Manila Art 2012

This year's festival is so much better than last year's! The artworks seemed to have a way of keeping up with today's trend. There were a lot of magnificent pieces of art in the exhibition, so to say that our country has A LOT of magnificent artists. Despite the popularity of the exhibit, when I went there, there's not much people around. Or perhaps it's because they held it during weekdays. Nevertheless, I strongly think that art exhibitions like these should be held more often than once a year. It would be one way to giving importance to the artists of our country.

P.S.

It is a shame that I went without a camera :(

MOVIE REVIEW: Mona Lisa Smile

For centuries, women succumbed to what was expected of them. Sadly, their roles would comprise of chores (house hold), caring after the husband, and basically being a good wife. This film focused on the struggles of changing the norm for/of the women.

Named as the most conservative school, girls who study in Wellesley College are being taught the proper etiquette and manner. One thing I noticed was their professors never failed to tell them that after college, their first agenda should be their wedding. Marriage, even when you are still studying, is widely accepted AND TOLERATED in Wellesley. You would even be excused in class for your honeymoon. This trend kept all the girls' eyes and ears open for plausible news of engagement. It made them hopeless romantics who dreamed of nothing else but brand new washing machines and a complete rack of laundry soaps. It made them vulnerable to the eyes of love. And to the eyes of men.

One instance was when an outstanding student, Betty Warren, got married to the guy she thought is the man of her dreams. When they got hitched, he cheated on her. The norm during the 1950s was to get women married and to rate them based on how well they serve their husbands. So the frenzy was all about getting hitched, the kind of guy that women got married to did not matter.

It is one of the things that unconsciously oppressed women during that time. Unconsciously because it was the accepted standard. Until Ms. Watson (Julia Roberts) came in to teach art history in Wellesley College. She had a different mindset. Ms. Watson never believed in rushing to marry. She is the counter balance of the era and, as blind as the oppression made its victims, she was hated by everybody because of her beliefs. But in the end, she made everybody realize her point. That women shouldn't get stuck on being married. They could multitask and be a lawyer at the same time.

One thing that really struck me was the part where Betty Warren wrote about their school nurse's decision in distributing contraceptives to students, which served as reason for the old-fashioned campus heads to fire her. It could be a metaphor for the current state of our country. Little does the women of the Philippines realize that they are being oppressed. Women in this country are being withheld of making choices regarding reproduction by not approving of the RH bill. The Reproductive Health bill would protect women and their choices to whether to conceive a child or not. The bill would simply state that women are free to make their own decisions; that women are allowed to resist; that women have a say in having sex. Contrary to the church's beliefs, the bill does not promote promiscuity, it promotes freedom--which is what everybody should be experiencing in a democratic country.  But no! The Philippine government chose to focus on protecting other things... On protecting the men that sat on the high tables of the country, who think of themselves as susceptible to the possible internet assailants. But clearly they are just a bunch of paranoids whose only concern is to keep their names clean in time for the elections.








P.S.
Sir Rondina,
If ever I won't be able make it to class on Tuesday, simply means I'm behind bars already. HAHAHA.

Reckless Comedians

In this era where same sex marriage is already approved in some parts of the world, I can't understand why some people would still want to offend and humiliate gays... or find being gay per se humiliating. I don't know why a lot of people find 'gay jokes' funny. I mean, I know we have different interpretations of what's funny but Michael V.'s parody of Hindi Ako Bakla and Wag na Wag went a little bit too far. If you are to look at it critically, what is wrong with being gay anyway? Why are gays being condemned? And if you turned out to be gay later in your life, what is wrong with that? Why would gays try to conceal their real gender? 

Another aspect where I think that those to parodies are wrong is the media aspect of it. Michael V., aka Bitoy, is a know comedian. I have no control over his beliefs but my point is, he should be aware that he might worsen the oppression of gays. Also, though I know that those parodies were from a few years back,

he should also be aware that the world is evolving. And that it should evolve for the better. We should accept a person for who he/she is. (I don't know if I'm even saying it right for there are no pronouns for gays.) 

Anyway, it doesn't end there. Another from his collection of tacky parodies, DJ Bumbay falls under the racist category. DJ Bumbay is straight-up offensive to Indians or so locally called 'Bumbays'. The parody did not fail to point out how Indians are entrepreneurs who sell off-quality goods. They were also berated as those who lend money through 5,6 and puts interests that are too high. Why don't we just respect each other's norms? And yes, it may not be purely his intention but, Bitoy generalized all Indians to fall under his description of who they are. To think that he used media as a tool to make fun of them, I would not wonder why many Filipinos look at Indians in a certain negative manner.

For a change of perspective, here's an Indian stand-up comedian who tried to be funny about Filipinos:

Russel Peters pointed out how Filipinos speak bad English... Which would appear like he's generalizing that all Filipinos are bad in English. But it's totally not true because in fact, we are considered to be one of the best English speaking countries in the world. One proof would be every time that we join beauty pageants, Filipinos do not need translators for English is the second language in this country. 

Clearly I am trying to defend my self as a Filipina but I also know how wrong Bitoy's parody (more like insult) about Indians is. I know how good they are in marketing and entrepreneurship. In fact, when I was in Dubai, they flooded the electronic stores! They are good salesmen and I'm telling the truth. I am not just saying this for objectivity's sake. 

I just hope that if people wants to be funny, they should know their boundaries. 

MOVIE REVIEW: Sicko

Regardless of their pledges and advertisements on caring for the sick and most especially the poor, America's health care insurances are all but unreasonable money suckers.

This documentary by Michael Moore dug deep in the controversial health insurance system in the United States... Which is none! No, let's say that there is a health insurance system in the great America, which has been a hot topic for debate over the years, but health insurances in their country care for money more than its citizens. Micheal Moore presented a spread of cases where in people apply for healthcare yet get denied of it because those people's cases are "non-life-threatening". And yet, they die a few days, weeks, months later. This happened to more than half of America's population that's why their last resort would be to cross the border to Canada where they could get free medical service. The only con about the free healthcare in Canada was the long wait.

In every country, I believe that the priority should always be the health of its citizens. It is sad that there are issues like this in the United States for they themselves claim that they are a powerful country. I guess they are so powerful that all they have is power. 

MOVIE REVIEW: Control Room (documentary)

The documentary 'Control Room' gives us another look on the war in Iraq which happened nearly a decade ago. It mainly showed how the largest Arab network, Al Jazeera, framed the war with its 'anti-american attitude'. It gave a new perspective because for so many years, racism aside, I believed that the Americans are the saints and that the Arabs are the sinners. Perhaps it has something to do with the kind of network I get news from. In this documentary, I was able to see how gruesome the attacks from the US were (reported by Al Jazeera). It is disturbing to have just realized that two had played the game. I mean to say that the Americans weren't fully innocent during the war.

Despite the goal to show how an Arab network handled the war, Control Room had an opposing perspective of an American soldier. The American soldier pointed out that Al Jazeera only showed how merciless the US was for being responsible of the seemingly endless bombings in Iraq. And so as to frame US as the enemies, the network decides to show photos and footage of children and women with blood all over their bodies and bandages on their heads. He also spoke about the fact that the network never showed how the Iraqi troops responded to the attacks. Again and again he told that the US is only helping the Iraqis achieve their freedom from Saddam Hussein and that Al Jazeera should realize and report about how much of a villain Saddam is. But then again there are issues surrounding America's real intentions--that they are only after the oil and having power over Iraq.

This documentary tackled beyond which country is to be blamed or which side had a purer intention. I think it also aimed to make people realize that there is no objectivity in journalism. When there is war, news networks take advantage of what they call the 'human cost', or could also be referred to as the 'collateral damage' of the war. Journalists and news networks have a stand in the war. They make use of the human cost to earn and influence a certain perspective. Media has the tendency to exaggerate news so as to provoke anger from their audiences. A good example in behalf of the US would be the American networks' use of images of American soldiers who died during the war. It could be something that might make the viewers go against whoever killed those soldiers, which in this case are the Iraqis. On the contrary, in behalf of Iraq, Al Jazeera showed photos of children who were victims of the bombings. Neither of the opposing networks are objective during the war.

Perhaps we could summarize and say that because of the way al Jazeera framed their news during the US-Iraq war, the negative reactions and perspectives of their audiences (mostly from the Middle East) towards the US was triggered and was worsened. But having so much more power than Al Jazeera, the US, together with its networks, might've influenced the world to change their perspective on the Arab countries.

Another reason as to why we could say that there is no concrete objectivity in journalism (especially in the midst of war) is because of the word "military propaganda". It was mentioned a lot of times in the film so as to point out that networks of each opposing countries have a position in the war. It is in each of the networks' hands to control the news and to manipulate what is to be shown to their audiences. As I quote Al Jazeera's manager  (shown in the film), Joanne Tucker "objectivity is a mirage...if there was true neutrality, all information would be welcomed on all sides".

MOVIE REVIEW: Mystic River

I have yet to see another Clint Eastwood film before I could declare whether he's a real artist or a poseur and more of a popular entertainer. Undoubtedly, this movie caught me and its message made me think of the inevitability of violence in our lives and how karma always kicks masked. The massive, surprising twists in the story are depressingly pleasing. Just when you thought you've solved the mystery of whodunit, it goes behind your back and stabs you. Well, the story simply shows the reality of how violence begets violence and how you put your trust on someone. How you put your trust on authorities upon looking for answers; how you trust your traumatized and almost insane husband insofar that your marriage and his safety is put to the test; how you trust someone upon telling the truth. It shows the fact that there is really no certainty of something until you undergo a long process of proving it. This movie exhibits the truth that people, most of the time, desire for revenge but only a few risk-takers pursue. It's in us to seek for revenge, even when we say it only goes far in our minds. I'd say, uhm, human nature? 

Anyway! This is the movie that will have you yelling at the TV by the end! It's depressing but it's supported by a veeeery flamboyant storyline and a fitted, powerful cast. Sean Penn, as always, was at his best in this film. As I quote, "this is not your ordinary thriller!" And, is it just the Grey's-Anatomy-infatuated me, or does Sean Penn kinda looked like McDreamy (Patrick Dempsey) here??? Must be the hair? haha!





P.S.
Did this movie review a while back and I thought I should also share this in this blog.
I really recommend this movie! It's so good that every time I watch it, I feel like I'm watching for the first time!

MOVIE REVIEW:Ang Babae sa Septic Tank

Ang Babae sa Septic Tank was one of the award winning films in the 7th Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival. I chose not to watch it before because I thought, 'Hey isn't that the actress from Kimmy Dora? I'm pretty sure this film would be as corny as that'. But I was wrong. I forgot that Kimmy Dora's a mainstream film, and that Ang Babae sa Septic Tank's an Indie. Big difference (here we go again with indie vs mainstream.)

Ang Babae sa Septic Tank was an Inception kind of movie. There is a movie within a movie. It is about the 2 film graduates who aspire to make an award winning film. Their chosen topic was, of course, poverty and trafficking in the Philippines. One of the observations I was able to make while watching the movie was that I think it is satirically targeted to other directors in the industry who use poverty as a tool to make an award winning indie. Surprise, surprise! This film bagged a lot of awards last year. Well, poverty and trafficking in the Philippines was highlighted in this film. 

It is very funny and through most of its scenes you can safely tell that they did a great job establishing their subject. But I can't help but wonder why film makers use poverty for "cinematic purposes"? Perhaps this would be one of the reasons why people perceive the Philippines as one of the poorest countries in the world. Which is true but, we all know that our country is not all that. Films like this specifically cover only the shanties and the poverty stricken lives of some of our citizens. But admittedly, this masterpiece did it differently by adding satire in their story. It aimed not just to expose the state of poverty in the Philippines but also to make us realize that filmmakers take advantage of these issues, again, for cinematic purposes--which is not bad. It isn't bad at all. But I think there's just too many films about poverty already...