What form or what content must films have particularly when we are in a flux where we trying to differentiate between high art from low art.
IN a forum I had with some friends a few months ago, I asked: “In what way can cinema help in the development of the Filipino people?”
Development is such an elusive word, even the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) will not dare give you a Merriam-Webster type of definition.
Even the parameters that economists and sociologists use vary, with the cutting edges shifting so often.
Today, Gross National Product (GNP) is being replaced by Gross National Happiness (GNH), a concept put forth on the global table by Bhutan, a country of impoverished people with a lush eco-system.
World bodies and governments seem to agree that, indeed, happiness is a reliable indicator of development.
But can we be happy in a country where kindness and generosity are looked upon as subversion and speaking one’s mind is equated with terrorism?
Can we expect genuine development with clowns at the Palace where one can imagine a cabinet meeting of the Three Stooges multiplied?
They are a horror movie.
We leapfrog and speculate: If happiness is a state of being that cinema provides, that means cinema do contribute to the development of people, as per GNH.
If film is able to entertain us or engage us, then it has done some benefit.
Even if the cinemas remain closed, there are Netflix, HBO, The Disney Channel, and numerous digital platforms.
Chong Ardivilla, a former cartoonist who is now taking up his doctorate in Texas, referred us to Mark Couples, author of “The Film Story: The Odyssey.”
Mark says that the 15-hour documentary is his “love letter” to movies because these were his solace in his war-torn Ireland.
Mark went around the world for five years just to check on alternative marques and to demonstrate that movies are not just about Americans and their viewpoints and biases.
Couples likened his endeavor to inviting friends to partake of a wider menu and “you may want to watch this because it may improve your lives (itals mine).”
Couples sees films as a sublime and ineffable art form. And, may I add, a second life generator.
Art, whew, becomes an iffy issue when we talk of development, particularly in the Philippine setting.
National leaders do not seem to appreciate it. When you hear “sell the CCP” alongside “close that station,” then you have a clear idea where art or expression could stand if we push them.
And when you see film bodies being stirred by personalities with dubious reputation, what hope can there be?
What form or what content must films have particularly when we are in a flux where we trying to differentiate between high art from low art.
Joel David, a former member of the Manunuri, insists that there should be no demarcation.
Popular, which we once called “bakya,” is as legitimate as “art films” are and could be even be better in content, style and the telling. Time will prove that, he says.
That said, actor Ward Luarca must not apologize for being “elitist” with his preferred fare of films.
Former Experimental Cinema of the Philippines officer Guia Yonzon should have no qualms with her kilig over her present daily dose of KDramas,
Neither must Conrad Virina, long-time advertising head, be overwhelmed by the question of movies and development.
Everybody has a say on what a good film is. And what is happiness.
Marshall Julius, who labels himself as a “commercial film writer” of HuffPost sums it up: “Films is the ultimate evolution of art, entertainment and science, films combine the best of books, design, illustration, music and theatre, creating a single, deliciously superior experience that engages the brain, stirs the emotions and feeds the soul.
Couples, on the other hand, cites the power of creators to “enter the minds.” Which leads us to messaging.
Scriptwriter Roy Iglesias, as in most of his films, tries to exercise this power, to massage the medium.
With director Joel Lamangan, he wrote “Filipinas” which he admits is an allegory where he “wanted people to see themselves as part of the family” that is the country, with its class divide.
Choie Funk, an architect, reminded us that the College of St. Benilde paid homage to Lino Brocka and Ishmael Bernal, with a long-running exhibit, showings, and discussions.
Both creators were adept at showing destituteness in all its manifestation.
Does a poor viewer get repulsed by the hopelessness in them that he strives for a better life? Then why did “Filipinas” fail at the box-office?
Does a rich viewer pat himself for being in a better state and resolve to be more compassionate? Are these the effect?
Mauro Tumbocon, a film critic and who runs a long-running film festival in San Francisco, USA, cautioned us about poverty porn, and how the Philippines seem to own the imprint in many a foreign festival for such themes, and for decades at that.
Thanks, too, to the works of multi-awarded Brillante Mendoza who has defended his works as an edification of the poor.
Having seen Kinatay, Manoro, and Serbis, among others, I cannot agree. Europeans may be orgasmic about the brutalities of life in a (still) Third World country, but Filipinos are not.
Sila na lang. Let us tell a different, inspiring Philippine story
We are definitely worlds apart from the netherworlds of KDramas and American super heroes, but we could reveal a better brand. -30
Tags: #commentary, #columns, #ThirdZone, #cinema