Lamb Chops

Christmas Lights

Kinatay’s (The Execution of P) exclusive Greenbelt screening was organized by a company which I thought is a punch line for the event. Never served as an appetizer, Adobo is the leader publication for the advertising and marketing community who is now the bearer of the Cannes Film Fest 2009 Best Director Brillante Mendoza win for Kinatay. That night was a nearly classy event for an independent film that shoots garbage bins, mutilated panties and a moribund illustration of diabolism with artistic allusion. They served wine and cocktails in the lobby and adjacent to that is the mini-museum/altar of Mendoza’s trophy collection. I thought they would also give litter bags as an understated precaution for what we are going to witness. Kitty litters are nowhere to be found in the alleys, if ever there were grossed-out socialites would dare come out from their seats. So you are obliged to politely swallow your own vomit or anything you wish to take out of your system for that matter. But even then, your imagination functions beyond thought.

Since most of the audiences are from the AB crowd, the reactions are more subdued. Or else, a castration will be the retribution for being unsophisticated towards gruesome themes. We are the elitists so the expectations from us, the audience, are also far above the ground. And the reactions are overwhelmingly soundless; as if Mendoza can shoot right there for an upcoming film. And anyone who will react with a slight shock in their face will receive a standing ovation as an indication of being over-the-top. In a way, the surrounding in the theater is quite the unadulterated imitation of what real-time is all about. For about one and a half hours screening the film will defy any real-time purist filmmakers. Agnes Varda tried to make one in her 1962 film Cleo from 5 to 7. But she exceeded thirty minutes with the ninety minute running time of the film. Mendoza’s film principles could also be his own worst enemy. With the aid of the pen and philosophies of Armando Lao, who also preaches real-time as the “New Bible” to our evolving filmmakers, Mendoza has made another film with the same theory. But the difference is that, Serbis is just about there in getting the core of the supposed strength, as they enslave themselves to the theory of real-time. But in Kinatay, they certainly fail.

.

Mendoza’s Kinatay is a well-orchestrated slice of life occurrence to the life of a soon-to-be police cop, who will witness another slice which is not the former, rather a slice of human brutality with the use of an old machete. Gingerbread men are fortunate enough to be molded from cookie cutters. Peping (Coco Martin) is a Criminology student who just got married to Connie (Mercedes Cabral). We follow Peping that day in these semi-voyeuristic slash rickety documentaryish camera techniques for the reality to sink into us. But despite the fact we are near the equator, our vision has no earthquake of its own. For once, I could now put forward my complaint, since the concept is all about hardcore reality. Anyway, the shots during the day are still clear; film celluloid really serve as an achievement in cinematography. As the night sets in, the inflexible obsessions of Mendoza seems to be the entirety of it – could be the reason why he have won. It does not only scratch all our senses, but also weakens his fervor towards real-time filmmaking. So there goes the re-assessment of the material. It seems that they are fifteen and a quarter steps in the wrong direction. I am certain that Kinatay disappoints on the leverage of its purpose. The purpose of which is found in the previous film Serbis. He could have setup a camera in front of us, real-time is within the screening of the film, on a purist standpoint. The impotent film Next Attraction made this statement but not in a positive and relevant motion. But it made me reassess the film and could possibly hail it as a great art trash. Its trash but a great one – it utterly deserves two and a half stars. I have never been in a formal film school but I am getting the offset concept with the rapid sprouting of extremism. It’s the opposing poles they want to achieve. So therefore, within the two films, which is more ‘a day in the life’? To whom should we give our tireless applause for conferring rapture? If it made you feel something, then it’s definitely a yarn from a basket of ribbons – colorful ones to be literal.

Kinatay might elicit a few more years of debate for its overly sensational and gritty material. And they could be praised for it. It has filled in the gaps to the scenes not explored during the Massacre Era of the nineties. Kinatay could be at par in terms of technicalities but nothing more than that. I prefer Serbis in Mendoza’s clump of films. It could make you think it is insignificant but that film could be more accurate without being too artistic or literary with its reflection. It is a slice of life that they preach and yet they are now afraid to incite boredom but opted to show a murderous night, from all of the days of our subsistence. But if you get bored stiff and jaded with nothing, it is easier to bow down to good old storytelling. Mendoza almost made a nearly insightful story and that is not what real-time had in mind. He will either chop it off, a conformist act, or do nothing.


Charlie Koon's Rating:

Blurring Reality

Comfort Gay

“The challenge for journalists trying to write a “hit” story may be in finding a sweet spot, one that arouses people’s emotions but not to the point that it overwhelms the audience and they no longer wish to keep reading or viewing.” – An excerpt from Eric Orson’s article The Science of Journalism? Why Sensational Sells

Jay is a film by Francis Xavier Pasion that won numerous awards in last year’s Cinemalaya Film Festival and had won Best Feature Film in a Festival in Berlin. I am not pleased with how the audience has reacted with the film. Much of the praises have focused on the film’s probable stance on Sensational Journalism. It is just a fragment of what the film conveys. In a sense the film is not about reality but the human perception of reality, the plasticity of which becomes an occupational advantage of modern journalism. Granted that any form of reporting is never completely neutral or impartial, some aspect of the truth must be divulged in the course of a journalistic endeavor. The film has shown this facet through Jay’s exploit of the documentary.

Jay is about two people, both named Jay. One is dead and the other is living. They do not look-alike but they are both gay. The living Jay is a TV producer who manufactures reality stories that tackle justice to families who have been victimized by cruel slayings. And the dead Jay’s brutal murder got Jay’s attention. He went all the way to Pampanga to produce the story. He makes interviews and asks the family to reenact some events to make it more realistic. It is not as easy as it sounds but with the help of his politeness and charm, he was able to convince the family with the promise to get hold of the killer.

Of course any writer or TV producer would do the usual thing with what Jay has done with his TV documentary. In the film, it was shown as the premise probably taking less than fifteen minutes. He creates stories to excite the public and he was good at it. But the film has made it clear that it is not the entirety of the narrative. The point of view suddenly shifted on the life of the living Jay. It is the time wherein he is making the documentary. The drama has evolved into deadpan humor. It made discernible insights as to how a producer creates a story. He did not infuse unadulterated reality into the documentary seeing that there is an opportunity to make it a certified hit.

How about the overrated concept of making the story sensational? Is it really a condemnable practice? Or if we do allow such things, to what extent is better do we acknowledge this unethical practice? The TV program’s objective is to give justice to victims and help them to catch the murderers. And they are achieving it. Jay does not care about the facts. To elicit an example, when the killer was caught, he was identified to be a freelance masseur. Jay disregarded the killer’s declaration that he was forced to be penetrated in the derriere. The statements were explicit and did not make it in the final cut of the documentary. Besides, it makes a negative connotation to gay behavior. Anyway, he could have known that it is a different argument.

The film is realistically portrayed by our country’s best actors. Baron Geisler did a good portrayal of a charming yet manipulative TV producer. Coco Martin and Flor Salanga are great supporting characters to the film. The blurring of reality is just a speck in the creation of this cleverly made story. Its focus was more on the emotional aspect of the main character Jay. He was aware of the reality involved with these rural people. The deformation of human behavior is also a reality. It depends on who you are and who you wanted to be. For Jay, he does not care anymore as to what you will say. We are the one who is responsible to read between the lines and check whether we must disregard what is obviously misleading.

Charlie Koon's Rating:

Touching the Untouchable

Where's my rubber ducky?

Masterpieces are not single and solitary births; they are the outcome of many years of thinking in common, of thinking by the body of the people, so that the experience of the mass is behind the single voice. - Virginia Woolf

Third world art is tough for critics to criticize. Next Attraction is so clever with its guard to criticisms. Next Attraction is really good in terms of improvisation. It also receives a special recognition in the recently concluded 10th Cinemanila. It is quite predictable though. I think that is the entire idea of it. As long as you have no budget, you have a weird concept; they will be praised as the new artists.

Next Attraction is about making a film. They have a steady camera recording the behind the scenes of a certain short film. Apparently, there’s a progression within those steady shots. We get the details of what the short film is all about. It is about a guy (Coco Martin) being reprimanded by her mother (Jacklyn Jose) for an act he committed. You can hear the dialogues but it is an art film so you expect something more profound. Instead you get to see a steady shot of the cameraman shooting the scene and the supposed to be director of the film. After fifty minutes of more or less fifteen long takes of behind the scenes, the film shooting packs up. The second part of the film is the short film which is roughly ten or fifteen minutes long.

Actually, the film has achieved many of its supposed goals. Next Attraction has a different perspective with its use of the strategic anticipation within the story. Nonetheless, the audience did acquire much anticipation. It is quite easy to understand the very concept of it all why they shot the film like that. It has inputs in making a radical approach in film making. The film doesn’t tolerate clichés or any form of 'hackneyism'.

To be honest, the film experience is like; I was brought into a different planet and literally got back without any trace of libido. I could have purchased Viagra afterwards. I know this might be my personal opinion on this film but it seems to be as important as how I objectively evaluate films in general. I am no robot. I could easily give four or even five stars with all those deleted scenes. But it is still a film. The film’s ‘in your face’ attitude is quite disturbing. Like “Oh we don’t have the money, and this is our film”, is a bit puzzling to be of good practice. To show some form of appreciation, the film has its defenders for what they have done and I am just not that enthusiastic about it. Anyway, Raya Martin is merely trying without expecting people to actually realize what his goal was in the first place.

Next Attraction is too safe for my opinion to be made by an artist who makes risks. It is quite easy to perceive art films that really have the edge to be noticed. Next Attraction will get the attention it ought to have. But I’m a bit confused as to why the film is shot in digital format, while the short film is with the use of film stock? Is he not too confident enough to stash some cash for a film stock for all the behind the scenes? If it is of equal importance, why did he shoot it in two different medium? Actually, I watch DVDs with bonus features. It’s pretty much this movie.

Charlie Koon's Rating:

.

Trivia:

Next Attraction is the second installment of the Box Office Trilogy. First installment is Now Showing. It also receives an X Rating (together with Melancholia and Imburnal) before it is shown in the Cinemanila 2008 Festival after the director made an appeal to the MTRCB.

No Mercy

Little Drummer Boy

Tambolista is a film directed by Adolfo Alix Jr. It is dark, immoral, and brutal. It’s as if the lids of hell where left open showering humanity with evil deeds and grave purposes.

The main character is Jason (Jiro Manio). He dreams of having his own drum set. He lives in a filthy town in Manila. Despite being deprived of wealth, he is eager to be a drummer and saves money to buy his own drum set. But a sudden turn of events cajoled him to lend the money to his brother Billy (Coco Martin). Billy needs money for his girlfriend’s abortion. Flash-forward - the other character is Paolo, (Sid Lucero) a friend of Billy. He is a homeless hustler, a petty criminal. He used to reside with an old matron. But things changed when the husband returned. He was forced to leave the house. He suddenly asks Billy to stay in their house for a few days. He had known of the siblings need for money. He right away schemes a plan... plan that they will forever regret in life.

Black and white films are one of the best styles for me. It is blaring with beauty and it transcends firm mystery. And the film is noirish. Unfortunately this gets the least of my favor from Alix’s entire filmography. I remember the works of the talented Brocka and Bernal which elegantly captured the morbid situation of humanity. In comparison, Tambolista looks like a fragment from previous works. Its usage in contemporary films will lead to sheer retrogression.

Manio and Martin are established independent actors. They don’t fail to surprise and amaze me. Although I am not impressed with Lucero’s acting skills. Obvious enough, his character is so wicked; portraying it literally evil is so one-dimensional. Paolo is a fellow victim of inhumanity; so a little charm might help to perk up the role’s intricate personality. The veteran actress Anita Linda as the dominant grandmother is simply stunning. She curses every other word. It’s so rare to hear a well-respected actress in a disgraceful act.

Tambolista in the English language means drummer. I too, once liked to be a drummer. Drums were like the musical instrument of egotism. The execution of this instrument is crucial as this involves genuine skills to play it with ease. Lack of familiarity might lead only to aggravation of noise. Again, Tambolista is the least I like from the works of this promising Filipino director. But the fine acting is enough reason why you shouldn’t dare miss to see.

Charlie Koon's Rating: