"Marcos and the Common Good"
According to contemporary ethicist John Rawls, the common good is “the certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage.” In other words, the common good is much like a compromise or agreement between people in a particular society. The goal in seeking a common good is for everyone to benefit. However, this requires a lot of work and cooperation, and most times all parties must make some sort of sacrifice to collaboratively reach their desired end. Furthermore, even though sacrifices are made, it is still virtually impossible for all parties to fully agree on the relative value of things they are discussing. It is because of the sacrifices made that people’s beliefs are not fully their own.
In the video “Imelda”, the Marcoses are shown as being extreme powerhouses and ones who use their power and wealth to dominate their society. For Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos there is no notion of seeking to find a common good within their people of the Philippines, and they certainly do not follow the requests of the Filipinos to focus on bettering the poverty in the nation. Instead, Imelda is obsessed with beauty (regarding both herself and her land) and avoids real life issues. Imelda daily spends 1-2 hours getting ready, putting on makeup, making her hair, etc, depending on where she is going. When she is visiting the provinces of the Philippines, she takes twice as long as she does when meeting with other nations’ presidents because she felt that she had to be the role model of beauty for them. Extremely pretentious and insensitive, Imelda thought that she was doing the impoverished Filipinos a favor by showing them how they ought to dress. She reasoned that by giving them a glimpse of wealth and power, the poor would then think, “If Imelda made it, everyone else can make it.” A Jesuit priest said of Imelda: “She cannot face reality.”
Rather than encouraging their people to seek a common good, President and Mrs. Marcos pursued their own goal for power and influence as a result of cheating and extending their term. President Marcos’ term was loaded with corruption and dishonesty. Just to name a few, Imelda spent millions of government money on jewelry for herself. Her lack of compassion for people was shown when construction workers were killed when building the Film Center, and she insisted on having the rest of the workers continue building regardless of the deaths that had just occurred.
The common good reflects a genuine sincerity in seeking to come to an agreement with others in the society. However, because ethical relativism exists, which is “the theory that whether or not an action is wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced (“Ethical Relativism” by Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer), it is important to consider whether or not seeking a common good in a society is appropriate. Within any one society, there are smaller groups or branches of that particular society. For example, the American society may be defined as those people who live in the United States of America. But the states themselves are comprised of many other people groups and ethnicities, people of varying demographics, and countless religions. Therefore, it is important to question how a people in a society can come to agree upon an issue, and if they are willing to let go of stereotypes they may have in order to successfully collaborate among themselves, as different as they may be.
Violence is a particularly important topic because when it occurs, there is an implication that the common good was not attained, nor was even a value to those in the society. Because it robs us of our peace and freedom, violence within a society should enrage people to action. However, it should not take drastic measures of violence for people to seek agreement with each other and aim to better their society.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
MODULE 1 - SUMMARY AND REACTION TO VELASQUEZ' "ETHICAL RELATIVISM"
This paper begin with a parroted summary of Velasquez and etal’s work and a personal reaction. In gist, Velasquez and etal argues: “cultures differ widely in their moral practices.” They emphasize this becomes problematic because ranges of social practices considered morally acceptable in some societies are condemned in others. The practice of infanticide, polygamy, sexism and torture leads us to question whether there are many universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a mater of “‘cultural taste.’” Morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture and the only moral standards against which a society practices can be judged are its own – the theory of ethical relativism. It is cautioned by Velasquez that a possibility of no common framework for resolving moral disputes is present or reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically – “Utopian.”
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, John Stuart Mill’s concept of liberty, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, John Stuart Mill’s concept of liberty, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
MODULE 2- j. paulo
The film Imelda shows the actions and personality of former Philippine first lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos. I already had an idea of my own regarding how she acted from what I have seen on the television. I’ve always thought of her as a spoiled old lady concerned only of her shoes. It also seems like she is always playing the victim of how the Philippine government have treated her and her family since the EDSA revolution. But now that I’ve seen the documentary “Imelda”, I think she’s a narcissistic and materialistic woman who appears to be smoking a lot of crack.
Imelda is found of materialistic objects like no other person I know or heard of. Really, who needs 3000 pairs of shoes? That means she can wear a new pair everyday for about eight years without having to wear the same shoe twice. I don’t really get the point of this. Shoes are worn to protect one’s feet when walking. That is their use. Most people wear just one pair of shoes until they’re worn out then buy a new one. Having 2999 extra pairs is clearly a sign that something is not right with this person.
Her fascination with materialistic objects go over the line on some occasions. An example of this is the Manila Film Center. Wanting to rival the Cannes Film Festival and gain international stardom, Imelda ordered the Manila Film Center to be built. However the building’s construction was rushed, with its building plans always getting changed. Imelda wanted her building so bad the 24hour work shifts were put into place. Without waiting for the foundations’ concrete to dry, more were poured on top. This lack of patience caused a scaffolding to collapse later on killing at least a dozen people. And instead of halting construction, Imelda was quoted on saying something to the likes of “well they’re there, they’re encased in concrete, finish it”.
Then there’s the Philippine Design Center, Folks Art Theater, heart centers, lung centers, and the Cultural Center of the Philippines. All were built according to her wishes. All were thought as a waste of money. Her critics pointed out that there are more pressing issues that needed attention such as helping poor people and giving and repairing their houses. Imelda answered this by saying she is reviving performing arts that will last through the ages unlike houses which were superficial.
Now to this all I have to say is “What the f**k is she thinking?” I don’t care what religion you believe in or what culture you grew up with but if people die in your workplace, you stop what you’re doing and honor the deceased. It is just the right thing to do. You help the victims and their families out and pay your respects, even for a short while. You make sure that it is alright with everybody to resume work before you do. You NEVER, EVER give an order that ignores the tragedy that just happened, let alone disrespect the dead by not even doing anything about it. And as for repairing houses being superficial? She has no right saying that since she’s the one that has a whole room filled with shoes. They are not a primary need of humans unlike houses that are shelters. She really should think first before saying something that will make her look stupid.
Perhaps a trait more annoying than Imelda’s materialistic needs is her obsession with beauty. She values beauty way too much and her perception of beauty may not be the same of others. During the attempt to assassinate her she wasn’t thinking “Oh no I’m gonna die” like normal people would. Instead she criticized the bolo stabbing her as ugly and it should’ve had a yellow ribbon tied to it to make it look pretty. Now if that’s not proof that something is wrong with this woman, I don’t know what is. She values beauty so much that she takes one to two and a half hours to dress up to make her self look “beautiful”. And since she loves beauty and she thinks of herself as beautiful, she then loves herself. WAY too much if you ask me. She thinks that she must be beautiful because poor people “need a star especially in the dark of the night” and so that “they have a standard to look up to”. When I heard this I just thought, “Wow. What do you say to that?” Here is a person that is so in love with herself that she thinks other people’s lives are depended on her. Here is a person who talked for four hours nonstop to a priest without him ever talking; then when she finally got tired pops in a videotape on the VCR and made him watch her speak. Here is a woman who turned up the volume of the television because she knew her children are going to talk about her next. I mean come on. Who does she think she is? If she did any of those in my presence, I would’ve punched her in the stomach and kicked her in the face. Well maybe not but that’s how I feel like whenever I see her speak or do such nonsense.
She says that the “ultimate reach in this world is beauty”? Some would say happiness or to be rich or just to live a good life. But no, her ultimate goal is beauty. Her ultimate goal is perfection. Does she even know how being perfect feels? Being perfect means you cannot improve any longer. You have already reached the maximum capacity of your potential. There is no next step. There is nothing. Nothing to do, nothing to revise, nothing to change. Nothing. When you reach perfection you become boring because you have nothing else to shoot for. And to me a person who has nothing to reach forward for, a person with nothing else to do, is ugly. And who wants to wake up next to a perfect person anyway? They say that it’s a person’s flaws that you remember the most. How they snore too loud or how they have lines on their forehead or how the sound of their voice sound like. A person with no flaws is just plain ugly. As ugly as a mannequin in a department store. It has no features distinguishing itself as its own unique person. That is the flaw of perfection. So in the end, what Imelda may be pursuing could be what she is trying to avoid with all her might. In her pursuit of perfection she would just find ugliness in the end. Well that’s what I think anyway.
Imelda is found of materialistic objects like no other person I know or heard of. Really, who needs 3000 pairs of shoes? That means she can wear a new pair everyday for about eight years without having to wear the same shoe twice. I don’t really get the point of this. Shoes are worn to protect one’s feet when walking. That is their use. Most people wear just one pair of shoes until they’re worn out then buy a new one. Having 2999 extra pairs is clearly a sign that something is not right with this person.
Her fascination with materialistic objects go over the line on some occasions. An example of this is the Manila Film Center. Wanting to rival the Cannes Film Festival and gain international stardom, Imelda ordered the Manila Film Center to be built. However the building’s construction was rushed, with its building plans always getting changed. Imelda wanted her building so bad the 24hour work shifts were put into place. Without waiting for the foundations’ concrete to dry, more were poured on top. This lack of patience caused a scaffolding to collapse later on killing at least a dozen people. And instead of halting construction, Imelda was quoted on saying something to the likes of “well they’re there, they’re encased in concrete, finish it”.
Then there’s the Philippine Design Center, Folks Art Theater, heart centers, lung centers, and the Cultural Center of the Philippines. All were built according to her wishes. All were thought as a waste of money. Her critics pointed out that there are more pressing issues that needed attention such as helping poor people and giving and repairing their houses. Imelda answered this by saying she is reviving performing arts that will last through the ages unlike houses which were superficial.
Now to this all I have to say is “What the f**k is she thinking?” I don’t care what religion you believe in or what culture you grew up with but if people die in your workplace, you stop what you’re doing and honor the deceased. It is just the right thing to do. You help the victims and their families out and pay your respects, even for a short while. You make sure that it is alright with everybody to resume work before you do. You NEVER, EVER give an order that ignores the tragedy that just happened, let alone disrespect the dead by not even doing anything about it. And as for repairing houses being superficial? She has no right saying that since she’s the one that has a whole room filled with shoes. They are not a primary need of humans unlike houses that are shelters. She really should think first before saying something that will make her look stupid.
Perhaps a trait more annoying than Imelda’s materialistic needs is her obsession with beauty. She values beauty way too much and her perception of beauty may not be the same of others. During the attempt to assassinate her she wasn’t thinking “Oh no I’m gonna die” like normal people would. Instead she criticized the bolo stabbing her as ugly and it should’ve had a yellow ribbon tied to it to make it look pretty. Now if that’s not proof that something is wrong with this woman, I don’t know what is. She values beauty so much that she takes one to two and a half hours to dress up to make her self look “beautiful”. And since she loves beauty and she thinks of herself as beautiful, she then loves herself. WAY too much if you ask me. She thinks that she must be beautiful because poor people “need a star especially in the dark of the night” and so that “they have a standard to look up to”. When I heard this I just thought, “Wow. What do you say to that?” Here is a person that is so in love with herself that she thinks other people’s lives are depended on her. Here is a person who talked for four hours nonstop to a priest without him ever talking; then when she finally got tired pops in a videotape on the VCR and made him watch her speak. Here is a woman who turned up the volume of the television because she knew her children are going to talk about her next. I mean come on. Who does she think she is? If she did any of those in my presence, I would’ve punched her in the stomach and kicked her in the face. Well maybe not but that’s how I feel like whenever I see her speak or do such nonsense.
She says that the “ultimate reach in this world is beauty”? Some would say happiness or to be rich or just to live a good life. But no, her ultimate goal is beauty. Her ultimate goal is perfection. Does she even know how being perfect feels? Being perfect means you cannot improve any longer. You have already reached the maximum capacity of your potential. There is no next step. There is nothing. Nothing to do, nothing to revise, nothing to change. Nothing. When you reach perfection you become boring because you have nothing else to shoot for. And to me a person who has nothing to reach forward for, a person with nothing else to do, is ugly. And who wants to wake up next to a perfect person anyway? They say that it’s a person’s flaws that you remember the most. How they snore too loud or how they have lines on their forehead or how the sound of their voice sound like. A person with no flaws is just plain ugly. As ugly as a mannequin in a department store. It has no features distinguishing itself as its own unique person. That is the flaw of perfection. So in the end, what Imelda may be pursuing could be what she is trying to avoid with all her might. In her pursuit of perfection she would just find ugliness in the end. Well that’s what I think anyway.
MODULE 1- j. paulo
The film “Nailed” is about the actions of Lucy Reyes during Holy Week in the Philippines. Her tale is told from the point of view of a Filipina who grew up in the United States. Haven’t been raised in the Philippines, the narrator is trying to understand why is Lucy Reyes lets herself get nailed to the cross every holy week. As devoted Christians, some Filipinos reenact the final moments of Jesus Christ on Black Friday, called the Senakulo. Although most are just tied to the cross, there are those who actually gets their hands and feet drilled to the cross with iron nails. Lucy Reyes is one of these people. The narrator tries to understand this kind of faith through four segments labeled “Search for Faith”, “Blind Faith”, “Betrayed by Faith”, and “Unconditional Faith”. Throughout the film, she keeps repeating a line saying something like “I’m not a part of this trance but it is at the tip of my tongue. I’m following the umbilical cord (to the motherland)”. After a very confusing scene where she gets up under a pile of ashes, she says “below the surface is animism”. The film also showed gapangs, or the people who practice self flagellation as penance for their sins.
The second film, “Bontoc Eulogy”, is about the journey of Igorots to the St. Louis fair in the early 1900s. With emphasis of the travels of a man named Markod, the film describes how Igorots were lured from their simple life in the mountains to the fair where they were displayed as exhibits for Americans to see. Besides Igorots, other tribal groups were also taken totaling to a group of 1102. Their homes in the mountains were recreated and they were told to live there as they did in the Philippines. Their normal attire were nothing but bahags or loincloths, which prompted the fair’s authorities to order them to put on American clothing. Later, they were told to take them off and revert to their original clothing to amuse the viewing public. These so-called “savages” were allowed to kill a dog for food weekly which Americans watch in disgust, for in their culture dogs are just pets. The film stated that the purpose of the St. Louis fair was to showcase different forms of life around the world from the richest to the poorest, from the high-class to the lowest of low; and this difference shows the need for everyone to speak one American language.
The two films affected me in different ways. Having been raised in the Philippines until the age of twelve, I know quite well the traditions that occur during Holy Week. Because of this I was not affected very much when the film showed bloody or rather violent scenes such as the self flagellators and when Lucy Reyes was nailed. To me it was just another scene I’ve seen countless times on the television and in real life. I do have memories of bloodstains on my clothes when I got too near to the gapangs, but haven’t been to a Senakulo when they actually nail the “kristo”, the person getting nailed, to the cross. Perhaps then my reaction would be different as seeing it live is more emotional than seeing it on the screen.
I did pick up though on some of the quotes she have been saying throughout the film. The part when she says she’s “following the umbilical cord” means that she’s following her roots to her motherland. Her comment on how “below the surface is animism” relates to the fact that although a majority of Filipinos are Christians, they practice it in a way that combines Christianity with hints of animism. These can be seen in festivals such as the Ati-Atihan and Sinulog. However I’m still not sure on what she meant by “I’m not part of this trance”. My best guess is that all she is not a native born Filipino, by her heritage alone she feels a connection with all the people during Holy Week and is in the verge of understanding it all but still quite couldn’t get it.
“Bontoc Eulogy” had more impact on me than the first film did. As a transplanted Filipino here in Hawaii, I know what it feels like to dive into a way of life totally different from what you’re used to. Although I lived in a semi urban environment in the Philippines, there were still enough cultural differences to be overwhelmed with once I lived here for a few weeks. I could just imagine what it would have been like for Markod and his people. It wasn’t fair for them to be used the way they were, treated like animals in a petting zoo. What is worse is that the Americans thought they were doing some good by bringing all these people together. However it seems to me that they have an ulterior motive. By showing the hardships of understanding each other through numerous dialects they can emphasize how important it is to have one superior language above all others, in this case English. To me this seems to be a precursor to the United States spreading its influence over the world. It starts off with their language, followed by their political and economic views. I am not a historian so I don’t know if this was so right after the St. Louis fair but that’s what the film seemed to imply.
Are the people in the film acting ethically? They say that ethics is all about right conduct with emphasis on a good life or a life that is satisfying. If Lucy Reyes, the self flagellators, the narrator, the Americans, and the Igorots think their life is satisfying, then to them they are living ethically. However what is ethical to one might not be ethical to others. Lucy and the self flagellators believe that they are atoning for their sins and so feels that they are doing a good thing. And there are those who believe their acts are wrong because it is not in the Bible. So saying who is right and who is wrong depends on the person’s point of view. The same can be said of the Americans who brought the Igorots to the St. Louis fair. They thought they were doing a good thing, but an outsider’s point of view might say that they are merely exploiting the Igorots for their personal gain. The Igorots however, not completely understanding the big picture, may be glad that the Americans are showing them life as they haven’t seen before. And because they seem to be good to them, they may believe that the Americans are in fact acting ethical. The bottom line is that there are always two sides to a coin. A person’s perspective and upbringing will always play a factor in deciding what is ethical or not.
The second film, “Bontoc Eulogy”, is about the journey of Igorots to the St. Louis fair in the early 1900s. With emphasis of the travels of a man named Markod, the film describes how Igorots were lured from their simple life in the mountains to the fair where they were displayed as exhibits for Americans to see. Besides Igorots, other tribal groups were also taken totaling to a group of 1102. Their homes in the mountains were recreated and they were told to live there as they did in the Philippines. Their normal attire were nothing but bahags or loincloths, which prompted the fair’s authorities to order them to put on American clothing. Later, they were told to take them off and revert to their original clothing to amuse the viewing public. These so-called “savages” were allowed to kill a dog for food weekly which Americans watch in disgust, for in their culture dogs are just pets. The film stated that the purpose of the St. Louis fair was to showcase different forms of life around the world from the richest to the poorest, from the high-class to the lowest of low; and this difference shows the need for everyone to speak one American language.
The two films affected me in different ways. Having been raised in the Philippines until the age of twelve, I know quite well the traditions that occur during Holy Week. Because of this I was not affected very much when the film showed bloody or rather violent scenes such as the self flagellators and when Lucy Reyes was nailed. To me it was just another scene I’ve seen countless times on the television and in real life. I do have memories of bloodstains on my clothes when I got too near to the gapangs, but haven’t been to a Senakulo when they actually nail the “kristo”, the person getting nailed, to the cross. Perhaps then my reaction would be different as seeing it live is more emotional than seeing it on the screen.
I did pick up though on some of the quotes she have been saying throughout the film. The part when she says she’s “following the umbilical cord” means that she’s following her roots to her motherland. Her comment on how “below the surface is animism” relates to the fact that although a majority of Filipinos are Christians, they practice it in a way that combines Christianity with hints of animism. These can be seen in festivals such as the Ati-Atihan and Sinulog. However I’m still not sure on what she meant by “I’m not part of this trance”. My best guess is that all she is not a native born Filipino, by her heritage alone she feels a connection with all the people during Holy Week and is in the verge of understanding it all but still quite couldn’t get it.
“Bontoc Eulogy” had more impact on me than the first film did. As a transplanted Filipino here in Hawaii, I know what it feels like to dive into a way of life totally different from what you’re used to. Although I lived in a semi urban environment in the Philippines, there were still enough cultural differences to be overwhelmed with once I lived here for a few weeks. I could just imagine what it would have been like for Markod and his people. It wasn’t fair for them to be used the way they were, treated like animals in a petting zoo. What is worse is that the Americans thought they were doing some good by bringing all these people together. However it seems to me that they have an ulterior motive. By showing the hardships of understanding each other through numerous dialects they can emphasize how important it is to have one superior language above all others, in this case English. To me this seems to be a precursor to the United States spreading its influence over the world. It starts off with their language, followed by their political and economic views. I am not a historian so I don’t know if this was so right after the St. Louis fair but that’s what the film seemed to imply.
Are the people in the film acting ethically? They say that ethics is all about right conduct with emphasis on a good life or a life that is satisfying. If Lucy Reyes, the self flagellators, the narrator, the Americans, and the Igorots think their life is satisfying, then to them they are living ethically. However what is ethical to one might not be ethical to others. Lucy and the self flagellators believe that they are atoning for their sins and so feels that they are doing a good thing. And there are those who believe their acts are wrong because it is not in the Bible. So saying who is right and who is wrong depends on the person’s point of view. The same can be said of the Americans who brought the Igorots to the St. Louis fair. They thought they were doing a good thing, but an outsider’s point of view might say that they are merely exploiting the Igorots for their personal gain. The Igorots however, not completely understanding the big picture, may be glad that the Americans are showing them life as they haven’t seen before. And because they seem to be good to them, they may believe that the Americans are in fact acting ethical. The bottom line is that there are always two sides to a coin. A person’s perspective and upbringing will always play a factor in deciding what is ethical or not.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
American Adobo summary S. Smith
Review by Shawn Smith
American Adobo tells the story of 5 Filipino-Americans friends living in New York and the events that unfold through a year. The film begins with a dinner cooked up by Tere, a single religious woman who is lonely and shy about romance, with worries about becoming a spinster. The dinner features adobo, a traditional Philippine pork dish cooked with a marinade of a variety of ingredients. The rest of the group consists of Marissa, an extroverted lively woman with a cheating boyfriend, Raul, a playboy, Mike, a Filipino newspaper editor who is considering leaving his self-absorbed wealthy wife and return to the Philippines, and Gerry, a closet homosexual.
The cast frequently switches between English and Tagalog, seemingly to remind the viewer that, yes, this is a Filipino-American film. However, if they were replaced with an all white cast, there would be nothing that distinguishes this film from any other formulaic soap opera-like comedy-drama. The plot is extremely thin, and the ending of the film is transparent from the very first scene. The religious overtones are also apparent, as the characters only find peace when their lives follow accepted Judeo-Christian norms. Raul receives notice of being possibly HIV positive, Gerry's lover dies and his mother rejects him, Marissa, with her love of modern life and wealth, lacks an honest relationship and is repeatedly hurt by trusting an unfaithful lover, while only the virgin Tere finds true happiness, after being rescued by a firefighter. Of course, this fire fighter was "marked" in the beginning of a film by a religious idol that Tere knocked out of her window, an obvious foreshadowing of what would be an "acceptable" match.
Despite these faults, the film did succeed in portraying Filipino-Americans as the ideal model minority. The characters were easy to relate to, having moderate views that would be easily identifiable with any family across the United States. The events that happened to each of the friends were predictably solved, but again, there was nothing out of the ordinary. It was a safe, middle of the road film that could appeal to a wide variety of people across the U.S., however, the individual performances and script ultimately failed to strike a chord with me, as the film felt incredibly formulaic and the script uninspiring. The decision to idealize Filipino-Americans as these middle class people with concerns and hopes similar to a broad spectrum of people was admirable and showed how similar the cultures were, but this approach has been overused and in the end this became a forgettable movie.
-S. Smith
American Adobo tells the story of 5 Filipino-Americans friends living in New York and the events that unfold through a year. The film begins with a dinner cooked up by Tere, a single religious woman who is lonely and shy about romance, with worries about becoming a spinster. The dinner features adobo, a traditional Philippine pork dish cooked with a marinade of a variety of ingredients. The rest of the group consists of Marissa, an extroverted lively woman with a cheating boyfriend, Raul, a playboy, Mike, a Filipino newspaper editor who is considering leaving his self-absorbed wealthy wife and return to the Philippines, and Gerry, a closet homosexual.
The cast frequently switches between English and Tagalog, seemingly to remind the viewer that, yes, this is a Filipino-American film. However, if they were replaced with an all white cast, there would be nothing that distinguishes this film from any other formulaic soap opera-like comedy-drama. The plot is extremely thin, and the ending of the film is transparent from the very first scene. The religious overtones are also apparent, as the characters only find peace when their lives follow accepted Judeo-Christian norms. Raul receives notice of being possibly HIV positive, Gerry's lover dies and his mother rejects him, Marissa, with her love of modern life and wealth, lacks an honest relationship and is repeatedly hurt by trusting an unfaithful lover, while only the virgin Tere finds true happiness, after being rescued by a firefighter. Of course, this fire fighter was "marked" in the beginning of a film by a religious idol that Tere knocked out of her window, an obvious foreshadowing of what would be an "acceptable" match.
Despite these faults, the film did succeed in portraying Filipino-Americans as the ideal model minority. The characters were easy to relate to, having moderate views that would be easily identifiable with any family across the United States. The events that happened to each of the friends were predictably solved, but again, there was nothing out of the ordinary. It was a safe, middle of the road film that could appeal to a wide variety of people across the U.S., however, the individual performances and script ultimately failed to strike a chord with me, as the film felt incredibly formulaic and the script uninspiring. The decision to idealize Filipino-Americans as these middle class people with concerns and hopes similar to a broad spectrum of people was admirable and showed how similar the cultures were, but this approach has been overused and in the end this became a forgettable movie.
-S. Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)