I found the film interesting in that it was filmed in the United States and most of the sceneries were Americanized. However, you still sense that Filipino pride and atmosphere. All the characters had some dilemma or something missing and they were really great in their role. Though they were successful in one area of their life, they all lack happiness. For example, Marissa who has a great job however was not successful with her relationship with Sam. Gerry, who was gay and had to face the rejection from his mother. Raul, being the youngest, was a player and was not satisfied with his girlfriends. Tere, a nice and a great cook cannot get a date. The climax was obvious when the characters hit a wall, they all had to evaluate what changes they had to make and what they need to give up. There was a part when Tere, the lonely bachelorette threw the Santo Nino statue outside and accidentally hit the guy whom I presumed would be her mate in the end and he was. In the end, they came to accept who they are, their differences, and somehow found what was lacking and they seemed content with their life.
All the characters had the right to be accepted, the right to be happy, the right to be love, the right to know the truth, and the right to enjoy their freedom. However if not very careful with that right, it could hurt them or someone. For example, Raul had the right to enjoy his freedom being a single but along the way, the women who he did not take seriously were hurt and he could also have gotten STD easily because of such right. I liked the part when all the characters were reflecting on what was missing and what went wrong with their personal relationships. They were not perfect but they somehow were able to overcome their personal problems by helping and listening to one another. They looked up to one another and they value their uniqueness. Though they were serious, they also knew how to add humor in their conversation when they came all together for dinner or just celebration.
The film showed some context of the Catholic faith. For instance, when Gerry told the mom that he was gay and have her meet his partner, the mom was disappointed in that her expectations of grandchildren collapse and her religion cannot accept the way things turned out for her son. In Tere’s case, she was lonely and was fully depended in her faith so that Santo Nino and God would intervene in finding a suitor that takes her seriously. When she was frustrated and least expected it, she hit the guy with the Santo Nino statue. There were some parts that the subtitle did not show and I noticed that Raul did not speak Pilipino throughout the movie and spoke English the whole time.
A right is a justified claim on others. It is described as entitlement, interests, powers, claims, and needs. The right is ours, something that we own, or is our due and not dependent on the goodwill of others. Human right is according to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to recognition as a person everywhere before the law”. This include “the right to own property,…the right to work,…the right to rest…” We regard rights as important in human action and in an informed decision-making because a right creates an obligation in others to behave in a certain way whether to provide goods or services or refrain from interference. However, humans are interdependent and that our welfare is the responsibility of the society or community we live in. An ethical agent when face with conflict of rights would discriminate the claim rights whether they are wants or needs.
Human rights should not be created or lost by opinion polls or what the majority thinks. We need to consider all sides of the claim of right and what they represent, the social cost, the injustice that it would result. We need to develop social contract and in that no individual in society would choose to have individuals require to do things themselves would be unwilling to perform. The positive rights should proceed because the fundamental shared needs should be first met for the society versus the individual. Rights should be first because it ensures that the freedom and well being of each individual will be protected when others threaten that freedom or well being. Taking up of arms would be justified act because it is a defense of the freedom that is the birthright of the people, protection of property that is acquired through honest industry and hard work, and to fight violence in order for hostility to cease and danger to be removed. Revolution would be a just ethical conduct when the freedom of the people is violated and they are treated injustice, tyranny, oppression, and persecution. I do not think that violence can ever be justified but can be the last resort for self-defense.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Imelda -Christine4Heysoo
In the movie ‘Imelda’, I saw a great transition over the period when Ferdinand Marcos came to be the president. I saw this period as the beginning era that brought light to women, culture, and arts. This was seen through the image that Imelda created for herself. She had that sense of who she is and she carried herself with dignity. From the way she dressed and the shoes she wore. She had a lot of the things that the people did not have. However, women especially who were in the provinces look up to her as their role model while others might have envied her. She was seen a heroine by people who know her. She has the beauty and the strength like a heroine. Imelda became a pillar to her husband’s campaign and presidency. The image that was created in the movie and a lot of it portrays what role women have in society. ‘Imelda’ was not only depicted as a woman but also her role as a wife, mother, friend, partner, neighbor, politician, and even as an enemy. Imelda was this tall woman who is beautiful, wealthy, intellectual, talented, down to earth, kind, caring, loyal, virtuous, ostentatious, and most importantly she love and is love by her people. She created a new definition and new outlook of ‘beauty’, which exist within in every human being.
I cannot believe that they got married after 7 days when they met. It seemed very hasty to be entangled with a person you hardly knew. I am not sure if this is always the case for people who are with high status whether in politics or entertainment. However, this could also be the case for the lower class if there is the necessity to marry without a long courtship. Usually from my observation, lower class takes time to get to know the person, then next the seeking for parental consent on both sides. Situations always change though due to conditions such as wealth, health, connections, needs, or attractions between the parties.
I did not find anything wrong about the martial law and although of course it dramatically changed the lifestyle of the people but life still goes on. It needed to be established because everything was breaking lost and President Marcos I say thought deeply about the ‘common good’ of the people. I believe that it was the only way to restore order and control to the government. President Marcos may have taken the last step to keep the peace and that was to exile and torture those who went against him. Maybe he stepped over his boundaries but what else could a president do to restore his reputation and the people. It was unethical for President Marcos to not give a fair trial for those detainees. People knew the power that the president had and still they went against his way. I heard that it was for the best of the country that martial law was installed. People were disciplined and restriction was imposed on them. A lot of people however did not like the martial law. This answer then the question on the importance of considering common good in establishing principles that will govern the society or the country. I think that yes there are things that we do not like however these things are good for us and the martial law was one of them. Martial law was needed to suppress the surge of rebels who are causing violence and disruptions. Ethical actors should act in accord with common good so that you do not show partiality within different groups. Though common good seemed to be a challenge, I believe that it can be achieved if only people are willing to sacrifice something for the betterment of the whole. When the ethical actors distribute equal privileges and rights to the people, respect is reciprocated and you avoid problems and arguments between the citizens.
In the film, actors acted in accord with other variable due to pressure. In one case, Imelda acted on pressure she got from the people in that she was blinded with the impression that she represented those people who are poor, farmers, and etc. Therefore, she had to present herself with dignity and courage. She thought and esteemed very high of her people even though they are in a small country. She showed the world during her travels that Philippines existed in the maps and that Filipinos are beautiful and hard working people and that the Filipino has the same right to be known in World just like any other countries. In addition to this, when President Marcos was elected, in his speech, he said that the government broken and that his goal is to make the country great. His goal was to get rid of corruption in the government, smuggling, reduced criminals, and etc. to construct a strong infrastructure and strong military. This is where Imelda came in to build museums, art centers, bridges, and etc. that would help elevate and revitalize the economy and preserve the culture of the people. Another variable would be change. Governmental officials who opposed to policies of President Marcos acted on change. These officials conceived that Marcos cabinet was corrupted and they basically threatened to remove power from the President.
It is important to revisit the question of violence and what triggers it so that you can better prepare to provide protection and avoid hurting many. Violence could rise from arguments, political repression, mismanagement of power, personal gain, deception, corruption, misunderstanding, and unbalance power. I think that these all resulted due to the lost of direction in establishing the ‘common good’ and balance. I guess it is very important to impose strict consequences for violence and start to promote nonviolence. A country needs to be defended from violence, make it a duty, and not take it so lightly or else leniencies on policies toward aggressions will only encouragement violence. The martial law was somewhat effective in some way.
I do not understand why they had President Marcos’ tomb on a freezer. It seemed to be that it has two purposes and those are to remember a hero who had taken a different route to what seemed right to him in order to make his country great or to show off the man who deceived and corrupted his people.
I cannot believe that they got married after 7 days when they met. It seemed very hasty to be entangled with a person you hardly knew. I am not sure if this is always the case for people who are with high status whether in politics or entertainment. However, this could also be the case for the lower class if there is the necessity to marry without a long courtship. Usually from my observation, lower class takes time to get to know the person, then next the seeking for parental consent on both sides. Situations always change though due to conditions such as wealth, health, connections, needs, or attractions between the parties.
I did not find anything wrong about the martial law and although of course it dramatically changed the lifestyle of the people but life still goes on. It needed to be established because everything was breaking lost and President Marcos I say thought deeply about the ‘common good’ of the people. I believe that it was the only way to restore order and control to the government. President Marcos may have taken the last step to keep the peace and that was to exile and torture those who went against him. Maybe he stepped over his boundaries but what else could a president do to restore his reputation and the people. It was unethical for President Marcos to not give a fair trial for those detainees. People knew the power that the president had and still they went against his way. I heard that it was for the best of the country that martial law was installed. People were disciplined and restriction was imposed on them. A lot of people however did not like the martial law. This answer then the question on the importance of considering common good in establishing principles that will govern the society or the country. I think that yes there are things that we do not like however these things are good for us and the martial law was one of them. Martial law was needed to suppress the surge of rebels who are causing violence and disruptions. Ethical actors should act in accord with common good so that you do not show partiality within different groups. Though common good seemed to be a challenge, I believe that it can be achieved if only people are willing to sacrifice something for the betterment of the whole. When the ethical actors distribute equal privileges and rights to the people, respect is reciprocated and you avoid problems and arguments between the citizens.
In the film, actors acted in accord with other variable due to pressure. In one case, Imelda acted on pressure she got from the people in that she was blinded with the impression that she represented those people who are poor, farmers, and etc. Therefore, she had to present herself with dignity and courage. She thought and esteemed very high of her people even though they are in a small country. She showed the world during her travels that Philippines existed in the maps and that Filipinos are beautiful and hard working people and that the Filipino has the same right to be known in World just like any other countries. In addition to this, when President Marcos was elected, in his speech, he said that the government broken and that his goal is to make the country great. His goal was to get rid of corruption in the government, smuggling, reduced criminals, and etc. to construct a strong infrastructure and strong military. This is where Imelda came in to build museums, art centers, bridges, and etc. that would help elevate and revitalize the economy and preserve the culture of the people. Another variable would be change. Governmental officials who opposed to policies of President Marcos acted on change. These officials conceived that Marcos cabinet was corrupted and they basically threatened to remove power from the President.
It is important to revisit the question of violence and what triggers it so that you can better prepare to provide protection and avoid hurting many. Violence could rise from arguments, political repression, mismanagement of power, personal gain, deception, corruption, misunderstanding, and unbalance power. I think that these all resulted due to the lost of direction in establishing the ‘common good’ and balance. I guess it is very important to impose strict consequences for violence and start to promote nonviolence. A country needs to be defended from violence, make it a duty, and not take it so lightly or else leniencies on policies toward aggressions will only encouragement violence. The martial law was somewhat effective in some way.
I do not understand why they had President Marcos’ tomb on a freezer. It seemed to be that it has two purposes and those are to remember a hero who had taken a different route to what seemed right to him in order to make his country great or to show off the man who deceived and corrupted his people.
Nailed and Bontoc Eulogy -Christine4Heysoo
I believe that culture has become an essential part in an individual and also play a great role in creating diversity that we experience and enjoy on a daily basis. However, I wonder to what extent a culture gets to be until it is consider immoral or wrong. I found the movie “Nailed” to be unethical in many ways. I do not think the woman who portrayed to be ‘Christ’ came close to achieving what really happened in the cross. I found it disgusting to see people who imitate the crucifixion of Christ by torturing and tormenting themselves and leading other people to believe that through them they can be save. I do not accept this and I think it is immoral because it manipulates the truth. It was hard for me to see the movie like how others who are not believers or in faith because I have been expose to what I know is the truth which is very different. First of all, we, all humanity have sin before God and there is no one, not one person who is perfect that will be able to recompense our trespasses and be a perfect sacrifice except Jesus, the Son of God. Second, it is unethical to lead people to believe that through that woman, they can be save and in actuality they are not. It is like what the bible said in Matthew 15 that ‘If the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch’.
In the movie, they mentioned how this event happens every year. I know that there was only one ransom that was made for the sin of the world and he died on the cross only once and that was more than 2000 years ago. The death on the cross was not a ritual and should be seen with great significance and not be taken very lightly. I believe that both culture and tradition has blinded a lot of people from truly seeking the truth. The knowledge of truth had been twisted and changed over the time as it was passed down from generation to the next. Religion also play a great role in developing the mindset of people and how they think about certain practices which can be consider acceptable and that they can save you and help you become a better or a righteous person. In the movie, people pray to this man made images and pray a lot of repetition hoping that the god(s) will hear them and answer their pray or plea. The movie showed how Christmas and a once a week mass became a ritual. I think that it’s hypocrite to go to mass on Sunday and go against everything you learn during the rest of the week. But then people have different perspective of how their religion is. For me, I think it being religious is so easy to do. However, I believe that it is the relationship that is more important when it comes to stand for your own belief and conviction.
In the next movie called ‘Bontoc Eulogy’, I do not quite understand what was going and the overall context of it. The movie started with a very well known phrase, ‘He who doesn’t look back to where he came from will not reach to his destination’. I do not understand why the Americans took Marcud from the place is from or what intentions do they hold for him. This is could violate ethical principles in that giving false hope to coerce an individual so that they submit against his or her will. In the movie, Marcud was taken to a place unfamiliar to him and was not probably educated and given full details about his surroundings, the people, the language, and etc., which make him completely lost from the world. In this film, they (producer and director) interweaved the story of the Negritos and what was going in the progression of the Spanish-Philippine war at the time. I think that the Americans had overstepped their boundaries regarding their exploitation in the Philippines and the people. I think the grandkid of Marcud was telling how his children did not have to experience the pain and anguish that he experience every time he go back to the Philippines because they were not there when the war happened and that they do not have any memory that hunt them like him. However, even if the kids were not present at the time of the war, I believe that history should be past down specially since it came from a primary source. I believe that hiding the truth from kids in order to protect them from getting hurt does not work in a long term. There is this saying that, ‘The truth hurts, but if you know the truth, the truth shall set you free’. I believe that it was immoral for the Americans not to let the family of the two Negritos who froze and died. Are the Americans just using the Marcud to be used as an experiment to gather such information about their language or their growth development? At one point in the movie, I think Marcud or one of the guys was talking on a phone-like device and he did not know what was going on except talking and being recorded. Without consent from the person who is being studied is unethical that was what happened to Marcud and his people. The ‘scientists’ started studying their feet and comparing them to apes. I do not think that the Negritos who came to America was not given equal rights that other residents in St. Luis. They seemed to be exploited and used as an entertainment for people because of the differences physically, emotionally, and mentally. This is completely unethical.
People should act ethically because it is the right thing to do. Code of conduct was established before hand with given consequences and punishment of such who behave wrong. It is so easy to fall short on the bar of moral. However, we have been trained and given the choice to behave like human being and restrained ourselves from hurting or doing harm to ourselves and others. We have the ability to do anything within our power but it is expected of us to use such power for the good of the community. I think culture is relevant in decision-making when there is an agreement or consensus within a party that greatly bring benefits. Human life is guided by culture because culture is learned and passed down. I think culture never remain the same, however, it evolve and change in time. Culture defines the individuality of a person and it makes it unique and different from the rest.
In the movie, they mentioned how this event happens every year. I know that there was only one ransom that was made for the sin of the world and he died on the cross only once and that was more than 2000 years ago. The death on the cross was not a ritual and should be seen with great significance and not be taken very lightly. I believe that both culture and tradition has blinded a lot of people from truly seeking the truth. The knowledge of truth had been twisted and changed over the time as it was passed down from generation to the next. Religion also play a great role in developing the mindset of people and how they think about certain practices which can be consider acceptable and that they can save you and help you become a better or a righteous person. In the movie, people pray to this man made images and pray a lot of repetition hoping that the god(s) will hear them and answer their pray or plea. The movie showed how Christmas and a once a week mass became a ritual. I think that it’s hypocrite to go to mass on Sunday and go against everything you learn during the rest of the week. But then people have different perspective of how their religion is. For me, I think it being religious is so easy to do. However, I believe that it is the relationship that is more important when it comes to stand for your own belief and conviction.
In the next movie called ‘Bontoc Eulogy’, I do not quite understand what was going and the overall context of it. The movie started with a very well known phrase, ‘He who doesn’t look back to where he came from will not reach to his destination’. I do not understand why the Americans took Marcud from the place is from or what intentions do they hold for him. This is could violate ethical principles in that giving false hope to coerce an individual so that they submit against his or her will. In the movie, Marcud was taken to a place unfamiliar to him and was not probably educated and given full details about his surroundings, the people, the language, and etc., which make him completely lost from the world. In this film, they (producer and director) interweaved the story of the Negritos and what was going in the progression of the Spanish-Philippine war at the time. I think that the Americans had overstepped their boundaries regarding their exploitation in the Philippines and the people. I think the grandkid of Marcud was telling how his children did not have to experience the pain and anguish that he experience every time he go back to the Philippines because they were not there when the war happened and that they do not have any memory that hunt them like him. However, even if the kids were not present at the time of the war, I believe that history should be past down specially since it came from a primary source. I believe that hiding the truth from kids in order to protect them from getting hurt does not work in a long term. There is this saying that, ‘The truth hurts, but if you know the truth, the truth shall set you free’. I believe that it was immoral for the Americans not to let the family of the two Negritos who froze and died. Are the Americans just using the Marcud to be used as an experiment to gather such information about their language or their growth development? At one point in the movie, I think Marcud or one of the guys was talking on a phone-like device and he did not know what was going on except talking and being recorded. Without consent from the person who is being studied is unethical that was what happened to Marcud and his people. The ‘scientists’ started studying their feet and comparing them to apes. I do not think that the Negritos who came to America was not given equal rights that other residents in St. Luis. They seemed to be exploited and used as an entertainment for people because of the differences physically, emotionally, and mentally. This is completely unethical.
People should act ethically because it is the right thing to do. Code of conduct was established before hand with given consequences and punishment of such who behave wrong. It is so easy to fall short on the bar of moral. However, we have been trained and given the choice to behave like human being and restrained ourselves from hurting or doing harm to ourselves and others. We have the ability to do anything within our power but it is expected of us to use such power for the good of the community. I think culture is relevant in decision-making when there is an agreement or consensus within a party that greatly bring benefits. Human life is guided by culture because culture is learned and passed down. I think culture never remain the same, however, it evolve and change in time. Culture defines the individuality of a person and it makes it unique and different from the rest.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Module 1 and American Adobo
-Shaun Ramento
Module 1
Two angels descending from the sky, one was light and the other was dark. Both were fighting until the narrator woke up. After all it was only a dream but what does it mean? The narrator then talks about herself, how she fits into the Filipino religion. She goes to saying how she would go to church only because her parents go too. But as she grew older as time passes she is reluctant to go.
She mentions a young woman named Lucy who had a vision of Santo Nino and believed that Lucy was the one being crucified. The narrator describes Lucy’s home as a room filled with dolls and no windows. The film shows Lucy dressed up as Jesus as he is being prepared for his crucifixion. It seems though that she is destined to be crucified.
This time the video shows a proud father and mother having their baby being recognized. Family and friends gather around as they sacrifice a pig and have a feast to celebrate their baby. One man and a woman dances around having their time of their life.
Now it shows a man lying down on a pile of dirt as the narrator compares the man with a another view of a water buffalo hard at work in the field. Both man and water buffalo are trampling down the soil to make its softer.
At the end of the video they show Lucy being crucified using nails to hammer her hands and feet to the cross. She looked dead and peaceful but suddenly she began to speak as if she is being possessed by Jesus himself reminding the people of Philippines what he did for his children.
I kind of like this video because I can relate to of what the narrator felt as a child in the Philippines. I only went to Church because my parents pressured/forced me to go or else Jesus will not love me or something like that. Ever since I moved to Hawai‘i it was a different story for me now. I was more focus on school while my mom was focus on work. So we rarely go to church now. I’m kind of glad but at the same time I felt guilty. My mom still reminds me to pray every night and that only God can help me in the future.
I have seen the crucifixion in the Philippines before and man, I thought that was pretty intense. Philippines is the only country that does this and it shows their faith to Roman Catholic. I’m sure that I’m not the only one that feels this way since I know that the narrator feels the same way to. Even I think it’s pretty ironic the people of the Philippines put their faith into God and not do anything about it on their own which is why the results in the Philippines shows more suffering than pleasure. The parents’ generation is a lot different than mines so I have no say to this they are the ones that have been doing this since when they were children. I too believe in God its just that there are times when you yourself must do something to make it happen.
American Adobo
Reaction paper
Whenever I finish watching a movie it will be at that moment where I will be criticizing/react how good or bad the movie was. Usually if it’s a good movie I would recommend it to my friends and family to go watch it themselves or if it’s a bad movie I would think of some stuff that may need improvement or something that needs a little bit of work but other than that it was ok. I have to be honest there are times when I wish the ending of a movie ended up as a screw ending where the antagonist is the one that lives. Anything that’s unpredictable and keeps me on my feet would be considered a good movie despite the plot. As for American Adobo, there is nothing significant to talk about. I see no relevance to the title or what the plot is really about. If this wasn’t a class where watching films was mandatory, I would have left when it got too dramatic and VERY predictable. Whoever is the director of American Adobo should be fired for just sucking at being original and being to
o cliché about the dialogues. I even feel bad for the actors/actresses that was in the movie because they are great in other Filipino movies and this just went down the drain for them.
That is why I don’t really watch anymore Filipino shows except anything that’s comedy then it’s ok. To me, this film was a bad example and a very bad movie in general that represents the Filipino Americans in the United States. I mean, c’mon I don’t give a rats ass about a cheating boyfriend, an uncaring wife, a gay guy, and a player. Those characters are no different from any race that is not from the United States. The only scene that I believe is a common trait for Filipino-Americans is that they think too high of themselves when comparing them to the people of the Philippines. Their ego just keeps inflating until they don’t see the Filipino in them. As for the new immigrants of the Philippines that just arrived gets treated badly among the Filipino-Americans. This is why there are many Filipinos from the Philippines gets their American dream shattered from too many expectations that leads to false hope. Whatever happens to helping other Filipinos in hand. This is no exag
geration but what I see in Filipino drama is that there is always one side that represents the wealthy and somewhat inconsiderate family while the other side symbolizes the common poor family that tries to get by during the an episode. It’s a consistent cycle of Filipino drama that sees no end to its obliviousness.
Overall, I don’t recommend this film at all. It’s somewhat offending to me because it’s a very awful example of what Filipino Americans experience in the United States. It’s more like the opposite, usually Filipinos would go to united states to get a better paying job despite its hardship to help support their family. While this film shows a bunch of characters that doesn’t see that they are way better off with their lives than most Filipinos in the Philippines and instead each character talks about their drama which I thought it was funny in a pathetic way. It seems like American adobo the name itself doesn’t portraits any originalities, its just a mix ingredients of clichés, marinated with a confusing plot and topping it off with the secret ingredient of tastelessness.
Module 1
Two angels descending from the sky, one was light and the other was dark. Both were fighting until the narrator woke up. After all it was only a dream but what does it mean? The narrator then talks about herself, how she fits into the Filipino religion. She goes to saying how she would go to church only because her parents go too. But as she grew older as time passes she is reluctant to go.
She mentions a young woman named Lucy who had a vision of Santo Nino and believed that Lucy was the one being crucified. The narrator describes Lucy’s home as a room filled with dolls and no windows. The film shows Lucy dressed up as Jesus as he is being prepared for his crucifixion. It seems though that she is destined to be crucified.
This time the video shows a proud father and mother having their baby being recognized. Family and friends gather around as they sacrifice a pig and have a feast to celebrate their baby. One man and a woman dances around having their time of their life.
Now it shows a man lying down on a pile of dirt as the narrator compares the man with a another view of a water buffalo hard at work in the field. Both man and water buffalo are trampling down the soil to make its softer.
At the end of the video they show Lucy being crucified using nails to hammer her hands and feet to the cross. She looked dead and peaceful but suddenly she began to speak as if she is being possessed by Jesus himself reminding the people of Philippines what he did for his children.
I kind of like this video because I can relate to of what the narrator felt as a child in the Philippines. I only went to Church because my parents pressured/forced me to go or else Jesus will not love me or something like that. Ever since I moved to Hawai‘i it was a different story for me now. I was more focus on school while my mom was focus on work. So we rarely go to church now. I’m kind of glad but at the same time I felt guilty. My mom still reminds me to pray every night and that only God can help me in the future.
I have seen the crucifixion in the Philippines before and man, I thought that was pretty intense. Philippines is the only country that does this and it shows their faith to Roman Catholic. I’m sure that I’m not the only one that feels this way since I know that the narrator feels the same way to. Even I think it’s pretty ironic the people of the Philippines put their faith into God and not do anything about it on their own which is why the results in the Philippines shows more suffering than pleasure. The parents’ generation is a lot different than mines so I have no say to this they are the ones that have been doing this since when they were children. I too believe in God its just that there are times when you yourself must do something to make it happen.
American Adobo
Reaction paper
Whenever I finish watching a movie it will be at that moment where I will be criticizing/react how good or bad the movie was. Usually if it’s a good movie I would recommend it to my friends and family to go watch it themselves or if it’s a bad movie I would think of some stuff that may need improvement or something that needs a little bit of work but other than that it was ok. I have to be honest there are times when I wish the ending of a movie ended up as a screw ending where the antagonist is the one that lives. Anything that’s unpredictable and keeps me on my feet would be considered a good movie despite the plot. As for American Adobo, there is nothing significant to talk about. I see no relevance to the title or what the plot is really about. If this wasn’t a class where watching films was mandatory, I would have left when it got too dramatic and VERY predictable. Whoever is the director of American Adobo should be fired for just sucking at being original and being to
o cliché about the dialogues. I even feel bad for the actors/actresses that was in the movie because they are great in other Filipino movies and this just went down the drain for them.
That is why I don’t really watch anymore Filipino shows except anything that’s comedy then it’s ok. To me, this film was a bad example and a very bad movie in general that represents the Filipino Americans in the United States. I mean, c’mon I don’t give a rats ass about a cheating boyfriend, an uncaring wife, a gay guy, and a player. Those characters are no different from any race that is not from the United States. The only scene that I believe is a common trait for Filipino-Americans is that they think too high of themselves when comparing them to the people of the Philippines. Their ego just keeps inflating until they don’t see the Filipino in them. As for the new immigrants of the Philippines that just arrived gets treated badly among the Filipino-Americans. This is why there are many Filipinos from the Philippines gets their American dream shattered from too many expectations that leads to false hope. Whatever happens to helping other Filipinos in hand. This is no exag
geration but what I see in Filipino drama is that there is always one side that represents the wealthy and somewhat inconsiderate family while the other side symbolizes the common poor family that tries to get by during the an episode. It’s a consistent cycle of Filipino drama that sees no end to its obliviousness.
Overall, I don’t recommend this film at all. It’s somewhat offending to me because it’s a very awful example of what Filipino Americans experience in the United States. It’s more like the opposite, usually Filipinos would go to united states to get a better paying job despite its hardship to help support their family. While this film shows a bunch of characters that doesn’t see that they are way better off with their lives than most Filipinos in the Philippines and instead each character talks about their drama which I thought it was funny in a pathetic way. It seems like American adobo the name itself doesn’t portraits any originalities, its just a mix ingredients of clichés, marinated with a confusing plot and topping it off with the secret ingredient of tastelessness.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Module 3 - P. Standefer - “American Adobo”
Sorry for the late posts.
In “American Adobo”, the viewer is presented with a central theme of discontent with life among a group of Filipino friends living in the U.S. which is broken down into sub-themes which follow the individual friends’ stories as they weave in and out of each others’ lives. Another point of interest is that it is a low-budget film with rough, unrefined acting. The actors are either not professionals or are aspiring actors at the very beginning of their careers so most of the dialogue and emotion in the film comes across as very wooden and contrived. This most likely stems from the small pool of Filipino actors available in the U.S., the small target audience of Filipinos and Americans interested in the Philippines, and the small budget that independent, non-Hollywood studios can raise. I mention this simply because the story and characters are not engaging which changes the viewer’s perspective and the emotions arising from that perspective. The viewer is reminded throughout the film that they are watching something that a person made rather than a story that occurred naturally and is only being documented.
The filmmaker’s goal for the movie is connected to and in a way centered on the idea of “Adobo”. This dish only appears a few times during the movie such as when they are eating it or when the character Tere teaches Marissa how to make it, but it is in fact a symbol of the Filipino community with which this movie is saturated. The Adobo draws the friends together where they share with each other about the hardships they go through. Although they do not solve each others problems, they provide a support system by which the individuals can solve their own problems. Also, underlying this community support system is tension that individuals place on each other. The tension seems to be strong enough for the characters that the group is not just meeting, but rupturing and rebuilding itself continually throughout the movie.
To return to the idea of the common good, this movie attempts to question the dominance of the “family good” with Mike. Mike is unhappy with his marriage, his daughter is disobedient, and he is not respected in his house. I thought the Filipino thing to do in this situation would have been to have a mistress so that the time spent at home would be tolerable, but Mike chooses the individual path and leaves his wife and children to return to the Philippines. He witnesses EDSA II, a sort of national rebirth or redemption, and meets his former maid who is the ideal mate for Mike, made obvious by the awkward maneuver between the two at the “picnic at Mike’s house” scene. The movie ends with Mike returning to present his new wife, baby, and happiness to the Adobo-based friends. This part of the story moves along in a straightforward, linear fashion (the case is made against the family and for the maid while the movie is low-budget enough to make the maid a plausible character for Mike to meet) and it is easy to overlook one key aspect of Mike’s family that does not match up with his final choice to leave his family: the son. The son is the innocent bystander who is caught in the crossfire of a protective dad, a good-for-nothing wife, and a disobedient daughter. In essence, the son is abandoned to his mother and sister who are completely uninterested in him. The film does not address this problem or its consequences.
In contrast to previous documentary style films, “American Adobo” is a feature film with less emphasis placed on “educating” the viewers than on highlighting aspects of Filipino life in America and causing the viewer to reflect on those ideas. Consequently, this film does not deal with heavier issues of violence and human rights and presents me with the problem of determining why this video is included in this module. The only solution is that we understand social pressure destroying the ability of an individual to act in accord with their “authentic self” as a violation of human rights. The prime example of this is Gerry who is caged in his mother’s concept of a heterosexual son who will produce multiple grandchildren to increase the mother’s prestige among friends and relatives in the Philippines. In some ways this is as domineering as Ferdinand Marcos’ clamping down on dissent in that one individual (mother) is imposing her will on another (Gerry) which forces him to either live a lie (as a closet homosexual) or “waste his life” (as a heterosexual) from the view of his personal values. On the other hand, if this was a violation of human rights, almost every human being on the face of the planet could be called oppressed because social pressure causes everyone to act in some ways against their private motivations. Therefore, I cannot accept this as a loss of rights in the same sense as being oppressed by violent political organizations like that of the former Philippine president, Marcos.
In “American Adobo”, the viewer is presented with a central theme of discontent with life among a group of Filipino friends living in the U.S. which is broken down into sub-themes which follow the individual friends’ stories as they weave in and out of each others’ lives. Another point of interest is that it is a low-budget film with rough, unrefined acting. The actors are either not professionals or are aspiring actors at the very beginning of their careers so most of the dialogue and emotion in the film comes across as very wooden and contrived. This most likely stems from the small pool of Filipino actors available in the U.S., the small target audience of Filipinos and Americans interested in the Philippines, and the small budget that independent, non-Hollywood studios can raise. I mention this simply because the story and characters are not engaging which changes the viewer’s perspective and the emotions arising from that perspective. The viewer is reminded throughout the film that they are watching something that a person made rather than a story that occurred naturally and is only being documented.
The filmmaker’s goal for the movie is connected to and in a way centered on the idea of “Adobo”. This dish only appears a few times during the movie such as when they are eating it or when the character Tere teaches Marissa how to make it, but it is in fact a symbol of the Filipino community with which this movie is saturated. The Adobo draws the friends together where they share with each other about the hardships they go through. Although they do not solve each others problems, they provide a support system by which the individuals can solve their own problems. Also, underlying this community support system is tension that individuals place on each other. The tension seems to be strong enough for the characters that the group is not just meeting, but rupturing and rebuilding itself continually throughout the movie.
To return to the idea of the common good, this movie attempts to question the dominance of the “family good” with Mike. Mike is unhappy with his marriage, his daughter is disobedient, and he is not respected in his house. I thought the Filipino thing to do in this situation would have been to have a mistress so that the time spent at home would be tolerable, but Mike chooses the individual path and leaves his wife and children to return to the Philippines. He witnesses EDSA II, a sort of national rebirth or redemption, and meets his former maid who is the ideal mate for Mike, made obvious by the awkward maneuver between the two at the “picnic at Mike’s house” scene. The movie ends with Mike returning to present his new wife, baby, and happiness to the Adobo-based friends. This part of the story moves along in a straightforward, linear fashion (the case is made against the family and for the maid while the movie is low-budget enough to make the maid a plausible character for Mike to meet) and it is easy to overlook one key aspect of Mike’s family that does not match up with his final choice to leave his family: the son. The son is the innocent bystander who is caught in the crossfire of a protective dad, a good-for-nothing wife, and a disobedient daughter. In essence, the son is abandoned to his mother and sister who are completely uninterested in him. The film does not address this problem or its consequences.
In contrast to previous documentary style films, “American Adobo” is a feature film with less emphasis placed on “educating” the viewers than on highlighting aspects of Filipino life in America and causing the viewer to reflect on those ideas. Consequently, this film does not deal with heavier issues of violence and human rights and presents me with the problem of determining why this video is included in this module. The only solution is that we understand social pressure destroying the ability of an individual to act in accord with their “authentic self” as a violation of human rights. The prime example of this is Gerry who is caged in his mother’s concept of a heterosexual son who will produce multiple grandchildren to increase the mother’s prestige among friends and relatives in the Philippines. In some ways this is as domineering as Ferdinand Marcos’ clamping down on dissent in that one individual (mother) is imposing her will on another (Gerry) which forces him to either live a lie (as a closet homosexual) or “waste his life” (as a heterosexual) from the view of his personal values. On the other hand, if this was a violation of human rights, almost every human being on the face of the planet could be called oppressed because social pressure causes everyone to act in some ways against their private motivations. Therefore, I cannot accept this as a loss of rights in the same sense as being oppressed by violent political organizations like that of the former Philippine president, Marcos.
Module 2 - P. Standefer - “Imelda”
The movie “Imelda” uses two techniques in its presentation. It moves along a linear path of historical footage with interviews of Imelda and people who had met her before mixed in for contrast. This juxtaposition of interviews and historical images makes the filmmaker’s point effectively because it can only have a single result of portraying Imelda Marcos negatively.
The negative portrayal of Imelda is a strange way to present a movie because the public’s view of Imelda has already been debated and decided long before this film was made with the exception of my own views. The very effect the film was trying to create was only effective because the viewers would have agreed and felt negatively towards her before the film started. In this respect, the filmmaker is not making an impact on people.
There are two themes the filmmaker uses to propel the movie along: beauty and corruption. Both themes reveal Imelda’s conception of herself. Imelda is shown to have been physically beautiful in the past when she first married Ferdinand Marcos, but although she has lost some of that physical beauty over time, she has retained her self-image of a beauty queen, often to some comical effect when juxtaposed to other scenes in the film. The interviews she gives concerning beauty seem very condescending and facetious even though Imelda probably believes wholeheartedly what she is saying.
The second theme, corruption, was never embraced by Imelda herself. There was never a point in which she feels that she was corrupt or abused her official positions. She was able to explain away allegations of corruption in motherly tones and concepts such as being the representative of the Philippines so she had to look glamorous or that she was helping the lost Philippines find its way in the world by building a culture center to establish a clear identity.
Both themes pushed the idea that Imelda either could not come to terms with the reality that she is hated by so many people or that what she and Ferdinand Marcos did during his presidency may have been immoral, unjust, or malevolent. For most of the movie, the viewer is bombarded with opinions from Imelda and interviewees which oppose each other. I waffled in my opinion throughout the movie until an interviewee finally said that they believed Imelda could not admit reality. I thought this was a powerful statement in the film because from that point on, I didn’t change opinions and only saw statements from Imelda from that view.
There is one particular concept that goes beyond the narrative of this movie. Imelda’s concept of herself as a mother figure relates both to the character Lucy from “Nailed” as well as to the image of the strong Filipina mother. All three figures see themselves working for the good of others, that their lives are full of hardship and sacrifice, and that in the end their children (Filipinos in the national, spiritual, and familial sense) will recognize them as their benevolent guardians. The first two ideas of motherliness are explicit in this film because Imelda makes it clear in her interviews that she thinks everything she built or did for the Filipino people was entirely for them (good of others) and that the amount of work she did coupled with critics’ attacks on her make her a victim (hardship and sacrifice).
The negative portrayal of Imelda is a strange way to present a movie because the public’s view of Imelda has already been debated and decided long before this film was made with the exception of my own views. The very effect the film was trying to create was only effective because the viewers would have agreed and felt negatively towards her before the film started. In this respect, the filmmaker is not making an impact on people.
There are two themes the filmmaker uses to propel the movie along: beauty and corruption. Both themes reveal Imelda’s conception of herself. Imelda is shown to have been physically beautiful in the past when she first married Ferdinand Marcos, but although she has lost some of that physical beauty over time, she has retained her self-image of a beauty queen, often to some comical effect when juxtaposed to other scenes in the film. The interviews she gives concerning beauty seem very condescending and facetious even though Imelda probably believes wholeheartedly what she is saying.
The second theme, corruption, was never embraced by Imelda herself. There was never a point in which she feels that she was corrupt or abused her official positions. She was able to explain away allegations of corruption in motherly tones and concepts such as being the representative of the Philippines so she had to look glamorous or that she was helping the lost Philippines find its way in the world by building a culture center to establish a clear identity.
Both themes pushed the idea that Imelda either could not come to terms with the reality that she is hated by so many people or that what she and Ferdinand Marcos did during his presidency may have been immoral, unjust, or malevolent. For most of the movie, the viewer is bombarded with opinions from Imelda and interviewees which oppose each other. I waffled in my opinion throughout the movie until an interviewee finally said that they believed Imelda could not admit reality. I thought this was a powerful statement in the film because from that point on, I didn’t change opinions and only saw statements from Imelda from that view.
There is one particular concept that goes beyond the narrative of this movie. Imelda’s concept of herself as a mother figure relates both to the character Lucy from “Nailed” as well as to the image of the strong Filipina mother. All three figures see themselves working for the good of others, that their lives are full of hardship and sacrifice, and that in the end their children (Filipinos in the national, spiritual, and familial sense) will recognize them as their benevolent guardians. The first two ideas of motherliness are explicit in this film because Imelda makes it clear in her interviews that she thinks everything she built or did for the Filipino people was entirely for them (good of others) and that the amount of work she did coupled with critics’ attacks on her make her a victim (hardship and sacrifice).
Module 1 - P. Standefer - “Nailed” and “Bontoc Eulogy”
“Nailed”
In “Nailed”, the viewer is presented with several competing themes. They are the theme of Lucy, the Filipina who has herself crucified every year, and what she represents then more subtle themes of poverty, religion, and politics. There also seems to be a focus on women and some sort of intellectual expression, although the meaning of the intellectual expression was lost on the author of this essay. The film is comprised of the filmmaker’s “journey” to learn about Lucy which is interspersed with footage of religious ceremonies, festivals, and short scenes of actors doing and saying symbolic things (intellectual expression).
The film does two things with Lucy’s crucifixion: presents the viewer with ethnographic footage of an interesting religious practice and uses it to maintain viewer attention to the film. Both uses of the crucifixion bring up the question of ethics in filmmaking. First, is the presentation of Lucy’s crucifixion without explanation useful to the point that it outweighs the possible misinterpretation and exoticization of Lucy, Filipino Catholics, or Filipinos in general? The film is not presented as a coherent or continuous ethnography because of the insertion of scenes unrelated to the crucifixion which detracts from the overall understanding of this particular religious ceremony. There are also few subtitles throughout the film which makes understanding relevant dialogue in the film impossible for non-Tagalog speakers. Without explanation, subtitles, or relevant cultural experience, the viewer will likely not have a “Filipino” understanding of the event, but rather framed in their own perspective.
Secondly, the viewer should question the use of Lucy as an attention grabbing device. Throughout the film, the author wondered whether the film was actually about Lucy and whether the crucifixion would be shown or if the filmmaker would cut the film short to avoid showing such a graphic scene. It was not clear whether scenes not related to Lucy were added to complement her story or whether Lucy was added to complement the filmmaker’s point. Misrepresenting Lucy for the sake of the filmmaker’s politics or intellectual expression is both unethical and unnecessary. The Filipino political and intellectual realms provide enough shock value that the filmmaker did not need to single out a solitary person or sacred ceremonies/festivals to drive the film.
“Bontoc Eulogy”
In “Bontoc Eulogy”, the filmmaker tells the story of one of his grandfathers, Markod, a Bontoc tribesman who went to the U.S. to be part of an exhibit in the World’s fair. The main theme seems to be questioning “Modernity” or “Civilization” by contrasting the supposed thoughts of Markod and images of the tribal people with images and narrative of the U.S. The filmmaker employs his children in a few scenes which cheapened the overall effect of the film by appearing to try too hard to have an artsy, intellectual feel.
The film uses historical footage from the early 1900’s although it is not apparent if it is entirely real footage or real footage mixed with film from fictional movies set during the same time period. This is problematic not because it detracts from the effectiveness of the film but rather because it leaves the viewer not knowing whether the basic information in the film can be trusted or if footage is used just to help make the filmmaker’s point. Also, from the format of the film, the footage seems to be from one source but because the film maker was obviously not alive to shoot the footage himself, the viewer has to ask from how many films is the footage taken.
The ethical question raised in “Bontoc Eulogy” is how the historical treatment of the Bontocs specifically and Igorots or Filipinos generally by the scientific community, which is in this case Anthropologists, relates to ethical academic research and presentation. In the film, Markod was told by a pair of Anthropologists that he could participate in the World’s Fair and return home by the time that his wife gave birth to their first child. Markod departed for America and ended up being kept in a small section of the World’s Fair guarded by Filipinos long after his wife would have given birth. The Anthropologists, knowingly or unknowingly, made false claims to Markod to entice him into going. They may have had the intention of allowing Markod to leave, but once Markod arrived in America, the administration of his section moved into the hands of more market- or performance-oriented people. The history of Anthropologists’ cooperation with colonial institutions, however, does not lend itself to absolving the pair of Anthropologists that met with Markod of their guilt.
The second point concerns the exhibition of Markod and other Igorot peoples as fair attractions. This exhibition could be likened to a museum exhibit, except the fact remains that Markod is not an artifact and does have a family that he missed. Furthermore, in the context of America at the start of the 1900’s, does the supposed learning that was taking place justify keeping a human being essentially caged up in a section of a fair? For the average American that walked up and observed Markod for a few minutes, probably commented on how interesting primitive man was, and walked on to the Negrito section to repeat the cycle, the education hardly justified a inanimate tool or artifact, much less a person with emotions.
In “Nailed”, the viewer is presented with several competing themes. They are the theme of Lucy, the Filipina who has herself crucified every year, and what she represents then more subtle themes of poverty, religion, and politics. There also seems to be a focus on women and some sort of intellectual expression, although the meaning of the intellectual expression was lost on the author of this essay. The film is comprised of the filmmaker’s “journey” to learn about Lucy which is interspersed with footage of religious ceremonies, festivals, and short scenes of actors doing and saying symbolic things (intellectual expression).
The film does two things with Lucy’s crucifixion: presents the viewer with ethnographic footage of an interesting religious practice and uses it to maintain viewer attention to the film. Both uses of the crucifixion bring up the question of ethics in filmmaking. First, is the presentation of Lucy’s crucifixion without explanation useful to the point that it outweighs the possible misinterpretation and exoticization of Lucy, Filipino Catholics, or Filipinos in general? The film is not presented as a coherent or continuous ethnography because of the insertion of scenes unrelated to the crucifixion which detracts from the overall understanding of this particular religious ceremony. There are also few subtitles throughout the film which makes understanding relevant dialogue in the film impossible for non-Tagalog speakers. Without explanation, subtitles, or relevant cultural experience, the viewer will likely not have a “Filipino” understanding of the event, but rather framed in their own perspective.
Secondly, the viewer should question the use of Lucy as an attention grabbing device. Throughout the film, the author wondered whether the film was actually about Lucy and whether the crucifixion would be shown or if the filmmaker would cut the film short to avoid showing such a graphic scene. It was not clear whether scenes not related to Lucy were added to complement her story or whether Lucy was added to complement the filmmaker’s point. Misrepresenting Lucy for the sake of the filmmaker’s politics or intellectual expression is both unethical and unnecessary. The Filipino political and intellectual realms provide enough shock value that the filmmaker did not need to single out a solitary person or sacred ceremonies/festivals to drive the film.
“Bontoc Eulogy”
In “Bontoc Eulogy”, the filmmaker tells the story of one of his grandfathers, Markod, a Bontoc tribesman who went to the U.S. to be part of an exhibit in the World’s fair. The main theme seems to be questioning “Modernity” or “Civilization” by contrasting the supposed thoughts of Markod and images of the tribal people with images and narrative of the U.S. The filmmaker employs his children in a few scenes which cheapened the overall effect of the film by appearing to try too hard to have an artsy, intellectual feel.
The film uses historical footage from the early 1900’s although it is not apparent if it is entirely real footage or real footage mixed with film from fictional movies set during the same time period. This is problematic not because it detracts from the effectiveness of the film but rather because it leaves the viewer not knowing whether the basic information in the film can be trusted or if footage is used just to help make the filmmaker’s point. Also, from the format of the film, the footage seems to be from one source but because the film maker was obviously not alive to shoot the footage himself, the viewer has to ask from how many films is the footage taken.
The ethical question raised in “Bontoc Eulogy” is how the historical treatment of the Bontocs specifically and Igorots or Filipinos generally by the scientific community, which is in this case Anthropologists, relates to ethical academic research and presentation. In the film, Markod was told by a pair of Anthropologists that he could participate in the World’s Fair and return home by the time that his wife gave birth to their first child. Markod departed for America and ended up being kept in a small section of the World’s Fair guarded by Filipinos long after his wife would have given birth. The Anthropologists, knowingly or unknowingly, made false claims to Markod to entice him into going. They may have had the intention of allowing Markod to leave, but once Markod arrived in America, the administration of his section moved into the hands of more market- or performance-oriented people. The history of Anthropologists’ cooperation with colonial institutions, however, does not lend itself to absolving the pair of Anthropologists that met with Markod of their guilt.
The second point concerns the exhibition of Markod and other Igorot peoples as fair attractions. This exhibition could be likened to a museum exhibit, except the fact remains that Markod is not an artifact and does have a family that he missed. Furthermore, in the context of America at the start of the 1900’s, does the supposed learning that was taking place justify keeping a human being essentially caged up in a section of a fair? For the average American that walked up and observed Markod for a few minutes, probably commented on how interesting primitive man was, and walked on to the Negrito section to repeat the cycle, the education hardly justified a inanimate tool or artifact, much less a person with emotions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)