To the masochist who chose to subject him/herself to my ramblings, I ask that you e-mail me about the errors that you spotted in my entries.
Your fresh eyes and objective minds can better spot the errors that my blind subjectivity does not see!
Thanks!
Art
30 September, 2010
07 August, 2008
Cheese anyone?
The title, "A Very Special Love," is already an indicator of how much gummy lactose this movie has. The cheese in this movie overwhelms the viewer form beginning to end, and the cheese is of the generic sort. It would have been better if it was gourmet cheese; still cheesy but at least there’s a little kick of flavor in the end.
The curd of the plot is the best example of how generically cheesy the movie is. The off-the shelf elements are as follows: (1) He is heaven she is earth, they can never be together . . . that is until they reach the horizon (Some poetic cheese for your enjoyment! God, it’s contagious!); (2) hate-love-hate-love, and (3) "you complete me" scenarios.
The movie also pays homage to imported formaggi. Puking on someone in an overly long nursing scene reminiscent of Korean cheese is one of these tributes. The work environment at Flippage, a magazine publication office, is a bow to Hollywood cheddar, although the American kind is of higher quality. The tribute would have been complete if the costume designer exchanged devilish Miggy’s Calvin Klein for Prada.
It’s not all that bad though. Laida’s daydreaming in the meeting is the right kind of funny, nothing forced and over-extended. But the subplot involving Miggy’s desire for legitimacy is engaging and more resonant than the flippant romance of the main plotline. It would have been better if the movie focused on this rather than the farcical love story. But then, there would be nothing to justify the song lyric title.
Performance-wise, most of the cast churn out ordinary performances of stereotyped characters. What is worth watching though, is Dante Rivero’s subdued performance of a father torn between pleasing his legitimate children and giving his love-child the affection and love he deserves. Sarah Geronimo is more of a comic relief than a romantic lead and towards the end it becomes tiresome. As for John Lloyd Cruz, well . . . he knows how to make his tears roll down his face and it seems that it’s one of the highlights of the movie, with the close-up and relatively long-take for maximum emphasis.
The movie, overall, has more cheese than the dairy section of your local grocery store. And like the dairy section it has cheese—good cheese—that is often ignored by many. The de-emphasized content of the subplot is one of the best kinds in the chiller and it is in that subplot where the very special love is more salient and powerful. The song lyric title, after all, would have still worked sans the corny romance. But then the studio seems to think that quickmelt is superior to raclette.
The curd of the plot is the best example of how generically cheesy the movie is. The off-the shelf elements are as follows: (1) He is heaven she is earth, they can never be together . . . that is until they reach the horizon (Some poetic cheese for your enjoyment! God, it’s contagious!); (2) hate-love-hate-love, and (3) "you complete me" scenarios.
The movie also pays homage to imported formaggi. Puking on someone in an overly long nursing scene reminiscent of Korean cheese is one of these tributes. The work environment at Flippage, a magazine publication office, is a bow to Hollywood cheddar, although the American kind is of higher quality. The tribute would have been complete if the costume designer exchanged devilish Miggy’s Calvin Klein for Prada.
It’s not all that bad though. Laida’s daydreaming in the meeting is the right kind of funny, nothing forced and over-extended. But the subplot involving Miggy’s desire for legitimacy is engaging and more resonant than the flippant romance of the main plotline. It would have been better if the movie focused on this rather than the farcical love story. But then, there would be nothing to justify the song lyric title.
Performance-wise, most of the cast churn out ordinary performances of stereotyped characters. What is worth watching though, is Dante Rivero’s subdued performance of a father torn between pleasing his legitimate children and giving his love-child the affection and love he deserves. Sarah Geronimo is more of a comic relief than a romantic lead and towards the end it becomes tiresome. As for John Lloyd Cruz, well . . . he knows how to make his tears roll down his face and it seems that it’s one of the highlights of the movie, with the close-up and relatively long-take for maximum emphasis.
The movie, overall, has more cheese than the dairy section of your local grocery store. And like the dairy section it has cheese—good cheese—that is often ignored by many. The de-emphasized content of the subplot is one of the best kinds in the chiller and it is in that subplot where the very special love is more salient and powerful. The song lyric title, after all, would have still worked sans the corny romance. But then the studio seems to think that quickmelt is superior to raclette.
06 June, 2008
Kisapmata
Last May 19-23 I attended a very enlightening workshop on writing about film at the UP Film Institute. Posted below is the content of a critical paper I was asked to write using the historical perspective. It's on the film "Kisapmata" by Mike de Leon. There are minor changes that resulted form proof-reading, verifying names and what I'd like to believe as improved rhetoric.
Kisapmata
Chilling cello music opens the movie, thus setting an ominous tone that prepares the spectator for a suspenseful and horrifying experience. It accompanies an opening text that serves as a reminder of the factual source of the story content. The ominous mood plus the reminder of the story's historical source is a foreboding statement of the movie's preoccupation with the darker side of life.
The movie narrates a horrifying story of a daughter who suffers the tyranny of an overbearing father. Mila and her mother live under the suffocating grip of Diosdado also called Tatang. Even after marriage Mila is enslaved by the unbending will of Tatang who tightens his hold on his only daughter. Striving to get away from the madness Mila and Noel summon the courage to face Tatang who, in his irrational lust for control, shoots everybody before committing suicide himself.
The house guarded by barbed-wire and iron grills, a virtual prison for those within, creates an oppressive atmosphere. Equally oppressive is the bleak, brown interior. The characters are walled-in as the shots scarcely reveal windows and very little light is allowed in. The stifling sensation is further emphasized by the contrast provided by the exterior scenes which provide a breath of fresh air, and the house of Noel where cool green and white abound.
The ominous music is a consistent feature in the movie that constantly reminds the spectator of a lurking evil; a manipulative force that consumes and destroys all that comes within its grasp. Boisterous and noticeably physically larger than any of the other characters, Diosdado is the monstrous embodiment of control. He orders around his submissive wife and subtly coerces his daughter and son-in-law, Noel, to bend to his will. He is king of his house: “Sa bahay na ito ako ang masusunod!” he sternly reminds Noel. He is also suspicious as the “Psycho-esque” shots of him peering through the upstairs window to spy on his daughter betray his distrust. The same shots also allude to his almost god-like status in the lives of those close to him. He is above them watching their every move. A brilliant dissolve from an image of Christ the King, to which Mila and Noel are praying to, to Tatang sitting in his throne, further underscore this point. And compared to Tatang the images that abound the house are simple statues, deaf, inutile, dead. They and what they represent are ineffective weapons against the malevolent will of Tatang.
Tatang is god. His specter haunts the nightmares of his daughter where even the sacred confidence of the confessional is violated by the intrusive demon. The same nightmares betray the terrible fear of Mila which her journal entries corroborate. Her journal also brings to light her strong hatred for her father; hate that is kept at bay by her fear and dependence on Tatang, who still brings her to and from work even in her 26 years. Mila’s hate and fear are bastards of an incestuous rape that also put into question the paternal legitimacy of the child she is carrying—a mystery that the movie leaves unresolved.
Placed within the context of the year it was made, Kisapmata criticizes the government of the Marcos era. Shot in the year martial law ended, the movie holds up a mirror to the government. The reflection that it gives is that of a monster that inspires fear and hatred in the people. The country is like a house that imprisons its citizens under the rule of a suspicious father figure who fashions himself the king of a
Tatang is a perfect cinematic embodiment of the president who used force and fear to solicit obedience. The Ilocano ex-cop, who sleeps with a pistol under his pillow, runs the house like a prison as its barbed-wire and iron grates remind the spectator of the prison camps that choke the voices of those who oppose the will of the leader of the police-state. As the politician his character satirizes, Tatang tries to present himself as likable, even apologetic and re-conciliatory. He admits his fault to Mila and Noel in a seemingly sincere repentance. He relapses, though, as he resorts to old tactics using the fabricated illness of Nanang to lure Mila back into his grasp.
1981 also showcases the farce that is called the general elections and referendum. Lifting martial law and pledging fairness, the elections were supposed generate change. Instead, Marcos relapses, and the old dog goes back to his old tricks.
The movie hurls accusations of corruption at the government. While negotiating the price of a revolver Diosdado admits to corruption as a cop. People in office steal; “lahat sila may kupi,t” referring to his and his colleagues actions. He also offers advice on how to get the choice appointments: “May padrino ‘yun kaya na-promote . . . Kaya gayahin mo yun kung gusto mong ma-promote!” These rapier stabs strike at the heart of the corrupt system where the favored from the top to the bottom of the food-chain dip their greedy hands into the national coffers, all with the blessing and example of the head-of-state.
The other characters, but Mila most of all, are embodiments of the victims of tyranny. They all fear the tyrant and suffer from his methods. Not only the poor suffer, the middle-class suffers with them. Mila and Noel are not poverty stricken but they are forced into dependence as Tatang robs them of 10,000 Pesos. They are allegorical representations of businesses taken-over by the master and his dogs.
The people are religious. Images of saints and representations of God fill the house; the country. They go to church and pray. They ask for strength and salvation. In desperate times they turn to God, but their supplications an inefficacious. They live in an inescapable, oppressive nightmare that takes their life in the end.
The movie ends with a very bold and pessimistic resolution. In the house that imprisons, everybody dies. The comic whimsy of the final score suddenly jolts the shocked spectator. It strikes an ironic chord of Greek tragedy. In an effort to control all, even his fate, Tatang loses all. It also delivers a dark punch-line and reminds the audience of a satirical end. It holds up a mirror to society and shows the horrifying reality that people live in. Both referentially and symptomatically the movie avows its early claim: it is based on actual horrifying events.
Arthur Joseph I. Vito Cruz
23 May 2008
12 May, 2008
Etiquette in a Darkened Room
One of the most irritating things in a movie theater is a cellular phone ringing, especially during a dramatic conversation or an intense confrontation scene. Matters worsen when the phone's owner actually answers and speaks loudly into the mic. The other two is a know-it-all narrator and a head that blocks a good view of the screen.
These four things are obviously impolite, to say the least. Sometimes action sequences jump out of the screen into the theater because of these things. But even though any person with good sense will avoid doing these cinematically barbaric acts, there are still ignorant or intemperate members of the audience who, unwittingly or deliberately, succumb to the temptation of doing extremely distracting things.
Social etiquette demands that distracting things be avoided to ensure harmony in the cineplex. Although many adhere to this unwritten rule, not everyone who watches movies knows the reason for it. Why is it important to keep oneself form disturbing others in the darkened room of the cineplex?
To begin answering this question, it is important to understand the nature of the cinematic art. Movies combine different art forms to work its magic on the audience. Most movies are hybrids of narrative literature, painting, theater and music. This implies that there are several skills involved in understanding and appreciating a movie. First, watching a movie involves the skill of observing visual details and connecting them to arrive at an understanding of a shot or scene. These shots or scenes are then related to one another to understand a sequence, a series of which are then related to understand a part, which are then related to other parts to eventually comprehend the movie. On top of this already complicated visual skill, the spectator also needs to exercise listening skills so as to understand the relation of sound to the images. This activity should be sustained for 90 minutes on the average.
Obviously, a great deal of concentration is required to accomplish the abovementioned task! A cellular ringing, among other extremely irritating things, at anytime during the movie breaks this concentration. When this happens, many of the things that need to be accounted for to understand a movie as completely as possible in one sitting are missed. This leads to misinterpretations about the story and the point it's communicating.
A second angle on the reason is suggested by the physical conditions of a movie theater. People expect theaters to be dark and silent. The easy explanation for this is to allow the spectator to focus all his attention to the events unfolding on the screen. A second reason for darkness is technical and is easily appreciated by geeks: bright light in the room conflicts with the light of the projector and consequently lessens the intensity of the images on screen. But another reason, a deeper and more romantic one, is intimately connected to achieving a satisfying cinematic experience. To experience a movie fully, the spectator needs to immerse himself in the world the movie presents. For ninety minutes, he will leave the real world. This means that when the houselights dim and the movie begins, the spectator enters another dimension. He enters a place where a second can last for minutes and days . . . years elapse in a blink of an eye; a world where he can have the omniscience of a god or the myopia of a dying man. He finds himself in the reel world.
In this world that often defies the limits set by daily experience, the spectator needs to exercise his powers of keen observation and imagination in order to feel that he is, indeed, a part of it. Anything that reminds the spectator of the reality that he left outside the theater destroys this active engagement. The backlight of a cellular phone, the voice of the person talking into it, the kicking of the person behind a poor fellow's seat, all these pull the spectator away from the movie.
The culprit, too, suffers from his own distracting behavior because by doing the things he does, he not only loses focus on the movie he also fails to immerse himself in the full experience of watching.
Another enjoyable aspect of the cinematic experience derives from the pleasure and excitement of following the plot, constructing theories about possible outcomes of events and verifying which of them proves true, if at all. Enjoyment from this activity is perfectly ruined by the self-appointed narrator/commentator/interpreter who cannot keep himself from voicing his unsolicited and often erroneous conclusions. Unwarranted commentaries distract and, worse, may serve as spoilers of the plot should the conclusions be correct. But it is not only ruinous for the person victimized by this dastardly act, even the victimizer is adversely affected because his remarks may actually reveal poor cinematic comprehension rather than genius.
In the end, doing distracting things ruins the enjoyment of everybody in the theater, both the victims and the culprits. These things prevent the audience from focusing on the movie, thus missing-out on a lot of information. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it destroys the cinematic experience. At the end of the day everybody loses. The whole experience is a waste of time and money. As for the cause of the problem, the distracting behavior may even become a physical health hazard.
Note: This article also appears in www.cinesuri.com
These four things are obviously impolite, to say the least. Sometimes action sequences jump out of the screen into the theater because of these things. But even though any person with good sense will avoid doing these cinematically barbaric acts, there are still ignorant or intemperate members of the audience who, unwittingly or deliberately, succumb to the temptation of doing extremely distracting things.
Social etiquette demands that distracting things be avoided to ensure harmony in the cineplex. Although many adhere to this unwritten rule, not everyone who watches movies knows the reason for it. Why is it important to keep oneself form disturbing others in the darkened room of the cineplex?
To begin answering this question, it is important to understand the nature of the cinematic art. Movies combine different art forms to work its magic on the audience. Most movies are hybrids of narrative literature, painting, theater and music. This implies that there are several skills involved in understanding and appreciating a movie. First, watching a movie involves the skill of observing visual details and connecting them to arrive at an understanding of a shot or scene. These shots or scenes are then related to one another to understand a sequence, a series of which are then related to understand a part, which are then related to other parts to eventually comprehend the movie. On top of this already complicated visual skill, the spectator also needs to exercise listening skills so as to understand the relation of sound to the images. This activity should be sustained for 90 minutes on the average.
Obviously, a great deal of concentration is required to accomplish the abovementioned task! A cellular ringing, among other extremely irritating things, at anytime during the movie breaks this concentration. When this happens, many of the things that need to be accounted for to understand a movie as completely as possible in one sitting are missed. This leads to misinterpretations about the story and the point it's communicating.
A second angle on the reason is suggested by the physical conditions of a movie theater. People expect theaters to be dark and silent. The easy explanation for this is to allow the spectator to focus all his attention to the events unfolding on the screen. A second reason for darkness is technical and is easily appreciated by geeks: bright light in the room conflicts with the light of the projector and consequently lessens the intensity of the images on screen. But another reason, a deeper and more romantic one, is intimately connected to achieving a satisfying cinematic experience. To experience a movie fully, the spectator needs to immerse himself in the world the movie presents. For ninety minutes, he will leave the real world. This means that when the houselights dim and the movie begins, the spectator enters another dimension. He enters a place where a second can last for minutes and days . . . years elapse in a blink of an eye; a world where he can have the omniscience of a god or the myopia of a dying man. He finds himself in the reel world.
In this world that often defies the limits set by daily experience, the spectator needs to exercise his powers of keen observation and imagination in order to feel that he is, indeed, a part of it. Anything that reminds the spectator of the reality that he left outside the theater destroys this active engagement. The backlight of a cellular phone, the voice of the person talking into it, the kicking of the person behind a poor fellow's seat, all these pull the spectator away from the movie.
The culprit, too, suffers from his own distracting behavior because by doing the things he does, he not only loses focus on the movie he also fails to immerse himself in the full experience of watching.
Another enjoyable aspect of the cinematic experience derives from the pleasure and excitement of following the plot, constructing theories about possible outcomes of events and verifying which of them proves true, if at all. Enjoyment from this activity is perfectly ruined by the self-appointed narrator/commentator/interpreter who cannot keep himself from voicing his unsolicited and often erroneous conclusions. Unwarranted commentaries distract and, worse, may serve as spoilers of the plot should the conclusions be correct. But it is not only ruinous for the person victimized by this dastardly act, even the victimizer is adversely affected because his remarks may actually reveal poor cinematic comprehension rather than genius.
In the end, doing distracting things ruins the enjoyment of everybody in the theater, both the victims and the culprits. These things prevent the audience from focusing on the movie, thus missing-out on a lot of information. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it destroys the cinematic experience. At the end of the day everybody loses. The whole experience is a waste of time and money. As for the cause of the problem, the distracting behavior may even become a physical health hazard.
Note: This article also appears in www.cinesuri.com
08 May, 2008
The Open-ended Life of a Contractual Worker
A fast food restaurant opens and in the semi-private secrecy of the shop’s locker room, Jade Castro’s "Endo" begins to give us a glimpse into the life of a contractual worker. The plot, in its stark simplicity, ushers us into the life of Leo (Jason Abalos), a perennially casual worker as he trudges through his life of uncertainty. In the tediuos cycle of working and looking for work, Leo’s character is revealed. His uncommitted work situation is a reflection of his capricious relationships with Candy and Tanya (Ina Feleo), symptoms of his fickle affections. Despite his spasmodic love-life, Leo nonetheless refuses to move on, holding-on tightly to defective souvenirs form his ex’s.
Opposite Leo is Tanya, an uncompromising go-getter. Unlike Leo who lacks the fortitude even to dream, Tanya grabs opportunity by the neck and attempts to beat fate in her own game. She possesses a resolute drive to escape her labor samsara. Like the opposite poles of magnets the two cling to each other but like chromatic complements they also clash. From this tension the plot derives its understated drama delivered in equally understated but effective performances from the two leads. And in this subtle drama lies the movie’s subdued power. Although the plot contains some clichéd events, it veers away form weepy melodrama especially evident in the restraint shown in the confrontation scene between the couple. The laudable absence of mood enhancing, tear-jerking, heart-rending music keeps the spectator focused on the issue that divides the two characters. The triumph of sound reason and sacrifice also deserve praise as the two finally say their poignant but optimistic farewells. The movie ends with a suggestion of a commitment to a renewed hope in life and love cloaked by an open-ended resolution.
The moderate pace of the movie contributes well to creating a feeling of tediousness without actually causing boredom. The pace allows the spectator to approximate the monotonous cycle the characters find themselves in. This effect stems from the remarkably clean editing that stitches together the mostly beautifully composed and photographed scenes.
The movie, though, is not completely faultless in form and content. The bed-scenes, admittedly necessary for the plot and staged tastefully without resorting to fleshy revelations, are unnecessarily long. The movie also leaves with considerable ambiguity whether the cause of one of the main problems is the couples’ careless copulating or their indulging in an act reserved for the marital chamber. The movie’s slant seems to be for the euphemistic “responsible sex” on account of the flagrant add-placement of a contraceptive brand, an advertising ploy that deserves a stern slap on the wrist with a bamboo stick. The movie suggests that the problem could have been avoided if they used latex. Lastly, the unethical utilitarianism of one of the secondary characters also poses a grave problem.
On the whole, the movie is well- worth the time I spent watching it. It is a refreshingly welcome break form over-acted melodrama that pervades mainstream Philippine cinema and even television. The unpretentious artistry of the filmmakers reaches out to the audience without condescension. The complexity of the issues tackled by the movie and some problematic content, unless processed under the guidance of a clear-minded mentor, limits it's audience to intellectually mature individuals.
Opposite Leo is Tanya, an uncompromising go-getter. Unlike Leo who lacks the fortitude even to dream, Tanya grabs opportunity by the neck and attempts to beat fate in her own game. She possesses a resolute drive to escape her labor samsara. Like the opposite poles of magnets the two cling to each other but like chromatic complements they also clash. From this tension the plot derives its understated drama delivered in equally understated but effective performances from the two leads. And in this subtle drama lies the movie’s subdued power. Although the plot contains some clichéd events, it veers away form weepy melodrama especially evident in the restraint shown in the confrontation scene between the couple. The laudable absence of mood enhancing, tear-jerking, heart-rending music keeps the spectator focused on the issue that divides the two characters. The triumph of sound reason and sacrifice also deserve praise as the two finally say their poignant but optimistic farewells. The movie ends with a suggestion of a commitment to a renewed hope in life and love cloaked by an open-ended resolution.
The moderate pace of the movie contributes well to creating a feeling of tediousness without actually causing boredom. The pace allows the spectator to approximate the monotonous cycle the characters find themselves in. This effect stems from the remarkably clean editing that stitches together the mostly beautifully composed and photographed scenes.
The movie, though, is not completely faultless in form and content. The bed-scenes, admittedly necessary for the plot and staged tastefully without resorting to fleshy revelations, are unnecessarily long. The movie also leaves with considerable ambiguity whether the cause of one of the main problems is the couples’ careless copulating or their indulging in an act reserved for the marital chamber. The movie’s slant seems to be for the euphemistic “responsible sex” on account of the flagrant add-placement of a contraceptive brand, an advertising ploy that deserves a stern slap on the wrist with a bamboo stick. The movie suggests that the problem could have been avoided if they used latex. Lastly, the unethical utilitarianism of one of the secondary characters also poses a grave problem.
On the whole, the movie is well- worth the time I spent watching it. It is a refreshingly welcome break form over-acted melodrama that pervades mainstream Philippine cinema and even television. The unpretentious artistry of the filmmakers reaches out to the audience without condescension. The complexity of the issues tackled by the movie and some problematic content, unless processed under the guidance of a clear-minded mentor, limits it's audience to intellectually mature individuals.
07 May, 2008
The Perils of Love Teams
The fairly recent arrival of Gabby Concepcion triggered speculations of a movie with him starring opposite his former wife Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan. Before their marriage to one another, the two were a movie-land love team that had quite a considerable fan base. Mr. Concepcion’s comeback probably brings hope to nostalgic admirers who would want to see the Sharon-Gabby tandem back on the silver screen.
Mrs. Cuneta-Pangilinan, in a television interview, was quick to dismiss a movie project with her ex-hubby explaining that it may cause family conflicts. Their history as a couple poses potential difficulties for a new movie together. No one would want to see the two in a non-romantic movie and herein lays the problem. Perhaps it is not possible to play the role of lovers after going through a stormy relationship and a subsequently failed marriage.
Their story was a fairy tale gone wrong. After spending much of their teen years being marketed as a love team, people believed that the normal way to continue the relationship is for the two to marry. They did, much to the delighted adulation of the adoring fans. After some time, problems arose and the two separate.
It is not possible to think of Sharon and Gabby without remembering their love team days. And I cannot help but wonder whether or not this industry marketing strategy is actually the cause of their failed marriage. I am interested to find out whether there is a correlation between love teams and real life heartaches that in the extreme leads to shattered marriages and broken homes.
I will now devote time and cyber space to elaborating my own speculations about what I now merely feel to be this correlation.
The dangers of acting
In the “Republic,” Plato denounces acting because this profession makes the actor unsure of who and what he really is. He is especially concerned about men playing the role of women which He thinks leads to effeminacy. The actor, because of the roles he plays, participates in a lie and the danger is that the lie can manifest itself in his life off-stage. The profession of acting leads the actor away from truth. Corollary to this are the plays that Plato accuses of presenting lies to the citizenry.
Much later, in the twentieth century, Etienne Gilson, in “Forms and Substances in the Arts” poses a warning to actors. Gilson identifies the same danger Plato observed more than two thousand years ago. Actors are in danger of confusing their stage role for real life. Moreover, some roles put the actor in peril of committing moral offences.
Although the two philosophers are speaking of stage actors, the same dangers are also present to cinematic actors. If rumors are true, the recent death of Heath Ledger may serve as evidence of the danger. People speculate that the actor’s death is due in part to his inability to escape from the role of the Joker, a deranged criminal character in Batman. The difficulty here is that it is impossible to know the truth behind this tragic incident with the only source of credible information now at eternal rest.
James Caviezel explains in an interview that his reason for refusing roles that involve bed scenes is that there is no pretending sexual arousal, especially for men who explicitly physically manifest the condition. No person, no matter how professional, can honestly claim that he is not affected when placed in a sexual situation. I have heard rumors of actors and actresses getting carried away by the heat of the moment. An insider from the local industry once intimated to me that the crew, him included, of a movie he was working in was ordered out of the set in order for the actor and actress to satisfy their banal urge. The actor is married, the actress is not. This is one of the moral dangers Gilson points to.
It is not uncommon to see the male and female lead of a movie to eventually become romantically involved off-screen. Consider Tom Cruise and the women he became romantically involved with and the aforementioned Sharon-Gabby tandem as examples. I give these people the benefit of the doubt but I cannot help but wonder whether or not they are really in-love. To be more precise I wonder if they are in-love with each other or with the role they played. If we are to consider the observations of Plato and Gilson, falling in love as characters off-screen may not be too far off a possibility. If scientifically verified (and I’ll be happy to hear form actors and actresses about their experiences with proper professional confidence, of course), it may well-explain the many real life tragedies that befall the married life of the stars. The sudden realization that one’s spouse is a person different from the one he or she married leads to a break-up. The characters march to the altar, the persons sit in a marriage tribunal.
If the acting profession is dangerous enough, what happens if the fantasy is carried over to real life? Here lays the trouble of love teams.
And the plot goes on in “The Buzz” and “Showbiz Central”
In order to influence the commercial viability of movies, production outfits pair-up couples that may look good together on screen. When the pairing becomes successful, the pair is marketed as a love team and here the drama on screen finds itself in real life. Often we see the love team undergo several TV appearances that are poised to sell them as a real couple. Their off-screen romantic joys and heartaches are presented to everyone as dramatically as the latest movie or telenovela that pairs them. This strategy is effective. Observe the comments of audiences during interviews after watching a movie where a love team stars in. The remarks revolve around “Ang ganda/gwapo niya . . . Bagay sila talaga!” It is actually the pairing that sells the movie, not the artistic merit of the work, if any.
The questions of fans and hosts in showbiz talk shows also revolve around the romantic exploits of the couple. We often hear the question “Ano ba talaga ang nararamdaman ninyo sa isa’t isa?” and the reply is often an ambiguous statement that neither admits nor denies anything but is designed to make the fans more curious. Occasionally, some brave souls admit love in public, much to the ecstatic approval of the fans, and then come the break-up or, worse yet, the annulment. This precarious situation may have well been avoided had the participants not been deluded into thinking that their love team feelings are their true feelings for each as persons. Far more dubious is the clamor for understanding the decision of a married showbiz couple to separate or divorce on the grounds that they could not get along. It is problematic for two reasons, first it presents separation and divorce as an antidote to marriage; second it takes marriage lightly as if it is simply a comradeship that can easily be joined and left.
How much of the things presented by love teams are true the fans can never really know. In fact, the whole business is to make this ambiguity appear as concrete reality. The charm and power of a love team lies in its ability to make people believe the on and off screen romance of a manufactured couple. It is as if their personal lives are extensions of their reel lives. Notice how the plots of movies that star love teams mirror their off screen relationships. I find this destructive because it attempts to present fantasy as reality. It is damaging for both the actors involved as well as the fans that adore them.
I have an acquaintance who broke- up with his showbiz girlfriend because of difficulties in the relationship. The girl is a pair in a popular love team. This is one concrete example of how the practice of love teams negatively affects the personal life of the actor or actress. Another problem that may possibly arise is the blurring of reel and real life for the actor himself. Consequently thinking his manufactured life to be real, he jumps into a relationship based on insincere feelings and is devastated when things begin to crumble. He completely becomes a product that studios sell without him realizing the damage it causes on him as a person. The drama that begins on screen continues on TV talk shows and may potentially end in real-life tragedy.
The fans, too, are left with the short end of the stick in the love team project. In fact, it is they who are ultimately short-changed by this lie. The existence of this practice makes the pronouncements of Plato prophetic. A lie is spread and people believe it to be true. The repercussions are grave. In the sphere of artistry, the fans become the captive audience of run-of-the-mill melodrama and romantic farce. They become used to beer and end-up failing to recognize the superiority of champagne. Better films go unnoticed or worse, un-produced. On the level of fandom, fans invest an emotional attachment to their favored love team and quarrel with fans of others. We laugh when we read of it, but news of fans brawling with each other because of an argument about who’s a better partner for their idol speak of a sad reality, Brechtian in its absurdity and dark humor. In the realm of values, they become voyeuristic and gossip hungry, prey to vicious curiosity about the private lives of their idols, which can be carried over to the lives of their neighbors.
Why people believe this fantasy is not yet clear to me. Perhaps they want to believe it because it somehow allays their worries. Love teams reinforce the idea that what happens on screen can happen off screen and it gives hope to the fans. It pains fans to see their idols succumb to the same things they endure but it may also help them accept their plight more easily. If it happens to my idol why should I complain if it happens to me? It serves as catharsis to a person worn by daily toil and frustrations. But should this be true, is it reason enough to justify the insidious effects of love teams? I think not.
Mrs. Cuneta-Pangilinan, in a television interview, was quick to dismiss a movie project with her ex-hubby explaining that it may cause family conflicts. Their history as a couple poses potential difficulties for a new movie together. No one would want to see the two in a non-romantic movie and herein lays the problem. Perhaps it is not possible to play the role of lovers after going through a stormy relationship and a subsequently failed marriage.
Their story was a fairy tale gone wrong. After spending much of their teen years being marketed as a love team, people believed that the normal way to continue the relationship is for the two to marry. They did, much to the delighted adulation of the adoring fans. After some time, problems arose and the two separate.
It is not possible to think of Sharon and Gabby without remembering their love team days. And I cannot help but wonder whether or not this industry marketing strategy is actually the cause of their failed marriage. I am interested to find out whether there is a correlation between love teams and real life heartaches that in the extreme leads to shattered marriages and broken homes.
I will now devote time and cyber space to elaborating my own speculations about what I now merely feel to be this correlation.
The dangers of acting
In the “Republic,” Plato denounces acting because this profession makes the actor unsure of who and what he really is. He is especially concerned about men playing the role of women which He thinks leads to effeminacy. The actor, because of the roles he plays, participates in a lie and the danger is that the lie can manifest itself in his life off-stage. The profession of acting leads the actor away from truth. Corollary to this are the plays that Plato accuses of presenting lies to the citizenry.
Much later, in the twentieth century, Etienne Gilson, in “Forms and Substances in the Arts” poses a warning to actors. Gilson identifies the same danger Plato observed more than two thousand years ago. Actors are in danger of confusing their stage role for real life. Moreover, some roles put the actor in peril of committing moral offences.
Although the two philosophers are speaking of stage actors, the same dangers are also present to cinematic actors. If rumors are true, the recent death of Heath Ledger may serve as evidence of the danger. People speculate that the actor’s death is due in part to his inability to escape from the role of the Joker, a deranged criminal character in Batman. The difficulty here is that it is impossible to know the truth behind this tragic incident with the only source of credible information now at eternal rest.
James Caviezel explains in an interview that his reason for refusing roles that involve bed scenes is that there is no pretending sexual arousal, especially for men who explicitly physically manifest the condition. No person, no matter how professional, can honestly claim that he is not affected when placed in a sexual situation. I have heard rumors of actors and actresses getting carried away by the heat of the moment. An insider from the local industry once intimated to me that the crew, him included, of a movie he was working in was ordered out of the set in order for the actor and actress to satisfy their banal urge. The actor is married, the actress is not. This is one of the moral dangers Gilson points to.
It is not uncommon to see the male and female lead of a movie to eventually become romantically involved off-screen. Consider Tom Cruise and the women he became romantically involved with and the aforementioned Sharon-Gabby tandem as examples. I give these people the benefit of the doubt but I cannot help but wonder whether or not they are really in-love. To be more precise I wonder if they are in-love with each other or with the role they played. If we are to consider the observations of Plato and Gilson, falling in love as characters off-screen may not be too far off a possibility. If scientifically verified (and I’ll be happy to hear form actors and actresses about their experiences with proper professional confidence, of course), it may well-explain the many real life tragedies that befall the married life of the stars. The sudden realization that one’s spouse is a person different from the one he or she married leads to a break-up. The characters march to the altar, the persons sit in a marriage tribunal.
If the acting profession is dangerous enough, what happens if the fantasy is carried over to real life? Here lays the trouble of love teams.
And the plot goes on in “The Buzz” and “Showbiz Central”
In order to influence the commercial viability of movies, production outfits pair-up couples that may look good together on screen. When the pairing becomes successful, the pair is marketed as a love team and here the drama on screen finds itself in real life. Often we see the love team undergo several TV appearances that are poised to sell them as a real couple. Their off-screen romantic joys and heartaches are presented to everyone as dramatically as the latest movie or telenovela that pairs them. This strategy is effective. Observe the comments of audiences during interviews after watching a movie where a love team stars in. The remarks revolve around “Ang ganda/gwapo niya . . . Bagay sila talaga!” It is actually the pairing that sells the movie, not the artistic merit of the work, if any.
The questions of fans and hosts in showbiz talk shows also revolve around the romantic exploits of the couple. We often hear the question “Ano ba talaga ang nararamdaman ninyo sa isa’t isa?” and the reply is often an ambiguous statement that neither admits nor denies anything but is designed to make the fans more curious. Occasionally, some brave souls admit love in public, much to the ecstatic approval of the fans, and then come the break-up or, worse yet, the annulment. This precarious situation may have well been avoided had the participants not been deluded into thinking that their love team feelings are their true feelings for each as persons. Far more dubious is the clamor for understanding the decision of a married showbiz couple to separate or divorce on the grounds that they could not get along. It is problematic for two reasons, first it presents separation and divorce as an antidote to marriage; second it takes marriage lightly as if it is simply a comradeship that can easily be joined and left.
How much of the things presented by love teams are true the fans can never really know. In fact, the whole business is to make this ambiguity appear as concrete reality. The charm and power of a love team lies in its ability to make people believe the on and off screen romance of a manufactured couple. It is as if their personal lives are extensions of their reel lives. Notice how the plots of movies that star love teams mirror their off screen relationships. I find this destructive because it attempts to present fantasy as reality. It is damaging for both the actors involved as well as the fans that adore them.
I have an acquaintance who broke- up with his showbiz girlfriend because of difficulties in the relationship. The girl is a pair in a popular love team. This is one concrete example of how the practice of love teams negatively affects the personal life of the actor or actress. Another problem that may possibly arise is the blurring of reel and real life for the actor himself. Consequently thinking his manufactured life to be real, he jumps into a relationship based on insincere feelings and is devastated when things begin to crumble. He completely becomes a product that studios sell without him realizing the damage it causes on him as a person. The drama that begins on screen continues on TV talk shows and may potentially end in real-life tragedy.
The fans, too, are left with the short end of the stick in the love team project. In fact, it is they who are ultimately short-changed by this lie. The existence of this practice makes the pronouncements of Plato prophetic. A lie is spread and people believe it to be true. The repercussions are grave. In the sphere of artistry, the fans become the captive audience of run-of-the-mill melodrama and romantic farce. They become used to beer and end-up failing to recognize the superiority of champagne. Better films go unnoticed or worse, un-produced. On the level of fandom, fans invest an emotional attachment to their favored love team and quarrel with fans of others. We laugh when we read of it, but news of fans brawling with each other because of an argument about who’s a better partner for their idol speak of a sad reality, Brechtian in its absurdity and dark humor. In the realm of values, they become voyeuristic and gossip hungry, prey to vicious curiosity about the private lives of their idols, which can be carried over to the lives of their neighbors.
Why people believe this fantasy is not yet clear to me. Perhaps they want to believe it because it somehow allays their worries. Love teams reinforce the idea that what happens on screen can happen off screen and it gives hope to the fans. It pains fans to see their idols succumb to the same things they endure but it may also help them accept their plight more easily. If it happens to my idol why should I complain if it happens to me? It serves as catharsis to a person worn by daily toil and frustrations. But should this be true, is it reason enough to justify the insidious effects of love teams? I think not.
24 April, 2008
Clarifying Misconceptions about Leisure and Watching Movies Part 3
A recapitulation of the conditions of leisure:
Leisure is an end and worth doing for its own sake.
The pleasure of leisure comes with the performance of the act and not after.
Leisure rewards intrinsically, i.e. it causes self-improvement in the agent.
How does watching a movie satisfy these conditions?
Watching is leisurely because it is worth doing for its own sake. I think it is easy to understand a person who watches a movie because he simply enjoys watching. There is no question here that this person is engaged in leisure when he is in the cinematheque. But is there something in a movie that makes it properly an object of leisure? If a movie is an art work, then it is a proper object of leisure. Like all artworks, a movie is not a useful thing. Its very reason for being is to be beautiful; to be contemplated and enjoyed for its own sake on account of the excellence that inheres in it. It is "useless." It does not generate an extrinsic reward. Very few individuals--professional critics-- are paid to watch a movie, and even then, the pay is not really meant to compensate the very act of watching. It is meant more to reward the work that will come after watching--the writing of a review. In fact, the general public actually spends money to stay in a darkened room to be mesmerized by moving pictures. What do they get after the movie? Nothing tangible, actually. They get the pleasure while watching. The operative word here is "while." It is absurd to say that you were entertained and enjoyed a movie only after watching it, in the same manner that it is ridiculous to claim that you enjoyed a song only after after listening to it. The pleasure we all experience comes as we watch. This is the reason why watching a movie is liberal. Nothing comes after it. It does not acquire for us a better good. It is a terminal activity.
What then do we make of the people who claim to go to a movie to relax? If relaxation is a way for us to recharge our tired bodies and minds, then watching a movie is actually counter-productive. To recharge ourselves means not to engage in any activity that requires exertion. If this is the case, then we are better off sleeping than going to a movie (although there are people who actually sleep during a movie. Right Alexis?!). Watching a movie is actually not relaxing if you think about it. To understand what you are watching, you need to think. You need to attentively observe what's happening on the screen, recall previous scenes, re-arrange the plot to grasp the story, relate elements and more when you watch. Moreover, movies can exhaust you emotionally. Consider watching horror films. Can anyone sincerely and truly claim that watching a horror movie relaxes? I don't think any person is relaxed while terrified! Action scenes also excite us to the point of exhaustion. Watch "Black Hawk Down" to see my point. A further point is that there are movies that are physically unbearably long. Movies that exceed two hours has a tendency to strain the lower back and at some point some people begin to lose the feeling in their buttocks. (I haven't seen any of them but I'm curious to know how people physically felt watching Lav Diaz's "marathonian" movies without subjecting myself to 11 straight hours of sitting.)
Perhaps what we need to do is to clarify what we mean by relaxing in a movie. And for this I am going to need the input of people.
I've already mentioned that watching a movie entails thinking. When we do begin to actively engage a movie by subjecting it to our mental process, then we are actually exercising and developing something uniquely human--our ability to think. Doing so also adds to the skills we have because we learn to apply and adapt our thinking skills to watching a movie. And the thinking skill required in watching a movie is different form the skills required in reading a novel, looking at a painting, listening to music, etc. Also, attentive and active watching allows us to understand and experience the beauty uniquely present in a movie. Watching many kinds of movies soaks us in different manifestations of beauty as can only be done in cinema. In the end, we exit the cinematheque better persons because we exercised exclusively human faculties, enhanced old skills and developed new ones and gained experiences that are now indelibly a part of our being. These benefits are permanent and lasting. They can never be taken away from us and can only be added on to and further enhanced.
Done properly, watching a movie can only make us better. This is why watching a movie is a proper exercise of leisure. So please, see a movie and don't relax!
Addendum:
To determine which of your activities is leisure and which ones are useful make two columns and label one as Things I NEED to Do and the other as Things I WANT to Do. The "needs" are useful and the "wants" are leisure. But you also ought to examine whether the activity is, indeed, a need or a want. It is an need if you're doing it for a reason other than itself and a want if the reason is you simply enjoy doing the act and that you grow from doing it.
There are other questions of course, such as "Is it possible to to enjoy a necessary act?" or "Is it possible for an inherently leisurely act to be treated as a useful act?" We can explore these questions later on if interest arises, but for now . . . adieu!
Leisure is an end and worth doing for its own sake.
The pleasure of leisure comes with the performance of the act and not after.
Leisure rewards intrinsically, i.e. it causes self-improvement in the agent.
How does watching a movie satisfy these conditions?
Watching is leisurely because it is worth doing for its own sake. I think it is easy to understand a person who watches a movie because he simply enjoys watching. There is no question here that this person is engaged in leisure when he is in the cinematheque. But is there something in a movie that makes it properly an object of leisure? If a movie is an art work, then it is a proper object of leisure. Like all artworks, a movie is not a useful thing. Its very reason for being is to be beautiful; to be contemplated and enjoyed for its own sake on account of the excellence that inheres in it. It is "useless." It does not generate an extrinsic reward. Very few individuals--professional critics-- are paid to watch a movie, and even then, the pay is not really meant to compensate the very act of watching. It is meant more to reward the work that will come after watching--the writing of a review. In fact, the general public actually spends money to stay in a darkened room to be mesmerized by moving pictures. What do they get after the movie? Nothing tangible, actually. They get the pleasure while watching. The operative word here is "while." It is absurd to say that you were entertained and enjoyed a movie only after watching it, in the same manner that it is ridiculous to claim that you enjoyed a song only after after listening to it. The pleasure we all experience comes as we watch. This is the reason why watching a movie is liberal. Nothing comes after it. It does not acquire for us a better good. It is a terminal activity.
What then do we make of the people who claim to go to a movie to relax? If relaxation is a way for us to recharge our tired bodies and minds, then watching a movie is actually counter-productive. To recharge ourselves means not to engage in any activity that requires exertion. If this is the case, then we are better off sleeping than going to a movie (although there are people who actually sleep during a movie. Right Alexis?!). Watching a movie is actually not relaxing if you think about it. To understand what you are watching, you need to think. You need to attentively observe what's happening on the screen, recall previous scenes, re-arrange the plot to grasp the story, relate elements and more when you watch. Moreover, movies can exhaust you emotionally. Consider watching horror films. Can anyone sincerely and truly claim that watching a horror movie relaxes? I don't think any person is relaxed while terrified! Action scenes also excite us to the point of exhaustion. Watch "Black Hawk Down" to see my point. A further point is that there are movies that are physically unbearably long. Movies that exceed two hours has a tendency to strain the lower back and at some point some people begin to lose the feeling in their buttocks. (I haven't seen any of them but I'm curious to know how people physically felt watching Lav Diaz's "marathonian" movies without subjecting myself to 11 straight hours of sitting.)
Perhaps what we need to do is to clarify what we mean by relaxing in a movie. And for this I am going to need the input of people.
I've already mentioned that watching a movie entails thinking. When we do begin to actively engage a movie by subjecting it to our mental process, then we are actually exercising and developing something uniquely human--our ability to think. Doing so also adds to the skills we have because we learn to apply and adapt our thinking skills to watching a movie. And the thinking skill required in watching a movie is different form the skills required in reading a novel, looking at a painting, listening to music, etc. Also, attentive and active watching allows us to understand and experience the beauty uniquely present in a movie. Watching many kinds of movies soaks us in different manifestations of beauty as can only be done in cinema. In the end, we exit the cinematheque better persons because we exercised exclusively human faculties, enhanced old skills and developed new ones and gained experiences that are now indelibly a part of our being. These benefits are permanent and lasting. They can never be taken away from us and can only be added on to and further enhanced.
Done properly, watching a movie can only make us better. This is why watching a movie is a proper exercise of leisure. So please, see a movie and don't relax!
Addendum:
To determine which of your activities is leisure and which ones are useful make two columns and label one as Things I NEED to Do and the other as Things I WANT to Do. The "needs" are useful and the "wants" are leisure. But you also ought to examine whether the activity is, indeed, a need or a want. It is an need if you're doing it for a reason other than itself and a want if the reason is you simply enjoy doing the act and that you grow from doing it.
There are other questions of course, such as "Is it possible to to enjoy a necessary act?" or "Is it possible for an inherently leisurely act to be treated as a useful act?" We can explore these questions later on if interest arises, but for now . . . adieu!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)