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.
1 comment:
Nice observation.
Unlike the western film industry, I think Philippines is one of the countries that rabidly promote love teams (my knowledge about the film industry of other countries is limited so i don't know if others practice the same thing).
Being the geek that I am, it would be nice if there was a paper that discussed this phenomena from an academic point of view. The concept is a bit silly ..but i think that you can crunch data and statistics from different era's (temporal) and/or countries (spatial) and try to figure out if reel life love teams really have higher divorce/separation rates from normal people.
Post a Comment