Awaaard si vakler dahil tegi sa logic

Or in short, here’s my review of the “independently-produced” movie still showing in commercial cinemas right now. Wagi in fairness sa longevity ha. Ikaw na, Remington! Chos.

ZOMBADINGS 1: PATAYIN SA SHOKOT SI REMINGTON (2011)

d. Jade Castro

p. Origin8

s. Raymond Lee, Michiko Yamamoto, Jade Castro

c. ayan read the poster obvious naman haller imbey ka

Pitch: A homophobic boy in Quezon province gets cursed to become gay when he grows up in a town where gays are being murdered and later turned into zombies until the boy-turned-teen’s curse gets lifted. Trust me, it’s really that convoluted.

Catch: It’s that convoluted. Did I already say that? It’s convoluted.

Yesterday, I accompanied one of my superfriends to watch a movie that has been running in cinemas since the end of last month even if I’ve already seen te film during the Cinemalaya closing last July. Not bad for a supposed independently-produced film, no? When I say “supposed,” it means the producers made this film outside the commercial mainstream studio systems that most — if not all — of them served at one point in their careers (or still currently serving it, actually, for some of them at least). I guess their sensibilities trickle down to the product they create, because it still reeks of commercial mainstream-ish fare. Let me elucidate.

The film is lost in its identity since it doesn’t know if it’s going to be campy or just a plain comedy. From what I discovered, the filmmaker said in a forum that they didn’t intend to make it camp. And this is where we hyperventilate. Kalurkey itey!

I don’t know if you trust the Wikipedia entry on it, but the first definition of camp there is “an aesthetic sensibility that regards something as appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value.”

Hmm may ganung factor? Maybe Susan Sontag’s “Notes on Camp” would help, as she wrote:

…the Camp sensibility is one that is alive in a double sense in which some things can be taken. But this is not the familiar split-level construction of a literal meaning, on the one hand, and a symbolic meaning, on the other. It is the difference, rather, between the thing as meaning something, anything, and the thing as pure artifice.”

Well, let’s just put it this way: Zombadings didn’t have that kind of camp sensibility to me because it felt more like it had a Star Cinema sensibility to it — a bad case of Star Cinema cookie-cutter formula pander-to-the-lowest-denominator type of comedy film which most of the time makes you want to slash your wrists because, even if it’s a comedy, IT AIN’T FUNNY. And since the director said nga in that forum that they just set out to do a comedy film, it gave me more shivers. As in. Chaka Khan ever.

Now why is a comedy film about gays being killed in a small town because they’re gay not funny? BECAUSE KILLING GAYS AREN’T FUNNY, PERIOD. (Or please educate yourself and read this article.) Regardless whether they get zapped by an out-of-this-world kinda-sci-fi-ish subplot of a thingamajig called the gaydar controlled by a macho man that would be later on revealed as a super-huge closeted homo, hmmm… perpetuating self-hatred, anyone? That’s project number one. Luz Valdez!

Project number two would be this: why is a comedy film about a straight guy cursed to be gay not funny? BECAUSE BEING GAY IS NOT A CURSE TO BE CURED FROM BY SHAMANS, DIVINITY EXPERTS, OR WHATNOT. We are gay because we are gay, people. And news flash, we love being gay, we’re proud to be gay, and we’re happy we’re gay — even if the rest of homophobic society isn’t happy for us. KEBS! We don’t mess with your life so don’t certainly mess with ours. Kajirita Jackson ha.

And why is a comedy film about a straight man turning effeminate gay not funny? BECAUSE NOT ALL GAYS ARE EFFEMINATE. There’s nothing wrong with the section of our populace who are effeminate, but the key word there is “section” meaning “not everyone” and hence do not generalize about us and most especially do not stereotype us as being just of one kind, as mainstream media has been doing for decades now. Like the rainbow flag we out and proudly wave during LGBTQ pride marches, we are a community of diverse people who come in all shapes and sizes, forms and content, so please, do not peg us to just merely one type and one type alone. Keribels?

Now the major major problem with this film is that we from the LGBTQ circles, those who know camp and could define it, who follow pop culture to a fault, who are academic/knowledgeable etc. etc. chenelyn boomboom (to quote my lesbian beki friend) about such issues regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or SOGI, we could very well distinguish if something is being literal or being symbolic, like what Sontag said. But if the film is not being camp, it surely will be taken on a mere literal level in the sense that the message people (who are not attuned to the issues and concerns surrounding the LGBTQ community) will get  is this: “See? [Parlor swishy] gays are doomed to die and become zombies because they’re a menace to society, so it’s good that this cursed-to-be-gay straight boy is being rescued by the girl of his dreams and his friends and family so he won’t be gay.” Of course I’m kidding about the being zombies part but what the hey, let’s just thrown it in na rin! For more!

Oh man. I don’t even know why this film was made the way it was made, given that I know the history of the producers and such, their backgrounds but most of all their own SOGI. Well yeah, I know, not all women are feminists and not all LGBTQs fight for equal rights but what they hey, they should have known better than to produce a film that not only reinforces general stereotypes about Filipino gays but also propagate such negative images of gays and gay behavior. And I haven’t even forgiven them for writing in the term “third sex” in the script, as uttered by one character. Yes, read about that specific rant here in my other article.

So is the film totally hopeless? I’d like to say so, but it really has its moments and it’s ironic that its moments are highlighted by non-gay scenes. It’s just purely hilarious whevener Eugene Domingo appears in the film as the grieving mother in rollerblades of the girl of Remington’s dreams. And I also like the way the latest gay lingo is incorporated there and propagated. Hey, I lurv the lingo! Read my articles about it here and here.

Hay naku. Anyway, there are still a gazillion things to say about this film but perhaps I will reserve my other thoughts for another time. For now, just relax and enjoy a movie — another movie, not this one.  And if ever they do take the title seriously, perhaps Zombadings 2 could be a better fare.

Taray lang ng lola mo.

Queering Cinemalaya 2011

In the interim, here’s a recap of queer representations at the Cinemalaya 2011, an  article I wrote for POC Pinoy LGBT channel.

Independently-produced digital full-length films were showcased last July 2011 at the seventh Cinemalaya Film Festival at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) which were also shown at the University of the Philippines’ Cine Adarna theater inside the Diliman campus during the early part of August. Aside from the Cinemalaya film grantees, there were also different categories showcasing locally produced independent digital films, such as the 10 films featured under the NETPAC series, or the Network for the Promotion of Asian Cinema. There were also a few films outside of such categories which premiered during the said festival.

I was able to catch a few of these films and I was intrigued by the queer representations I saw in most of the films I saw. There were a few hits and misses but there were also quiet gems, while a few begged to be read as queer, in a manner of speaking.

Read the rest here.

 

Later na ang ibang film reviews. Yes, we will review again. Soon. Pahupain lang ang docu shoot ko, hane? Pagoda coldwave lotion pa lola niyo.

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!

ang lihim ng usb…

…or in short, mga pelikulang natagpuan sa usb flash drive ko na hiniram ng mga kaibigang saglit na gumamit nito, at may iniwan palang mga movie files hehe.

Isang gabing kakatapos lang namin manood ng movie file ng jowa ko, pinag-trip-an kong tignan ang mga california photos kong nasa usb drive ko pa pala, mga kuha ng kapatid ko na kinopya ko sa computer niya. Sa kakakalikot ng usb, nakita ko ang isang folder ng mga pelikulang akala ko noong una ay mga trailer lang. Ito ‘yung ilan sa mga pelikulang in-analyze ng mga kachokaran ko nang nagpunta kami sa New York para sa isang film studies conference. Lo and behold, mga full films pala sila, not just trailers. So I decided to watch one of them, and here is what I think of that one film.

ANG LIHIM NI ANTONIO

p. digital viva

d. jay altarejos

s. lex bonife

c. shamaine buencamino and a bunch of newbies

Pitch: A 15-year old son of an OFW father and an LGU health center nurse comes of age as he discovers his being gay, and the world of male homoeroticism and man-on-man sexcapades.

Catch: Kelangan ng script doctor. Loopholes galore.

I remember my superfriend X being scandalized one day as he came out of Cine Adarna after watching one of those digitally-made gay films shown there. I can’t remember if this was what he saw or the other film of this same creative tandem (or at least the director). It was something about having an underage gay boy perform sexual acts or something yata of that nature, at may frontal pa daw, meaning frontal nudity.

Well, kung ‘yun man ‘yun or ito ‘yun, pareho lang siguro ang kaganapan. I reall have nothing against nudity in film as long as the story calls for it naman. Since this film is about a young boy discovering his sexuality, I think the sex scenes and nudity are called for. There was one scene where he was peeping on his super-buff young uncle as the uncle took his nightly shower, and his uncle’s patotoy was shown on the screen. In another scene, the young boy grabbed his uncle’s patotoy and was hand-jerking it (um, tama ba ang term?) until he lowered his head to simulate the act of fellatio sa patotoy ni uncle. Again, during the hand job, uncle’s patotoy was shown on the screen. I think even the young boy’s patotoy was also shown in bits and pieces onscreen din, at least during some self-jerking scenes niya. Like there was one scene where his uncle left a used brief and the young boy just grabbed it, covered his head with the used brief (good grief!) and then started masturbating. Hm ano pa ba? Marami ring eksenang nakabukol galore lang ang patotoy ni buffed uncle sa kanyang white brief at nagmumura na itong gustong lumabas baga. At mangilang beses ding kinapkapan siya ng young man. And there was also a scene nga pala when the young man was shown having sex with his same-age barkada, na naglapat ang mga loins nila sa bed, missionary style. And then his uncle naman was also shown having sex with an elderly paying swishy gay man, na nakadapa sa kama habang hina-hump siya ni uncle na of course kita ang full exposure ng wepaks galore nila.

Ayun… ang sex scenes. dami ‘no? Ay, oo nga pala, ang kuwento. Kelangan pa bang magkomento sa kuwento? Hay, siya sige na nga.

I admire this film because of the boldness that it wants to show. Oo nga’t malibog ang mga becky lalo na’t raging hormones age pa ito. Called for naman ang mga sex scenes at patotoy-buyangyang or patotoy-pasilip/pabakat moda na in-enumerate ko sa taas. Ang hindi called for dito ay ang ilang storylines na pilit ipinilit sa mga karakter o sa mga eksena. Actually, ‘yun pa nga ang nakasira sa pelikula.

For instance, alam mo nang may ibang eklat na nangyayari sa OFW na asawa sa Dubai ng nurse nanay ng young man, dahil madalang tumawag, mag-text, umuwi o magpadala ng pera sa mag-ina niya. True enough, in the end, na-reveal na may iba nang family ang OFW dad sa Dubai. Pero sobrang nakakatawa ‘yung revelation scene — si nurse was on her way to the province and she just boarded a bus, then after a few seconds, she went down again, and “accidentally” bumped into someone she knows, na that someone is also working in Dubai at siya ang nagkuwento tungkol sa OFW husband eklat. Ang labo. Basta na lang nagkabanggan and then, reveal??? Tapos ang awkward pa ng execution, jusme.

Hindi lang ‘yan ang awkward sa pelikulang ito. Awkward din na pinipilit lagyan ng angst ang young man na “torn” siya sa bago niyang nadiskubreng sexuality. Haller, kung torn iyan, e bakit wala siyang pakundangan sa pagkapkap ng etits ng may etits??? At wala namang pinakitang eksenang torn siya. At paano natin nalamang torn siya? E kasi naririnig natin sa VO niya! Hanlabo. Ewan. Ang dami pang ganito ng film, mga elemento ng kuwento na basta na lang nilalaglag at pinipilit. Kaya minsan, mahahalata mo talaga kung ano ang inunang naiplanong gawin sa pelikula (ano fi? see second paragraph) at kung ano ang patchi-patchi na lang na inilagay para “ma-justify” ang mga unang naiplanong ilagay. Hay…

But I think my biggest beef against this film is its insistence on ending it on a violent tone. Bakit kailangang ma-butt rape ang young man against his will? At bakit kelangang makita ito ng nanay niyang nurse? At bakit kelangang humantong ang isang sexual awakening film sa isang brutal murder condemning the scorned woman and the abused young man? Hindi ko matanggap ang parts na ito. Here is your chance to liberate the gay sexual film and put it on a hgher level of discourse and with it, put it in a higher level of appreciation sana, aimed at both the gay community and the whole Filipino community at large. But no, you have to end it in a brutal murder scene where the opportunistic-to-the-gays person had to be killed brutally, and had to be violent to a younger gay man muna before that? Hay naku, sayang. Maraming magandang moments sana ang pelikula despite the many narrative loopholes sa development ng plot, pero nakakasira lalo ng appreciation ang ending. This is the type of film na you are already willing to overlook the loopholes because it’s showing something better sana, pero wit din pala. In the end, it’s not about the celebration of gayness pala kundi the condemnation of gayness pa rin. Hay naku. Olats. At ang mas nakakalungkot pa rito, mga becky ang gumawa nito. Nakakatakot at nakakabahala kasi nagdadagdag pa sila sa condemnation discourse against their own kind, something Philippine cinema doesn’t actually need anymore.

Hay, sayang. Buti na lang din pala at hindi sa big screen ko ito napanood. Oh well. There’s only one thing I could say — next!

ITTY BITTY TITTY COMMITTEE

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
————————————————————–

 

ITTY BITTY TITTY COMMITTEE (2007)

d. jamie babbit

pitch: a pre-college student working in a plastic surgeon’s office finds love and radical feminist advocacy in a girl who’s a member of the appropriately termed group CIA or Clits in Action (i’m not making this up!)

catch: it feels amateurish at times, and not in a good way

 

 

 

fast forward to 13 years since GO FISH and we still get independently-produced films shot in a quirky, edgy way, with characters spewing lines of advocacy of a feminist and lesbian nature. nice. nga lang, mas maganda ang handling ng GO FISH sa ganun, at ito hindi.

maganda naman sana ang kuwento, something that should be close to my heart. er, bosom din. the lead character, a kinda prim and proper chicana who is so out to her loving family, works as an assistant in a plastic surgeon’s office known for good boob jobs. nawindangers lang ang life ng family niya when she joined nga this radical group with chicks wearing black leather jackets. hay, at yun na ang start ng prublema — na minsan naman, para kasing walang prublema yung characters, na pilit lang sinaksakan ng prublema. hay labo, lalo na yung nag-a-angst-angst na si chicana na parang wala sa rason o tamang katinuan, script-wise. tapos yung object of affection niya na kept woman ng isang tanders na feministang may sariling NGO chorva (um, shades of lola darkness ito, minus the evilness hehehehe). hay basta, ang daming malabo kaya sometimes it feels so amateurish. parang di pa tapos ayusin at i-rewrite at workshop-in yung script e shinoot na. it felt that way.

hay. sayang. the title was a catch for me kaya ko to binili. well.. take the good with the bad, i suppose. and no amount of cameos will save this film, kahit pa man sina clea duvall yan o si jenny shimizu.

GO FISH

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
————————————————————

 

GO FISH (1994)

d. rose troche

s. rose troche, guinevere turner

pitch: college and post-college lesbians bond, face issues of their community, and help those who need help in the love department find love despite their eccentricities

catch: wala. this film is perfect. pramis

 

 

 

and that it is. i remember watching this a long time ago and ending up liking it. more than ten years after, as i watched it again, i find myself loving it.

and why shouldn’t i? the lesbians here are of my generation, mga kasabayan ko, perhaps in sexuality moda and in creativity, too. the way the film was shot, with all those quirky experimental in-betweeners sandwiched sa more normative scenes and all, huwaw, may tatak nga kami, in fairness. at hindi lang sa pagiging lebsiyana ito. the style reminds me of darren arronofsky’s earlier style, isa ko pang kahenerasyon although syempre iba ang filmmaking focus niya.

simple lang itong film. no more than a little over an hour, pero puno at satisfying sa kuwento, iyon ay kung lesbiyana ka. i don’t think they made this film for non-lesbians, pero those who get it are okay. it means may openmindedness na nangyayari. that’s how i see it.

hay grabe. nakakatuwa at nakakatawa na ganun pa rin ang concerns natin after more than a decade –finding love chorva. hindi talaga ata ito magbabago bilang thematic framework, ng buhay at ng sining. well, okay naman ako don.

hay. wala na akong masabi… basta. there must be some strange reason why i bought this film and watched it at the time i did, in some kind of lesbianic divine intervention kind of way. yes, the universe has a funny way of reminding you that you are okay.

grabe.

and that, i am.

PUCCINI FOR BEGINNERS

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
———————————————————–

PUCCINI FOR BEGINNERS (2006)

d., s. maria maggenti

c. justin kirk, gretchen mol, elisabeth reaser

pitch: a lesbian new york writer, fresh from a break-up, finds herself having relations with a man and a woman at the same time, not knowing that the two were lovers

catch: wala! happy din ito! biased ako e bakit ba hahahaha

 

 

 

this one’s another good one ha. kakaaliw siya. i love justin kirk esp in ANGELS IN AMERICA and in LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION! buwisit yun kasi sa lahat ng mabibigyan ng nominations for acting sa ANGELS, siya wala! bad trip! e role niya kaya yung may pinaka-bearing dun, haller. oh well.

katuwa itong film. nakakatuwa kasi feeling ko, halaw sa tunay na buhay ng writer-director hahaha. i read somewhere na maggenti’s not identifying as a woman-loving-woman daw kasi lately, which is kinda ironic, coming from directing another pivotal lesbian film in the 90s called THE INCREDIBLY TRUE ADVENTURES OF TWO GIRLS IN LOVE. yes, that film kung saan semi-baby butch pa si tina, yung actress sa THE L WORD. yes, siya yun! look at the eyes. they have the same blank stare.

feeling ko ganun nga ang film. isang biyaning na malaki ang commitment issues kaya napasok sa isang masalimuot na hetero at homo relationship at the same time, kasi nagpapatianod lang siya. eto yung mga may rason sa buhay na “it just happened…” like “bakit mo ko pinagpalit? bakit ka nainlab sa iba?” at ang sagot sa iyo ay “it just happened…” hanlabo. nakakainis kung tutuusin pero i let it go kasi kyut yung actress eheheh. i am biased that way. madali akong bentahan.

ayokong ibigay ang ending pero nakakatuwa naman siya, but not in a star cinema mainstream cinema film type of way. in an indie film type of way and in a lesbianic way din. basta happy siya. nakatulong ang magandang script. ito halatang nagdaan sa pagbubuno ng mga makikilatis na mata at utak, at mabuti ang kinalabasan. winner! watch!

THE THANK YOU GIRLS

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
———————————————————–

THE THANK YOU GIRLS (2008)

d., s. charliebebs gohetia

pitch: a group of visayan gay/trans people, whose livelihood is to join gay beaucons, goes on a roadtrip to find their own inner journeys and outer fabulousness despite the odds

catch: a bit longish, could be edited down a bit pa

congrats to upfi student bebs for helming this first full-length of his. maganda ang topic at hindi siya seasonal: mga gay beaucon joiners na ang tawag pala sa kanila e “thank you girls” kasi lagi silang natatalo o hindi nakakaabot ng first place. premise pa lang, panalo na! kakatawa siya hahaha.

nainis lang ako at hindi ako marunong mag-bisaya. gusto ko pa naman maintindihan yung nuance ng gayspeak nila doon kasi kakaiba e. but the subtitles work naman.

what doesn’t work is that repeating narrative cycle style sometimes, reminiscent of other nonlinear narrative films like some mexican films na di ko na maalala title, basta andun si gale garcia chorva kyuti. may malaki dapat dahilan kung bakit babalikan ang ikot ng isang parte ng naratibo, at dapat e sa ibang anggulo naman ito i-take. yung nangyari kasi, parang iisang anggulo lang, at tight lang ang isa at yung isa e wider shot. weird lang.

may feel din siya ng PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT, this aussie film of yore na ganito din ang tema, na ni-ripoff naman ng american film na TO WONG FOO THANKS FOR EVERYTHING JULIE NEWMAR about the same time. inevitable ang comparison kasi road trip ito ng trannies at may eksenang nasa top ng bubong ng jeep at nagpapalipad ng colorful cloth.

the VO also reminds me of Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN na di mo alam kung sino ang nagsasalita tapos marami siyang alam sa buhay ng mga tao sa film. iffy lang na in the end, yung jeep pala ang nagsasalita. siya ang VO. actually, i think it could work better kung walang VO na lang, totally. ngayon ko lang naisip. hm.

pero other than that, masaya naman. the acting was good, the lines are witty and funny, lalo na yung nagpapraktis sila ng mga QnA portion while travelling. pinaka-paborito ko ito:

maitim na vakler: i have a question for you. define darkness.
vakler na nagre-rehearse: darkness is here beside me.

or something like that. hahahaha! basta aliw ito! if only for the lines. hahaha! saka maganda yung kuwento. nga lang, minsan it felt pepered with advocacy, with the beaucon women spewing lines straight out of taskforcepride hahahahah! well, this is good pero it might not be a bit realistic, kasi sa totoo lang, hindi naman masyadong advocacy-aware ang karamihan sa mga beaucon joiners na ganito e. siguro dapat tinimpla lang. i get the point but sana hindi nasobrahan.

all in all, happy ako na sasali ito sa vancouver. sana manalo! congrats guys!

isa pang naalala kong exchange, thanks to lush’s blogpost.

vakler 1: okay, here is your question. what is your waistline…and why?

hahahahaha nakakatawa! ang dami pa nito e. basta! watch!!!!!!!!

IMAGINE ME & YOU

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
—————————————————-

IMAGINE ME & YOU (2005)

d., w. ol parker

c. lena heady, piper perabo

pitch: a recently married woman gets struck by love at first sight with a lesbian florist, and is torn on what to do

catch: wala! maganda siya!

okay, this is not the first queer-oriented film that piper appeared in. i liked her first in COYOTE UGLY kahit hindi queer ang character niya, pero napaka-queer lang ng scenario ng film (e kasi mukhang mga tranny performers yung ibang models doon). i liked her in LOST AND DELIRIOUS even if the whole lesbian storyline of that film is soooo whacked! (as in haller, tragic lesbian love na naman, pweh!). i like her here, too, kas siguro okay ang chemistry nila ni lena hedy, who plays the lesbian florist na na-inlababo-han nung just hetero-married character ni piper.

out of the list of films i really want to watch, gusto ko siya simply because of the title hehe. kanta kasi siya, at isa sa kanta na gusto ko mula sa lumang panahon. or more appropriately, first line siya ng kanta ng the turtles entitled “happy together.” well, it doesn’t really get featured so prominently in the film pero ginamit siyang device in the end kaya nagkitang muli ang would-be lovers na itey, in that star cinema kilig fantasy way.

and that’s how the whole film feels — it feels like a star cinema production! palitan mo lang ng hetero loveteam ang lesbian loveteam dito and you get the whole star cinema film shebang: title na halaw sa isang kanta, two gorgeous-looking lead stars, a good storyline with believable characters, humorous sidekicks used as foils (the girl bida’s new hubby’s promiscuous best man best friend who wanted to bed the lesbian florist), smart wisdom-y things from old characters (piper’s dad supportive of her daughter’s experience of “love at first sight” despite the homo odds), the mega kilig muntik-nang-maghalikan-pero-idelay-para-kilig moments (at madami ito ha, piper has perfected acting this out haha!), the mega-kilig plant and payoff devices used to make the characters find each other (complete with habulan sa ending kasi papunta sa airport/vacation ang hurt one, na hahabulin ng natauhang loved one at hahabulin yung isa chuva), grabe lang kulang na lang ang credits nito e sabihing directed by olivia lamasan produced by charo santos concio hahahaha! sobrah! all the elements are really there!

kaya siguro gusto ko. kasi it’s so mainstream that way (but unlike star, laidback lang ang storytelling at hindi magarbong attention-caller) kaya effective ang kilig moments kasi nakaka-relate ako. finally, a true lesbian kilig film! winner!

hotness si lena heady! yun lang. hehe. i was wondering where i saw her before, and a quick imdb search revealed siya nga pala yung nasa spanish/english film na LLUVIA EN LOS ZAPATOS (the man with rain in his shoes) directed by spanish filmmaker maria ripoll, whom we all met when she went here a couple years ago and we had coffee and cake at the upfi office. tama! at siya rin yung hotness na queen sa testosteron-y cgi film 300. ayuz. i love lena hehe especially that british accent niya ha. happy siya.

happiness ito. for a hetero guy writer-director, super sensitive ang approach sa materyal na ang ganda. parang non-issue masyado ang pag-switch ng hetero lead girl sa pag-fall in love sa lesbian, kasi given lang na hey, it’s love, chever. although masyado lang mabait at madaling natanggap ng husband niya, pero sige kineri na rin ng characterization ng dude, so puwedeng palusutin.

but all in all, okay siya. watch!

NOTES ON A SCANDAL

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
—————————————————–

NOTES ON A SCANDAL (2006)

s. from the novel by zoe heller

c. dame judy dench, cate blanchett

pitch: a veteran closeted lesbian high school teacher uses a younger new teacher’s scandalous affair with a student to curry favors in her favor

catch: putangina ang homophobic!

 

 

bwisit! bwisit ito! nakakairita! arrgghh! sayang ang talents. pero iyon ang ipinagtataka ko: bakit pumayag ang talents na lumabas dito?????????

the film is about hidden scandals, usually frowned upon by society. cate’s character is an art teacher in a high school and currently undergoing a seven-year itch sa marriage niya with an older man. si dame judy naman is a closeted lesbian pero alam naman ng lahat ba, yung ganun. she had a previous run-in with another teacher na, it turns out in the end, naging stalkerish ang moda niya at the girl had to issue a restraining order pa sa kanya. tapos heto na naman siya, na-focus-an niya ng affection yung new art teacher na halos i-blackmail niya emotionally pero pa-underground ang dating when the art teacher had a sexual love affair with an underage student. haggard! i’m sure hetero ang sumulat ng novel na ito, and not once binanggit nila ang posibilidad ng sexuality chever ng closeted older teacher. nakakainis kasi napaka-homophobic lang ng buong set-up, not to say na walang lesbyanang closeta man o hindi na mangba-blackmail ng ganun sa isang babae para maging emotionally indebted sa kanya yung gelay. maraming ganyan diyan sus i can name names hahahaha. pero that’s not the point. the point is, sobrang condemned na agad ang character ni judy in the beginning, kahit na cate’s character was “punished” for punishing the closeted lesbian, pero iffy pa rin ang whole situation, kasi the older teacher ends up beginning something na maaaring ganun ulit sa isang complete stranger in the end. aaaaah basta! ayoko ito. buset. kakainis. argh. sayang talent! asar.