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

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.

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. Concepcions’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.