First I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this movie. Let me first start by saying that I really love the fact that the main character, Lea, is really dynamic. The actress that portrayed her did a really awesome job because she is a real woman, with real feelings. I like the way she was not only one-dimensional, like how women are portrayed in other movies. She is strong, and she is a fighter; yet she is vulnerable and scared. I understand that there are no flawless characters in life, and she is definitely no exception. She has two kids with two different men, and I find that surprising especially in a Filipino film. In most Filipino films the woman is subservient to the man and she lives the “typical” Filipino Catholic wife life. In this she isn’t married, working and supporting two kids, as well as having “independence” from a man. I admire her for her ability to balance her life. Yet what upsets me is the way she let the men treat her. True they don’t physically abuse her, but they neglect her. Her situation isn’t exactly ideal, but I admire her drive to make things better for herself and for her kids. It was interesting how they paralleled her story with the story of the victims of domestic abuse. In it the woman was getting beaten and she chose to still stay with him. It is similar to her situation, because even though Ding neglected her, she still chose to stay with him. It was unfortunate in the end that Ding ended up marrying someone else, but I think she’s better without him. I really admire that this film portrayed a woman for what she is and not what she is supposed to be in Filipino society.
Another big aspect of the movie was the life of her two children. Her kids are her saving grace. I think the kids had it hard, especially Ojie. His biological father recently entered his life, he has to deal with the fact that his parents will never be together, and he must choose between the two. This brings up major issues because although he wants a relationship with his father, he can’t forget that his mother raised him. It is a hard decision because he loses both ways. What also makes it hard is that he is constantly competing with his sister for attention from their mother. That is basically the only person he has because he lives with his half-sister’s father, and not his own. I would be torn because in order to get one thing, one must sacrifice another. If he chooses his dad, he will be competing for attention again because he has another half-sibling on the way. I would hate to be in his situation, although I think he made the best choice by staying with his mother.
This movie was alright, it wasn’t the best, but it wasn’t the worst. I felt it dragged on a little too long, but I did enjoy the acting especially from the main character. The message I got from it is about maturing and evolving, not only with the kids, but with the mother as well. I am not (yet) a mother, but I can understand how she felt when she was faced with the reality that she might lose her kids. There was a line in the movie that went something like “a child can live without a father, but not without a mother”. It was interesting to me and I think the ending was very appropriate. The mother went through a lot for her kids and she really does love them. To me both of the fathers were very flawed and the kids are definitely better off with her. I’m glad she let her kids choose, and it was the right decision that they chose her. This was an act of free will, as described in the reading. I don’t things just happen, they occur as an effect of something else.
The ending was good also because it showed the change that occurred in both mother and children. I like how, even though she made mistakes in the past, she was able to overcome it. She proved herself worthy by working for that human rights organization, the one that helped abused women. It takes a lot for one to help others, even though personally she was going through a lot herself.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Module 5- Janelle Funtanilla
The movie Dekada ’70 was perfect for this module. The theme of this module includes ethics as related to authority and power. The film showed two aspects of this: the Philippine government and the power of the husband.
The government was going through a lot of change due the declaration of martial law under Marcos. Many people were unhappy, and therefore a revolution was born. What I like about this was that instead of bitching about the injustices occurring, some of the main characters got involved and acted upon this. The eldest son Jules especially was admirable to me in the film. He was the change he wanted to see in the world, and he also dedicated/gave his life for the cause. It’s amazing to me because even though he has a family and many people care about him, he still fights for what is right. He refused to give up his fellow officers even though he was being tortured. He was unselfish and that is an admirable trait.
What moved me about this film was when one of the brothers died, and they all gathered at his funeral. It was a really touching scene and it sort of did open my eyes to what was going on at the time. There was corruption in the government and I would be extremely angry if that was my own brother. This is also why I like the fact that people gave their lives to get rid of this corruption.
The reading on this module touched upon this topic of conscience in authority figures. It totally makes sense to me because if someone with authority tells you something, we must follow it no matter what our personal thoughts of it are. I heard of things like this happening in the military where they are ordered to kill people, and although the soldier doesn’t want to, s/he does it anyway because they are trained to follow orders. When one doesn’t follow orders because it is considered unethical, they are branded as being insubordinate and are disgraced. This raises the question of whether to follow orders or follow their conscience. It is difficult and personally I wouldn’t know what to do in that type of situation. It is sort of a kill or be killed situation and that is one of the hardest (ethically) to deal with.
The other storyline in this was the father’s refusal to allow the mother to obtain a job. In my eyes I saw him as being really old-fashioned and kind of sexist. In this day in time, women are a lot more independent and are able to take care of themselves. His reasoning was that he was able to financially support the family; therefore getting a job would be useless for the wife. She then mentioned it had nothing to do with money but with satisfaction that she is doing something with her life. I have similar feelings of that as well, because I would want to do something fulfilling that would be worth my time. I wouldn’t want a husband who can buy everything for me and I would be bored at home doing household chores. As a woman, I would like to be able to support myself and make decisions on my own. I would want that freedom. I’m glad she spoke up for herself because her husband was being stupid. Another thing that bothered me in the movie was males were portrayed in dominant roles. It did make it interesting that all her children were male and she was the lone female in the house. I hated the fact that the dad said something like males are better than females. I’m not a feminist and I don’t think females should rule the world, but I get angry at that because it’s unfair. I think everything in this world needs to be equal and fair including genders. It was also interesting to hear the mother converse with her daughter in law and say how she forgot how to interact with females because she lives in a male-dominated home.
In terms of a movie I thought it was, for the most part, enjoyable. Although it was long, it was good in way that it was relatable. Not to say that I have ever been tortured by the government because I’m a primary leader in the rebellion, but they had struggles that I also have. Everyday is a constant fight and there are always struggles. This movie portrayed that well. It also gave us more insight on Filipino culture and how family values come into play. It was generally good and it was one of the better Filipino movies I have seen.
The government was going through a lot of change due the declaration of martial law under Marcos. Many people were unhappy, and therefore a revolution was born. What I like about this was that instead of bitching about the injustices occurring, some of the main characters got involved and acted upon this. The eldest son Jules especially was admirable to me in the film. He was the change he wanted to see in the world, and he also dedicated/gave his life for the cause. It’s amazing to me because even though he has a family and many people care about him, he still fights for what is right. He refused to give up his fellow officers even though he was being tortured. He was unselfish and that is an admirable trait.
What moved me about this film was when one of the brothers died, and they all gathered at his funeral. It was a really touching scene and it sort of did open my eyes to what was going on at the time. There was corruption in the government and I would be extremely angry if that was my own brother. This is also why I like the fact that people gave their lives to get rid of this corruption.
The reading on this module touched upon this topic of conscience in authority figures. It totally makes sense to me because if someone with authority tells you something, we must follow it no matter what our personal thoughts of it are. I heard of things like this happening in the military where they are ordered to kill people, and although the soldier doesn’t want to, s/he does it anyway because they are trained to follow orders. When one doesn’t follow orders because it is considered unethical, they are branded as being insubordinate and are disgraced. This raises the question of whether to follow orders or follow their conscience. It is difficult and personally I wouldn’t know what to do in that type of situation. It is sort of a kill or be killed situation and that is one of the hardest (ethically) to deal with.
The other storyline in this was the father’s refusal to allow the mother to obtain a job. In my eyes I saw him as being really old-fashioned and kind of sexist. In this day in time, women are a lot more independent and are able to take care of themselves. His reasoning was that he was able to financially support the family; therefore getting a job would be useless for the wife. She then mentioned it had nothing to do with money but with satisfaction that she is doing something with her life. I have similar feelings of that as well, because I would want to do something fulfilling that would be worth my time. I wouldn’t want a husband who can buy everything for me and I would be bored at home doing household chores. As a woman, I would like to be able to support myself and make decisions on my own. I would want that freedom. I’m glad she spoke up for herself because her husband was being stupid. Another thing that bothered me in the movie was males were portrayed in dominant roles. It did make it interesting that all her children were male and she was the lone female in the house. I hated the fact that the dad said something like males are better than females. I’m not a feminist and I don’t think females should rule the world, but I get angry at that because it’s unfair. I think everything in this world needs to be equal and fair including genders. It was also interesting to hear the mother converse with her daughter in law and say how she forgot how to interact with females because she lives in a male-dominated home.
In terms of a movie I thought it was, for the most part, enjoyable. Although it was long, it was good in way that it was relatable. Not to say that I have ever been tortured by the government because I’m a primary leader in the rebellion, but they had struggles that I also have. Everyday is a constant fight and there are always struggles. This movie portrayed that well. It also gave us more insight on Filipino culture and how family values come into play. It was generally good and it was one of the better Filipino movies I have seen.
Module 4- Janelle Funtanilla
Many things in the movie, in my opinion, were questionable on whether or not they were considered ethical. First of all let me start with the whole prayer woman concept. In my opinion I think the whole profession of being paid to pray for other people is a sham. I don’t believe people should make personal gains from any religious-affiliated activities. If someone really has faith, they would not need someone else to pray for him or her. Besides I don’t think that one should only pray when they want something done. There are many people who say they are religious, they pray all the time, and go to church often. Yet they are dependent on God for everything, they want Him to do everything. Why is that? Does anyone pray to God just to thank him for what they already have? They pray when they want something, then praise/blame him if something does/not happen. I don’t agree with that. Having faith is having faith no matter what, whether or not “miracles” happen. I believe that there is a higher power, however I don’t rely on it make things happen (or not) for me. We shouldn’t be so dependent and believe that everything is just going to happen. I believe that God is there to remind us to have faith, faith that we can do things ourselves. An example of what I’m trying to say is when Mike asked Malen to cure his baby. He wanted so much for his son to come back to life that he demanded her to perform a miracle, yet when she was unable to do it, he was angry. He only went to her when he wanted something “extraordinary” done; yet when she couldn’t deliver then he got mad. That’s why I’m saying people expect too much with “half-ass” faith, then get mad when they don’t get what they want. I think that’s dumb.
Second, it was unethical for Malen to take the place of her mother as a prayer woman. She did not fully understand why her mother did it and in my opinion she was just exploiting the people. I understand that she needed to make money but there are better, and “honest” ways of making money. In a way she can’t be blamed because that’s all she knew how to do, however, it wasn’t ethical because she was lying to people to make them believe she would pray for them. Why would she pray for them if the only person she cares about is herself? If she really did care about the people and really did pray for them (which happened in the end) then I guess it’s all right.
Another ethical aspect was Mike trying to con tourists, although finally the con was on him when he got “played”. He used his good looks to get what he wants by taking advantage of others, but I think he deserves what he gets for stealing from other people. It is also a matter of karma because he keeps doing these bad things, then his son dies and he ends up killing someone. In the reading it talked about how we treat others and moral behavior. He had no morals by deceiving and stealing from people, that is why bad fortune struck him. I am a firm believer of karma because what goes around does come back around.
In the end though I believe Malen, through some changes in attitude and heart, had achieved positive moral values. She took it upon herself to give others something they could not get for themselves (faith). She had a choice to continue helping people or leave with Mike, yet she chose to help others. She underwent a spiritual change, but there are other factors that change people and the way they think. Luckily for her, her change was positive, and she was able to find her way after being lost.
I thought it was a weird film especially with the way it started. I understood the story overall however I didn’t really catch on to the “alcoholic priest”. I believe his issue was another ethical one. If you are a priest there are certain things you can and cannot do. Drinking isn’t one of them and its worse since he is an alcoholic. It’s sort of like an oxymoron. It is not ethical in the sense of the religious morality, because if he weren’t a priest, it wouldn’t seem as horrible. Since he is an esteemed member of the church, and for someone like a priest to have a drinking problem, it makes me totally lack faith in the church. If this is the person I am going to confess my sins to, then I would want that person to be the holiest person ever. It makes no sense that I’m confessing my sins, if the person I’m confessing to is morally impure. It doesn’t set a good example for me. Anyway maybe it was just me, but I didn’t really understand his significance to the story. It was kind of boring at times and not that entertaining, however it did serve its purpose in teaching us about “everyday ethics”. It really was unique to Filipino culture in that it portrayed the heavily religious aspect of Filipino life. Filipinos are very religious people and that has its own set of ethics one must live by, such as is it okay to make money by offering to pray for others.
Second, it was unethical for Malen to take the place of her mother as a prayer woman. She did not fully understand why her mother did it and in my opinion she was just exploiting the people. I understand that she needed to make money but there are better, and “honest” ways of making money. In a way she can’t be blamed because that’s all she knew how to do, however, it wasn’t ethical because she was lying to people to make them believe she would pray for them. Why would she pray for them if the only person she cares about is herself? If she really did care about the people and really did pray for them (which happened in the end) then I guess it’s all right.
Another ethical aspect was Mike trying to con tourists, although finally the con was on him when he got “played”. He used his good looks to get what he wants by taking advantage of others, but I think he deserves what he gets for stealing from other people. It is also a matter of karma because he keeps doing these bad things, then his son dies and he ends up killing someone. In the reading it talked about how we treat others and moral behavior. He had no morals by deceiving and stealing from people, that is why bad fortune struck him. I am a firm believer of karma because what goes around does come back around.
In the end though I believe Malen, through some changes in attitude and heart, had achieved positive moral values. She took it upon herself to give others something they could not get for themselves (faith). She had a choice to continue helping people or leave with Mike, yet she chose to help others. She underwent a spiritual change, but there are other factors that change people and the way they think. Luckily for her, her change was positive, and she was able to find her way after being lost.
I thought it was a weird film especially with the way it started. I understood the story overall however I didn’t really catch on to the “alcoholic priest”. I believe his issue was another ethical one. If you are a priest there are certain things you can and cannot do. Drinking isn’t one of them and its worse since he is an alcoholic. It’s sort of like an oxymoron. It is not ethical in the sense of the religious morality, because if he weren’t a priest, it wouldn’t seem as horrible. Since he is an esteemed member of the church, and for someone like a priest to have a drinking problem, it makes me totally lack faith in the church. If this is the person I am going to confess my sins to, then I would want that person to be the holiest person ever. It makes no sense that I’m confessing my sins, if the person I’m confessing to is morally impure. It doesn’t set a good example for me. Anyway maybe it was just me, but I didn’t really understand his significance to the story. It was kind of boring at times and not that entertaining, however it did serve its purpose in teaching us about “everyday ethics”. It really was unique to Filipino culture in that it portrayed the heavily religious aspect of Filipino life. Filipinos are very religious people and that has its own set of ethics one must live by, such as is it okay to make money by offering to pray for others.
Module 3- Janelle Funtanilla
The theme of this module is rights. After watching the movie, I really don’t see how the movie really related to rights. The movie is centered on a group of Filipinos who moved to America. The only rights I can think of are their individual rights. Let me analyze each character and what right s/he is working toward. Let’s start with the main character Tere. She can’t seem to find someone she can be with who will love her for who she is and what she offers. Her “right” is the right to love. Then there is Mike, who is in an unfulfilling marriage and can’t seem to make it better. Although I don’t like the fact that he left his family to go back to the Philippines, he was working towards the pursuit of happiness. Marissa was the one with a successful job, yet she was unhappy because her boyfriend kept cheating on her. Her right is the right not to be used, lied to and neglected. Then Gerry of course his right was to be able to have a relationship with someone of the same sex, although I think all he wanted was his mother’s acceptance. Then Raul I guess his biggest thing was freedom (to sleep with as many women he wanted) though in turn he finally realized the severity of his actions. These characters all had something they wanted and although it may not be a right in the constitution, it is a right of humanity, and that all humans deserve “goodness”.
Now I am going to explain my feeling of this movie. Let point out that this movie surrounds Tagalog-speaking Filipinos. I would like to see movies that focus on Ilokano-speaking Filipinos living in the United States as well. Most movies I see about Filipinos revolve around them living in the continental U.S. and speak Tagalog such as The Debut. I would someday like to see a movie about Ilokanos in Hawaii because I feel we have been overlooked and going back to rights—I think it is our right as Ilokanos to be represented as well.
I have a problem with the title American Adobo. I understand that the theme is wherever adobo is cooked, in the U.S. or Philippines, it is still adobo. This is the metaphor about the group and that even though they were from the Philippines and moved to New York, they were able to keep their “Filipinoness”. What didn’t fit was the pure culture in the film. Sure we see the cooking but other than that it portrayed stereotypical Filipinos. They spoke with loud accents, ate a lot, and portrayed Filipino demeanor as well. However there was nothing extraordinary about the group dynamic, and the only thing that made this movie unique is Mike’s problem and him going back to the Philippines. Other than that, I have seen these problems presented in American television-- the cheating boyfriend, the womanizer, the woman trying to find love, and the closeted homosexual. Like I said, the only unique Filipino thing about this movie was Mike’s decision to leave his family and go back to the Philippines. They didn’t emphasize the Filipino of the people. If I were to use white characters, changed the title to something like American Spaghetti, then I would have the same damn movie with a few minor changes. The formula isn’t unique to Filipino culture. If this movie was supposed to give us real insight on Filipinos in America, then I think it failed. If they wanted to make it about food, then they failed at that too. If you are going to use a dish in the title, at least make it relevant to the story. All in all, I just didn’t get what the point of the whole movie was. To me it was a group of people trying to figure out their problems, who just happened to be Filipino. It really doesn’t focus on unique problems Filipino Americans have to deal with. However there is this one part where I sort of agree with what the girl said. I think it was the woman who worked for Mike’s family, and he saw her again in the Philippines, who said something like white people treat you better than Filipino people. I sort of see her point in where people of other ethnicities treat you better than one of your own. I don’t know if it’s the whole socioeconomic class division, the fact whole separation during colonization or what, but I agree. Especially in Filipino culture, we tend to classify ourselves by the dialect we speak like Tagalog, Ilokano, and Visayan etc… I admit I do that sometimes but if you look at the bigger picture, we are all FILIPINO. Why is it that other people treat us better than people of our own ethnic makeup?
Now I am going to explain my feeling of this movie. Let point out that this movie surrounds Tagalog-speaking Filipinos. I would like to see movies that focus on Ilokano-speaking Filipinos living in the United States as well. Most movies I see about Filipinos revolve around them living in the continental U.S. and speak Tagalog such as The Debut. I would someday like to see a movie about Ilokanos in Hawaii because I feel we have been overlooked and going back to rights—I think it is our right as Ilokanos to be represented as well.
I have a problem with the title American Adobo. I understand that the theme is wherever adobo is cooked, in the U.S. or Philippines, it is still adobo. This is the metaphor about the group and that even though they were from the Philippines and moved to New York, they were able to keep their “Filipinoness”. What didn’t fit was the pure culture in the film. Sure we see the cooking but other than that it portrayed stereotypical Filipinos. They spoke with loud accents, ate a lot, and portrayed Filipino demeanor as well. However there was nothing extraordinary about the group dynamic, and the only thing that made this movie unique is Mike’s problem and him going back to the Philippines. Other than that, I have seen these problems presented in American television-- the cheating boyfriend, the womanizer, the woman trying to find love, and the closeted homosexual. Like I said, the only unique Filipino thing about this movie was Mike’s decision to leave his family and go back to the Philippines. They didn’t emphasize the Filipino of the people. If I were to use white characters, changed the title to something like American Spaghetti, then I would have the same damn movie with a few minor changes. The formula isn’t unique to Filipino culture. If this movie was supposed to give us real insight on Filipinos in America, then I think it failed. If they wanted to make it about food, then they failed at that too. If you are going to use a dish in the title, at least make it relevant to the story. All in all, I just didn’t get what the point of the whole movie was. To me it was a group of people trying to figure out their problems, who just happened to be Filipino. It really doesn’t focus on unique problems Filipino Americans have to deal with. However there is this one part where I sort of agree with what the girl said. I think it was the woman who worked for Mike’s family, and he saw her again in the Philippines, who said something like white people treat you better than Filipino people. I sort of see her point in where people of other ethnicities treat you better than one of your own. I don’t know if it’s the whole socioeconomic class division, the fact whole separation during colonization or what, but I agree. Especially in Filipino culture, we tend to classify ourselves by the dialect we speak like Tagalog, Ilokano, and Visayan etc… I admit I do that sometimes but if you look at the bigger picture, we are all FILIPINO. Why is it that other people treat us better than people of our own ethnic makeup?
Module 2- Janelle Funtanilla
One reason I took this class was to learn about the different aspects of my culture. I know all about the American/Hawaii perspective, yet I know so little about the history of the Philippines from the Filipino perspective. I found this film interesting because I did not know much about Imelda or any of the Marcos’s at all. Before this film, I only knew her as “the lady with plenty shoes”. This shows how much I know about Philippine history. The film served its purpose by educating me about an influential figure in the history of the Philippines, but also an era of the “ugliness” in the Philippine government.
The theme of this module was the ‘common good’. In Imelda’s eyes, everything she did was for the common good. To me her ignorant attitude, frivolity, and extravagance are bullshit. In her mind the frivolity and extravagance of her lifestyle was ethical. She believed that the people lived through her, and so by living well, the people were happy. In reality, she was only into aesthetics and not what really mattered. She spent so much money making beautiful centers that were dedicated to the arts, yet so much of the population lived in poverty. I understand the reason she made those centers and that is up to be “up-and-up” with other advanced countries. However, I feel that money could have been better spent so that maybe the country people wouldn’t be living in poverty. What makes me angry is that she said, “I seem to be able to only see the positive things in life and the beautiful things in life and when I see, for instance, garbage or ugliness, then I turn my back or I seem to be able to skip it.” As a leader, one must address problems, not ignore it. This is what killed her positive image as leader and turned many people against her. She said in the movie that “the ultimate reach in this world is beauty.” However she was talking only about herself and not for the “common good”. She loved beauty so much that she was willing to sacrifice the dignity and finance of her people, so that she could live in luxury. It angers me that people had to suffer because she loved material things too much. . It is unfortunate that she had to be so selfish, because she had the potential and qualities to be a superb leader (especially for women), yet she was incapable of leading anyone.
She indeed was a strong woman with many admirable traits. She was very outspoken, and she made her presence known in the Philippine government. She was not a shy or quiet first lady, but she was very politically active yielding quite a few positions in office. She always knew what she wanted, went for it, and always got it. She not only survived an assassination attempt, she was able to joke about it afterwards. These qualities are very admirable in a woman especially of power. It saddens me think of how much good and “real” improvements she could have made, if she wasn’t so wasteful and frivolous on her personal life. She is a very influential leader, and had it not been for all the drama surrounding her life, she very well could have molded the Philippines into something totally different than what it is today. Coming from a female perspective, she had the potential to be someone great. She had the power, yet she abused it. We need strong women in this world, but not like her. The Philippines is actually ahead of their time. They have had two women president, yet the United States had none. I feel regret as a woman because she did not deliver, and if she had, in my opinion of her would be so different than what it is today.
For some she did well bringing art and cultural centers to the Philippines. She broke the ingrained stereotype that Filipinos are poor and therefore have no class. This lady definitely had class. If there was good in what she did, it was making people think twice about how they view the Philippines and its people. Her diplomacy and her influence went a long way with putting the Philippines on the map. She is still loved by some people in the Philippines, and that in itself shows me how powerful and influential she still is there. However it was all aesthetics, she made it seem like the Philippines were not poor, but in reality, they are a third world country. It is like all she did was put “make-up” over the country, even though the country is still hideous.
Another aspect I found interesting in this film is the criticism reflected upon Ferdinand because of his wife. She was frivolous. That is the reason why so many people were unhappy. How can you go on with over a thousand pairs of shoes when many of your country men and women literally have nothing? It makes me wonder how much of an influence did Imelda have over Ferdinand. She lived like a queen no doubt. It is even said that she had more power than he did. I wonder if the entire stigma attached to the Marcos regime had something to do with the First Lady’s frivolity. If she hadn’t spend so much money on material things, then all they could criticize the Marcos’s for the declaration for martial law. There wouldn’t be all those trials for things like money fraud and other wrongdoings if she had kept her image clean. To me it’s sad that this woman was driven by such trivial things, when she had the potential to really make the Philippines a world-class country.
The theme of this module was the ‘common good’. In Imelda’s eyes, everything she did was for the common good. To me her ignorant attitude, frivolity, and extravagance are bullshit. In her mind the frivolity and extravagance of her lifestyle was ethical. She believed that the people lived through her, and so by living well, the people were happy. In reality, she was only into aesthetics and not what really mattered. She spent so much money making beautiful centers that were dedicated to the arts, yet so much of the population lived in poverty. I understand the reason she made those centers and that is up to be “up-and-up” with other advanced countries. However, I feel that money could have been better spent so that maybe the country people wouldn’t be living in poverty. What makes me angry is that she said, “I seem to be able to only see the positive things in life and the beautiful things in life and when I see, for instance, garbage or ugliness, then I turn my back or I seem to be able to skip it.” As a leader, one must address problems, not ignore it. This is what killed her positive image as leader and turned many people against her. She said in the movie that “the ultimate reach in this world is beauty.” However she was talking only about herself and not for the “common good”. She loved beauty so much that she was willing to sacrifice the dignity and finance of her people, so that she could live in luxury. It angers me that people had to suffer because she loved material things too much. . It is unfortunate that she had to be so selfish, because she had the potential and qualities to be a superb leader (especially for women), yet she was incapable of leading anyone.
She indeed was a strong woman with many admirable traits. She was very outspoken, and she made her presence known in the Philippine government. She was not a shy or quiet first lady, but she was very politically active yielding quite a few positions in office. She always knew what she wanted, went for it, and always got it. She not only survived an assassination attempt, she was able to joke about it afterwards. These qualities are very admirable in a woman especially of power. It saddens me think of how much good and “real” improvements she could have made, if she wasn’t so wasteful and frivolous on her personal life. She is a very influential leader, and had it not been for all the drama surrounding her life, she very well could have molded the Philippines into something totally different than what it is today. Coming from a female perspective, she had the potential to be someone great. She had the power, yet she abused it. We need strong women in this world, but not like her. The Philippines is actually ahead of their time. They have had two women president, yet the United States had none. I feel regret as a woman because she did not deliver, and if she had, in my opinion of her would be so different than what it is today.
For some she did well bringing art and cultural centers to the Philippines. She broke the ingrained stereotype that Filipinos are poor and therefore have no class. This lady definitely had class. If there was good in what she did, it was making people think twice about how they view the Philippines and its people. Her diplomacy and her influence went a long way with putting the Philippines on the map. She is still loved by some people in the Philippines, and that in itself shows me how powerful and influential she still is there. However it was all aesthetics, she made it seem like the Philippines were not poor, but in reality, they are a third world country. It is like all she did was put “make-up” over the country, even though the country is still hideous.
Another aspect I found interesting in this film is the criticism reflected upon Ferdinand because of his wife. She was frivolous. That is the reason why so many people were unhappy. How can you go on with over a thousand pairs of shoes when many of your country men and women literally have nothing? It makes me wonder how much of an influence did Imelda have over Ferdinand. She lived like a queen no doubt. It is even said that she had more power than he did. I wonder if the entire stigma attached to the Marcos regime had something to do with the First Lady’s frivolity. If she hadn’t spend so much money on material things, then all they could criticize the Marcos’s for the declaration for martial law. There wouldn’t be all those trials for things like money fraud and other wrongdoings if she had kept her image clean. To me it’s sad that this woman was driven by such trivial things, when she had the potential to really make the Philippines a world-class country.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
C. Abe "Santa Santita"
The theme of the film “Santa Santita” is redemption. Each of the major characters played a part in redeeming themselves or others.
The film is based on the story of Chayong and her daughter Malen. Chayong, a devout Catholic, works as a prayer woman for her church. In other words, she prays for people, expecting money in return. Every day, people seek the prayers of Chayong and the other prayer women, asking for God’s guidance and blessing upon their family, health, future, and other personal areas of their lives. However, as spiritual as Chayong is, Malen is quite the opposite. Rebellious and disrespectful, Malen constantly talks back to her mother, causing her much grief. Furthermore, she insists on dressing inappropriately, seductively while working at the church selling rosaries and scapulars. In the end, it is Malen who becomes the prayer woman after her mother passes away. The people who Malen prays for start experiencing miracles, and credit Malen as the one who made it possible.
The film explores the Catholic faith in the Philippines, and what it means to commit to that faith. Like the majority of the Philippine population, each character in “Santa Santita” at least believes in God, if they do not also attend weekly church services as well. This shows how much religion is a part of the Philippine culture. After Spanish colonization, the Roman Catholic faith has been ingrained in the hearts and minds of the Filipinos.
Overall I enjoyed the movie, but there were a few parts I disagreed with. First of all, I believe that everyone can go directly to God in prayer, that we do not need a “prayer person” to ask God in our behalf. Furthermore, it upsets me that these people had to pay to be prayed for, that there is a whole business made out of God’s holy work. On the contrary, that is not to say that we cannot ask others to join with us in prayer, but that we should not rely on others as if we do not have that same power.
To Malen’s credit, I appreciated the complete turn-around she made in her life. After her mom passed away, she radically changed her priorities and the way she lived. It took humility on her part to accept the job as a prayer woman, when all her life she had resentment toward the church. Though the other prayer women disapproved, Malen continued and eventually enjoyed her work.
Mike also redeemed himself in the end, as he found his faith in God while in jail. This movie presented negative circumstances and the choice each character had to turn it around for better or to feel sorry for themselves and allow the bad to stay bad. I enjoyed seeing the main characters Malen and Mike being “redeemed” in the end.
The film is based on the story of Chayong and her daughter Malen. Chayong, a devout Catholic, works as a prayer woman for her church. In other words, she prays for people, expecting money in return. Every day, people seek the prayers of Chayong and the other prayer women, asking for God’s guidance and blessing upon their family, health, future, and other personal areas of their lives. However, as spiritual as Chayong is, Malen is quite the opposite. Rebellious and disrespectful, Malen constantly talks back to her mother, causing her much grief. Furthermore, she insists on dressing inappropriately, seductively while working at the church selling rosaries and scapulars. In the end, it is Malen who becomes the prayer woman after her mother passes away. The people who Malen prays for start experiencing miracles, and credit Malen as the one who made it possible.
The film explores the Catholic faith in the Philippines, and what it means to commit to that faith. Like the majority of the Philippine population, each character in “Santa Santita” at least believes in God, if they do not also attend weekly church services as well. This shows how much religion is a part of the Philippine culture. After Spanish colonization, the Roman Catholic faith has been ingrained in the hearts and minds of the Filipinos.
Overall I enjoyed the movie, but there were a few parts I disagreed with. First of all, I believe that everyone can go directly to God in prayer, that we do not need a “prayer person” to ask God in our behalf. Furthermore, it upsets me that these people had to pay to be prayed for, that there is a whole business made out of God’s holy work. On the contrary, that is not to say that we cannot ask others to join with us in prayer, but that we should not rely on others as if we do not have that same power.
To Malen’s credit, I appreciated the complete turn-around she made in her life. After her mom passed away, she radically changed her priorities and the way she lived. It took humility on her part to accept the job as a prayer woman, when all her life she had resentment toward the church. Though the other prayer women disapproved, Malen continued and eventually enjoyed her work.
Mike also redeemed himself in the end, as he found his faith in God while in jail. This movie presented negative circumstances and the choice each character had to turn it around for better or to feel sorry for themselves and allow the bad to stay bad. I enjoyed seeing the main characters Malen and Mike being “redeemed” in the end.
Module 7 - P. Standefer - “The Flor Contemplacion Story"
The film “The Flor Contemplacion Story” focuses on the failed struggle of a family and the Filipinos to prevent the Singapore government from executing Flor Contemplacion, a domestic helper. There a few main themes in this film such as redemption of a husband, redemption of a daughter and mistress, and injustice that happens at the individual level.
The husband in this film is an interesting character because of his simplicity. He knows his obligation to his wife and his family and that it is wrong for him to have a mistress while his wife is in Singapore, and yet he cannot seem to resist being with his mistress. He even brings her into his home which indicates the extent to which he is lonely and his marriage to Flor has become loveless.
In the later half of the movie, he tries to make amends in two ways. He hires a lawyer to go to Singapore and have the execution stayed. That attempt fails because the Singapore government does not let the lawyer do anything. His second attempt was allowing his children to go without him to visit Flor. He had two motives for doing this. The first was that he did not want the visit to be soured by his presence. Being there might have upset Flor and ruined the last few chances for Flor and the children to meet because Flor would have had time to dwell on the fact that she was about to be executed while her husband had a mistress. Secondly, I think he realized his wrong and was supremely embarrassed. Knowing how much Flor sacrificed for him and his family, he could not bear to stand in front of her.
The second interesting character in this film was the mistress. Although the movie does not mention very much about her or how she came to know the family so well, she is apparently well liked by the children except for Flor’s daughter. It appears that she knows the husband has a wife, but because her family does not want her anymore she has to stay with him. She tries to make amends with Flor in two ways as well. She speaks out at the anti-Singapore protests so that the movement to save Flor will gain momentum, but in the end she knows she will have to stop because she is Flor’s husband’s mistress and not Flor’s sister like she claims at the rallies. The second way is that she takes the initiative to leave the husband and return to her family. This is an important step because the husband is too weak to push her out or leave her and because she is actively admitting that she was wrong to her parents by coming home. With this act, she apologizes to Flor, who is dead at this point, for causing her so much grief, to the husband for allowing him to get into trouble, and to her parents for becoming someone’s mistress instead of a wife like a mainstream, good Filipino daughter should be.
The last point is one that I feel the movie is really geared towards, namely that when a government commits an injustice by covering for themselves, they hurt the people on the lowest levels of society. It is sometimes easy to justify unfairly helping one group as something positive, but this movie brings up the point that by doing so, there is always someone else who will suffer. This is a clear criticism of foreign countries and peoples who think that they can trample on the Filipinos’ rights (or anyone’s for that matter), but also I think it could be a criticism of the Philippine government because the same concept of official abuse resulting in the citizenry suffering applies.
The husband in this film is an interesting character because of his simplicity. He knows his obligation to his wife and his family and that it is wrong for him to have a mistress while his wife is in Singapore, and yet he cannot seem to resist being with his mistress. He even brings her into his home which indicates the extent to which he is lonely and his marriage to Flor has become loveless.
In the later half of the movie, he tries to make amends in two ways. He hires a lawyer to go to Singapore and have the execution stayed. That attempt fails because the Singapore government does not let the lawyer do anything. His second attempt was allowing his children to go without him to visit Flor. He had two motives for doing this. The first was that he did not want the visit to be soured by his presence. Being there might have upset Flor and ruined the last few chances for Flor and the children to meet because Flor would have had time to dwell on the fact that she was about to be executed while her husband had a mistress. Secondly, I think he realized his wrong and was supremely embarrassed. Knowing how much Flor sacrificed for him and his family, he could not bear to stand in front of her.
The second interesting character in this film was the mistress. Although the movie does not mention very much about her or how she came to know the family so well, she is apparently well liked by the children except for Flor’s daughter. It appears that she knows the husband has a wife, but because her family does not want her anymore she has to stay with him. She tries to make amends with Flor in two ways as well. She speaks out at the anti-Singapore protests so that the movement to save Flor will gain momentum, but in the end she knows she will have to stop because she is Flor’s husband’s mistress and not Flor’s sister like she claims at the rallies. The second way is that she takes the initiative to leave the husband and return to her family. This is an important step because the husband is too weak to push her out or leave her and because she is actively admitting that she was wrong to her parents by coming home. With this act, she apologizes to Flor, who is dead at this point, for causing her so much grief, to the husband for allowing him to get into trouble, and to her parents for becoming someone’s mistress instead of a wife like a mainstream, good Filipino daughter should be.
The last point is one that I feel the movie is really geared towards, namely that when a government commits an injustice by covering for themselves, they hurt the people on the lowest levels of society. It is sometimes easy to justify unfairly helping one group as something positive, but this movie brings up the point that by doing so, there is always someone else who will suffer. This is a clear criticism of foreign countries and peoples who think that they can trample on the Filipinos’ rights (or anyone’s for that matter), but also I think it could be a criticism of the Philippine government because the same concept of official abuse resulting in the citizenry suffering applies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)