Little Black Book 3

Poster for Tatlong Taong Walang Diyos

Continuing from Little Black Book of Movies and Little Black Book of Movies 2:

Tim Cavanaugh on George Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978) chooses not to highlight the implicit social satire (zombies in a mall) but instead talks of how the "careful detailing of tactics and terrain makes this one of the greatest action sequences ever filmed."

The Little Black Book of Movies 2

Hilda Koronel in Insiang

Continued from my previous post:

Seems to me that the book resembles a titanic blogathon, where Chris Fujiwara asked sixty-two people "What are the key events / films / people / scenes in cinema?" and received a thousand replies, many of them coming from unusual directions that imply different backgrounds, orientations, ways of thinking.

The Little Black Book of Movies

 
The Little Black Book (Movies)--critic Chris Fujiwara's yearlong project, involved 62 critics, historians, filmmakers, enthusiasts choosing to write short entries (250 to 300 words) on 1,000 of what they considered seminal moments in 100 years of cinema. This can be anything from a "key scene," a "key film," a "key event," even a "key person;" the films can range from all over--silent and sound; color and black and white; Hollywood and otherwise; mainstream and alternative. Contributors include Fujiwara himself, Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum; Australian critic Adrian Martin (Rosenbaum and Martin recently co-edited a book Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia); critic Dennis Lim (formerly of The Village Voice (back when working for the publication actually meant something (no disrespect meant for surviving critic Mr. Hoberman)), presently Editorial Director at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York); critic David Ehrenstein (Open Secret: Gay Hollywood 1928 - 2000)); critic Brad Stevens (Abel Ferrara: The Moral Vision); L.A. Times web editor Tim Cavanaugh; Aruna Vasudev (founder/editor of Osian's Cinemaya: The Asian Film Quarterly; founder and director of Osian's Cinefan Film Festival), journalist, film critic and novelist Kim Newman (Anno Dracula); longtime film writer and lecturer Fred Camper; film critic and curator Paolo Cherchi Usai (The Death of Cinema); Filipino filmmaker and historian Nick Deocampo (Oliver (1983) and Cine: Spanish Influences on Early Cinema in the Philippines) and, heh, yours truly.

Kakabakaba Ka Ba? (Does Your Heart Beat Faster? Mike de Leon, 1980)

On the occasion of its restoration and screening, an old blog post slightly tweaked.

Come on get happy

Filipinos love to dance; even convicted Filipinos love to dance, and dance well--you only have to see the occasional video clip CNN plays, of orange-clad convicts from the Cebu Detention and Rehabilitation Center dancing to pop tunes (the choreographer is an accused mass murderer) but strangely enough there aren't a lot of noted Filipino films that feature dance, or at least notable filmmakers making musicals that include dance.

There are early musicals, like Carlos Vander Tolosa's Giliw Ko (1939); problem is the surviving print is in wretched condition (even after restoration by The Philippine Information Agency and the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra), and what little song and dance I do see in it is, well, of interest, but not quite inspiring. Comedy team Tito, Vic and Joey have done dance numbers; so has comedian Dolphy, among many others. Lino Brocka did Stardoom (1971), a showbiz melodrama full of singing (only the melodrama--a Jacobean struggle between two brothers (Mario O'Hara and Dante Rivero) is more interesting than the music); O'Hara's own Kastilyong Buhangin (Sand Castle, 1980) features singing (you can sense that O'Hara actually gets into his song numbers--gives them genuine emotional heft), and fight sequence so gracefully done I'd argue they are dance numbers (and for a while was tempted to write about them as such).

But an honest to goodness dance number, in an honest to goodness musical, one that I actually like? None off the top of my head, except, of all people, from the forbidding dark genius of Philippine cinema, Mike de Leon. The filmmaker responsible for such grim masterpieces as Itim (Rites of May, 1975), Batch '81 (1982) and Kisapmata (Blink of an Eye, 1981) directed Kakabakaba Ka Ba? (1981), a bizarre caper comedy involving Yakuza gangsters smuggling an audiocassette tape full of opium into the city of Manila and eventually to the northern city of Baguio, for processing and eventual distribution throughout the Philippines.

Altar (Rico Ilarde, 2007)

Human sacrifice

Rico Maria Ilarde's an odd creature of a filmmaker. From Z-Man (1988), his comic-book no-budget independent-action-flick take on Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, to Dugo ng Birhen (Blood of the Virgin, 1999), his fantasy throwdown between zombies and Taekwondo champion Monsour del Rosario, to Babaing Putik (Woman of Mud, 2000), his unholy mutant union between Brian de Palma's Carrie and John McTiernan's Predator, to Sa Ilalim ng Cogon (Under the Cogon Grass, 2005), his lyrically spare reinterpretation of H.G. Wells' classic novel The Island of Dr. Moreau (grass; silence; monster), Ilarde (son of Filipino radio and TV personality Eddie Ilarde) mixes and matches genres and movies till the films feel as disorienting (and disoriented) as he himself must at times feel, his narrative spinning and hurtling in many directions at once.

Gerardo de Leon: Two vampire films

For Halloween, two classic Filipino horrors:

Pair of Living Dead

On Gerardo De Leon's Kulay Dugo ang Gabi (aka The Blood Drinkers) and Ibulong Mo sa Hangin (aka Blood of the Vampires)

As noted by Mark Holcomb in his Senses of Cinema article; the Gerardo De Leon known to us today had two faces: as director of some of Philippine cinema's greatest films (El Filibusterismo (The Heretic, 1962), The Moises Padilla Story (1961), Daigdig ng Mga Api (The World of the Oppressed, 1965)) and as director of a handful of fine B-pictures (Terror is a Man (1959), Mad Doctor of Blood Island (1968)). In 1964 and 1966 respectively, De Leon made two films: Kulay Dugo ang Gabi (Blood is the Color of Night) and Ibulong Mo sa Hangin (Whisper to the Wind).*

Kagadanan sa banwaan ning mga Engkanto (Death in the Land of Encantos, Lav Diaz, 2007)

(By way of indirect tribute to the victims of Yolanda (Haiyan): an article on a film about survival)

Land of the dead

Lav Diaz's Kagadanan sa banwaan ning mga Engkanto (Death in the Land of Encantos, 2007) might be the possible result if you took Spike Lee's 2006 documentary When the Levees Broke, recast it in Andrei Tarkovsky mode, stretched it to Bela Tarr length, added a dash of Abbas Kiarostami-like meta-cinema, sprinkled it with a few ideas from Mario O'Hara, and set it in the Bicol region. Possible, though I wonder if said bastard offspring will be anywhere near as strange as this.

It's ostensibly the story of one Benjamin Agusan ('Roeder' in the film's credits, full name 'Roeder Camanag'), a famed poet gone into some kind of self-imposed exile in Kaluga, a small town southwest of Moscow (Lav calls it an inside joke on behalf of his father, who was fascinated by Russia; the country's literature and sensibility has seeped into many of his previous films (particularly Serafin Geronimo: Kriminal ng Baryo Concepcion (Serafin Geronimo: Criminal of Barrio Concepcion, 1998), his version of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment)). He returns home to the vacation resort of Padang, near Legazpi City, in the wake of the devastation wreaked by Typhoon Reming (international name 'Durian')--a devastation made worse by typhoon-triggered lahar mudslides from nearby Mayon Volcano, burying homes and families alike (Padang was the worse-hit of the towns). He meets his friends Teodoro (Perry Dizon) and Catalina (Angeli Bayani), and is haunted by memories of former loves--Svita, a Russian beauty; Amalia (Sophia Aves), his longtime companion in Padang; his dead father, mother, sister.

It's an often seemingly shapeless, meandering tapestry, but Diaz is working on a vast canvas, five hundred and forty minutes long (his previous film Heremias Book One: The Legend of the Lizard Princess (2006) was about the same length while his Ebolusyon ng Isang Pamilyang Pilipino (Evolution of a Filipino Family, 2004) clocked in at eleven hours). Front and center on that canvas is Benjamin, the latest incarnation of one of Diaz's favorite characters, the restless wanderer--early examples included kidnapper-fugitive Serafin Geronimo (Raymond Bagatsing); cuckolded husband Lauro (Joel Torre) in Hubad sa Ilalim ng Buwan (Naked Under the Moon, 1999); murder victim Hanzel Harana (Yul Servo) in Batang West Side (West Side Avenue, 2001); even Detective Juan Mijares (Joel Torre), the police officer investigating Hanzel's death. Reynaldo was an inscrutable figure entering and walking away from the lives of various families in Ebolusyon; the eponymous character in Heremias traveled in his oxcart full of handicrafts--alone, restless, almost entirely speechless, yet somehow you still got the impression that he was searching for something.

Benjamin though, unlike Reynaldo or Heremias, is a poet as well as a wanderer. With Encantos Diaz has discarded the taciturn probinsyano (hick provincial) protagonist for the more loquacious small-town artist, the creative intellectual who chooses to live outside of Manila while practicing his craft. Which is something of a relief--the Diaz character is prone to long periods of contemplation and in an eleven or nine hour film (such as Heremias, Ebolusyon, and this), where they have little else to say between the long bouts of silence, it can sometimes make for difficult viewing. This time we have not one but three verbose philosophers, able and willing to indulge in the one sport in which Filipinos demonstrate a natural, world-class talent: the freewheeling discourse. Hamin (short for Benjamin), Teodoro, and Catalina gaze at the blasted landscape and hold forth on various subjects--love, art, death, God, the social and political condition of the Philippines, the difference between Filipinos and Russians, mosquitoes; even science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick and horror filmmaker David Cronenberg merit a quick mention. Diaz supplies all the dialogue, presumably; from personal experience I know him to be a world-class raconteur, able to talk to the wee hours of the morning on any subject imaginable. His extemporaneous monologue on pre-colonial Filipino sex in John Torres' Todo Todo Teros (2006) was a both illuminating and hilarious highlight of that film; here the skill provides enough meat to sustain the soul during our long journey through the film's narrative.

It helps that the film is full of poetry. Possibly taking a page from Mario O'Hara's masterpiece Pangarap ng Puso (Demons, 2000), where poetry and monsters haunted the imaginations of the protagonists, Diaz inserts verses here, there, and they function as lyrical commentary on and response to the film's themes and storyline (he had put poetry to memorable use once before, when Joel Lamangan gave an evocative reading of one of Diaz's pieces in Hesus Rebolusyunaryo (Jesus the Revolutionary, 2002)). Diaz at one point even has a kapre (a Filipino ogre) stalking his forest (you could almost imagine the creature wandering off from O'Hara's set and finding its way to Padang).

Sometimes the meandering nature of the discussions makes for surprising turns, creates startling connections. The three friends sitting in front of a lamp in utter darkness (it's night, and there's a brownout) talk about mosquitoes, how sliced raw onions sometimes drive them off, sometimes don't. Talk moves on to patterns in insect behavior, and Hamin tells of how writers and filmmakers seize on these patterns to tell postmodern stories of bizarre human activity (hence the mention of Dick, Cronenberg, and for good measure poet Ted Hughes). Catalina speaks out against such unfeeling fiction; she prefers to dwell in emotion and mystery. Talk shifts on that word to the mysteries of the rosary, and how the Philippines seem to be mired in what rosary holders call a Sorrowful Mystery (the Death and Crucifixion stage, to be exact). Catalina's reply to this is a vow to tell the truth the best she can, through her art; Hamin asks (rather sardonically): is she willing to die for her art? Catalina sits and stares, not answering; the talk, having moved from evening dark to practical considerations to literary and cinematic themes, turns into a broad philosophical debate peaking with a declaration of redemptive action, then with mention of ultimate darkness plunges back into the surrounding gloom (which, of course, is but a reminder of the larger gloom).

Catalina often acts as foil, if not actual opponent, to Hamin's fatalism, her maternal and sexual life force countering his sense of despair. Against his insect behavior she responds with emotion and mystery; against his neglect of Amalia (who loyally cleaned and maintained his studio while he was in Russia, even insisted on speaking of him only in glowing terms) Catalina mischievously suggests that she'll mount an exhibit in tribute to the woman, displaying sculptures of Amalia's body parts, even private parts. There's sarcasm in Catalina's suggestion, but also something affirming: Amalia is gone, and this is a way of remembering her, keeping some portion of her vital, alive.

Against Mayon Catalina is all practical defiance; she acknowledges the volcano's beauty (it's considered the most perfect cone in the world), the same time she condemns the mountain for killing thousands of people over the years--is perhaps poised to kill thousands more (as Hamin notes, only one-fourth of the volcanic mud has been expended; the other three-fourths sits there, waiting for the next powerful typhoon). Knowledge of all that sludge waiting to bury her doesn't faze Catalina one bit; she just goes on working, taking mud from the volcano's slopes and using it for her sculptures, transforming it, taking material for potential death and giving it new life.

But the film's title speaks of death, not life; despite all of Catalina's (and Teodoro's, and Hamin's) artistic and creative powers, they can't stop Mount Mayon, or Typhoon Reming, or the Philippine government's more oppressive policies towards leftists (at one point it's mentioned that over 800 unarmed political activists have been killed since President Macapagal-Arroyo took power, a good portion of them Bicolanos). On a trip to Manila to find out what had happened to his mother (he knew she had died in a mental hospital, but didn't know the exact circumstances), Hamin again meets one of the paramilitary officers that had interrogated him, irrevocably changing his life (or so it seems).

As director Diaz shows more confidence in the black-and-white digital medium than he's ever shown before. He managed with a limited variety of lighting in Ebolusyon; in Heremias he learned to create more expressive lighting schemes, sometimes even in inclement weather (weather he often created himself, using a water truck and fire hose). In this film he has sunlight waxing and waning as Catalina and Hamin talk in her outdoor studio (the light rhyming with the waning and waxing of the discussion); he has the three friends stage an entire debate (the aforementioned insect behavior patterns vs. emotion and mystery controversy) in the light of a single lamp; in Manila he has the camera sit low, like a political prisoner squatting on the floor, while it watches Hamin and his former torturer (their silhouettes vivid against the harsh Manila sunlight) talk about their past, present, future.

The last scene demonstrates an interesting series of directorial choices--why doesn't Diaz give us a clear look at Hamin's tormentor? Why does he allow the officer to play the role so melodramatically, like a low-budget action-movie villain? Was the conversation the event that triggered Hamin's suicidal downward spiral, or was it yet another symptom--a decisive one--of said spiral? Did Hamin imagine the whole encounter, this being his way of putting the blame on someone, his way of evading feelings of anger and grief and guilt at the apparent neglectful death of his mother?

The mother's departure from their home is a defining event in Hamin's life, and Diaz treats it as such with his camerawork. In a single shot the camera follows Hamin from behind as he walks up to a girl and boy playing among the trees, and we recognize the young Hamin playing with his sister Teresa; the man walks to the right, the camera following, till he's facing his childhood home. Suddenly a doctor in white coat emerges from the left of the house, pulling his mother along, walking past him. Hamin walks to the left, the camera panning to follow, just in time to catch both doctor and mother disappearing into the forest, then turns to look back at the home his mother left behind. This is Diaz's second foray into Jose Rizal territory, into the iconographic imagery of Rizal's famed novel Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not), his way in particular of evoking the figure of Sisa, the mother turned madwoman by the disappearance of her children and the tyranny of an unjust government. Diaz made this journey once before, with the story of Reynaldo's mother in Ebolusyon; fellow Filipino filmmakers Mario O'Hara, Lino Brocka, and Gerardo de Leon made the journey before him with their respective films (O'Hara's great Sisa (1998); Brocka's influential Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang (You Were Judged But Found Wanting, 1974); De Leon's innovative Sisa and definitive Noli Me Tangere (1951 and 1961, respectively)). But where O'Hara, Brocka and de Leon's various Sisas were all helpless hysterics, singing folk songs when they weren't moaning after their missing children, Diaz's is the quieter kind, somehow kin to his gallery of straying loners (you could say mother infected son with her wanderlust). She goes on to meander in and out of her son's consciousness, leading him to his inevitable fate.

Beyond all this, though--beyond the melodrama and dialogue--is Diaz's apparent relationship with the Bicolano landscape. In Ebolusyon and Heremias he seemed to disagree with the landscape, struggle against it, carefully angle his camera to capture the bleakest, least flattering aspect of an undeniably lush vista. Returning to the same region with Encantos (you might say the film is a sequel to the first two) the struggle has been resolved; Diaz's camera gazes at the treeless, houseless, blasted landscape with a sense of propriety, almost a sense of fulfillment. It's as if Diaz has discovered that the desolation left in the wake of Reming (with Mayon collaborating) is the perfect visual metaphor for the political and spiritual wasteland he feels was left in the wake of Philippine society (with the present administration governing) in its downward spiral. This, Diaz seems to be saying to us, is the Philippines, nor are we out of it. One of the best--and most important--films to come out this year.

(First published in Businessworld, 11/27/07)

(This entry was entered in the Contemplative Cinema Blogathon, January 6-13, 2008)

(Winner of a Golden Lion Special Mention at the Orizzonti (Horizons) Documentary Section of this year's Venice Film Festival, the film will have its Philippine premiere at the University of the Philippines Film Center Videotheque, Nov. 29 at 10 a.m. onwards)

Day of the Dead (George Romero, 1985)

(George Romero 1940 - 2017)
 
My contribution to the 31 Days of Zombie at The Projection Booth:

My favorite Dead

The Dead movies aren't so much examples of sophisticated filmmaking as they are powerful metaphors given free rein by a cunning imaginative filmmaker. Night of the Living Dead (1968) was about how a handful of people under siege (Middle-class America faced with the horrors of Vietnam) are able to uphold their standards of decency (not too well unfortunately); Dawn of the Dead (1978) was the same formula set against a large-scale parody of American consumerism (this just a few years before the onset of the materialistic '80s)--even the blandly overbright quality of the film's lights perfectly mimicked mall lighting.

Dawn is of course the critics' favorite for its comic-book flavor relative lightheartedness commentary on consumerism; when the critics went to see Day they expected more of the same. But Romero had moved beyond the satire of Dawn; he was making metaphysical and philosophical statements on the human condition rendered in extremis--soldiers vs. scientists, men vs. women (or woman), pacifists vs. idealists, all cooped up in the hellhole of a pressure-cooker with dial set to 'apocalyptic.' Unpleasant characters and nasty tense dialogue? It's the end of the world; things are falling apart. They haven't sealed themselves off in this series of linked corridors and windowless rooms just to sit down for tea.

Pictures from Vancouver International Film Festival

As promised, here are the few pictures I managed to snap of people met in the festival, in between bouts of lying in my hotel room suffering from intestinal flu.


From left to right: fellow Dragons & Tigers jurist Ikeda Hiroyuki; yours truly; Eighteen director Jang Kun-Jae and his lead actor Lee Min-Ji. Can't remember what the circumstances were, but this was probably immediately after the film's screening. Yes, I suppose Lee looked cute in his breezy gray scarf and beribboned hat, but I thought I stunned with my black-and-white latticed shirt.


From left to right: Mr. Ikeda, Dragons & Tigers programmer Tony Rayns; fellow juror Johnny Ray Huston; and yours truly. Don't believe this pic for a moment; we finished deliberations, decided we had a few minutes to kill, and posed for this photo, apparently not very well--Mr. Ikeda and I pretended (feebly) to still be debating, Tony and Johnny thought we should be grinning like idiots at the camera. The lesson? Never snap a pic without an auteur in charge.


Kristin Thompson and I, our first meeting. I'd first met Kristin's husband David Bordwell in the Hong Kong International Film Festival, after which I wrote about his book Planet Hong Kong. I'd stopped going to Hong Kong years ago (nada dinero); when I met David again this year we hadn't seen each other for about, oh, ten years.

It was a keen pleasure meeting him again, and I wished we could have talked more, and I wished we could have spent more time together and I wished I'd have been able to say more to Kristin than "hi!" (I'd been reading her on their blog for years) but they had their own list of films to catch and I had my films to judge. We did manage to snap pictures together with my camera, four total, every one of which was hopelessly blurred. Fortunately, Bordwell's digital camera worked fine, and he emailed me this (unfortunately we couldn't get one of David and I, or the three of us together). Them's the breaks, I suppose. I suppose I should also get a digital camera, but--nada dinero.


Bakal Boys director Ralston Jover with my arm wrapped proprietarily round his shoulders. He had just signed his soul away to me.

Actually, that's his Special Mention certificate I'm holding. Very nice guy. Almost wasn't there for the award--after the screening he disappeared for the rest of the week. On awards night he had the festival staff running and radioing everywhere, trying to find him. Turned out he was sitting in his hotel room, wondering what time the ceremony started.

From left to right: yours truly in between actress Seo Jun-Yeong and actor Lee Min-Ji (doesn't he ever take off that hat?), the appealingly young lovers in Jang Kun-Jae's Eighteen.

It was right after the awards ceremony. The pair were high on the fact that our jury had given their film the Dragons & Tigers award; the photographers swarmed around them, snapping away. I walked up to her, held out my hand, palm up, and said "payment."

She looked puzzled. "What?"

"Payment," I said. "For the award."

She looked as if she didn't understand. Or rather, that she was starting to understand, but wished she didn't. Then I held up my camera. "Pictures." She started laughing.

I know, I know. But I just couldn't resist.


And if you think I'm going to resist having a solo picture taken with her, you just don't know me.


This was the Cook It Yourself Noodle Party at the lovely Eunhee's gorgeous penthouse apartment. Turns out Nguyen Doy Khoa, the lead actor of Bui Thac Chuyen's beautiful Adrift, is also a skilled pianist. All that was needed, really, was Eunhee in a slinky red dress, cavorting atop her piano and singing Makin' Whoopee, but would she oblige me? Not on your life.


Tony Rayns. Haven't the slightest idea why his expression's so sour--James Cameron's Avatar was still months away.


Dragons & Tigers programmer Shelley Kraicer, in a supplicant's pose. Don't remember why he was on his knees that time--proposing, perhaps? But what about that beer bottle he's sipping? Whatever the reason, it must have been one compelling reason...


And this was my last day at the festival, when I was determined not to sleep till it was time to board my plane.

The all-night drinking session eventually turned into an informal seminar on life, films and film festivals with, among others, Sato Fumiro, director of Denoted (left, I think (I could be mistaken)) and Mariko Tetsuya, director of The Yellow Kid (right). Tetsuya was a regular interrogator, asking me my opinion of this film or that, this filmmaker or that. He had a fierce curiosity about almost everything, and I ended up talking almost the entire night.

At one point--I don't know exactly what time, only that it was almost dawn--we ended up wondering what happens after the festival is over. "We go home," I opined, "and we keep some kind of contact. We might never meet again, not face-to-face, but we send email, message each other on Facebook, and so on.

"It's a strange community we have. We see each other for a few days, we go back to our homes thousands of miles away, we don't see each other for months, maybe years. Yet when we get back together, it's as if we've never been apart. Sometimes we pick up arguments as if we'd just parted only yesterday.

"It's as if we already partly know each other--we love films, we love filmmaking, and that's half the job of becoming friends done. The rest is just filling in the details.

"If I have any advice to give you, it's this: meet, talk, get to know each other fast as possible, cherish each other as much as possible because--well, you never know. I had a friend--Alex Tioseco, a film critic--and the last time I saw him was 2003. We kept in contact--I wrote several articles for him, and just a month ago we emailed each other about my discovering the films of David Gordon Green.

"And then he died. Shot in his own home. That was my last conversation with him--a series of email messages about David Gordon Green. Which was sad yet appropriate too, in a way--we were doing what we loved best, talking about films and filmmakers, giving each other a head's up on something exciting and new (new at least for me). Worse ways to spend one's last moments together, I suppose.

"So here's to you, and you, and you, and you, and if I may say one thing more, a quote: 'If we do meet again, why, we shall smile; if not, why then, this parting was well made.'"

Funniest thing of all, I remember sipping maybe three, four glasses of, I don't know, whiskey or sake or something all through the night, but when I left I was stone cold sober. Even my intestinal flu felt fine--no cramps, no nausea, nothing. I was, for all intents and purposes, cured. Happens.

The Best of 2009, the Best of the Decade

The in my opinion film of the decade 

It's with perverse pride that I look upon Sight & Sound's Ten Best Films of 2009 and note that none of my own choices (scroll down) made it there--and that two of the titles I might have conceivably chosen (Peter Doctor's Up and Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds) I didn't even like.

Jonathan Romney's essay pretty much sums it up: I do have orphans I champion, I do have an agenda I'm pushing with my list--directors and films that I think deserve more attention, hence their inclusion, plus movies I'd rather not waste my time with, like the two aforementioned titles (hence their non-inclusion).

Even agree with Romney's conclusion, that the real value of such exercises isn't the plain-vanilla combined list composed out of statistics (as Samuel Langhorne Clemens (aka Mark Twain) put it: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'), but the list of esoteric titles behind that combined list.

Glad to see, then, Bong Joon-ho's Mother mentioned, and that Tony Rayn's list includes Yang ik-june's Breathless and Joko Anwar's Forbidden Door. Appreciate those who preferred Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo over the Pixar, and Tomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In over that Twilight movie (though another strong contender in the bloodsucking sweepstakes, I submit, is Thirst, easily the first Park Chan-wook film I ever liked). And kudos to Adrian Martin for picking Filipino filmmaker Sherad Anthony Sanchez's Imburnal.

My Sight & Sound top five films of 2009 then (with links to articles where ever applicable):

Melancholia (Lav Diaz, Philippines) 

Karaoke (Chris Chong Chan Fui)

Public Enemies (Michael Mann)

Eighteen (Jang Kun-jae)

Coraline (Henry Selick)

Best revival: Santiago! (Lino Brocka, 1970, Philippines)

It's with even more perverse pride that I note that none of my picks for best of the decade made Film Comment's Top 100 list either--a more difficult achievement, I suspect, because of the number of participants polled, number of films seen, the scope involved.

Didn't mean to be so perverse. Was asked to give my ten best of the decade, looked back at what I saw, tried to remember which ones had the greatest impact, and wrote accordingly. No, I did not reject one or another because it was too well-known; I usually rejected them because I either 1) thought there was something better, or 2) ran out of slots.

Honest.

That said, I like to think that if you saw the films in my list you'd gain some kind of insight into some kind of sensibility, at least the one I've carried with me this past ten years--a little grim, perhaps, a little skewed, a little concerned about everything that's happened and may happen still.

I should have included a comedy, shouldn't I? Something lighthearted or at least comparatively lighter-hearted, like Terry Gilliam's The Brothers Grimm, or Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy movies or (and I was strongly tempted to include this) Joe Dante's Looney Tunes: Back in Action. But "that's how the crumbling cookie," as an old Filipino-English joke used to go.

So (with accompanying links):

Best Films of the Decade:

Demons (Pangarap ng Puso, Mario O'Hara, 2000)

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Julian Schnabel, 2007)

Edmond (Stuart Gordon, 2005)

Election / Triad Election (Johnnie To, 2005/2006)

Pulse (Kurosawa Kiyoshi, 2001)

A Short Film About the Indio Nacional (Maicling pelicula nang ysang Indio Nacional, Raya Martin, 2006)

The Sky Crawlers (Mamoru Oshii, 2008)

Todo Todo Teros (John Torres, 2006)

We Own the Night (James Gray, 2007)

West Side Avenue (Batang West Side, Lav Diaz, 2001)

Best filmmakers of the decade:

Lav Diaz

Mamoru Oshii

Kurosawa Kiyoshi

Michael Mann

Stuart Gordon

George Romero

Apichatpong Weerasethakul

Film of the Decade:Demons (Pangarap ng Puso, Mario O'Hara, 2000)

10 Filipino Films That Deserve to be Known Better

Altar (Rico Ilarde, 2007)

Biyaheng Langit (Paradise Express, Tikoy Aguiluz, 2000)

The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros (Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros, Auraeus Solito, 2005)

Heremias, Book One: The Legend of the Lizard Princess (Unang aklat: ang alamat ng prinsesang bayawak, Lav Diaz, 2006)

Kagadanan sa banwaan ning mga Engkanto (Death in the Land of Encantos, Lav Diaz, 2007)

North Diversion Road (Sa North Diversion Road, Dennis Marasigan, 2005)

Taon noong ako'y anak sa labas (Years When I Was a Child Outside, John Torres, 2008)

The Teacher (Manoro, Brillante Mendoza, 2006)

Third World Hero (Bayaning Third World, Mike De Leon, 2000)

La Vida Rosa (The Life of Rosa, Chito Rono, 2001)

1.15.10

Show Only One Hollywood Movie a Month, the Sequel

Philippine cinema, bound and gagged

Continuing from this post:

We had a friendly debate on the subject on this forum.

Noel Vera (NV): Actually a little protectionism DOES make sense at this moment in time. What just happened? Global economic collapse. Why did it happen? Free market economies. Why is China so quick to recover? They're focusing on their domestic market.

So if free markets fucked us up so bad, how about Something A Little Different?

av_phile1: Then what?

It's the same situation why the coups against GMA failed. Who you gonna install after GMA?

Okay, so there's no Harry Potter, no Ironman, no Robin Hood. You now have the entire domestic box office to your own. What's next?

NV: All we have left is Lav Diaz, John Torres, Raya Martin, Brillante Mendoza, Dennis Marasigan, Rico Ilarde, Ellen Ongkeko, Ralston Joven, Veronica Velasco, Sherad Anthony Sanchez, Auraeus Solito, Joyce Bernal, Quark Henares, Jeffrey Jeturian, Ditsy Carolino, Ramona Diaz, Khavn de la Cruz, Chito Rono, Maryo J. delos Reyes, Peque Gallaga, Laurice Guillen, Marilou Diaz Abaya, Lupita Kashiwahara and (hoping against hope) Celso Ad. Castillo, Mike De Leon, Mario O'Hara?

Heaven help us then!

av_phile1: When I asked what's next I was hoping someone would tell me how they plan to go about limiting or banning hollywood movies and what to expect after. It's so easy mouthing some advocacy about it.

How do you invoke the Cultural Exception principle in the GATT/WTO/Unesco requirement that France, China, Taiwan, et al have been granted. Are we already enjoying it considering that we are in violation of the National Treatment principle behind GATT that explicitly forbids giving incentives to commercial products in the guise of protecting culture? There are already tax rebates on local films. There's a pending act in congress exempting domestic films with GP and PG-13 rating from the 30% amusement tax. There's another pending lifting the 12% VAT on imported film making equipment. Yet despite these incentives, where are we?

Then what? Will the government cast a safety net to theater owners who will lose income from foreign films? And what other incentive is there to increase film production to fill in the void?

Importation quota is meant to control competition with foreign products. But will there be a quota set against home entertainment materials like DVDs and BDs, because these are other competition channels. How about piracy? Will they be finally stamped out? How about the internet, will the government ban torrent sites? How? Because if not, any quota of hollywood films goes out the window because people can just watch them at home.

Like I said, it's too late. Any kind of protectionist importation quota should have been done right after a disastrous calamity or war that threatened to eradicate a culture or at least make it difficult for a nation to compete against imported products from countries that didn't suffer the same fate. That was what France did after WWII, protecting its film industry after the war devastated its economy. The French had worked hard to define cinema as a cultural product and had a cultural exception principle adopted in the GATT. Same with South Korea after the Korean War. We should have done the same thing like France after WWII. But we were too confident we had the stars that we claim to be better than hollywood stars. We had a Paraluman who was more beautiful than a Rita Hayworth. We had Fernando Poe Jr, that many say was better than Gary Cooper. We had an Amalia Fuentes which many say is more beautiful than Elizabeth Taylor. In short, we thought nothing of competing with hollywood films and we actually trumped many of them in the local box office.

Now in the age of internet and the opening of commercial borders, protectionism has lost any of its power to preserve culture. South Korea didn't get its cinema up because of it. Sure it helped at the start, but if not for their intrepid directors and excellent movie stories that really showed them at their cinematic best, no amount of protectionsim would have brought them to where they are today. Same with Japan, China and India. Where is France cinema today. More than half a century of protectionism and they still claim they need it to get an even playing field.

NV: GATT is frankly something we walked into without much critical thought. "Oh free market, it's got to be good for us." Yeah, right--did us just fine in 2008 and 2009.

I'd say the key word is 'commercial products.' Reword and redefine Filipino movies to be cultural products where the studios are renumerated for expenses and not much else (profit can be distributed through a dozen other means) should get around GATT provisions (I say redo those treaties, but assume the political will isn't there, or at least not yet). We're so creative about going around rules and regulations I can't imagine this should give us a hard time.

As for further details, I suggest checking out the French subsidy system (the stress there is cultural as opposed to commercial preservation), not to mention South Korea's quota system. Throw in China's too. Works for them, don't see why it won't work for us.

HEXAGRAM: Imagine your children growing up with mostly Filipino shows/movies. Puro kabaklaan, kajologan, prostitusyon, incest, panggagaya, kaingayan (hiyawan), sayawan (ng kalandian), neverending sequels, telefantash*ts, recycled casts (parang wala nang ibang mahanap), etc.

All I can say that I thank my dad for not permitting me to watch Filipino shows when I was growing up.

I hate to generalize but that's the way i see it. Global warming is enough of a dilemma for our future generations.

NV: Naw, we just watch Hollywood garbage, where white skin is better, girls are sexy and objects of rape and lust, gay men are comic relief and/or serial killers, Islam is the Devil's religion, the gun is glorified beyond all measure, and the USA beats all countries at war.

Oh, and kajologan, prostitusyon, incest, panggagaya, kaingayan (hiyawan), sayawan (ng kalandian), neverending sequels, telefantash*ts, recycled casts (parang wala nang ibang mahanap), etc.

It's not that different. At least there's a Filipino flavor to our garbage.

I thank my dad for not permitting me to watch Filipino shows when I was growing up

No O'Hara, Brocka, Bernal, Ad. Castillo, Guillen, the two de Leons, Silos, Conde?

You poor thing.

Puro kabaklaan

Whoa--so what do you mean by that? Something wrong with homosexuality? Some of our regular posters are gay.

av_phile1: GATT is frankly something we walked into without much critical thought. "Oh free market, it's got to be good for us." Yeah, right--did us just fine in 2008 and 2009.

I'd say the key word is 'commercial products.' Reword and redefine Filipino movies to be cultural products where the studios are renumerated for expenses and not much else (profit can be distributed through a dozen other means) should get around GATT provisions (I say redo those treaties, but assume the political will isn't there, or at least not yet). We're so creative about going around rules and regulations I can't imagine this should give us a hard time.

As for further details, I suggest checking out the French subsidy system (the stress there is cultural as opposed to commercial preservation), not to mention South Korea's quota system. Throw in China's too. Works for them, don't see why it won't work for us.

Except for China, all the countries you mentioned with movie protectionist policies are signatories to the GATT. France and India signed it in 1948, Japan in 1955 and South Korea in 1968.

The problem lies in differentiating cultural products and commercial products. The former is entitled to GATT exemption in the interest of protecting cultural diversity, the other is not. What culture are you protecting with Darna, Iskul Bukol, Wapakman, Panday or Shake Rattle and Roll? There's so few attempta to paint our culture in our cinema. Rizal, Muro Ami, Himala, Oro Plata Mata, Macho Dancer. Tuli, Foster Child, Caregiver, Kubrador, maybe. I think you have to show more than that when you want to seek GATT exemption.

And protectionism will just be another toothless grin with a borderless and impossible-to-regulate internet age sprinkled with piracy. We should have done it as early as the 70s. Now, the challenge of global competitiveness can no longer be set aside in favor of parochial interests. Better to rise to the occasion than hide behind anchronistic trade barriers. We've been doing it already, trumping hollywood blockbusters in the local box office. We just need to produce more. It's really no different from getting the entrepreneurial risk taking spirit among pinoys in any industry. We need to get more producers to invest on Pinoy directors who make good in filmfests.

Sadly, just as we don't have entrepreneurs to engage in our own car making industry, or consumer electronics (Do we have a Pinoy Cellphone or PC?), our cinema industry mirrors all our lackluster enterprising efforts. We can be world class artists, but not world class industry leaders and businessmen. No amount of trade protectionism can solve that.

NV: Like I said, it's too late.Any kind of protectionist importation quota should have been done right after a disastrous calamity or war that threatened to eradicate a culture or at least make it difficult for a nation to compete against imported products from countries that didn't suffer the same fate.

And what do you call this global economic meltdown? What do you call Hollywood's gobbling up the Hong Kong and Mexico markets?

Same with South Korea after the Korean War.

Yeah. Check recent South Korean history--they imposed their latest quotas in the 90s, after Hollywood brought down their industry.

South Korea didn't get its cinema up because of it. Sure it helped at the start

And that's what I'm calling for--a start. Turn down Hollywood's volume, and let's start.

no amount of protectionism would have brought them to where they are today

They still have a quota.

Where is France cinema today. More than half a century of protectionism and they still claim they need it to get an even playing field.

It's all about money, folks. Hollywood has money, we don't. We do, however, have the power to legislate. That's the function of government.

HEXAGRAM: Naw, we just watch Hollywood garbage, where white skin is better, girls are sexy and objects of rape and lust, gay men are comic relief and/or serial killers, Islam is the Devil's religion, the gun is glorified beyond all measure, and the USA beats all countries at war

No Brocka, Bernal, Ad. Castillo, Guillen, the two de Leons, Silos, Conde?

You poor thing.

Never said that I only watch Hollywood films. And you seem to be the expert on Tagalog films and film history, so good luck with that. I still sleep well at night so no worries.

Whoa--so what do you mean by that? Something wrong with homosexuality? Some of our regular posters are gay.

Nice try in stirring things up for your delight. "Some of our regular posters are gay." - bravo!

I have gay friends. Who doesn't? But what they do with their “leisure time” is something I'm not interested in. Same applies to everyone with different beliefs.

I'll cite one example since you're clearly enjoying the discussion regarding "kabaklaan" - gayness.

Joey's Quirky World - Should be a very educational and informative program, especially for kids. But who the hell knows why they had to put 2 straight men to commentate using gay lingo and intonation (with the annoying shrieks if I may add). Add another fat, straight cross-dressing guy playing assistant to the equation and you get the general idea of what I’m trying to imply. I doubt the children will be able to pick up useful words to store in their vocabulary banks after watching such shows.

And if the show was targeted for the younger audiences, is that the network’s surefire and proven way of getting through to them? If it is, then that says a lot of what you're going to expect with these network producers who are also into film making. What's the new Michael V. show? I forgot the name - all I know that it's just another show with a cross-dressing host. But who cares right? It sells.

NV: I have gay friends. Who doesn't?

Classic! "I'm not an anti-Semite--all my best friends are Jews."

Joey's Quirky World - Should be a very educational and informative program, especially for kids. But who the hell knows why they had to put 2 straight men to commentate using gay lingo and intonation

Some people find swardspeak fun. I do.

And if the show was targeted for the younger audiences

I don't see anything wrong with exposing younger folk to homosexuality. I know gay couples that raise kids and they do a better job than some straight couples do, their kids are more squared away too.

If it is, then that says a lot of what you're going to expect with these network producers who are also into film making.

My problem with this is the broad brushstroke. If you snipe at TV producers (and I do think most of them deserve it) and commercial film producers (and I do think they deserve it), you need to point out that there is good work being produced out there. Otherwise, you're stereotyping and dismissing out of hand.

av_phile1: And what do you call this global economic meltdown? What do you call Hollywood's gobbling up the Hong Kong and Mexico markets?

Every country is experiencing the global recession. But nowhere near the calamity of a WW II.

Mexico is so much like the Philippines. More than half their population wants to own green cards. And because of its proximity to the land of milk and honey, most of their local stars and directors got their wishes. You have Mexican Holywood stars like Ramon Novaro, Lupe Velez, Cantinflas, Dolores del Rio, Gilbert Roland, Ricardo Montalban, Gael García Bernal, Diego Luna, Salma Hayek, to mention some. And great directors who landed hollywood jobs or had workls distributed worldwide to commercial success like Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambian, Children of Men, Harry Potter PA), Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Blade II). Alejandro González Iñárritu (Babel, 21 Grams). They probably don't need protectionism as much as we do. Mexico could have invoked GATT exemption. But it's interesting to note that AFAIK no Latin American country ever took advantage of the cultural exception in the GATT. Not that it matters to us, but I can understand their indifference to the idea.

Hongkong cinema is a bit more complicated with its integration into mainland China so that any distinction between the two has increasingly blurred over the years. The main factor in its decline include an increasingly sophisticated population that found Hollywood movies more acceptable to their taste than the local films that have spiraled down in terms of quality. The Asian financial crisis of the 97 was the final straw that broke the mighty private sector that has been financing movies eversince. Most of these entrepreneurial producers found themselves financially bankrupt to further make movies the way they used to. Hongkong cinema is unique as it's the only Asian cinema that never got a single cent from government incentives and yet really stood on its own against Hollywood in the international market for the years before its decline in the 90s. Local hongkong market is just too small to support local cinema which promptly embarked on world audiences as its markets. It's no different from the history of its flag carrier Cathay Pacific which could not have survived with no domestic market if not for its international operation. Hongkong cinema's decline is almost inevitable with a confluence of socio-economic and political factors that now subsume the industry into the larger mainland China cinema especially with China already making international quality films.

Yeah. Check recent South Korean history--they imposed their latest quotas in the 90s, after Hollywood brought down their industry.

Yeah and all their films had been been funded by the government. With the exception of some from the private sector like Samsung.

They had their quotas revised 20 years ago. A good 5 years before the spread of internet popularity, 10 years before the spread of piracy. And they were only able to produce their first landmark hit Shiri in 1999.

If South Korea had done it 9 years after, what makes you think embarking on protectionism at this late stage right in the presence of torrents and pirated moves would benefit local cinema. It won't Your best bet is for those new breed of directors winning internal film fests to be tapped by hollywood to make films for international distribution. That is, if local producers won't tap them.

And that's what I'm calling for--a start. Turn down that volume, and let's start.

I'm sure Bong Revilla has his sights on the Presidency. If ever he becomes President, you'll get what you want.

Besides, I have the impression we're already taking the cultural exception in GATT. We have tax rebates on movies. Congress has a pending legislation on exempting local GP and PG13 movies from the 30% amusement tax and the 12% VAT for movie making equipment.

They still have a quota.

Of course, once you have it, why give it up. The French had it for the last 70 years and they still won't give it up.

It's all about money, folks. Hollywood has money, we don't. We do, however, have the power to legislate. That's the function of government.

There are already legislative action pending in congress short of making quotas to help the movie industry. These are considered subsidies that are already in violation of GATT unless we have invoked the cultural exception principle. And since we're on the topic of legislation, why not ask the government for funding as well, like what South Korea had done?

The cinema is just like any industry where you need investments for it to really flourish. Attracting investments won't happen if new businessmen don't find the industry lucrative enough. The problem is the small domestic market. You can only squeeze out so much from a local market. Protectionsim is a local market solution as it enables local producers to maximize revenues from a market that has little choices. But there's never a guarantee you'll be able to churn out products with a global world class appeal. There's a higher chance that because producers would be making more profit with mediocre films under a protected industry, they'd be content with it and not risk venturing out into world class quality products that cost more to make.

Like I said, it's too late in the age of internet and piracy. You stand a much better chance of attracting people who watch Titanic to watch Iskul Bukol if you had started protectionism as late as the 80s. Marcos should have done it with his MIFF. And coupled with the great films created at that time like Scorpio Nights and Oro, that could have really ignited a lasting golden age of our cinema with an international flavour. The benefits of movie protectionism would have been felt in the next generation of movie goers who would not have been weaned with Hollywood crap. And more importantly, local producers would have been well exposed to global competitiveness to rise above mediocrity. I have little quarrel with partially closing your market to foreign products, but only if you couple that with sustained drive towards world-class product excellence. And timing is of the essence.

But now, forget it. What makes you think the people who watch Harry Potter or Transformers can be weaned away to movie houses showing Wapakman and Shake Rattle and Roll. With protectionism, they'll just download the Hollywood torrents and watch happily their Hollywood crap in the comfort of their homes. Or go to their nearest tiangge to buy pirated copies. Cheaper besides. With unabated piracy and torrents with home increasingly getting their hands on cheaper PCs, the next generation of movie goers will still be exposed to them.

Nope, whatever promise a protectionist economy model has is now forever lost in the overarching presence of the internet and an unyielding global intellectual piracy. Sure, South Korea et al, still have it. But like I said, they won't give that up and it's just another remnant of an old world order when economies were more fragmented.

Your real hope lies in having those new breed of directors we have to get noticed by Hollywood filmmakers to make movies for international marketing and distribution. Or any businessman who are avid film enthusiasts. Like Samsung in Korea. Unfortunately we don't have anything similar to Samsung. Perhaps if Gokongwei, Lucio Tan, Henry Sy or the Ayalas and Ortigas can be persuaded to finance some of these good directors, we might get there faster. The real advantage of Korea is their highly evolved nationalistic psyche which has made them what they are. But that's another topic.

NV: Every country is experiencing the global recession. But nowhere near the calamity of a WW II.

I'm not all that compelled by a need to obey the spirit and letter of GATT, mainly because this free market thing is part of what pulled the world economy over the brink.

Nope, whatever promise a protectionist economy model has is now forever lost in the overarching presence of the internet and an unyielding global intellectual piracy.

Yeah. So what's the percentage of internet use in the Filipino population? People seem to think the whole country revolves around the middle to upper classes of Metro Manila. Need to remember that a majority of the population is still at the poverty line, and that majority of the people live in the provinces, where movies make a good chunk of their income.

Incidentally, in the period of 2003 to 2004, we did 97 films to Hong Kong's 92. In 2008 we made 89 films to Hong Kong's 53. We're still outproducing them, for all the wrong reasons, sure, and using crap, but there's still a considerable market out there.

Sure, South Korea et al, still have it. But like I said, they won't give that up and it's just another remnant of an old world order when economies were more fragmented.

That's the old new world order you say is taking over the old world order. There's a new new world order coming around thanks to the meltdown and it has a lot in common with the old world order. Less globalization, more localization. Checks and regulations on trading, and the selling and buying of stocks. Smaller companies, catering to local markets. GATT is already the detritus of that old new world order. Old news, folks.

The economies that escaped or are recovering fast are those that aren't fully globalized, or have a large domestic market to build on (China is the biggest example, India is doing fine, and actually the Philippines isn't too bad off, compared to the US--or it's been down for so long it didn't have far to fall).

Your real hope lies in having those new breed of directors we have to get noticed by Hollywood filmmakers to make movies for international marketing and distribution.

We've had this argument before. Remember all those J-horror remakes? That's the basic result.

The real advantage of Korea is their highly evolved nationalistic psyche which have made them what they are. But that's another topic.

Not really; it's the heart of another pet peeve of mine. What is it about our envy of other countries? Why do we think this or that country has a superhuman psyche able to solve economic problems and turn water into wine? Why do we look to other countries, shrug our shoulders helplessly, and say 'it's in our and their nature"? We've done it before, we can do it again. Heck, I look at our young filmmakers--and really, you naysayers should meet them, they are an awesome bunch--and they move mountains, perform miracles out of almost nothing. They're incredible, and they're the source of my inspiration, my 'secret weapon' so to speak, only I don't want to keep them secret.

Talk to them. Watch their films. If you can, help them (I try, whenever I can).

av_phile1: I'm not all that compelled by a need to obey the spirit and letter of GATT, mainly because this free market thing is part of what pulled the world economy over the brink.

That's the line of capitalist naysayers who immediately impugn what is wrong with capitalism. But it's very superficial. Nobody said that a free market economy was perfect. What caused the current global crisis is the ABUSE of the liberties afforded by free market economy. Not because of it. China is a example of a socialist capitalist economy that's well managed.

Yeah. So what's the percentage of internet use in the Filipino population? People seem to think the whole country revolves around the middle to upper classes of Metro Manila. Need to remember that a majority of the population is still at the poverty line, and that majority of the people live in the provinces, where movies make a good chunk of their income.

Unfortunately these PC owning people are the ones you want to watch local films, not those who are happy with Iskul Bukol. Mediocrity is not what you want even if it means local box office success. You want an international market for your films, and that means world class quality. And the people best poised to recognize what world class quality is are rarely your teeming masses, unless they get the right education.

On the otherhand, the teeming ruk will not want to watch your arthouse films either. They like to see their idols on the big screens. The problem is aggravated when you foster the divide. Why is it so difficult to make arthouse-quality films with their favorite stars in them? Because producers want quick profits so they make quickies. With or without a hollywood film ban or quota, these same people will be watching pinoy films. And producers will continue to pander to their taste. So where's the advantage?

That's the old new world order you say is taking over the old world order. There's a new new world order coming around thanks to the meltdown and it has a lot in common with the old world order. Less globalization, more localization. Checks and regulations on trading, and the selling and buying of stocks. Smaller companies, catering to local markets. GATT is already the detritus of that old new world order. Old news, folks.

Globalization remains on tract. It's irreversible. The global crisis has actually hastened the creation of mega corporations that bought out or absorbed other companies in financial distress. They are now better poised to pursue a much more vigorous and unified global penetration of their products. You see airlines, financial institutions, car makers merging or consolidating. Globalization has never been stronger. Business outsourcing is blurring geo-economic boundaries. With the internet as its distribution and marketing channel, it's almost impossible for a small company to remain small. Once you have the whole world as your market, you'd have to have the muscle to supply growing global demand. Amazon and eBay couldn't help getting big even if they wanted to remain small.

Hollywood now make films using the cheapest resources - actors from China or Australia shooting in New Zealand and being edited in Bratislava. Using motion sensors, they can capture human acting nuances in a backlot somewhere in China and processed by CGI facilities in India, etc etc. The entire world is one small business community now.

The economies that escaped or are recovering fast are those that aren't fully globalized, or have a large domestic market to build on (China is the biggest example, India is doing fine, and actually the Philippines isn't too bad off, compared to the US--or it's been down for so long it didn't have far to fall).

Just like in the Asian financial crisis of 97 when we survived unscathed, we're not in any height to get hurt falling.

China and India are among those at the center of globalization. Their outsourcing business for western companies epitomize exactly what globalization is about. China is now a socialist free market economy with global reach after Japan and the US. Your examples are exactly what properly managed capitalist economy with global reach is about.

We've had this argument before. Remember all those J-horror remakes? That's the basic result.
That's globalization, film ideas can come anywhere. Just as it can be made anywhere where's it's more cost effective to make.

The benefit is not so much if the remake is good or not. Of course, better if it s good. But more on the fact that they get a wider international audience. Ringu was the highest grossing film in Japan and promptly got noticed by Hollywood who was fast getting bankrupt of film ideas. It's interesting to note that its Hollywood remake actually grossed more in Japan than the original and brought the film to a much wider audience. This started the trend for Hollywood remaking local films that have done well in their respective countries. Our own Sigaw was remade as the Echo.

It's a good start and eventually the reputation can precede you if you sustain it with really good movies from your own, not hollywood remakes. The problem is that we make films for pinoys, very few with an eye for the international market. When you start thinking GLOBAL, that's when you rise above mediocrity.

Not really; it's the heart of another pet peeve of mine. What is it about our envy of other countries? Why do we think this or that country has a superhuman psyche able to solve economic problems and turn water into wine? Why do we look to other countries, shrug our shoulders helplessly, and say 'it's in our and their nature"? We've done it before, we can do it again. Heck, I look at our young filmmakers--and really, you naysayers should meet them, they are an awesome bunch--and they move mountains, perform miracles out of almost nothing. They're incredible, and they're the source of my inspiration, my 'secret weapon' so to speak, only I don't want to keep them secret.

Different peoples have different mental make-up and predispositions defined by their tradition and culture. While it doesn't mean that some races are superior than others, some just have a more productive attitude collectively as a nation than others. The Japanese, the Jews and the Koreans have a level of nationalistic consciousness that is superior to many other peoples. Self sacrifce is a national trait. In the early years after the Korean war, Korea had young people studying and working overseas only to RETURN and bring their new found knowledge for the improvement of their country. The Japanese also did the same, they bought Swiss watches and Grundig radio in their European visits and promptly reversed-engineered them when they went back home. Not to mention the cars. And they improved on them. They have governments that care about their people and have the least corruption. They can even bring their erring heads of state to jail without getting pardoned. The Koreans are a bit better, they actually paid Japanese technocrats and engineers to work in their factories during weekends, all expenses paid. The history of Samsung is the history of a people's struggle to put their country in a position of industry leadership and excellence. It is also a story of how nationalism can be harnessed to bring a people into prosperity. It's all about putting the love of your countrymen above anything else.

If people don't recognize that there are other people worth emulating to correct their weaknesses, then they are bound to suffer their own weaknesses.

NV: What caused the current global crisis is the ABUSE of the liberties afforded by free market economy. Not because of it.

By this definition, a non-capitalist or managed economy is bad, a free market economy good? Now that's simplistic.

China is a example of a socialist capitalist economy that's well managed.

And living hell for people who think or say different.

Unfortunately these PC owning people are the ones you want to watch local films, not those who are happy with Iskul Bukol.

Why not? What's wrong with the CD crowd? Is there something wrong with poor people, or people from the provinces? Are they somehow unworthy?

You want an international market for your films, and that means world class quality.

Y'know how Japanese cinema developed? Ozu did films for the Japanese. Mizoguchi did films for the Japanese. Same with Kurosawa--when offered the chance for an international production, Kurosawa as much as professed regret he couldn't sell said production first to his own people.

The key to a successful cinema is a domestic market, not an international one. Study all the histories, get back to me. In the case of Hong Kong, which did cultivate an international market, it was an international market of diasporic Chinese. Read David Bordwell.

And the people best poised to recognize what world class quality is are rarely your teeming masses

Brocka? O'Hara, who never finished college? What's wrong with these people, I keep wondering?

Globalization remains on tract.

Not only has globalization not remained "on track," it's seriously derailed and taken the world economy with it. All those mega corporations are carefully being looked into and regarded with suspicion; more regulations are being put into place. China, that economic powerhouse, is looking inwards. The bloom is off, the boom is over. Listen to NPR, read The New York Times.

The benefit is not so much if the remake is good or not. Of course, better if it s good. But more on the fact that they get a wider international audience.

And a lot less respect because they're so bad. Seen any J Horror remakes lately? The trend is dead, and they killed it with garbage.

If people don't recognize that there are other people worth emulating to correct their weaknesses, then they are bound to suffer their own weaknesses.

Be aware, sure, but also be aware of one's virtues. That's pretty sad if you don't watch the best that our own country has to offer.

av_phile1: By this definition, a non-capitalist or managed economy is bad, a free market economy good? Now that's simplistic.

There's nothing being defined in that statement so don't imagine one. Also check your logic, Just because one is good, doesn't mean the other is bad.

But to be blunt, there's nothing better than a capitalist economy. China is a socialist capitalist economy. And it's interesting to note that despite all the crises and storms that beset a capitalist economy, the societies behind them have weathered and went on to new heights. Whereas non-capitalist societies have withered and died, like the soviets who have promptly adopted a capitalist one, and you see it in Cuba. Not to mention China which easily embraced it.

And living hell for people who think or say different.

Did that prevent them from creating world class products?

Why not? What's wrong with the CD crowd? Is there something wrong with poor people, or people from the provinces? Are they somehow unworthy?

You tell me. When they start flocking to see films in local film fests.

Y'know how Japanese cinema developed? Ozu did films for the Japanese. Mizoguchi did films for the Japanese. Same with Kurosawa--when offered the chance for an international production, Kurosawa as much as professed regret he couldn't sell said production first to his own people.

The key to a successful cinema is a domestic market, not an international one. Study all the histories, get back to me. In the case of Hong Kong, which did cultivate an international market, it was an international market of diasporic Chinese. Read David Bordwell.

You overlooked one fundamental thing. Japan's domestic market, even as early as the 19th century, is quite mature, sophisticated and demanding because of high literacy rate. Any country with a mature domestic market with a large middle class demographics like the US, Japan, Korea and UK can easily compete on a Global scale. What I am saying is for third world countries like the Philippines, the only way to transcend their product mediocrity and compete globally is to think global. They can't rely on the low standards of catering to an immature domestic market to match global standards, especially one with a very small middle class content.

Now you go back and read your economics and the roots of globalization. The domestic market WAS critical to a cinema. Actually it WAS critical to ANY industry. It dictates the level of a country's production quality, be it cars, appliances or movies. And in a global economy, a country with a highly sophisticated market with a highly evolved product line dictates and leads the level of economic activity for that product line. That's why you have hollywood leading the pack. So now with a global economy already thriving, competing globally means your products have to match the level of sophistication of those in these countries, and transcend the limiting infantile needs of your domestic markets that is pulling you down if you don't. It's now late in the day for many third world nations to make domestic markets the springboard to global prominence. You have to leapfrog it by targeting the international audience.

Brocka? O'Hara, who never finished college? What's wrong with these people, I keep wondering?

More exceptions than the rule.

Not really. All those mega corporations are carefully being looked into and regarded with suspicion; more regulations are being put into place. China, that economic powerhouse, is looking inwards. The bloom is off, the boom is over. Listen to NPR, read The New York Times.

Dream on.

Be aware, sure, but also be aware of one's virtues. That's pretty sad if you don't watch the best that our own country has to offer.

I have no problem with that. The question really is whether what's good in you is good enough to make you what Korea and Japan is today, or even a Taiwan and Malaysia. The problem is that 70 years after WWII, it hasn't proven itself good enough. It's not even about appreciating your own. A global economy is quite ruthless and unforgiving. You can appreciate your own all you like but if it can't pass global standards, you're screwed.

Both India and China have a very large market base. In the case of India, even if they have an inordinately large poverty line population, their highly educated middle class is large enough to sustain a thriving high quality domestic cinema that can compete in international markets. They have a sophisticated middle class population of about 300 million that's even larger than all of UK combined or equal to the entire US population. It is not surprising that India is actually the world's largest film producer with nearly 1000 movies annually that get shown in nearly 100 countries. Hollywood only produces about 600 annually.

Indians take advance studies in the UK, their former colonizers, in much the same way Pinoys love to get an education in the US, their former conquerors. It's actually interesting to see Indian films being highly popular in the UK, not that it has Indian immigrants as the largest ethnic minority community there.

NV: Both India and China have a very large market base.

And is ours peanuts? We're in the top ten line of film producing countries, and our market is the largest in Southeast Asia.

It's really a myopic solution for weaklings to hide under the skirt of a protective mother because he can't slug it out with the bullies.

You could argue it's a weak thing to hide under the skirt of a protective fiction like free markets, taking the Americans at their word that all they want is a level playing field.

Remember, under the Bush years America had eight years of free markets. Was there abuse? You bet. Would it have been corrected by market forces--what do you think? Free markets are supposed to be self-correcting--I didn't see much self-correction in those eight years.

Free markets had eight years--count them--to prove its case. Well it did--the world economy went to the toilet and millions of people were put out of work. We need a different paradigm.

Actually, I'd call complete and utter faith in the free markets delusional to a monstrous extreme. Free market? Level playing field? Are you kidding me? America's local movie market is the most protective of all--they block book their theaters for Hollywood hits, and woe to the independent that doesn't have the backing of a major Hollywood studio. I can see it, in all the malls and multiplexes here. Not to mention the American audience is if anything less demanding and more ignorant of world cinema than Filipinos ever were. They're sheep, consuming product from an assembly line.

As Harry Tuttle of Screenville put it:

What is scary is that the domestic American market is the most profitable in the world: more screens than in India or China! Yet they still make the most of their money abroad. And every year they complain about being on a slump... As if any country in the world could not have their cinema industry survive on a smaller budget than theirs!

The aggressive hegemony of the Hollywood culture overtakes the biggest revenue shares in almost every country, leaving peanuts for the local films to pay off their costs. It's not fair.

And these Hollywood blockbusters don't even deserve to take the largest share of the cake, in most cases, because they are not always better films (whether it is better for the entertainment factor for the widest crowd, or better aesthetically) than the local production.

In these conditions, it is perfectly justified to halt the "free market" (which is skewed by the economic pressures coming from Hollywood distributors who sell their products in bundles to saturate the market and turn local exhibitors into dependent addicts) with protectionist laws. The domestic American market is itself THE most protectionist among the "democratic world of industrial countries". Non-American films sell less than 5% of admissions to the American public!

I don't see my proposal as hiding under anyone's skirts, or laying the blame at other countries--there is a real enemy out there, and one that has to be dealt with.

Just because one is good, doesn't mean the other is bad.

So a managed economy isn't bad? Then we agree. That's good.

China is a socialist capitalist economy. And it's interesting to note that despite all the crises and storms that beset a capitalist economy, the societies behind them have weathered and went on to new heights.

Yeah. Got the US employment figures a few days ago for December. Eighty five thousand jobs lost. New heights, all right.

Whereas non-capitalist societies have withered and died, like the soviets who have promptly adopted a capitalist one, and you see it in Cuba. Not to mention China which easily embraced it.

Europe? India? China is freewheeling, but don't think for a moment they're not managing the importation of goods, film in particular. And as pointed out above, don't even believe for a moment America isn't protective about its domestic film market.

Did that prevent them from creating world class products?

Talent comes out no matter what the political system. Iran, China, the old Soviet Union--all had world class filmmakers.

You tell me. When they start flocking to see films in local film fests.

And you think they don't? Why hasn't Cinemalaya and the Cinema One Originals closed down long ago? The organizers see an emerging market, they're developing it as best as they can. Talk to Ron Arguelles, talk to Laurice Guillen.

You overlooked one fundamental thing. Japan's domestic market, even as early as the 19th century, is quite mature, sophisticated and demanding because of high literacy rate.

And you think we don't? We were under the American educational system till 1946, remember, and it persisted for years afterward. Japan had its first film screening a year after the Lumiere brothers projected their first film, in 1896; we projected our first film in 1897, produced our first feature in 1912, and had our first Filipino directed film by 1919. Our audiences have been supporting the industry until recently, when Hollywood started its expansion on foreign markets. But I've written about this before, here.

Any country with a mature domestic market with a large middle class demographics like the US, Japan, Korea and UK can easily compete on a Global scale.

Japan was a basket case coming out of the war. It was a basket case again during the Asian economic crisis, and it doesn't have the vigor it used to have right now. The UK has had it's ups and down; the USA too. When we were under American rule and some years after the war we were in very good shape economically.

Don't buy into the myth of foreign superiority. They've had their ups and downs, and so have we. Check your figures, and your own history.

What I am saying is for third world countries like the Philippines, the only way to transcend their product mediocrity and compete globally is to think global. They can't rely on the low standards of catering to an immature domestic market to match global standards, especially one with a very small middle class content.

Who says we need a big middle class? The Filipino industry was living off its own market for decades, since before the war.

Now you go back and read your economics and the roots of globalization.

Thing about economic theories, they can change. Globalization has a very sorry reputation at the moment. Check your recent news articles. Textbooks can go out of date.

That's why you have hollywood leading the pack.

Now Harry--who's American, by the way, and quite knowledgeable about their film industry--tells you exactly why Hollywood leads the pack.

Brocka? O'Hara, who never finished college? What's wrong with these people, I keep wondering?

More exceptions than the rule.

O'Hara, Brocka, Bernal, Bernal, Ad. Castillo, Jarlego, Posadas, Guillen, de Leon, de Leon, Reyes, delos Reyes, Silos, Conde, Nepumoceno, Diaz, Velasco, Ilarde, Henares, de la Cruz, Torres, Martin, Tahimik, Red, Romana, Ermitano? And that's just off the top of my head?

I'd say there are over a hundred exceptions., and more every year, thanks to Cinemalaya, Cinemanila, and Cinema One Originals That's a lot of exceptions.

Not really. All those mega corporations are carefully being looked into and regarded with suspicion; more regulations are being put into place. China, that economic powerhouse, is looking inwards. The bloom is off, the boom is over. Listen to NPR, read The New York Times.

Dream on.

Now that's an argument.

Really, read them. That's reality knocking on your 'globalizing,' free market world.

I have no problem with that. The question really is whether what's good in you is good enough to make you what Korea and Japan is today, or even a Taiwan and Malaysia.

The myth of the superior foreigner.

A global economy is quite ruthless and unforgiving.

Now THIS we agree on. But believing in some fairy tale of an idealized free market where friendly countries let products go in and out through their borders with just a wave hello or goodbye isn't going to make that market any less ruthless, or more forgiving.

Photo taken from Rico Ilarde's Altar--one of the better films, Hollywood or otherwise, of 2007.