want to nitpick. (Chos!) The real deal is, of course, the one night stand/fuck buddy storyline, something oooohhh sooooo controversial in Philippine cinema daw. Anubeh. Di ba kayo nanonood ng mga lumang sine? Di pa nga uso ang cougar term, may cougars na tayong karakter sa pelikula (see ’80s BAGETS especially the subplot of JC Bonnin) or any other film during that decade. In short, please do your homework. Bawal ang tamad.

So the next best thing is to explore instead how fubus or no label relationships are interpreted in this day and age. While the film makes a sexy effort, talagang A for ayfort lang siya teh. For one, the cinematography is so uneven that you tend to think if they want to show an unflattering angle of Angel during sex (read: hindi siya delicious tignan ever, which is so taliwas in real life dahil naglalakad na alindog ang ate mong ito noh), not to mention you wouldn’t believe that Lloydie really had an orgasm in some shots (read: beks pretend na hindi nala-lock ang patotoy this time. Kung totoo man ‘yun). I mean man, ganyan ba mukha ng isang naligayahan sa kama? Porn acting looks more believable than that, man. Geez. Just saying. And it doesn’t help that the camera seems to be more biased towards showing Lloydie as prettier than Angel. Success iyon actually. But not that palatable. O baka sa akin lang iyon bilang iba ang bias ko sa larangang iyan. Chos.

And then there’s the issue of past emotional baggage getting in the way of present love prospects. Mukhang ito lang ang success sa pelikulang ito bilang ito lang ang swak na nadebelop sa brainstorming. Sure, it’s very relatable and that’s a good thing. I just wish it wasn’t treated in a teleserye way. The film also suffered that way, like the first half of the film was so cinematically tight in concepts-visuals-pacing but the rest is melodramatically loose na. You’d actually think that there were two different directors who helmed this pramis. Sobrang nag-iba ang timpla. Labo.

Oh well. And another thing is, I just wish they didn’t fall into the trap of stereotyping women again, na dahil lang nasaktan sa pag-ibig chever ay “loose morals” na ang dating kaya parang pakawalang pukengkeng na lang siya. Hello creatives, read mga magazines naman like Cosmo, Preview, mga ganun, all those women-centric glossies, to see na hey, may mga single women naman na empowered enough to fubu because they prefer it, without so much emotional baggage. May underlying panghuhusga kasing bumabalot sa pelikula kaya parang mas kakaawaan mo ‘yung character ni Lloydie because he’s the stupid dork who seriously wants a relationship with his fubu and yet he’s being dismissed. Hello damsel-in-distress plot device isdatchu? Hm.

Sayang. I really had high hopes for this film but okay I have to commend it for at least trying. I hope next time, they try harder. We audiences would love to see more storylines like these, veer away from the usual kilig rom-coms and actually depict Pinoys as sexually active beings — because we are. Kasi naman, look at how our society is so scared of talking about sex, much more regulating things connected to it (read: pass the RH bill! Now na!) and of course because of conservative Catholicism, we have been so culturally sex-negative for so long. It’s time to change that. And damn well film it!

Next!

Cinemalaya 2011: Ang Babae Sa Septic Tank

Since I’m currently in the state of straddling the line between the poverty of creativity (poverty of creativity talaga!) of other people, I should add, and walking out of their spheres of influence (don’t wanna be affected/infected/deflected on) wala lang, let’s review this film. And maybe later, I’ll decode for you that cryptic opening haha.

But first, we go septic.

ANG BABAE SA SEPTIC TANK

(THE WOMAN IN THE SEPTIC TANK)

d. Marlon Rivera

s. Chris Martinez

c. Eugene Domingo, Cai Cortez, JM de Guzman, Kean Cipriano

Pitch: Upper class Manila-based independent filmmakers plot out a film featuring poverty and urban squalor with the aim of joining prestigious film festivals abroad.

Catch: Inside jokes have limited humor for all.

I understand the hesitation of mainstream producers to create films and TV shows with the story and characters circling in the milieu of the media. They say that people who don’t work inside such industries, be it in the traditional or alternative media, won’t be able to relate to the problems, heartaches, headaches and victories that media-oriented people experience on a daily basis.

I disagree. Unless you make their story closer to “outsiders” in a way that they will be able to relate as an audience, then you’re fine. Take that Robert Redford-Michelle Pfeiffer 1996 starrer UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL where Pfeiffer started as a weather girl turned credible TV journalist and Redford was a veteran TV journalist helping her out. That one worked simply because their work was interwoven seamlessly with their personal lives. And we feel for them as they get promoted or if they get heartbroken. Add to that Celine Dion’s undying love song as theme “Because you loved me” (aminin, you like singing this sa videoke!) and voila! recipe for box-office ka-ching.

Now with SEPTIC TANK, I really, really, really love the concept of the film, simply because I myself share the same sentiment about filmmakers making films about poverty, urban squalor, dirty dingy crappy Manila, and all that garbage-in-yo’-face crap. In an earlier blog post/rant I posted about, oh, tagal na, maybe two-three years ago, I ranted about how such films have been cropping up like regularly since independent digitally shot full-length films revived the Filipino film industry last decade. Not that I’m not grateful, being from this industry, and being a cineaste. But sometimes, I want diversity. Yes, DIVERSITY.

And I guess that’s what the makers of SEPTIC TANK were also thinking. It’s basically a big critique of upper class independent filmmakers who use poverty as themes in their films simply because that image sells abroad, not because they want to make a statement about poverty in the Philippines, or not because they want to open up the people’s eyes to such issues in order for them to do something, to take action, to contribute to society, and all that advocacy pumping (in short, all the social realism stabs that our late greats were doing before, specifically our National Artists for Film Lino Brocka and Ishmael Bernal; and oh, how I miss them). But now, nada. Some films, sadly, are like that. And horror of all horrors, some filmmakers tend to think like that. And this is why the term “poverty porn films” cropped up in our existence within the last few years. And this is why I was also asked to speak about it as a guest in Jessica Soho’s GMA News TV channel 11 show Brigada last Monday, to discuss poverty porn. Sadly, since I was straddling nga that line with people suffering from the poverty of creativity hehe, I missed watching that segment. Oh well, somebody upload it online and tell me ha.

So anyway, in this film, we see an indie producer and filmmaker and a production assistant as they try to brainstorm a good poverty film concept and they poke fun at this poverty porn filmmaking “phenomenon” in all aspects — from the filmmakers having such shallow intentions (“Forget Cannes! Forget Venice! Pang-Oscars ito!”) to brainstorming the concept in coffee shops where they can go online with free wifi (“Gawin na lang kaya nating musical, set sa squatters area? Bago ‘yun!”) to casting indie-identified great thespians (“Gusto mo lang i-cast si Mercedes Cabral kasi crush mo ‘yun, e!” – Haha relate ako dito! Chos!) and of course poking fun at fellow indie filmmakers who have egos as big as the Payatas dumpsite because of their success in being poverty porn filmmakers (even poking fun at the entourage of such filmmakers, something that is so true talaga it really makes me roll my eyes).  So with all these, kudos to the filmmakers for showing us such things. Yes, in a way, it’s also being mean to such poverty porn films and filmmakers, but seriously, sometimes it’s *nice* to be mean ahehehe.

But after that, after the laughs, after the critique, what do you take home? Sadly, with SEPTIC TANK, nothing much, as well. And this is where it gets alienating for most, if not all, who have seen this and who do not inhabit this crazy yet wonderful world of media and filmmaking. It’s funny for me because I know the context, but if you don’t, then you’ll just get an unevenly paced comedy film where you will get hooked because Eugene Domingo is such a hoot here. If only for that, it’s a success but then again, the inside joke is not for everybody. And the film should have delivered a huge punchline after, the type that packs a wallop in terms of punctuating their statement about what it’s critiquing. Sadly, it didn’t.

But still, I recommend that you watch this. If you’re curious about how such indie filmmakers work — at least the pretentious upper class ones heheh — then watch this. And if only for Domingo, who won best actress for this role at the Cinemalaya awards night, just watch. I really like the way they reduced acting to three major categories, and the “TV Patrol category” is a hoot! Eugene, ikaw na! Basta, inside joke! Just watch this to see what I mean.

Then let’s discuss.

Philippine history X-ed

Hm, they say that the folly of Filipinos right now is that we don’t know our history or we don’t really learn from it that much so we repeat our mistakes over and over and over and over again… Yeah, just look at our government right now. But hey, let’s talk about films… my friend. Friend daw, o! Chos.

In short, here’s a long rant — er, review — about a recent film I saw. Thanks for the invite-sabit* (*incidental tag-along) sa premiere, though. Anyway, here goes. Hold on to your postcolonial butts.

Postcolonial talaga!

  AMIGO (2011)

  d., s., e. John Sayles

  dop. Lee Meily

  c. Chris Cooper, Joel Torre and a bunch of fine Filipino actors and good young American actors

Pitch: Set in a rural town somewhere in the Philippines, the film tells the usually untold tale of what happened during the American occupation of the Philippines right after/overlapping with the tail of the Spanish occupation, focusing on the town leader’s struggles as they are caught between two imperialist forces and helping the Filipino underground movement battling colonial rule.

Catch: Historical fiction at its finest should be also at its cinematic? Hm ewan. Just saying.

Let’s start with the great points.

It’s good that acclaimed American independent film director John Sayles — he of The Secret of Roan Inish fame — came here and shot this film entirely here, in Bohol (south of the Philippines) and had a great cast and crew, with the crew being mostly Filipinos, some of whom are our film school grads. I’m glad this gives the local film industry practitioners quite a boost so if only for that, please go to the Metro Manila movie houses on July 6 and watch this film and support it.

Also, it’s good to support such a film that narrates what historical evidence we could have regarding our nation’s past. Never mind if it was written by a foreign storyteller or viewed through a foreigner’s lenses. It’s always interesting how they frame us and how they see us, since we also frame them and see them in different angles as well. Di ba?

So here’s my angle.

In terms of historical content, perhaps it should have been established first as to where this took place. I mean, having subtitles saying “Luzon, the Philippines” and having the rural town only referred to as San Isidro doesn’t quite cut it. It’s like saying “I live in Main Street, (insert state here) USA” since practically most — if not all — of the towns anywhere in America has a Main Street on its map. So when you say Luzon, that’s like one of the three major islands that comprise the Philippines. And when you say Luzon, you also have to differentiate the geographical necessities such as the mountainous areas of Luzon (like up north in Mountain Province, Baguio and the like) or the beach side watery areas of Luzon (like the beaches of Batangas, Pangasinan, La Union, take your beach pick) or the rice field-dominated plains of (mostly central) Luzon (like Nueva Ecija etc.). And, much like having a Rizal street/boulevard/avenue all over the country, lots of provinces in the country share the name “San Isidro.”

Okay fine, so granted that this is a “historical fiction based on real-life events” chenelyn like what some write-up somewhere said. I think it’s still necessary to establish at least a good footing in terms of the perceived/imagined location because that really gives viewers the necessary grasp of the setting, which is very important in storytelling. One could argue that the labeling (or the lack of it) in this film would be enough for viewers who don’t know jack about the Philippines. But how come foreign films put such details in their films and we seem fine with it? Like I would have never appreciated Montmartre if not for Amelie, for instance, or I would have never gotten to know New York that much — before actually visiting it — if not for Woody Allen’s films. You get the drift. Location as setting: very important. So yes, I don’t want my country to be just a “generic Anywhere, Philippines” when it comes to that point.

But I know, I’m nitpicking. Let’s get down to business — storytelling and content. Hm how do I begin?

Granted that Sayles is a fine storyteller but somewhere in the characterization of the leads here defies that. Like I’m not sure where the compassion and the change of heart of the American lieutenant is coming from. On the one hand, he is a semi-ruthless imperialist schmuck who throws orders to get what he wants and to have everyone obey him. On the other hand, he then appears like a gold-hearted wimp in front of his more vicious American colonel (played well by Oscar award-winner Chris Cooper) when he finds his colonel’s commands as a bit “harsh” for the town because, like he said “but we have to live with these people…” I mean hello, yes, you Americans lived with these Filipino townsfolk but I didn’t see you treating them warmly, especially their town head or kapitan del baryo (played brilliantly by Joel Torre). Hmmmm. Failure in image presentation? Or possible plot loophole? I don’t know.

Aside from uneven characterizations, the film suffers from too much romanticizing of the old “Filipino way of life” especially what life was in the rural provinces, and this is evident in the film’s overall visual presentation, or what we call mise-en-scene in film school talk. While I enjoyed the pretty bucolic shots of our very own Pinoy cinematog, Lee Meily, I’m not sure about the accuracy of the costumes. I mean, I’m no expert but the costumes, especially what the women wore, seemed so dressed up for daily wear. And I don’t think they’re also that dressy in faraway rural provinces or even in old Manila; I’m sure they dressed up more casually than that, whatever their version of casual was during the early 1900s. But hmm, PD-ing our own past culture always seems to be a problem for local production designers. I mean *cough cough* Rosario? *cough cough*… But I digress…

Did someone say "bucolic?"

Speaking of characters, I don’t even know who is the main protagonist of the film. It could have two: the American lieutenant who has very murky character developments and the kapitan del baryo who has clearer character goals. But sometimes, they seem to be competing for the I’m-the-central-character role that it gets distracting in the overall plotting.

Plot-wise, the ladder of storytelling is clear-cut but some messages in between the steps seem to be loose. Like I don’t know whether the film actually wanted to say “Sorry Philippines, we did this to you. Love, America”  or “Hi Philippines, hate America more and let this remind you why.” There are some scenes where the former resonates and there are some scenes where the latter resonates as well. But in terms of “presenting a hidden history not often told” as they pitched to us before the movie began, I’m not quite sure what exactly is hidden here. In short, tell me something I don’t know: Pinoys got fucked during American colonial rule, and I know that already, saw that already, read that already, watched that already. Maybe this is new/news to  Americans who don’t know jack about which countries their beloved homeland has invaded over the decades. Or maybe this is also new/news to Pinoys who don’t seem to care about their nation’s history as well. Well then, like Sayles said in the premiere (yes, he was present), people nowadays seem to learn about history from films and TV, so here it is. Ayuz.

So yes, if only for that — learning about our nation’s history — please watch this film, especially if you are not the type who actually reads books.

But regardless whether the story being told is “old,” there should be at least some kind of new treatment to it. No, I’m not asking for a Baz Luhrmann type of redoing, like how he jazzed up like psychedelic crazy Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet back in 1996. Maybe have the narrative pacing a bit more engaging by crafting better dialogues and executing better scenes? Maybe edit the film down to sharpen the focus of the narrative? Maybe stitch clearer plot lines tighter? That would actually do. Just saying.

Maybe my heart can't feel it because my history remembers another thing... Chos.

But who am I to dis a John Sayles work done in the Philippines? Not that I want my country to be better represented in film, but I only want to see a good narrative done on film about my country, whether it presents skeletons in the national closet or discusses cultural gangrene. This film is not yet there, but I wish it were. Sayang kasi, e.

Anyway, they also said in the premiere that they hope more Americans would come here and do more films here. Hm, but they already have been doing this. Um, Apocalypse Now? Francis Ford Coppola was here with a wide-eyed little girl named Sophia. Born on the Fourth of July? Oliver Stone shot that in Ilocandia and had his cast and crew sleep in Vigan, and he also edited Platoon in the defunct motion picture lab at PIA along Visayas Ave. (where I also edited my 16mm undergrad film thesis). Hm. History lesson ex-ed.

Heniweyz, it’s a great effort, really. I just wish it were a bit better. But that’s just me. Go ahead and watch it pa rin, and see for yourself na lang. You might say I’m just bitter about America, but that’s another blog post for another time.

Anyway, we’ll be discussing this film further in our Friday night Cine Chichirya radio show at DZUP1602AM. Listen to us live via streaming at dzup.org this Friday, 08 July at 6-7pm.

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!

why, oh why, delilaaaah! why make such films?

I don’t know. I am bothered. Last Friday, I watched the latest mainstream-produced film that came out in Metro Manila theaters and I was wondering if I was transported like 20 years earlier. Parang retro na hindi, vintage na hindi. Pero hindi dapat ganun ang pelikula! Hay… Sige na nga, let’s just do this! Give me strength.

HATING KAPATID (LOVE WILL KEEP US TOGETHER)

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Viva Films

s. Mel Mendoza-Del Rosario

c. Judy Ann Santos, Sarah Geronimo

Pitch: An overprotective older sister finds it hard to reconcile her life as the Ate of her sister who’s growing up fast and the daughter of OFW parents who have been absent from her life for a long time. Parang ganon. Yata. Sabi nila.

Catch: Ampotangenang product placements ‘yan o!  Die crappola commercial filmmaking!

Hay naku. Sabi na nga ba’t maha-high blood lang ako if I reviewed this film. My superfriend X who watched (read: tiniis) this film with me texted me when we got home and said he needed to watch another film just to remove his kabuwisitan sa film na ito. Alam mo ‘yun, like when you ate something that left a bad taste in your mouth, you look for another thing to eat to neutralize it or something. Well, I resorted to Facebook. Farmville helped, pramis.

Hay jusme, where do I begin kasi? Hay, sige na nga.

First, the material. Crappola fatale. The story’s soooo old and script’s sooooo thin that you would be bothered why they even greenlight such stories! Anubeh. Ate Juday competes with her own parents for the “parental” affection of her younger sister Baby Sarah. Wadapak??? This was uber-creepy to me, totally.

Fine, granted that Ate Juday acted like the nanay and tatay of Baby Sarah. With the aid of technology, they talk and chat with their parents on a daily basis. Yes, I know the OFW phenomenon really wreaks havoc on families, but Ate Juday’s angst is somewhat unbelievable, considering how strong her character is, so dapat natanggap niya ang realities, given na matalino at understanding and character niya, dapat. Mej maraming conflicts sa characterization, yes.

Second, making-promises-to-God-to-drop-love life-to-save-a-relative’s-life premises are so old they’re beyond vintage and retro. They’re Jurassic! Neanderthal! Wadapak??? “Break na tayo. Hindi ko kayang pagsabayin ka at ang pamilya ko.” Ano’ng mabigat sa pamilya mo? Haller, you have an independent-minded Bulacan paputok-selling Lola (Gina Pareno in her usual one-dimension acting in comedies) and a baby sister just a decade (or less) younger than you — at hindi naman ikaw ang nagpapakahirap sa Libya sa pagkayod para mapag-aral siya kundi ang parents mo, devah????? Kalurkey! But wait, there’s more. May house helper kayo!!!! Hindi ikaw ang naglalaba ng Charmee-soiled panties ni baby sis, right? Arrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Hay, itutuloy ko pa ba? Arrrr.

Third, those freaking hard-sell product placement ads. The videoke microphone thing and the Globe  Tattoo cellphone/laptop display were “subtle” enough so that’s forgivable, but pare naman, the six stacks of Charmee pads on baby sister’s desk? Sabi nga ni friend, “Ilang puke ba meron si Sarah Geronimo at ang daming napkin?” to which I replied “Baka tatlo, two for each. Anim e, pang-day and night flow.” And then mentioning “Jollibee BBQ Chicken” like 6 times in one scene while they’re already eating the damn chicken? “Ang sarap talaga ng Jollibee  barbecue chicken, ano?” Crap! And those bathroom moments with the obligatory close-ups of Belo facial products even if the story did not warrant a bathroom sink scene. Pero pinaka-pamatay ‘yung hawak ni Sarah ‘yung Charmee pads tapos nag-rack focus pa to emphasize the sanitary napkin pack she’s holding with the label in front. Ang dami pa niyan! May gatas pa, beach resort, mall, ano pa? Hay ewan ko, suko na ko!

Hay, okay fourth. The production design. Ang panget. Do you guys even know how to design a set these days? This is really scaring me. PD seems to be the most neglected part of filmmaking in Philippine cinema the past years. Katakot. Like during the scene where Juday’s family goes home to their “posh” new Pasig house and finds things in disarray because they were robbed. Ateh, to design a “house in disarray due to robbery” moda, huwag lang maglatag ng mga magazines na binuksan sa gitna at nilagay sa ibabaw ng ottoman chairs at sa sahig (ano ‘yun, nagbasa ng Newsweek ang akyat-bahay gang?), plus mga cheap plastic bags na mula sa palengke ay ilalagay na nakahilera sa isang side ng living room floor (may dala bang trash bag na itatapon sa labas ang robbers at nabutas lang?). Nakakita na ba kayo ng bahay na ninakawan? Parang hindi pa. O sana ma-imagine niyo ng husto na lang. Haysus…

Fifth. The directing. It dictated the camerawork. Boring. Static in a not-so-happy way. It also dictated the pacing of the editing. Super-slow. Plus it meddled with the acting. One-dimensional.

Hay, my goddess. Why did I even bother, you say? Why did I bother watching this film? Because I was hoping to see something kinda new, and more importantly, I don’t want to be bothered by the dismal number of Filipino films being produced these days. But if they still think we are very contented with this kind of crappola films, then I am truly bothered. We are back to dealing with the same problems that nearly killed Philippine cinema in the first place some years ago. Producers don’t seem to be getting the message, that we need new ideas, new stories, new cinematic presentations. Hay naku. Sabi nga ni Sister Stella L, “Kung di ngayon, kelan pa?” Ewan ko, Ate Vi. Ewan ko.

You know what? Juday is a good actor and she has proven that. This Sarah singer has some promise which she could maybe prove in a better material. Vice Ganda is another brilliant cinematic comedian waiting to happen (siya lang ang benta sa akin sa pelikulang ito, honest). If given the right material, Gina Pareno (hello KUBRADOR!) and Cherry Pie Picache (hello KALELDO!) are brilliant character-actors. And Luis Manzano is, well, Ate Vi’s son. Ewan ko. Parang sayang lahat sila, sayang effort, sayang talent, sayang ang negatibo, sayang ang pera. Sayang. Sayang ang pelikulang ito. Bakit ‘yung website nila mas naalagaan ang ganda? Ang film mismo, olats. Hay luz.

My mother and I used to devour movies as they changed titles every Wednesday. Be it local or Hollywood films, we just watched them. Pero kung ganito lang ang nilalabas lately ng local, hay, ayoko namang puro Hollywood lang ang diet ko. Hay naku. So fine, that Anne Curtis-Claudine-Richard Gutierrez Los Angeles-set film should be better ha. Siya sige. Sorry I won’t watch CINCO because I hate horror films.

Okay fine, itutulog ko na lang ito. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Ay shet wait, magha-harvest muna ko.

MMFF09: Nobody Nobody But Juan… but huway?

And I thought my internet connection will already be smooth and working the rest of this week. I thought wrong. I shouldn’t really keep my hopes up about Philippine telcos anymore, but aah, that’s for another blog’s post.

Anyway, let’s to back to the MMFF ’09 entries. Oh yes, I’m not yet through with them. Let’s start with this Quizon-fare of a film.

NOBODY, NOBODY BUT JUAN

d. Eric Quizon
p. RVQ Productions
s. Eric Quizon, Bibeth Orteza
c. Dolphy and a handful of his sons

Pitch: A former pre-war vaudeville-performing old man, bored with his US nursing home life as a Fil-American — even with his sons around — finds enjoyment in watching noontime show Wowowee and thus went back home to Manila to participate in the show.

Catch: New ideas, please. USP’s too thin to be believable or even fantastically funny.

Originally titled JUAN, this film was retitled to include a very popular song of the moment, in this case that “I want nobody nobody but you” Korean ditty. Funny that another Dolphy film would do this title readjustment; just see my previous post about ARINGKINGKING 13 years ago. Oh my, 13 mother? Mother, what about our other dyuuuuties? Chos.

The film is interesting in the beginning, especially when we are shown a nursing retirement home’s environment, one run by Fil-Ams , managed by Pinoy nurses on working visas, and housed with majority of Filipino retirees. You could also get a glimpse here of how media could be powerful as a memory connection tool of Filipinos to their homeland, as the cable TV channel TFC or The Filipino Channel, run by ABS-CBN, serves that purpose on a daily basis. This, too, is a very interesting phenomenon of late, which explains why anybody who hosts a TV noontime show for this station and aired over the cable channel abroad could be (scarily) treated as a god by Pinoy viewers longing for something nostalgic to be delivered to their homes every day. And thus, we see Wowowee noontime show host Willie Revillame being treated as a god, revered as a god, and thus this rubs off on him, of course, as he sometimes acts like a god already, but hey, that’s insider talk hehe. More of that some other time.

Another interesting aspect shown in the beginning is the flashback scenes of the protagonist Juan played by Dolphy, who, as revealed, was a popular vaudeville or bodabil performer onstage during pre-war Manila, where he had a best friend named Tu with whom he does double-act comedy shows (“Juan en Tu” get it? played by Epi Quizon and Vandolph, whose moms are different… ah basta), a lady friend/comic played surprisingly nicely by Pokwang, and of course a lady love in the form of Heart Evangelista’s dancer character. It shows that the older Juan always pines for the good ol’ days of performing, and he misses his friends a lot, whom he lost touch with since the war broke out.

All of these things I mentioned should be enough for a 20-30 minute introduction to set up the beginning of the film and it should give us sufficient clues as to where the film’s narrative should bring us. Plus they serve as very interesting premises for the film’s USP or unique selling point as we call it in scriptwriter lingo, meaning that is something new presented to audiences by a film. But no, the filmmakers stretched this to a very weird one hour (or a little bit more), making you speculate as to where this film is heading. The main conflict was introduced early on, but it was also played out too long for a set-up. I’m talking about the clash between the older Juan, his ander-da-saya doctor son played by Eric Quizon himself, and the clash between Juan and Juan’s daughter-in-law played by G Toengi. All of these things, if tightly written in the plot, could be unearthed in about 30 minutes like I said, but the length just killed the film early on.

So during the height of the conflicts above, it was only then that the film takes another turn, which looks like another plot has been introduced, a secondary plot that runs parallel with the first plot! And it’s not even a subplot or a minor plot, that’s why it appears as lost and convoluted by the second half/hour of the film. This involves Juan being shipped to the care of his other Fil-Am son where Juan finds his passport and bank book hidden in a study desk, takes it, withdraws money and flies back unnoticed in the Philippines. This is part two of his adventures as they take place here already.

His first destination is to see Willie Revillame and watch Wowowee, but in there, he bungles because as we know, it’s not that easy to get in. Plus it was there where he meets his former buddy Tu, now an old man con artist played by Eddie Garcia who sells tickets to Wowowee to unsuspecting TFC subscribers (tickets to these shows are free). As it turns out, Tu and the comedian friend played by Pokwang are still in touch and in cohorts in this racket, where they bungle and hence reunite with Juan in the process. Hay, retelling pa lang, napapagod na ko. What more sa kritiko mismo, aney? Haggardo versoza.

So as you can see, you really have no idea where this film is going because of one seemingly nice plot being dropped like a hot potato in favor of a second plot, leaving no efforts of tying up both plots in a good way. Now, not having a direction is generally not really a bad thing because most European films–if not influenced by Hollywood styles–follow this narrative development. You don’t know where the story is going, but it’s intertextual, and many things are happening in the plot which, when you reach the end, they all tie up nicely as the seemingly disconnected events now appear connected and motivated. With JUAN, you don’t see any intertextuality whatsoever. Man, I’m already having problems accepting the primary context, what more more texts, contexts and subtexts!!! Hindi kaya ng powers ko iyon! And besides, those kinds of styles work only with plots that are character-driven, meaning the story highly depends on what the main character’s decisions will be. But it’s also clear here that JUAN is not character-driven, because his character is not really too three-dimensional to begin with, let alone not very well-written to roll and lead the driving of the story (it’s mostly plot-driven as the circumstances in the story’s plot is what drives the film to move). Hay haggard…

It’s also disappointing to note that the King of Comedy of Philippine cinema has… run out of new jokes. They get so tiresome, and they’re really old, man. Really. I mean, just how many times should you see Dolphy wearing only his exaggerated big briefs or baby lampin-like briefs in one lifetime of cinema-watching? Far too many na ang two. Hay…

And don’t get me started with the ending, where Juan discovers that his lady love is still alive, now played by Gloria Romero, but with Alzheimer’s and thus can’t remember who he is. It turns out that she got married to Tu, who just saved her from embarrassment after the war when she found out she was pregnant with Juan’s child. Ah yes, another mini-plot na sinubukang ipa-take off na di naman lumipad. Ang labo. Ewan.

I really am disappointed because this film could have said more about a lot of things it presented here — Fil-Am nursing home life and people involved, the Wowowee TFC-Philippine connection, the colorful bodabil history! Ang dami e. But well, they were lost on what plot point to prioritize, I think, that’s why they ended up with something so crazily convoluted. Oh well.

I hope they find more suitable material for Dolphy during his remaining years instead of this crappola material they wrote for him. He deserves more than that. Hell, he was Facifica Falayfay ano ba! Tapatan niyo naman iyon! But well, there are no more Lino Brockas kasi… oh well.

I’d pass up this one if I were you. Or wait for it in ABS-CBN’s other cable channel Cinema One, where you could watch it for free. It’s not worth all the 145 pesos I paid for it. Mga 40 pesos lang siguro. No wait, mas masaya pa ‘yung melon Fruitas shake kong ininom nang manood ako e. Okay 25 pesos.

Next!