Eat Bulaga

Eat Bulaga, is the longest running noontime show
in the Philippines.

It started airing its very first episode on July 30, 1979 on RPN 9.

Now on its 28th year, the show is still an icon in launching trend-setter games as well as talent and personality-based searches.

Today, Eat Bulaga boasts of an impressive cast of fun-loving hosts from all corners of the entertainment corridor.

Shown here are some of them:


Tito, Vic and Joey

Julia Clarete

Toni Rose Gayda

Pia Guanio

Pauleen Luna

Lougee Basabas

Ruby Rodriguez

Paolo Ballesteros

Michael V

Wally Bayola

Jose Manalo

Keempee De Leon

Jimmy Santos

BJ Forbes

Allan K

Francis Magalona

Anjo Yllana

Sexbomb Dancers. Now ran by Sbguardians.


Cheche Tolentino,Danielle Ramirez, Rochelle Pangilinan,Sunshine Garcia,Weng Ibarra, CheryAnne Rufo, Evette Pabalan,Grace Nera,HazelJoy Taligatos,Izzy Trazona,Jhoanna Orbeta,Jovel Palomo,Johlan Veluz,Jacky Rivas,Jopay Paguia,Louise Bolton,Mae Acosta,Mycha Bautista,Mia Pangyarihan, DJbomb,Aifha Medina,Aira Bermudes,Danica Gulapa,Alice Armocera,Kryz Moreno.

                            

till there was you

Till There Was You is the story of the intertwined lives of feisty but directionless Joanna (Judy Ann Santos) and single father Albert (Piolo Pascual). On a fateful bus ride, Albert sits next to Joanna who instantly connects with his crying baby. On the next stop, she leaves a picture behind. That is the last Albert or the baby sees of her. Or so they thought? Through the years, Joanna's innocent picture was used to create stories of an absentee but heroic mom. And as fate would have it, pippa crosses paths with the real Joanna. This leaves Albert with no choice but to hire Joanna to pretend as mother and wife. In the beginning, Joanna treats the deal as pure business, thus setting limitations. Despite herself, she starts meddling with Albert's role as father, son, and lawyer. And for the first time, Albert realizes how it is to have a mother for his child and a wife for himself. tension arises but positive change take place afterwards. Until the pseudo couple gives in to a night of intimacy... but the truth sets in. They are not a real family after all. So Joanna resigns as a failure. Guilt-ridden Albert takes a sabbatical with Pippa. But something is undoubtedly amiss in their lives. Will Joanna start anew with a clear direction in her life? Will Albert and Pippa win her back, this time to be a real wife and mother?

Remembering RICO...

Abscbn_ricotribute

Rico Yan's Profile

Real name: Ricardo Carlos Castro Yan
Birthday: March 14, 1975
Birthplace: Manila
Age: 27
Zodiac sign: Pisces
Number of siblings: 3 (Geraldine, Bobby, Tina)
Height: 5' 8""
Weight: 130 lbs
Religion: Catholic


Favorites:

Past time: Playstation
Type of music: 80's New Wave
Singer: Eric Clapton
Song: I Will, Change the World
Actor: Tom Cruise, Christopher de Leon
Actress: Sharon Cuneta
Director: Olivia Lamasan
Dish: Japanese - tuna, salmon
Color: Green
Book/ reading material: Anne Rice book
Hobbies: Reading books, video games

Film Credits:

Got to Believe
Gimik, the Reunion
Mula Sa Puso, The Movie
Dahil Mahal na Mahal Kita
Kay Tagal Kang Hinintay
Flames, The Movie
Paano ang Puso Ko
Home Along Da Riles, The Movie
Radio Romance, The Movie
Ama, Ina, Anak
Madrasta

TV Credits:

Whattamen
Magandang Tanghali Bayan
Mula Sa Puso
Saan Ka Man Naroroon
Sang Linggo nAPO Sila
Gimik
Mara Clara
Star Drama Theater Presents Rico (Featured Artist)

Awards:

1999 FAMAS Youth Achievement Award,
1999 Philippine National Red Cross Pledge 25 Spokesperson
1999 Parangal ng Bayan - Best Young Actor
1999 Official DECS-CSCA Spokesperson and Role Model for Students and Youth
1998 Outstanding Youth Male Model in The Field of Entertainment (KASAMA Foundation)
1998 Most Popular Love Team - Rico Yan and Judy Ann Santos (Pabonggahan sa Moviestar'98),
1997 Best Male Star - Kislap Magazine
1997 Best Male Star - Movie Star Fan Magazine
Nominated as 1997 Star Awards for Movies Best New Actor

Commercials:

Rainforest Water
Master Eskinol
Greenwich Pizza
Eggnog Cookies
Bleue tab jeans
Genre T-shirt
PR Omac Athletic shoes
Talk 'N Text

Business:

Orbitz Pearl Shake
Tequilla Joe's
Timbuktu
Fry This
Java Hut


Rico's Prayers


 

 

 

  FATHER CALUAG:
Let us all humble ourselves in a prayer of praise of our Lord, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Tonight we say goodbye to our dear and beloved friend, Rico, we pray with both sorrow and joy. We are sad that he has left us... But we are happy that he is now in the arms of our Heavenly Father.

MARVIN AGUSTIN:
We say goodbye to our brother Rico... yet knowing that he will always remain with us...

AI-AI DELAS ALAS:
...For a true friend can never be completely gone.

IZZA IGNACIO:
...A true friend shall never be forever lost...

DOMINIC OCHOA:
...A true friend will always live in memories kept by the mind...

CANDY PANGILINAN:
...And the love shared forever treasured by the heart.

PATRICIA ISMAEL:
We have cried our tears, we have spoken our words of mourning...

VHONG NAVARRO:
...But now it is time to say goodbye, assured that Rico will be with the comfort of the angels.

AMY PEREZ:
For how can heaven not be more beautiful now that someone like Rico will share the radiance of that familiar smile...

HEART EVANGELISTA:
...And bring laughter that has given joy to so many... who have sought the warmth of his company.

PIOLO PASCUAL:
...For heaven is aware of true greatness of being a man, not through grandeur or fame, not through any display of wealth...

SERENA DALRYMPLE:
...But by he who lived his life by example... by not merely speaking of love...

JUDY ANN SANTOS:
...But showing love from the smallest gesture of affection to the biggest demonstration of unconditional care.

JOHN PRATS:
For, Heavenly Father, we are asking you to take the hand of our precious friend and lead him to where he belongs.

DANNY JAVIER:
Among those who have... despite the shortness of life... have shown greatness in spirit.

BUBOY GAROVILLO:
For it is not the number of years that measure the priceless quality of a human life...

DICK PAULATE:
It is what a man does with borrowed time our Lord has give him.

JOHN ESTRADA:
With all the hearts that Rico has touched...

RANDY SANTIAGO:
With the lives that have been changed with short time he was with us...

KRISTINE HERMOSA:
We say goodbye... while assuring him that he will always be with us.

SHARON CUNETA:
We say farewell to a friend who even in death has taught us a precious lesson: That life can only be full and filled if it is dedicated to the fulfillment of others.

SHAINA MAGDAYAO:
Although we shall comfort ourselves with your memory... we will never cease to dream your dreams. We will never forget the quality of your love and embrace.

JIM PAREDES:
We say goodbye to Rico... knowing that his departure also marks his new beginning -- of a life eternal, brightened not by the glow of spotlights... but by the love of our Heavenly Father.

GERALDINE YAN:
From the loving brother who always brightened every room in our home...

BOBBY YAN:
...From a caring friend who knew how to listen, who was aware of what to see and who eased the pain of others by just being there.

TINA YAN:
From a responsible young man who chartered his tomorrows not so much with ambition but with idealism and determination...

MOMMY CITA YAN:
And the loving son... who gave pride to his family, his friends... and anyone who wanted to share his love...

DADDY ROBY YAN:
We will miss you. We will have to say our final goodbye, my son. But in God's hands... we know that you will live forever. Your will be done, our Lord. Amen.


caregiver movie of sharon cuneta

1_372852589l

  • Caregiver is about the story of Sarah, a grade school teacher who decides to give up teaching for a more financially-rewarding career as a caregiver in London. As she takes care of other people, who will take care of Sarah herself?
  • gerald anderson

    Biography

    1_310330840l

    Currently, the hottest teen star in the Philippines, Gerald Anderson catapulted to fame at the age of 17, when he joined ABC-CBN’s Pinoy Big Brother Teen edition 2006.

    The PBB: Teen Edition is the edition of Pinoy Big Brother for teenagers belonging to the age group of 16-18 years and was telecast on the ABS-CBN network.  The reality show ran for 6 weeks from 23 April 2006. The show closely resembled the original Big Brother show, and the prizes includes a condominium unit in Valenzuela City, a livelihood showcase, one million pesos, and an all-expense paid trip to any Philippine destination.

    This 11th grader is a self-confessed certified chick boy. All of 17, Gerald Anderson comes from the General Santos City. He is pretty open about the fact that Filipinas really find his Fil-American looks hard to resist. Asked which place he would choose if given a choice between America and Manila, he said he’d choose the latter for the time being.

    Gerald is an upcoming model, TV and films actor. He likes the longhaired ‘morena’ girls and feels that Philippine girls have their own way to make a man feel special. And, he really digs this. Sexually active since the age of 16, Gerald has had three serious relationships, though he broke up with two of his exes since he had reservations about long-distance relationships.

    1_369866243l

    These reservations are probably a result of the divorce of his parents two years ago. His father is an instructor in the Philippine Navy and shuffles between Olongapo and US. His mother is a Filipina and lives in General Santos City that has also become his home since he was 14 years old.

    Gerald and his love-team partner Kim Chiu are currently the hottest love pairs in the Philippine showbiz industry. Gerald has also appeared in various magazines, and he models for Bench underwear. He acts in a number of TV shows under the ABS-CBN banner. His maiden movie ‘First Day High’ is due to be released soon.

    Gerald Anderson now firmly believes that everything happens for a reason. He says he has found his purpose and wants to make the most of this time!

    tuhog(2001)

    Tuhog

    English Title: Larger Than Life
    Directed by Jeffrey Jeturian
    Written by Armando Lao
    Cast: Ina Raymundo, Irma Adlawan, Dante Rivero, Jaclyn Jose, Klaudia Koronel

    During the forum, Jeffrey Jeturian recounts how he felt bad about the way Burlesk Queen Ngayon ends. The character of Ina Raymundo, a stripper in a nightclub, dances with only her robe on. While doing her signature wobbles, she flashes her naked body in an instant. The camera freezes, then the film rolls its closing credits. All throughout. What a way to end a movie.

    I haven’t seen the film nor I have any intention of seeing it, but definitely in just a shot description Jeturian is able to narrate the sad plight of Philippine cinema towards the turn of the millennium, slowly taking its toll after years of inactivity. Raymundo’s breakthrough film not only showcases her lack of skill but also exploits her body (and in a way it gravely abuses her because of its intentions) — which is quite given to some of the movies produced that time. Offensive, ghastly, abhorrent, obnoxious, insulting — it is just a waste of time describing them.

    Two years later, Jeturian directs Raymundo in the role that rescued her from the filthy shores of bad bold movies — the film that saves her tainted reputation, and the work that gives her every right to be called an actress. Tuhog is a disturbingly ambitious film whose merits are worthy enough to consider it a shocking masterpiece, an intelligent commentary on multi-level incestual relations, and a harsh portrait of patriarchy that still prevails up to now. It undoubtedly nails Jeturian’s reputation, the same way Lav Diaz did after the release of Batang Westside, as the most important filmmaker of his generation. While some filmmakers content themselves in shooting rabbits, Jeturian hunts big time — boars, deers, bears, razorbacks, pterodactyls, beasts, unicorns, blobels — and proves how a stunning vision can define the line between two opposite doctrines of art and pornography, whose distinction blurs in every argument. Tuhog has able to distinguish the difference between social relevance and exploitation without forcing its heavy material into our stomach. In fact, despite its heaviness, we feel compelled to see it and face the predicament of its molested characters.

    Incest is already a difficult theme to begin with. It is challenging but it is also very susceptible to be exploited. And in this case, there can only be two directions: the pure and the filth. Hayok sa Laman (Lust for Flesh) is the very definition of filth — badly-written script, flagrant score, horrible actors, and people whose only intention is to appeal to the prurient interest — exactly everything that is impermissible in sensible filmmaking. The deviation from the real life events where the film is supposed to be based is not only offensive — it is hideous, horrific, and horrendous; these filmmakers are not far from pedophiles and rapists who never confessed to their crimes. One thing is clear though: to people who understand Jeturian’s noble intentions, the entire Hayok sa Laman segment demands to be scorned and the best way to do it is to laugh up to the very end. Funny how it ends like Stanley Kubrick’s Shining, filled with suspense and tension and absurdly futile turn of events — the evil character, who refuses to die despite getting stabbed a lot of times, thrown from the window and a deep well, still manages to get on his feet and run after his daughter with a gun; the incredulity is priceless, a gem of brilliant parody it is. The audience is roaring with laughter, as emphatic as the collective gasp after seeing Tuhog’s translation into Larger than Life (why didn’t anyone ask that during the forum?), and it’s all because Jeturian knows how to place his criticism on the perfect spot, on the most vulnerable corner, without any single speck of bitter aftertaste.

    The sequences that followed anchor the film into a higher steep of eloquence. Self-aware that domestic incest is already a sensitive topic, Jeturian makes sure that he doesn’t stop there. Using a larger, macroscopic scale of incest, he affirms in perhaps the most inexorable statement made about local cinema the ability of films to influence and to instill ideologies. The relationship between the filmmaker and his subject is always prone to be abused. Once the subject willingly gives everything he needs to attain his vision — his evil vision unknown to his subject — it trusts him its life. The subject is the most vulnerable — and there are filmmakers who rape their subjects — subjecting them to various planes of irresponsible filmmaking. Perla and Floring’s company assumes the film to be real — not just real but honest — interpreting what they see as exact depiction of Perla and Floring’s life with their father. They are even reluctant to discuss it in front of them, repressing their disgust and repugnance, hushing each other while watching the film. It is already etched in their minds that the images and innuendos seen in Hayok sa Laman adequately represents what happened to Perla and Floring. Not only they have lost their dignity to evil, they have also lost it to humanity. There is no collateral damage here. The damage is already done — and it is irreversible. To every moron who underestimates the importance of the celluloid, I tell you, don’t spread yourself.

    Tuhog is a resounding slap to Seiko — to Robbie Tan’s face specifically — and to all its excrements whose finances should have been given to Gawad Kalinga and who knows the Philippines might have been a First World country after providing sufficient homes to its millions of homeless people and consequently empowering its labor-intensive industries. Not only to Seiko, Tuhog is also a huge fuck you to Star Cinema manure, whose budget to its glossy features should have been given to foster care and educational reforms so that our youth can help this country on its way to a true economic recovery. It seems that the real, evasive problem here in the Philippines is that people don’t know how to allocate their money properly; most of the time, they just go to waste.

    It is no surprise that Tuhog is an acting coup. Irma Adlawan, in her first major role, uses her theatre eminence to achieve a performance that delivers her from anonymity to greatness. Contrary to Jaclyn Jose’s apparent theatricality, hers is a sublimity of a victim, physically-raped and emotionally-abused, her soul almost lost in finding solace in humankind. On the other hand, Jose’s insistence to favor herself in front of the camera works very well. It takes talent from a very good actress to play an extremely bad one.

    Likewise, turning Raymundo into an actress is already a feat in Jeturian’s part; perhaps the least he can do is to make her less irritating or more tolerable but in Tuhog, Raymundo has able to redeem herself from the awful roles she played in the past. Same goes with Klaudia Koronel. We know this woman will do nothing serious; but in just three films (Ilarde’s Babaeng Putik, Jeturian’s Tuhog, and Reyes’ Live Show), she has proved to be the indomitable icon of the bold movies — and yes, that’s a compliment. She completely knows how to use her acting (in)abilities to an extent that no other actors in her league can do. Seriously, I find her even more cunning than Bardot.

    In almost every film he makes, Jeturian succeeds in capturing the socio-political background of its mileu. Sana Pag-Ibig Na (I Wish It Were Love) is a subdued melodrama which had its share of affecting moments, especially with the climactic scene with the late Nida Blanca. Pila-Balde (Fetch A Pail of Water) is his first masterpiece, a box-office success that skyrocketed Ana Capri’s name into the festival circuit as an actress to watch out for. Minsan Pa (One Moment More) is a personal favorite, an indulgent piece of cinematic refinement, an astral projection of beauty, so dreamlike, so calm and gentle, so lovely I wanted to grab anyone out in the street to see it. Jeturian is humble enough to owe it to Armando Lao (thus in the poster it says Armando Lao’s Minsan Pa), his career-long scriptwriter who penned four of his greatest works and script-supervised Kubrador (The Bet Collector), arguably the most successful local independent film to date. No one can deny how it changed the landscape of our independent cinema — from digital (a film shot using a digital camera) to independent (a film that despite its technical deficiency, it creates a vision that honestly and critically depicts the life of Filipinos) — and how it stood as a basis of comparison to every local film that made it abroad. Suffice to say that comparisons are healthy if taken into proper consideration, Jeturian and Lao are shedding some light to our burgeoning national cinema, the same way Lino Brocka and Mario O’Hara did in the 70’s, with such talent and passion I think I am having a blissful déjà vu. * * * * *

    [Side note: The titles of Jeffrey Jeturian's films are the most difficult to translate. They either sound pale (One Moment More, I Wish It Were Love) or insufficient (Fetch A Pail Of Water, Larger than Life) compared to the original -- enough for some people to pass them off as unworthy. But hey, I already told you they are not so act fairly.]

    liveshow(2001)

    Liveshow

    Written and directed by Jose Javier Reyes
    Cast: Paolo Rivero, Ana Capri, Klaudia Koronel, Hazel Espinosa

    In an overwhelming display of poltical power, Imelda Marcos banned Ishmael Bernal’s Manila by Night because she thinks its portrayal of the city misrepresents the proper image of Manila that the Marcoses then were promoting. Misrepresentation might be a very safe word; in fact, Bernal’s critique of personal maladies that lead to an expansive urban corruption is far from the glitz and glamour that Imelda was telling her cohorts and multinational socialites; so far it is way beyond her grasp. Manila by Night works on different levels of degradation - - from domestic atrocities to the venality of bureaucratic negligence until it reaches the peak of ephemeral absurdity - - and perhaps Mrs. Marcos was so concerned with the perceptible image (and her self-image) that she wasn’t able to see that. Likewise, Imelda was so blessed with thriving wisdom that she even forced the producers to change its title to City After Dark because she believes “that using the name of the country’s capital in the movie would give (us) great shame.” Suffering from numerous, insensible cuts, choking to hide its underworld ugliness but still managing to express its madness without the least effort, it even made its way to international film festivals, despite the government’s refusal to issue an export permit. And that, my friends, is a brief history of censorship here in the Philippines, circa 1980.

    As Truffaut puts it, In love, women are professionals, men are amateurs. But in politics, are they also professional or just plain narrow-minded? The transition during the ouster of Joseph Estrada and the ascent to power of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is notorious for its attempt to recreate the so-called people power that threw the Marcoses out of the presidential palace. But given the holy mess to look back after eight years of going down the drain of collective penury, it seems that we are suffering from similar fate, the one that never heals, or perhaps much worse. Because now, the Church is on their side - - the Church is on the side of the unruly scissors, the crucifix is worn by blind men of power, the mass is summoned by hypocritical moralists, listened by their equally hypocritical followers - - and like the way the Spaniards regarded us during their colonial rule, these people are treating us like Indios - - not the politically correct Indio, but the caste-propelled term, the determinant of power and status in the society - - only the difference is that we are yielding to a metaphorical type of colonial rule - - an irrational, nonsensical government controlling our lost, imagined lives.

    Experiencing the same politically-motivated anarchist move is Jose Javier Reyes’ Toro, which was later renamed Live Show because according to then Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) chair Armida Siguion-Reyna, she cannot allow it as a title unless the film is about a male cow or elephant or any male bovine animal. That’s insane logic. Since when are we not allowed to provide a title that we like, that best exemplifies our work? In addition, the controversy that surrounded the public screening of Live Show is heightened by the fact that it was during the impeachment proceeding of Estrada, the time when every flaw in his government was magnified, and moralists, pseudo-moralists, evangelists, and pseudo-evangelists were anchoring their groups, enough to populate an entire province, to their strayed ethical values. It is a historical film so to speak - - for it proved to be symptomatic of the nightmare that we experienced, and still experiencing, after Arroyo was sworn into office - - and newly-appointed MTRCB chair Nicanor Tiongson and Reyes pride themselves as the first victims of her administration. Tiongson was the first cabinet official to resign during her presidency, doing it on principle and public trust, against the filthy corruption that continues to deprive our country of national dignity. Arroyo disproved its screening not because she found it pornographic - - in fact, according to Reyes she had not seen it prior to its embargo - - but largely because of the seismic pressure from Catholic groups, including the late Jaime Cardinal Sin. Now define disgrace under pressure, that’s a short overview of censorship in the Philippines, twenty years after. Have you seen any difference?

    Live Show is a product of overreaction. An image that pops into my mind is that perhaps the moralist groups who are so keen on pulling the film out of the theatres have just seen parts of it - - the sexual acts mainly - - and are not able to place those visuals in proper context. I would go on saying that banning it is just a mistake in judgment, lacking enough and valid reasons to consider it lewd and immoral simply because the people who are tagging it as such have minds that are so narrow, an artillery of ants cannot even pass through them. And that’s because their foundation of morality is too limiting, too constricting, and too conventional. Not that our values should dramatically change after hundreds of centuries, but as F.P.A. Demetrio points out in his wonderful essay, “We simply have to recall the very early images of the crucified lord depicting a starkly naked Christ (that is, without the belatedly added loin cloth), that revealed all of the holy flesh, and realize that no sane prelate or layman ever cried ‘pornography’ in front of such a venerable icon.” Isn’t Christ one of the earliest representations of flesh in human history? No one ever raised the issue of pornography because it is way beside the point. His image is not meant to arouse the senses but to deliver the milk of human kindness, to spread the spirit of good will, and to inspire people. His physical image exists differently from his intentions; and since he was stripped because he was scourged savagely, no one thinks that his being naked is done with malice.

    And that’s exactly the point of Live Show. Intentions are not quantifiable but a man with intellect knows when what he sees offends him. It is an honest idea - - the offense - - for it shows the type of person you are on the type of films that you consider pornographic. Reyes treats his subject without any hint of appealing to the prurient interest. As Dr. Tiongson mentions during the forum, “only a sick guy could be aroused by those images.” Live Show is perhaps one of the most depressing Filipino films ever made, like when someone sees a dead man in the desert, eyes wide open, intestines devoured by vultures, and only an inch of flesh left in his body, and Reyes has successfully delivered this grim tale of social injustice into a wider, amoral perspective.

    No doubt that Reyes is a great writer. But what he has nailed here, the same way he does in Batang PX, is that the words honestly express the extent of poverty that the characters are caged in; not only about financial stability but also the pathos of existence in a Third World country - - the luck that always escapes - - the idea that poverty is a social creation, a result of large-scale human corruption, and a case of congenital disorder whose cure is unbelievably hard to find. His characters are way below the line of poverty - - that is if poverty is considered empirical - - and the way they see life in the darkest caves of urban jungle is particularly disturbing, enough to see the long marginal line between the rich and the poor. Perhaps in the point of view of people who had never been extremely starved in their whole life, the film is a harsh portrait of poverty. But beyond that I guess they should also be able to analyse the effects of starvation to individuals who try their best to make ends meet while losing all possible options they have except for prostituting themselves. Poverty is universal but the conditions that arise from it vary differently from every society to another based on cultural backgrounds. Prostitution is not an acceptable reason to make a living but people who engage in these activity already know that, so what’s the point of bringing it up to them? Would they choose to do it if they have better options to take? Or, if for example, they have gotten used to it and decide to continue it in the long run, should we blame them for their decision? One thing is clear though, judging them won’t do any help. Their hopeless oulook in life is a product of a million little things, not just financial problems or domestic violence. And since we share this one big global village of ours with each other, we have no other choice but to feel responsible for them.

    For it has able to raise these issues, Live Show demands to be seen. There is that sequence when Klaudia Koronel finds her friend who promised to bring her to Japan after handing her fifteen thousand pesos in the hospital, assaulted by adolescent rich kids, and looks clinically-dead with her wounds and bone fractures. Koronel’s character screams, almost banging the victim in her bed, begging what happened to her money that is supposed to relieve her from the state of destitution she has here in the Philippines. It is an utter moment of flinching paranoia - - worthy of comparison to that scene in Manila By Night when Bernardo Bernardo almost passes out after discovering that the dead person they are looking for in the morgue is mistakenly identified - - something that occurs momentarily out of provoked madness, traversing that thin line between sanity and delusion, a disturbing childhood memory that triggers schizophrenia. See it not because it is the most controversial Filipino film ever made, but because Live Show’s importance is radically immense. These institutions still control us but we need to lever our minds to truth. Like pawns in a chess game, we should make our best move before we are sacrificed and eaten alive by those Horses, Bishops, and Queens. * * * *

    lalake sa parola

    Anglalakesaparolacopy 1_615919327l

    Parola

    English Title: The Man in the Lighthouse Directed by Joselito Altarejos Written by Lex Bonife Cast: Harry Laurel, Jennifer Lee, Justin de Leon There is nothing new with the increasing number of local independent films released in the last few months. It just proves how well we can manage without the studio-based excrements that we used to stomach for God knows how long. The great news is, after numerous attempts of reaching out to a wider spectrum of viewers, our audience is responding quite well, joining the bandwagon of hopeless dreamers who still continue to believe that Philippine cinema will gain its glory after several decades of loss. Not that our audience is completely aware of what they are doing, but I refuse to consider that they are just watching these films out of sheer curiosity. Cinematic art is here for more than a century, so what difference does it make if it is digital or not? But filmmaking, after all, is still business — a lucrative business seen through the eyes of the Tans and the Sys and the Cojuangcos. But let’s make the Gokongweis an exception. Perhaps less evil, but still an exception. Otherwise they would have stopped doing their deeds after just a couple of months of public screening at Indie Sine. Beyond the silence of its cold seats, a sound of thunder canonises the perceptible emptiness. But it seems that Mr. Gokongwei is now getting the glorious fruits of his risks: the last four or five films screened at Robinson’s Indie Sine are box-office success, with some even getting extended screenings and additional theatre showings. The number of people who watched Joselito Altarejos’ Lalake sa Parola (The Man in the Lighthouse) and Lihim ni Antonio (Antonio’s Secret), Paolo Villaluna and Ellen Ramos’ Selda (Cell), and Adolf Alix’s Daybreak is overwhelming — with Altarejos’ third feature considered the highest-grossing independent film to date. It is not surprising, to say the least, that all these films, including last year’s Rome and Juliet, have one thing in common: their stories are about homosexuality. Queer cinema has been around for quite some time but as a critical discourse, apparently, it is quite young. And if it is all it takes to ignite the discriminating interest of people to watch our local films, so be it. Ang Lalake sa Parola, however, is daringly disappointing. It morphs from film to TV, then after a few jagged illuminations of its setting, it turns into radio. The film talks a lot, yet it isn’t saying anything new everytime its characters speak. It feels like the dialogues are mere reflections of themselves, spoken over and over again, an incessant repetition that impairs logic or even the lack of it. Not only that it is overly talkative — it is noisy; and that’s when it transforms into radio. The visuals are already loud and clear yet they are still emphasised through the dialogue; lines are heavily dramatised as if they are not too obvious; the noisiness overpowers its dwarfed narrative — and if you are an ordinary viewer whose ears can easily get numb with just a hint of pandemonium, when you can’t even feel that you have an eardrum, then the attention span never lasts very long, except for the scenes that everyone is expecting. It pains me to think that maybe Altarejos and Bonife are working on the idea that Filipinos talk a lot — well that’s a nice observation — but their idea of talking a lot might seem too narrow. We love to share insights about things; we might even sound dogmatic at times but at least they could have illustrated the depth of our wordiness, the dimensions of our verbose lives. In Lalake sa Parola, the characters are just mouthing words; they lack the sincerity to mean them. Of course it is not entirely the story’s fault. The film is a casting disaster. Harry Laurel, despite his physique and poise, looks like an ailing patient who forgot to take his medicine for a month. A newcomer in the industry, his decision to take risks is commendable, but he lacks everything else. Bravery is one thing; talent is another. Likewise, why bother to get great supporting actors if the characters they are supporting crumble easily? I understand the difficulty in finding gifted actors considering the extent of nudity and boldness it requires but therein lies the challenge: the challenge of not giving up until the best ingredients are bought for the most important occasion of one’s life. Attaining his vision is every filmmaker’s dream, and despite numerous personal opinions that express otherwise, Ang Lalake sa Parola has not achieved it. Sadly, whatever noble intentions that Altarejos and Bonife have in making this film never showed in their characters. Perhaps Altarejos has immersed so much in mainstream television that he underestimates the importance of silence in film. Silence can bring his vision into a higher stature, if only he knows how to use it. In addition, the diwata substory is rather interesting but it only pushes the film into the realm of the stereos. Is it purposely paralleled to the narrative to justify the turn of events? That somehow, in every distant region in the world where homosexuality is still a taboo, history always repeats itself? If it finds a strong hold on present society and not on archaic notions of folk illegitimacy that justifies the presence of hegemony, then I guess it will work. If anyone here wants to answer these questions, I will be very grateful to listen. When Mateo has finally succumbed to Jerome’s feelings, why does the film always have to reinforce the sexual relationship between them? Is it the basis of the relationship? Don’t they have other ways of communicating, aside of course from the usual talk and sexual intercourse? Like in any relationship, if one fails to submit to another, or if one doesn’t recognise the ability of the another to submit, it already foresees an ugly closure. But in the film, the specific turning point is when Mateo refuses to fellate Jerome, which frustrated him so much they eventually broke up. Whether it is an apparent choice from the director or the writer, it appears that sex is the moving force of their relationship. And with this, I wonder, is queer cinema limited only to highlighting the sexual and not the social aspect of a relationship? Or even the personal and spiritual? Is it too limiting? Now that we have the niche, we better prove them right. If ever I get accused of too much intellectualising then how can we ever elevate the often-looked-down discourse on queer cinema if we don’t widen our ideas of the world? Queer cinema is just one of the books in the Old and New Testament of cinema that needs to develop; only when it ceases to be queer that queer cinema succeeds. * *

    across the universe

    Acrosstheuniverse

    Directed by Julie Taymor
    Cast: Jim Sturgess, Evan Rachel Wood, Joe Anderson

    Julie Taymor’s Across The Universe is far from the extraterrestrial greatness of Lennon’s composition. But after the psychedelic vibe of compressing 34 songs into a film about love’s undying nature, a theme so often used I thought it doesn’t make sense anymore, I believe it manages to achieve more than half of my expectations; only the drawback is that while it seems to be harmless on the surface, it also tends to be forgettable. Towards the end when Bono sings “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds,” I cannot remember anything from it that is strong enough to incite recognition.

    Frankly, the main problem is its story. I love the concept, no doubt about it. Weaving a tale using the songs of The Beatles, whose compositions are definitely some of the most recognisable tunes in music history, and injecting modern touches of imagery and lyrical arrangements is absolutely wonderful. In fact I admire Taymor for being so ambitious with her craft, coming up with an avant-garde adaptation of a Shakespeare tragedy, bringing Frida Kahlo’s life into a dimension mixed with fantastical elements, and wrapping a romantic musical as sweet as a Wonka bar. Taymor deserves to be credited for her visual style, and the way she incorporates her background in puppetry and experimental theatre reflects her artistic vision as a filmmaker; and though sometimes her playful acts do not work, it shows her devotion to her craft, that she is doing things that she really likes. But fairness aside, her stories lack the punch - - they are beautiful to look at but memory keeps you from remembering what they are all about. Taymor seems to concentrate much on her images that she forgets to polish her narrative. While she exceptionally masters the fluid visual treatment of her films, satisfying enough to fill us in for two hours, the weakness of her plot stands out. And in Across The Universe, the idea greatly overpowers her characters, shrinking them into mere cardboard figures, their presence rarely felt.

    The love story of Jude and Lucy doesn’t hold much on the viewer’s retention because it is too common. The heavy Beatles soundtrack is deliberately used to support the narrative but unfortunately it does all the talking and explaining; in a way, the music carries the film into a steep of heightened emotions but it’s just there, artificially introducing and closing each fragment of their lives in those epic backdrops. The brilliant arrangement of songs is impressive - - it might as well be credited as the film’s major accomplishment - - and both Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood have successfully played their part very well. Nevertheless, Taymor could have maximised the musical as a genre, given that she has talented actors and first-rate musical arrangers, if only she is able to stitch a great narrative out of the 34 songs that she handpicked, and does not rely so much on the songs, because undoubtedly any Beatles composition, if handled seriously, will always yield a uniquely positive outcome. Primarily, this is the problem with some of the musicals being released recently - - and also the reason why only a few musicals succeed; filmmakers tend to focus more on the genre’s selling point without polishing the basics; they forget that this is a film, not just an eye candy to tease the senses. Most of the time, the weakness of the script is easily emphasised by the overblown treatment and that’s when the oversight usually starts zooming out. Musical is a difficult genre and definitely one of the most difficult to pull off.

    There are efforts to fuse the shaky, tumultuous life of the band that inspired the film: their final performance together on the Apple Building rooftop in London, the Lennon-McCartney ups and downs, the Ringo-look-alike Bono singing “I Am The Walrus” in what seems like a kaleidoscopic display of schizophrenia, with matching octagon glasses to complete the psychedelic fare, and glints of transcendental meditation in the “Across The Universe” segment, so funny for being too literal I almost nudged my seatmate after seeing the Hare Krishnas. There are moments of utter brilliance too - - that scene in the bowling alley while singing “I’ve Just Seen A Face,” Lucy’s brother Max (played marvelously by Joe Anderson) leading the group in “With A Little Help From My Friends,” and the absurdity of war in “I Want You (She’s So Heavy).” The choreographed sequences in “Come Together,” featuring Joe Cocker in different personas, the lavish underwater photography that continues from the group’s escapade in the fields in “Because,” and the idea behind those lovely strawberries tacked on the board, despite being blunt, in “Strawberry Fields Forever” are very commendable.

    Undoubtedly, the 60s has always been great inspiration for writers to come up with stories that reflect the precarious life during that decade. In fact even Haruki Murakami has his share of stories in “A Folklore for My Generation: A Pre-History of Late-Stage Capitalism” in Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman which delves more on the emotional impact of the time to its people. As for myself, I always dream of being born and, of course, living in the 60s - - the spirited lives of Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and James Dean; the French New Wave; the filmmakers whom I revere making their most memorable films; the Beatles; the beatniks Ginsberg, Burroughs, and Kerouac; the rise and fall of Kennedy; the launch of spacecrafts and the battle between America and Russia; the pop and counterculture - - everything - - I could go on and on and mention everything that I wish I had during the era that I was born but were all in the 60s and eventually die reminiscing all the things that I didn’t have. All my knowledge of it were from the records passed to me by friends and relatives, films I learned from school, information I gained from books, and experiences I read from novels. Everything abstract. I’m not there. I am but a speck of forgotten memory. But one thing is for sure though: my heart and my soul will always be in the 60s. When no one is looking, I will slip out of this body and pull the plug. * * *

    shame(1983)

    How Shameful is Elwood Perez’s Shame (1983)

    Shame

    Directed by Elwood Perez
    Written by Iskho Lopez
    Cast: Claudia Zobel, Patrick dela Rosa, Robert Arevalo

    Even critics lie. I hope by now people will get used to the idea that there is no such thing as honest criticism, because the most humane characteristic that a critic could have is being humble, and even humble critics compromise their honesty too. Otherwise, everything that a film critic writes dramatically loses its ability to promote readership. This is not to say that dishonest critics are good and honest critics are not half as good - - apparently, it is not a question of truth, it is about harnessing one’s creative resources to craft a well-made, persuasive review. In fact, the greatest critics in cinema are rude and deceitful. They tweak truths and flower their ideas with beautiful and provoking words; and in such magnificent stroke of logic, they deliver insights that leave unmistakable marks and footprints on the contoured landscape of cinema. Reading Kael and Truffaut’s writings makes me realise that the best way to express an idea is to lie; that is, if one gives in to the idea that not telling the truth is not necessarily telling fiction.

    So it depends on you if you will believe me when I say that Elwood Perez’s Shame is a priceless gift of god to the entire ‘hood of male species. [That snake and bird that Claudia Zobel (Charley) fancies before meeting his nincompoop lover, played listlessly by Patrick dela Rosa's muscles, included.] Assuming that it’s not really meant to be good, somehow Mother Lily has able to reach more than half of her objectives: first, she has created a star out of Claudia Zobel in bikini, and second, and this is actually the last, just the sight of its poster is enough to send thousands of men flocking into the nearest theatre where the film is shown. Well Mother Lily must be really lucky. Almost every newspaper that time features Zobel and her so-called acting revelation; she eventually gets more movies to expose herself; and although “she probably holds the record for having the shortest film career in the history of Philippine cinema,” she remains one of the most memorable figures in our entertainment scene. Having made only four films, not to mention a short stint as a prostitute in Lino Brocka’s Bayan Ko: Kapit Sa Patalim, Zobel has proved that despite her short-lived career, she is indeed timeless.

    The film, however, is otherwise. It is alienating if one tries to think about it semantically. The first sequence is very good - - Charley wears her tights and looks at herself in the mirror, a close-up of her face follows when she accidentally pricks her finger and sucks its blood; then the upside down mirror image of the title rolls in, in neon red and blue like those lights you see in strip clubs - - and Perez’s decision to use background noise in the opening credits is smart enough to bring the film into a brilliant direction, but sadly this is the best that we could get. The narrative exudes too much machismo; it even resorts to portray Dexter Doria’s obsessive character into a lesbian. Her pathetic telling of Charley’s story, from being blamed by her own mother for getting raped to her decision to prostitute herself in a circus show, recklessly aims to justify her pitiful life, her grave actions that lead to her self-destruction, and her overboard senility to save her life from waste. Its cynicism tends to dehumanise her; it morphs her into a cockroach - - flying, flailing around, unmindful of other people’s abjection to her. Furthermore, Shame’s twisted notion of female abuse that leads to hopelessness fails to gain sympathy when Charley decides to kill herself after being lambasted by her stupid admirer. In that absurdly hilarious scene in the bathtub, it alludes to Ousmane Sembene’s Black Girl, except that it has able to achieve the opposite. The effect is utterly stupendous - - it puts a fitting semicolon to a film that merely exploits the woman as an object of lust and subject of evil, and trifles her existence into numerical values.

    Now it doesn’t surprise me that despite being set during Lenten Season, Shame is never shown during Holy Week. Contrary to the chilling quietness of Mike de Leon’s Itim (Rites of May), it screams without any virtue of significance, blindly parading doltish caricatures of prehistoric individuality. Perhaps the only saving grace of this film is Robert Arevalo; otherwise, it is a regal mistake. *