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!

Advertisements

One Response to “Unrealistically yours, officially”

  1. […] “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.” (Read full review) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: