space, time, and motion:Babel

uhhmmm….

so far, ang akong nasabtan is that, kaning tulo formal categories sa cinema/film. tapos, naa silay characteristics na dako ang contribution sa effectiveness sa isa ka film….

space:

in the movie, action space was very evident. while the movie was moving from one location to another (Japan, Mexico,San Diego, nad Morocco), we (the audience) were also moving, figuratively nonetheless, while still glued to our seats. as the cinema space travels from one place to the other, the audience were also traveling, along with the characters/actors/performers. i think most of us (those who watched the film), can very well see how the scenes changed. though the locations were different and very far from each other, still, there was one thing that connected them. in cinema action space, the audience can see and feel things that real people see and feel without leaving their seats.

time:

there are two times in cinema: “viewing time” and “dramatic time.” Viewing tme is the time of our ordinary experience, measurable on a watch,constant in rate and direction, though with variations in felt duration. dramatic time is discontinuous, its order created by the maker of the film. so,as we’ve seen in the movie, dramatic time was used. especially in the scenes where different things were happening all at the same time but in different parts of the world. for example:the scene where police men in Morocco were  in the house of the man who allegedly shot Cate Blanchett, but it turned out that he sold his gun to a friend. while this was happening, in Japan, detectives were looking for the deaf and mute girl’s father because it was traced that the gun used to shot Cate (accidentally), was owned by that Japanese man. here we can see two things happening at the same time but in different parts of the world. this doesn’t just happen in movies but also in real life. we know very well that we are not the only human beings on earth. there billions of humans on earth that’s why it is not impossible that such things could actually happen in the real world.

motion:

in the movie, motion was everywhere. it was very evident. the motion were in frames though. each scene, which could very well happen in the real world were given emphasis. since it would be impossible for us to notice everything that’s happening around us, the movie made us see things or daily scenes which we fail to see or notice since we are too busy tending to other important matters. for example: in the scene where the Japanese deaf and mute girl was hanging out with her friends in an eating place dominated by teens, people around them didn’t notice that she and her friends were deaf and mute/deaf/mute because they were very busy doing other things. in that frame, we saw how pre/occupied we can be that we sometimes fail to see the things happening before our very eyes. that frame along with the other frames in the movie were very helpful in making its viewers become aware that in real life, they could be or they are like those characters.

every frame was important since it would connect one scene from the other. every movement in every frame is an essential key to understanding the movie.

audience, actor, and star: Babel

uhmmm…what exactly is the difference between a movie actor and a stage actor?? as far as i’m concerned, they’re just the same. they both act! they’re both actors! but, is there really a difference between these two? is there? aside from the fact that one of them performs for the movies, and the other on stage. what else is or are their difference/s? makalibog noh??

pag nakasabot na jud ko kay Stanley, madifferenciate na nako sila. hopefully…..

after 100 years, here i am, again…

well, according to Stanley, the very obvious difference between the stage audience and the movie audience is that, the former is/are in the presence of an actor and the latter is/are not. he’s right. when we are in a theater, we see the performers.flesh and all.in movie houses, when we watch movies, we see the actors but not in their “natural” form. by this i mean that, we don’t see them face-to-face but only through the screen. so, when we watched the movie Babel, we were not in the presence of the actors. we’ve only seen them through the boob tube.
now, with that difference settled, let’s go to another ishortopic. the actor. like i’ve said/asked, is there a difference between the stage and movie actor? i mean,they’re both actors in their own rigths, di ba? the only thing is, the other performs in front of a live audience, while the other doesn’t. Stanley said: “In a play the character is present whereas in a film the actor is.”

for the stage and in the movie, auditions are held to find the perfect actor or performer for a certain role. but auditions are often used in stage plays than in movie productions. in stage plays, “the actor works himself into a role.” if the producers feel that the chosen actor doesn’t reallyfit into that role, then they could always replace him/her. in contrast,movie producers have the right to choose the artist to star in their movie. though stage play producers can also do this, but often times this is practiced in movies especially if the producers want a star-studded movie. another difference between these two “actors” is that, in theater, “the actor’s role is his subject of study.” meaning, ang character ang ginaproject. whereas “the screen performer is the subject of study,” which means, ang performer ang ginaproject. in the movie, i can’t remember who the producer was or if he/she/they specifically chose Brad Pitt,Cate Blanchett and the others to portray the roles that they portrayed. i think, for the Japanese, Mexican and Moroccon scenes, the actors/screen performers went through auditions. honestly, I’m not familiar with their faces except for the nephew of Brad Pitt’s nanny. i remember him from the movie Amores Peros, but that’s a different story. anyway, like i said, i think they auditioned for their roles and with great acting skills and maybe luck, they landed the role. they were effective. they were able to portray their roles in such a way that they made me think that it is their personal experience/s. except for Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett becuase i know them as Hollywood stars. though i’m not saying they are bad actors/screen performers. they were also good.

furthermore, in a stage play, a “character” is born. in a movie, a “star” is born. if you’ll notic, the rest of the actors/screen performers in the movie were should i say, “nobody’s.” bu, after their portrayals, they became “stars” in their own rights. it was a good movie and the actors/performers were also good.

in addition to the difference between the two “mediums,” in theater, there are no replays. no cuts. so, when an actor makes a maistake the show must go on. he can’t pause and say, “Cut!” unlike in movies where the screen performer or the director can easily say cut and then do the same scene again. after all, they can always edit if ever they have done something wrong and it’s too late for them to re-shoot. up to now, i’m still using “actors/performer’ because i still can’t separate the two. to me, they’re just the same. performing in different mediums but are still the same.

on Citizen Kane

uhhmmm…

movie in black and white…. karaan na jud!!!

anyway,

in Citizen Kane, there were a lot of symbolisms. the lighting played a major role in the movie since during that time, movies were still in black and white. different shots were used depending on the scene and also on the type of effect the director wants to see.

sa lighting na aspect, the transition from light to dark, symbolizes Kane’s life. (though his childhood wasn’t that “bright.”) it showed us journey, from a young, ambitious man, to a powerful and successful newspaper man, and then to his downfall. from a promising start, to a devastating downfall. there were shots which lighted half of his face, and the other wasn’t. to me, it showed two sides of him. he was torn between two sides. there were also shots wherein he was in the background (behind other characters). it as if he was hiding. just listening and not being able to say anything.

for example. in the scene where he was blockmailed by his rival for the governor’s office. his wife, Emily, Susan and his rival, did all the talking. he was just behind them listening, not saying anything at all. it was like he didn’t exist. he was in a different world. away from everyone. i think, most of the shots where he was alone, the shots showed how private he was. how “far” he was. unreachable. and this was more emphasized when he built his Xanadu mansion. it was so big that people may not even see other for a whole day. that mansion showed the kind of personality he developed after everything he went through.

hmmm. what else?????

the order

uhhmmm…. it was disturbing. i mean, the make-up was really realistic. the “APPRENTICE’s” make-up was really yucky. there was blood all over his mouth and he was like “eating” the cloth. that was the very first thing that i’ve noticed. the make-up. who wouldn’t?

anyway, i’m not the “art fan” type of person. yes, i do appreciate art once in a while but most the time i just look at it and try to determine what it is about or what is its purpose. in The Order, there was art everywhere. i think. i mean, since it was done in a museum so i guess you can call it art. right? uhmmm. while watching it, i couldn’t help but ask myself why was it entitled, “The Order?” i didn’t see any order except for the order of floor levels where you will find different situations and wait for the Apprentice to get to that floor and observe what he will do next. the situations were not connected to each other, at least that’s how i saw it. like i said, i’m not much the art critic. it was complicated, and i didn’t know what to say.
speaking of complicated, yes, i have my fair share of complications. i complicate things, but as much as possible i avoid doing so. after watching that short film, i realized that if we will do something, we should do it the easy way. to make things easy. simple. though, there are those instances that we can’t help but do it the other way around. just like in life, there’s no easy or difficult way. just the right way.  plus, we, or I shouldn’t think too much. ako ra ang mabuang! hehehe… after watching The Order, napuga ko. i didn’t know what to say or how i should react. or do i really have to react? in life, some things are best appreciated or understood without trying to convert your thoughts into words. it’s better to keep things to yourself and just enjoy whats in front of you, or, in our case, what was in the boob tube.

Unaccessorized: rich kiamco’s performance art

uhhmmm….

impressive is an understatement. it was funny, it was very moving (figuratively and literally), and most of all, it was real. i dunno how to express what or how i felt while watching Mr. Kiamco perform. the story was really good, it was very real. he managed to tell a “true” story with very real and intense emotions and at the same time, he managed to make his audience have a very good laugh. only very few artists can do that. plus, he’s a filipino. giving us another reason to be proud of who we are.

anyway, i am not here to write about a reaction paper (though it’s not such a bad idea), but, i am here to write about his performance and it’s connection to Noel Caroll’s Performance Art. what were the things that i’ve seen in Mr. Kiamco’s performance that was discussed in Caroll’s article.

anyway….

“Performance art was a reaction to prevailing tendencies in mainstream theater.. it included both the serious productions of Shakeapeare, Ibsen, Chekov, Miller, Genet, and Sarte along w/ popular Broadway fare–was thought to be presentational rather than representational or reflexive, spectatorial rather than participatory, and text-oriented.” But, during the sixties, the mainstream theater sought to reverse such values.

if we noticed, “Unaccessorized” did not made much use of the physical elements of production: decorations, proper lighting (I guess due to the fact that the AVR had only the room lights as lights), props (may it be handheld or decorative). the only props Mr. Kiamco used were two mono block chairs. as for the costume, he was wearing the same costume all throughout the performance, and since it was a monologue, costume change was not possible.

moreover, because of this “principle” which “Unaccessorized” used, we can also clearly see that it made use of the classical Western theater principle, which is, paying more attention to the literary text. like i said, the production did not use (at least not most of it) the physical elements in theater which you will see in other productions like, “Joseph the Dreamer,” “Disney on Ice,” “Cartoonival” of Cartoon Network and other major prods where the physical elements are of great importance.

furthermore, Artaud’s calling for a “theater that is primarily presentational and which draws the audience in a new way, at least emotionally” have been shown by Mr. Kiamco’s “Unaccessorized.” i can still remember how the audience laughed at his jokes/punchlines. he delivered them perfectly, the timing was very good. aside from giving his audience laughter, he also made them feel the different emotions that was shown in every scene. he succeeded in doing so. which is why he was a very effective actor. not to mention outstanding, impressive and downright funny.

spectacle, melody, thought, diction

uhhmmm….

the Characters in a play have four points to aim. first, they shall be good. second, to make them appropriate. third, to make them like the reality. fourth, to make them consistent. If I’m going to use at least one of these four points to assess the spectacle, melody, thought and diction used in the play Antigong Agong, here’s what I have to say..

spectacle:

or, the stage appearance of the actors. first question, was the stage appearance of the actors in play Antigong Agong good? well, on the scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest and 1 being the lowest, i’d give them a  6. so i guess you could say it was a so-so. Their costumes were colorful, authentic. It looked good on them but, something was missing. make-up. yes, some of the actors wore make-up, but most of them were pale. in theater, no matter how “small” your role is, you should still wear make-up. once you’re on stage with all the lights, and no make-up, it greatly affects your portrayal of a certain role. all your audience would notice is your pale and dull face no matter how good you portrayed your role. our sensory nerves focuses more on the physical appearace. so, we should always remember to put on not just a good show, but a good face as well.

melody:

one of the actor’s means of imitating.Antigong Agong made use of melody all throughout the play. and i’d give them a 10 for this. they used original compositions, the music was heart pounding especially with all the drums, the songs were really good even though we didn’t understand some of them because they were not in Visaya, Filipino or English. nevertheless, the melody was good, it was appropriate. appropriate because, in the scenes where they used songs instead of dialogues, the songs were appropriate for the scene. it was appopriate for the emotion that the actors wanted people to see. and i commend the musicians behind the compositions. the melody in every scene was consistent. all throughout the play, consistent talaga, may melody halos lahat ng scenes.

thought:

is shown when the actor is proving or disproving some particular point. when the actors were trying to “say” something to make people understand, well, they succeeded in doing so. the thought they wanted to impart were made clear. it was good. each thought was appropriate for the scene. in the part where the lola of Amraida approved of her relationship with Sam, the thought she wanted them to see with the help of the right facial expressions, was clear.

diction:

the composition of verses.the expression of thoughts in words. if the thought the actors wanted to impart were/was clear, then the diction was also clear. the play used a language that their audience would surely understand. it was good because I understood what they were saying. and it was also appropriate. the diction—the verses/words used were good and appropriate. except maybe how they were delivered. may ibang actors kasi na awkward pakinggan magtagalog. dahil don, di masyadong maganda ang pagkadeliver nila. overall, i’d say it was ok. it was fine.

bud da who?

uhhmm…. when I first heard about it, I asked myself, “Unsa daw? Ngano kinahanglan man mi manaw-aw? Gasto na pud ni bah…”

I’ve never heard of it before. I didn’t have any idea what’s the story behind the title. basta ang akong nahibal-an, gi-require mi mutan-aw ni sir.

and so, nanan-aw jud mi. la may choice. hehehe. around 4 pm gipasulod na sa prod team ang mga estudyante. kami, naglangay langay. nangadto pa’g tindahan kay namalit ug makaon. kung kanus-a pasugod na, anha pa mi nanghawa. hehehe. mga feeler man. after namalit, namalik pud mi dayon. lisud na, basin wa na mi malikuran. tsk.tsk.tsk. ug kaluy-an sa Ginoo, naa pa man pud banig nabilin (banig man gud ilang giprovide para lingkuran sa audience), sa kilid lang nuon. ok man pud ang pwesto, medyo duol man pud sa stage.

we were in the middle of eating and talkingwhen we heard ate im-im’s supposedly “voice over.” kaso, nakit-an man siya, so technically di na siya voice over. hehehe. i said to myself, “This is it. magstart na jud. finally! unta “worth it” ni na play…”

nagspeech pa kadali si Prof. Lee to formally open the program. after the speech, nagsugod na jud. hai….

………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………..

nahuman ra jud. unya, unsa akong maingon bahin sa play? uhhmmm…. ok kaayo! di man gud boring kay naay music. kusog pa jud, and considering na duol mi sa stage, mura na pud mi ug mabungol. hehehe. overall, the play was good. it was lively, colorful and spontaneous. the music was, should i say, “heart pounding (literally).” i think tungod sa drums. kusog man gud kaayo. the actors were good. though, they could have used a workshop.  just so that they could “polish” their acting. but i’m not saying they were poor actors and actresses, my point is, a short workshop would have done a great deal to help them give more justice to their roles. as for the props, costumes, set design, and the musical instruments, they were very appropriate for the play.

on TUHOG

uhhmmm…. tuhog. “Amovie within a movie.” The title speaks for itself. the movie was about a father who raped his daughter and his grand daughter (the daughter of his daughter) thus making his act a “tuhog.” well, it’s sexual in nature if you happen to watch it for the first time. However, in our case, it’s not (I guess). hahahaha! anyway, we were asked to observe Aristotle’s view on imitation when we watched the movie. the movie was intriguing, at least for me. i didn’t realize that in such movies one would observe a philosopher’s point of view. i guess it takes a keen observer to notice such things.

in connection with Aristotle’s view on imitation, we can very well see how the characters imitated another character. an imitation within an imitation. like he said, imitation is natural among human beings. it’s part of our lives. it’s inevitable. that’s why in movies, imitation is everything. actors are asked to portray another character, but often times, fictional characters. they study the script and aims to do a very good imitation of the character that they will portray. thus, giving justice to their character…

what you see in the movie is what the director wanted the audience to see. the director, together with the actors and actresses study the script, study their characters and determine how they will act according to their interpretation of their role/s. the director tells his actors how to imitate their  given character. he guides them in the imitation process. at times, he gives his actors the freedom to decide how they will imitate a character. he gives them the power to do the imitating on their own since we may have different views regarding some issue or topic.. though imitation is natural among us, still, we can’t deny the fact that we tend to have different stands on a given situation, issue, or topic.

si Plato ug Aristotle

uhhmmm…. According to Plato, once you do or make something, you are just merely imitating. nanudog ra kuno ka. dili “orig” imong gibuhat kay dili man to ang ideal form. kay ang ideal form, ang Ginoo ang nagbuhat. Kita, nanundog ra ta sa gibuhat sa Ginoo. para sa iya, di maayo ang manundog. o, tinuod man. di man jud maayo ang manundog labi na kung ting exam (char!) (laughs). Bitaw. di jud maayo manundog. naa man siya’y point! agree man ko sa iya.

Kaso, ingon ni Aristotle, innate na sa tao ang manundog. In other words, di malikayan ang manundog kay instinctive man gud siya. di man sa tanang panahon sayop ang manundog. Di ba? Ingon pud ni Aristotle, basin kinopya ra na imong binuhat, naa gihapon ang “essence” sa original form. Kaw daw, naa kay binuhat ta’s di maappreciate sa uban kay kinopya ra, ganahan diay ka ana?! Gusto man jud nato mahatagan ug bili atong binuhat. di baya lalim.

Mao gani nakaingon ko na grabeh kaayo si Plato. sundugero daw ta tanan. wa niya gihunahuna nga nanundog ta kay naa ta’y purpose. sakit sa part sa mga tao, labi na sa mga artist nga di maappreciate ilang art. Ler! Mao gani between Plato and Aristotle, mas ganahan ko kay Aristotle kay misabot o nisabot man gud siya. Di kay nijudge dayon pareha gibuhat ni Plato. though I must also give credit where credit is due. Plato, too, made sense. nakapangutana gani ko sa akong kaugalingon, asa man gikan ning mga butang nga nakapalibot sa akoa.? bunuhat ba ni tanan sa mga tao? o, naa pay “MAS TAAS” nga nagbuhat ani tanan?

BEAUTY

uhhmmm…. Beauty. Beauty. Beauty. Exactly, what is it? How does the society define beauty? And, how does this definition affect an individual’s point of view. Nganong naa man mga tao nga ginahatagan ug importansya ang panggawas nga hitsura sa usa ka tao? Ngano man jud??!

Well, di nato madeny ang fact nga dako kaayo ang impluwensya sa society sa atong panlantaw. How we live our life, how we act and react to certain situations is dictated by the society. It has been this way as far as I can remember. Di man sa ginaingon nako na di maayo ang ginapabuhat sa atoa, naa man pud kaayuhan. It’s just that sometimes, we forced to follow unjust practices and do what the society thinks is the “right” thing to do. This is how much the society have influenced our way of thinking. Sa ako nang gikaingon, di man mali. Pero, we should know when it’s enough.

 

Let’s take beauty as an example. The society tells us that, anything that is “visually appealing” to the eyes is beautiful. By “visually appealing,” I mean, people or thing that has passed the beauty standards set by the society. Sa Pilipinas, ang mga gwapa daw kay kanang mga puti, mga mestisa ug mga tangkad. Mao gani daghan sa mga Filipina ang gapanghidhid ug mga pampaputi para lang matawag nga gwapa. Unya, tama diay na nga mentality? Ler! Di man kinahanglan puti ka aron tawagon ka ug gwapa. Nagapadala man gud ta sa kung unsa ang ginaingon sa ubang tao. O, aminado ko, usahay makapanaway jud nuon ko. Pero, it’s either nasuko ko sa tao or di lang jud nako siya feel mao makasulti ko ug di maayo batok niya. Anyway, my point is, physical appearance should not be the primary standard when we talk about beauty. Di lang man gud na ang basehan aron matawag nga gwapa ang isa ka tao o nindot ang usa ka butang.

 

Yes, i do admire Gwyneth Paltrow and Nicole Kidman for their beauty, but on top of my list is Mother Nature. It may sound weird for a girl my age since people would expect me to have a man or a woman to represent my point view on beauty. Well, mao lang jud ni akoa.(“,) La may dautan ani di ba? For me, anything simple and natural is beautiful. If it’s true, simple and very natural, just like Mother Nature, then mao na ang tinuod nga beauty. Natural, nature. Hehehe. (nagatry daw ko na magjoke). But I think it’s not working. Hehehe. So I guess, that’s about it. Mao ra akong mashare. Unta naa mo nasabtan. Hahaha!