“Dekada 70” is situated in Marcos era Philippines and centers around a family of seven. There are several important points in this movie including the mother being both central to the family and at the same time a peripheral figure, the mother’s role being similar to that of the revolutionary son, and ordinary people focusing on comparatively minor social problems. The first point is interesting because it highlights the hypocrisy in Filipino culture as portrayed in “Dekada 70”. The mother is the caregiver and link in her family between the father and sons. At the same time, she is dependent on her husband for her livelihood and her family for confidence and self-worth. She is chastised for asking about finding a job even though it would be self-satisfying for her because it implies that the husband, who is obviously successful, failed to provide for the family.
The movie suggests a comparison of the mother, both literally and as an archetypal character, with the revolutionary son. The mother laments that the role of a woman is to suffer for her family, but her daughter-in-law counters her by saying that a woman chooses that hard path. Similarly if we think of the Philippines as a family, the revolutionary son chooses the difficult path of resistance to free the country and prevent the disease of corruption, oppression, neocolonialism, etc. from spreading and overwhelming it. Moving back to the mother, she is similar to the revolutionary son in that she is essentially a one-person insurgency against the patriarchal Filipino family setup. Both choose the difficult path of self-sacrifice for the betterment of a larger group.
In a broader sense, “Dekada 70” addresses an amusing issue which is ordinary people’s focus on minute, localized issues when widespread suffering is omnipresent. In some respects, it shows that people can live in prolonged suffering because it can become too commonplace so that when a much less important, but more uncommon problem arises, such as that of Gani and his girlfriend sleeping together once, people turn their attention to the uncommon problem. On the other hand, when an entire people’s control over their lives is wrested from them, focusing on a small issue can be gratifying because it affirms their hopes that they control their lives. The girlfriend’s parents force Gani to marry her which could reaffirm their belief that even if the whole country is in decline, at least in inter- and intra-familial relations, the parents are still respected and have the authority to carry out judgment.
“Dekada 70” is full of situations where the characters’ ethical views are challenged. The father especially is forced to come to terms with how his life and actions are interconnected with his family’s welfare. Two main examples for this are his relationship with his wife and with his son, Jason, who is murdered by the Marcos security apparatus. Late in the film, the father is presented with what must be a strange dilemma for him. He has to decide whether keeping his status as the head of the household and the authority that goes with it is important enough to deny his wife the opportunity to participate in something that will only add hardship to her life (i.e. a career/job). At the very end, he relinquishes his position so that he can save their marriage which results in her participating in what could be a physically dangerous protest. His relationship with his son is complicated as well because of the son’s opposition to the father’s view of society. After Jason is murdered, the father must decide if his priorities lie with his country (or the government he at one point supported), avenging his son which would be justified but could also lead to more death in his family, or in providing safety to the remaining family. This puts him in a difficult position in relation to the viewer. It is extremely easy to dismiss him as being too weak to stand up to the corrupt regime when in actuality he may be trying to use his high social standing and silence as a form of forsaking the country in order to protect his immediate family. Doing that in the face of a relative’s murder requires a substantial amount of discipline and is also commendable, even if only at the personal level rather than as a national hero.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Module 4-"Santa Santita"-D. Valencia
I’m going to be honest when I say that Santa Santita wasn’t exactly one of my top ten favorite movies. In fact, I disliked it so much that I tried to tune it out a few times. If it weren’t for me being required to watch the movie, I would have left class right after that horrible and somewhat creepy beginning when everyone was cringing in their seats because of that little chant that was playing as Malen walked through the desert. Santa Santita, for me personally, was just a little too much to handle. I’ll even go as far as to say that I was scared at the end of the movie because everything about it just seemed so incredibly real.
As “eventful” and packed as this particular movie was—packed with death by illness, a tragic car accident, deceit, and broken hearts—I firmly believe that whatever the message was that the director was trying to get through to her audience was not clear. It seemed as if she was just telling a story about sinners and saints without allowing a greater, deeper message to come through. The only message that I believe I got from the movie was that sinners could become saints—as proven by Malen.
Santa Santita was a film about two young lovers—both of whom seemed pure and innocent on the outside, but were fighting to suppress their sins and keep them on the inside—meeting in a poor district of Manila. The rebellious Malen was notorious for disappointing her devout Catholic mother, who, as an intercessor, offered auxiliary prayers for paying sufferers. Behind her mother’s back, Malen sold religious badges in town as a means to meet young men. Malen’s boyfriend, Mike,
on the other hand, was a suave Filipino man who offered wealthy tourists rides for hire as well as other services that they may have yearned to request from him.
As the movie goes on, Malen’s mother dies as a result of a heart attack, and shortly thereafter, Malen decides to adopt her vocation. It should be noted that Malen adopted her mother’s job out of necessity(she needed to be able to pay for electricity and water), not belief,as she wasn’t exactly a “believer” in the miracles that God could create. When she first walked into the church, the more experienced intercessors that had once worked with Malen’s mother sniped at Malen,
as they were aware of her reputation and they knew about how disrespectful and disobedient she was to her late mother. One of the intercessors even went as far as to say, “this is blasphemy, she is defiling prayer,” but regardless, Malen went on about her business and said prayers for her paying customers.
Soon, some of those who had previously gone to Malen and requested a prayer found that their needs had been met and their problems had been solved. A father who had gone to Malen and asked for her to pray for his sick child had come back one day and told her that the hole in his daughter’s heart had suddenly healed, and that it was her who was responsible for getting God to answer his prayers. At this point, no
one was more stunned than Malen, well, except for the other intercessors who were extremely jealous.
More and more people eventually started going to see Malen and her relationship with Mike was being threatened, as she had begun buying into the whole idea of prayer being the answer to all of ones problems. At one point in the movie after Mike had fatally shot a man that he had had a collision with on the road, he tried to get Malen to move with him and his family to another part of the Philippines. Malen,
however, refused to go, as she knew that praying for others was her calling, and it was what God wanted her to be doing for the rest of her life.
Module 4:
The concept of “everyday ethics” applied to this movie, in my opinion, as Malen was forced to make ethical decisions on a daily basis. Whether her decisions were regarding whether or not to disobey her mother and go running around down doing what she wanted to do, or to allow herself to get paid to pray for people in church—something that she had, at first, absolutely no interest in—Malen was faced with many tough decisions. Of course, one should note that Malen did choose the unethical or wrong decision most of the time—choosing to disobey her sick mother, dress like a prostitute, and go around town parading herself without a care—but eventually she came around and began to understand God’s power and the great impact he had on people’s lives, and she began to change her ways.
Mike was another character in the movie that was challenged with multiple ethical decisions and it wasn’t until he went to jail that he came around and started to believe in God. Throughout the movie, Mike was portrayed as this bad boy who would do anything to get by. He hustled people, stole their cell phones, and constantly lied about his whereabouts. (Talk about a sinner!!!) Mike even killed a guy as a
result of a fight regarding a horrible car collision. Only when he needed God the most, did Mike believe in him—such as when his son had died and he ran to Malen and asked her to pray that he be reincarnated. Of course, Malen couldn’t bring Mike’s son back to life, and for that reason, he accused her of being a fake.
As “eventful” and packed as this particular movie was—packed with death by illness, a tragic car accident, deceit, and broken hearts—I firmly believe that whatever the message was that the director was trying to get through to her audience was not clear. It seemed as if she was just telling a story about sinners and saints without allowing a greater, deeper message to come through. The only message that I believe I got from the movie was that sinners could become saints—as proven by Malen.
Santa Santita was a film about two young lovers—both of whom seemed pure and innocent on the outside, but were fighting to suppress their sins and keep them on the inside—meeting in a poor district of Manila. The rebellious Malen was notorious for disappointing her devout Catholic mother, who, as an intercessor, offered auxiliary prayers for paying sufferers. Behind her mother’s back, Malen sold religious badges in town as a means to meet young men. Malen’s boyfriend, Mike,
on the other hand, was a suave Filipino man who offered wealthy tourists rides for hire as well as other services that they may have yearned to request from him.
As the movie goes on, Malen’s mother dies as a result of a heart attack, and shortly thereafter, Malen decides to adopt her vocation. It should be noted that Malen adopted her mother’s job out of necessity(she needed to be able to pay for electricity and water), not belief,as she wasn’t exactly a “believer” in the miracles that God could create. When she first walked into the church, the more experienced intercessors that had once worked with Malen’s mother sniped at Malen,
as they were aware of her reputation and they knew about how disrespectful and disobedient she was to her late mother. One of the intercessors even went as far as to say, “this is blasphemy, she is defiling prayer,” but regardless, Malen went on about her business and said prayers for her paying customers.
Soon, some of those who had previously gone to Malen and requested a prayer found that their needs had been met and their problems had been solved. A father who had gone to Malen and asked for her to pray for his sick child had come back one day and told her that the hole in his daughter’s heart had suddenly healed, and that it was her who was responsible for getting God to answer his prayers. At this point, no
one was more stunned than Malen, well, except for the other intercessors who were extremely jealous.
More and more people eventually started going to see Malen and her relationship with Mike was being threatened, as she had begun buying into the whole idea of prayer being the answer to all of ones problems. At one point in the movie after Mike had fatally shot a man that he had had a collision with on the road, he tried to get Malen to move with him and his family to another part of the Philippines. Malen,
however, refused to go, as she knew that praying for others was her calling, and it was what God wanted her to be doing for the rest of her life.
Module 4:
The concept of “everyday ethics” applied to this movie, in my opinion, as Malen was forced to make ethical decisions on a daily basis. Whether her decisions were regarding whether or not to disobey her mother and go running around down doing what she wanted to do, or to allow herself to get paid to pray for people in church—something that she had, at first, absolutely no interest in—Malen was faced with many tough decisions. Of course, one should note that Malen did choose the unethical or wrong decision most of the time—choosing to disobey her sick mother, dress like a prostitute, and go around town parading herself without a care—but eventually she came around and began to understand God’s power and the great impact he had on people’s lives, and she began to change her ways.
Mike was another character in the movie that was challenged with multiple ethical decisions and it wasn’t until he went to jail that he came around and started to believe in God. Throughout the movie, Mike was portrayed as this bad boy who would do anything to get by. He hustled people, stole their cell phones, and constantly lied about his whereabouts. (Talk about a sinner!!!) Mike even killed a guy as a
result of a fight regarding a horrible car collision. Only when he needed God the most, did Mike believe in him—such as when his son had died and he ran to Malen and asked her to pray that he be reincarnated. Of course, Malen couldn’t bring Mike’s son back to life, and for that reason, he accused her of being a fake.
Module 3--"American Adobo"-D. Valencia
Set in New Yprk City, the romantic comedy film entitled "American Adobo," centers on a group of 30 and 40-something year old Filipino friends who reunite at holidays and family events during the course of a year. Through their meetings, they learn hidden truths about living and loving from one another. The main character in the film, Tere, is a single Catholic accountant who specializes in cooking adobo--the national dish of the Philippines, which is comprised of meat or vegetables marinated in vinegar, soy sauce, and garlic. Among Tere's group of friends are Mike, an editor who is unhappily married to a rich and extremely self-centered woman; Marisa, who is a successful career woman and an ego-driven socialite whose boyfriend is known for being notoriously unfaithful to her; Raul, who is, in one word, a womanizer; and Gerry, a gay man struggling to stay in the closet fot the sake of his old mother, regardless of the fact that his boyfriend was slowly dying from AIDS.
Over the course of a year, the five friends are faced with surprises, disappointments, betrayals and loss. They are forced to help each other through hard times when things are simply just falling apart. As the movie proceeds, the audience is given a first hand glance at how Tere's excruciating loneliness gets the best of her. That is of course, until she meets the man of her dreams in a life-saving moment. The audience is also given the chance to watch Gerry tell his mother about his sexual orientation as well as Raul's life changing moment when he is informed that a past "partner" may have infected him with the AIDS virus.
The film title in American Adobo doesn't only refer to the national disn that I personally can say is one of my many favorite Filipino dishes, but it also implies the tension of the characters as they struggle to straddle two totally different cultures--American and Filipino--while at the same time juggling the stresses of the modern, big city life. The food theme of the movie is reinforced by the group's many gatherings--which always centered on one meal or another, whether it be an American barbeque, such as that that was held at Mike's house, or a Filipino dinner, such as that that was always held at Tere's.
American Adobo, in my opinion was very entertaining, although I feel as though too many ideas were blended together in the creation of the film, thus making it a little on the "busy" side of things. I feel as though the story of Marisa and her cheating boyfriend has been used one too many times in movie scripts and it simply has just become an old and worn out idea. Gerry's story, however, was one that I found interesting. Homosexuality is not exactly a widely accepted practice or way of life in the Philippines. In fact, it's looked down upon by alomost everyone. It isn't accepted because Filipino's believe that intimate relationships should only be between a man and a woman. For this reason, when a person like Gerry comes along, he doesn't know whether he should or shouldn't come out of the closet because he anticipates that he will scare everyone away.
I sympathized with Gerry when he told his mother about his sexual orientation because she told him that she just could not accept the fact that her son was gay. This may be the reason why she kept trying to set him up on dates with different women all over New York City. Gerry's mother told him that she expected him to marry a woman and give her the grandchildren that she had always dreamed of. But because Gerry was in a relationship with a man, he couldn't give his mother what she wanted. Gerry's mother couldn't even bear to look him in the eye after he gave her the news about him and Chris. Now, I don't know about you, but I just can't understand why some Filipino parents have a "set dream" or a "planned out life-course" for their children. These parents are the ones who set their standards so high that they are let down when they find out that their child has decided that he or she wants something else. Gerry's mother is a great example of the kind of parent that I just described. She didn't expect much from Gerry, except that he marry a woman and give her grandchildren, but when that didn't happen, she just couldn't find it in herself to just accept him for who he was.
The situation between Mike and his wife was one for me to watch as well because I could totally relate it to personal experience. I've seen many of my aunts and uncles come from the Philippines to Hawaii only to get caught up in the "American way of life" and lose touch with their Filipino roots. Since they've become Americanized and adapted to the American way of life, they refuse to eat such foods as pinakbet, adobo, or inabraw because they think its gross. They even go as far as to say that only "poor people of the provinces" eat them. What's worse is that they're totally suppressing their Filipino culture and they're not teaching their children about their roots and where they came from.
Overall, I would say that American Adobo, although lacking some quality, was an enjoyable film to watch. The friendships between Tere, Mike, Marisa, Raul and Gerry were priceless and anyone would give to have a friendship like the one they had. Their group's friendship was like the backbone of their individual beings, as it was what kept them all from going insane, and that was what made the movie worthwhile watching.
Over the course of a year, the five friends are faced with surprises, disappointments, betrayals and loss. They are forced to help each other through hard times when things are simply just falling apart. As the movie proceeds, the audience is given a first hand glance at how Tere's excruciating loneliness gets the best of her. That is of course, until she meets the man of her dreams in a life-saving moment. The audience is also given the chance to watch Gerry tell his mother about his sexual orientation as well as Raul's life changing moment when he is informed that a past "partner" may have infected him with the AIDS virus.
The film title in American Adobo doesn't only refer to the national disn that I personally can say is one of my many favorite Filipino dishes, but it also implies the tension of the characters as they struggle to straddle two totally different cultures--American and Filipino--while at the same time juggling the stresses of the modern, big city life. The food theme of the movie is reinforced by the group's many gatherings--which always centered on one meal or another, whether it be an American barbeque, such as that that was held at Mike's house, or a Filipino dinner, such as that that was always held at Tere's.
American Adobo, in my opinion was very entertaining, although I feel as though too many ideas were blended together in the creation of the film, thus making it a little on the "busy" side of things. I feel as though the story of Marisa and her cheating boyfriend has been used one too many times in movie scripts and it simply has just become an old and worn out idea. Gerry's story, however, was one that I found interesting. Homosexuality is not exactly a widely accepted practice or way of life in the Philippines. In fact, it's looked down upon by alomost everyone. It isn't accepted because Filipino's believe that intimate relationships should only be between a man and a woman. For this reason, when a person like Gerry comes along, he doesn't know whether he should or shouldn't come out of the closet because he anticipates that he will scare everyone away.
I sympathized with Gerry when he told his mother about his sexual orientation because she told him that she just could not accept the fact that her son was gay. This may be the reason why she kept trying to set him up on dates with different women all over New York City. Gerry's mother told him that she expected him to marry a woman and give her the grandchildren that she had always dreamed of. But because Gerry was in a relationship with a man, he couldn't give his mother what she wanted. Gerry's mother couldn't even bear to look him in the eye after he gave her the news about him and Chris. Now, I don't know about you, but I just can't understand why some Filipino parents have a "set dream" or a "planned out life-course" for their children. These parents are the ones who set their standards so high that they are let down when they find out that their child has decided that he or she wants something else. Gerry's mother is a great example of the kind of parent that I just described. She didn't expect much from Gerry, except that he marry a woman and give her grandchildren, but when that didn't happen, she just couldn't find it in herself to just accept him for who he was.
The situation between Mike and his wife was one for me to watch as well because I could totally relate it to personal experience. I've seen many of my aunts and uncles come from the Philippines to Hawaii only to get caught up in the "American way of life" and lose touch with their Filipino roots. Since they've become Americanized and adapted to the American way of life, they refuse to eat such foods as pinakbet, adobo, or inabraw because they think its gross. They even go as far as to say that only "poor people of the provinces" eat them. What's worse is that they're totally suppressing their Filipino culture and they're not teaching their children about their roots and where they came from.
Overall, I would say that American Adobo, although lacking some quality, was an enjoyable film to watch. The friendships between Tere, Mike, Marisa, Raul and Gerry were priceless and anyone would give to have a friendship like the one they had. Their group's friendship was like the backbone of their individual beings, as it was what kept them all from going insane, and that was what made the movie worthwhile watching.
Module 2-"Imelda"-D. Valencia
A political power in her own right, Imelda Romualdez Marcos was one of the most influential leaders of the Philippines in the 1970s and early 1980s. In addition to being the First Lady and wife of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda also served as the governor of Metro Manila and was given the authority—by whom else, but none other than her husband--to control a considerable amount of government spending while she was in office. Following the backfire of her husband’s “snap-election” in 1986, Imelda fled to Hawaii with President Marcos and a hundred of their closest family members and friends.
I’m ashamed to say that prior to watching this particular documentary on Imelda Marcos, I was unaware of just how much of an influence she had in the Philippines. All that I ever really knew about her was that she had an immense collection of shoes, which, mind you, I completely underestimated, as I didn’t think that it was humanly possible for one woman to own over 1,000 pairs of shoes. Apparently, I was wrong, as Mrs. Marcos clearly had and still has a strong passion for shopping and things of beauty.
The documentary of Mrs. Marcos’ life, properly titled Imelda, was, in my opinion, as humorous as it was insightful. It captured Imelda’s innocent spirit and charming personality, as well as her somewhat gullible nature and strange way of perceiving life. As I watched the documentary, I was amazed at how she could be so extremely superficial, but charming and likeable at the same time. I kept thinking to myself, “I hate her. She’s so stupid. How could she say those things?” But in reality, I just couldn’t hate her. No matter how much I tried to make myself believe that she was just one of those naïve rich people who only cared about money and beauty, I couldn’t hate Imelda because she was just so darn charming. You know, if you really think about it, and I mean, if you really sit down and think about it, you’ll come to realize that Imelda Marcos is one of those people that everyone wants to hate, but can’t (hate) because she’s so nice and she just seems like she doesn’t know any better. One could even go as far as to compare Imelda to a really pretty little girl whom all the other little girls hate, but secretly want to be.
In my notes, I quoted Imelda saying, “the ultimate reach in this world is beauty” and “I turn my back on things that are ugly.” At some point in the documentary, she also said, “when I became First Lady and I would be meeting kings and queens, it would take me an hour to dress up. But when I went to the provinces, it would take me an hour and a half or two. It takes double the time because they need a standard…a role model. They need a star, especially in the dark of night…I had to be a star for the poor people, and at the same time I had to be a slave. I had to enslave myself so that everybody could become a star.” Now after hearing her say those things, I wouldn’t blame anyone if they thought that Imelda was a little crazy and out of this world. I mean, I, for one, certainly thought that she was making a fool out of herself by not only dressing up to go to see people in the provinces--who in their lifetimes, would never become the stars that she wanted them to be--but also by verbalizing her belief that she needed to be both a star and a slave to her people. At that time, someone should have told her that that statement was the most ludicrous thing that could ever come out of her mouth, but then again, she is Imelda Marcos, so I guess that no one really notices or cares about any of her ridiculous statements.
As far as people’s perceptions of Imelda go, I quoted, in my notes, a Jesuit Priest saying, “Imelda cannot face reality…She once talked to me for four hours and didn’t give me the chance to say a word…then, when she got a little tired, she played a movie of her talking and I had Imelda twice!” If you ask me, Imelda does kind of come off as if she’s a little full of herself, heck I’ll even go as far as to say that Imelda is a narcissist. Prior to this documentary, I didn’t know of anyone who could talk about themselves—nonstop--for four long hours. I mean I, for one, could never do it. I probably would run out of things to say within the first 45 or so minutes.
Regardless of my previous comments, I do believe that although it may seem as though Imelda Marcos is strictly superficial and nothing more, she did seem to have a very good heart. I also believe that all of the things that she did for her people came from a good place. I think that she really wanted to give her people the chance to live the kind of life that she had because she was sick of seeing impoverished provinces and “ugly people in ugly situations.” During her time as First Lady, Imelda established the Lung Center, the Heart Center, the Center of the Arts, and many other centers in the Philippines. At one point, she even went against the Catholic Church and distributed condoms and pamphlets on sex to hundreds and hundreds of people. Now, if that’s not coming from a good place then I don’t know what is.
All in all, I think that this documentary was very wholesome and entertaining. Imelda still remains a threat to democracy and social justice in the Philippines, and something tells me that we haven’t seen the last of her yet. Imelda Marcos is certainly a woman of status and she isn’t afraid to show people just how much she values herself and all of the “beautiful things in life.” God forbid she ever run into something ugly, it might just scar her for the rest of her life.
I’m ashamed to say that prior to watching this particular documentary on Imelda Marcos, I was unaware of just how much of an influence she had in the Philippines. All that I ever really knew about her was that she had an immense collection of shoes, which, mind you, I completely underestimated, as I didn’t think that it was humanly possible for one woman to own over 1,000 pairs of shoes. Apparently, I was wrong, as Mrs. Marcos clearly had and still has a strong passion for shopping and things of beauty.
The documentary of Mrs. Marcos’ life, properly titled Imelda, was, in my opinion, as humorous as it was insightful. It captured Imelda’s innocent spirit and charming personality, as well as her somewhat gullible nature and strange way of perceiving life. As I watched the documentary, I was amazed at how she could be so extremely superficial, but charming and likeable at the same time. I kept thinking to myself, “I hate her. She’s so stupid. How could she say those things?” But in reality, I just couldn’t hate her. No matter how much I tried to make myself believe that she was just one of those naïve rich people who only cared about money and beauty, I couldn’t hate Imelda because she was just so darn charming. You know, if you really think about it, and I mean, if you really sit down and think about it, you’ll come to realize that Imelda Marcos is one of those people that everyone wants to hate, but can’t (hate) because she’s so nice and she just seems like she doesn’t know any better. One could even go as far as to compare Imelda to a really pretty little girl whom all the other little girls hate, but secretly want to be.
In my notes, I quoted Imelda saying, “the ultimate reach in this world is beauty” and “I turn my back on things that are ugly.” At some point in the documentary, she also said, “when I became First Lady and I would be meeting kings and queens, it would take me an hour to dress up. But when I went to the provinces, it would take me an hour and a half or two. It takes double the time because they need a standard…a role model. They need a star, especially in the dark of night…I had to be a star for the poor people, and at the same time I had to be a slave. I had to enslave myself so that everybody could become a star.” Now after hearing her say those things, I wouldn’t blame anyone if they thought that Imelda was a little crazy and out of this world. I mean, I, for one, certainly thought that she was making a fool out of herself by not only dressing up to go to see people in the provinces--who in their lifetimes, would never become the stars that she wanted them to be--but also by verbalizing her belief that she needed to be both a star and a slave to her people. At that time, someone should have told her that that statement was the most ludicrous thing that could ever come out of her mouth, but then again, she is Imelda Marcos, so I guess that no one really notices or cares about any of her ridiculous statements.
As far as people’s perceptions of Imelda go, I quoted, in my notes, a Jesuit Priest saying, “Imelda cannot face reality…She once talked to me for four hours and didn’t give me the chance to say a word…then, when she got a little tired, she played a movie of her talking and I had Imelda twice!” If you ask me, Imelda does kind of come off as if she’s a little full of herself, heck I’ll even go as far as to say that Imelda is a narcissist. Prior to this documentary, I didn’t know of anyone who could talk about themselves—nonstop--for four long hours. I mean I, for one, could never do it. I probably would run out of things to say within the first 45 or so minutes.
Regardless of my previous comments, I do believe that although it may seem as though Imelda Marcos is strictly superficial and nothing more, she did seem to have a very good heart. I also believe that all of the things that she did for her people came from a good place. I think that she really wanted to give her people the chance to live the kind of life that she had because she was sick of seeing impoverished provinces and “ugly people in ugly situations.” During her time as First Lady, Imelda established the Lung Center, the Heart Center, the Center of the Arts, and many other centers in the Philippines. At one point, she even went against the Catholic Church and distributed condoms and pamphlets on sex to hundreds and hundreds of people. Now, if that’s not coming from a good place then I don’t know what is.
All in all, I think that this documentary was very wholesome and entertaining. Imelda still remains a threat to democracy and social justice in the Philippines, and something tells me that we haven’t seen the last of her yet. Imelda Marcos is certainly a woman of status and she isn’t afraid to show people just how much she values herself and all of the “beautiful things in life.” God forbid she ever run into something ugly, it might just scar her for the rest of her life.
Module 1-"Nailed" & "Bontoc Eulogy"-D. Valencia
"Culture" is a term used generally to refer to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Manifested in music, literature, painting, sculpture, theater and film, culture can be defined as all the behaviors, ways of life, arts, beliefs, and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. One's culture often includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, and laws of behavior
such as law and morality.
When cultures from numerous parts of the globe are studied, their differences in diet, dress, social norms, and ethics become readily apparent. Should there be no transcendent ethical standard, the culture then often becomes the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong. This ethical system known as cultural relativism--the view that all ethical truthis relative to a specific culture. In cultural relativism, whatever a cultural group approves is considered right within that particular culture. Conversely, whatever a cultural group condemns, is wrong. The key to cultural relativism is that right and wrong can only be judged relative to a specified society. Therefore, there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong by which to judge culture in general.
According to John Dewey, moral standards are like language in that they are the result of custom. Although language evolved over time and eventually became organized by a set of principles known as grammar, language has also changed in order to adapt to the changing circumstances of differing cultures. Likewise, ethics has come as a result of cultures attempting to organize a set of moral principles. These principles, like language, are given the opportunity to change over time in order to adapt to the changing circumstances of the culture. Although it may be difficult for people living in the United States to perceive, primitive cultures may value genocide, treachery, deception or even torture. Americans look down on these rituals or values, but no one can say that such acts are right or wrong, as their acceptance by different peoples comes merely as a result of cultural adaptation.
To this day, present in the Philippines is the annual Lenten tradition of the reenactment of Christ's crucifixion. The ritual includes the crucifixion of Roman Catholic devotees whose palms and feet are attached to wooden crosses with four-inch nails soaked in alcohol to prevent infection. Documented in the video entitled "Nailed" was a woman named Lucy, who has--for 13 years--been nailed to the cross in representation of the crucifixion of Jesus. According to Lucy, she had had a premonition when she was 18 years old and from then on, she knew that reenacting the crucifixion on an annual basis was her calling.
Ethical relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes and that instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. One could say that Lucy's decision to reenact the crucifixion of Christ in "Nailed" is ludicrous and unethical, but people in the Philippines see it as something "normal" because the ritual of crucifixion is embedded in their culture. Filipino's and other visitors gather every year to witness the event because they truly believe that it is God's will that Lucy be crucified and that they be there to see it happen.
While watching this particular documentary, I was shocked and repulsed at the fact that someone would actually nail themselves to the cross and reenact such a momentous event. I for one could never bare to stand under the heat of the burning sun and watch someone be crucified right in front of me, as I feel that reenacting the crucifixion is immoral and unethical. I couldn't understand why Lucy would agree to crucify herself in front of hundreds and hundreds of people. However, I guess that that's just one aspect of Lucy's culture that one really has to thoroughly study in order to be able to comprehend.
To many people, the United States is known as the land of the free, the land of free enterprise, and the land of opportunity. Millions and millions of people long to be able to step into the United States each year and create new lives for themselves for themselves and their families. They long to be able to establish themselves in a nation wherein job opportunities are in excess so that they can provide their families with bigger and better things than they previously had in their homelands. This is the reason why people are able to capitalize in on minorities and bring them to America in order to use them for low-class and low-pay labor.
In the "Bontoc Eulogy," the filmmaker, Marlon Fuentes, revealed the story of 1,100 Filipino tribal natives who were brought to the United States to be a "living exhibit" at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. The Fair was the site of the world's largest ever "ethnological display rack," in which hundreds of so-called primitive and savage men and women from all over the globe were exhibited in contrast to the achievements of Western civilization. In this film was Markod, a Bontoc Igorot warrior brought to St. Louis in 1904 and who was never given the chance to return to his homeland. At the time that the "white men" were recruiting savages for their exhibit, Markod's wife was pregnant, which is why he was so hesitant to leave her. However, the “white men” promised him that he would return home in time for the birth of their child, so, Markod packed his things and went to America. In the “Bontoc Eulogy,” Fuentes illustrates the history of Filipino’s in America by centering in on how they were treated and how they were treated and how their culture was exploited and made a mockery of by their white counterparts.
This particular film gave me a greater insight into the history of Filipinos in America. I had no idea that Filipino’s were ever brought to the states in order to be part of an exhibit where “white people” could see their ways of life and laugh at them for not being civilized. It disturbed me greatly to see how the men, women, and children were treated because they were portrayed as if they weren’t human. Instead one could say that the men, women, and children were treated like animals at the zoo.
such as law and morality.
When cultures from numerous parts of the globe are studied, their differences in diet, dress, social norms, and ethics become readily apparent. Should there be no transcendent ethical standard, the culture then often becomes the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong. This ethical system known as cultural relativism--the view that all ethical truthis relative to a specific culture. In cultural relativism, whatever a cultural group approves is considered right within that particular culture. Conversely, whatever a cultural group condemns, is wrong. The key to cultural relativism is that right and wrong can only be judged relative to a specified society. Therefore, there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong by which to judge culture in general.
According to John Dewey, moral standards are like language in that they are the result of custom. Although language evolved over time and eventually became organized by a set of principles known as grammar, language has also changed in order to adapt to the changing circumstances of differing cultures. Likewise, ethics has come as a result of cultures attempting to organize a set of moral principles. These principles, like language, are given the opportunity to change over time in order to adapt to the changing circumstances of the culture. Although it may be difficult for people living in the United States to perceive, primitive cultures may value genocide, treachery, deception or even torture. Americans look down on these rituals or values, but no one can say that such acts are right or wrong, as their acceptance by different peoples comes merely as a result of cultural adaptation.
To this day, present in the Philippines is the annual Lenten tradition of the reenactment of Christ's crucifixion. The ritual includes the crucifixion of Roman Catholic devotees whose palms and feet are attached to wooden crosses with four-inch nails soaked in alcohol to prevent infection. Documented in the video entitled "Nailed" was a woman named Lucy, who has--for 13 years--been nailed to the cross in representation of the crucifixion of Jesus. According to Lucy, she had had a premonition when she was 18 years old and from then on, she knew that reenacting the crucifixion on an annual basis was her calling.
Ethical relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes and that instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. One could say that Lucy's decision to reenact the crucifixion of Christ in "Nailed" is ludicrous and unethical, but people in the Philippines see it as something "normal" because the ritual of crucifixion is embedded in their culture. Filipino's and other visitors gather every year to witness the event because they truly believe that it is God's will that Lucy be crucified and that they be there to see it happen.
While watching this particular documentary, I was shocked and repulsed at the fact that someone would actually nail themselves to the cross and reenact such a momentous event. I for one could never bare to stand under the heat of the burning sun and watch someone be crucified right in front of me, as I feel that reenacting the crucifixion is immoral and unethical. I couldn't understand why Lucy would agree to crucify herself in front of hundreds and hundreds of people. However, I guess that that's just one aspect of Lucy's culture that one really has to thoroughly study in order to be able to comprehend.
To many people, the United States is known as the land of the free, the land of free enterprise, and the land of opportunity. Millions and millions of people long to be able to step into the United States each year and create new lives for themselves for themselves and their families. They long to be able to establish themselves in a nation wherein job opportunities are in excess so that they can provide their families with bigger and better things than they previously had in their homelands. This is the reason why people are able to capitalize in on minorities and bring them to America in order to use them for low-class and low-pay labor.
In the "Bontoc Eulogy," the filmmaker, Marlon Fuentes, revealed the story of 1,100 Filipino tribal natives who were brought to the United States to be a "living exhibit" at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. The Fair was the site of the world's largest ever "ethnological display rack," in which hundreds of so-called primitive and savage men and women from all over the globe were exhibited in contrast to the achievements of Western civilization. In this film was Markod, a Bontoc Igorot warrior brought to St. Louis in 1904 and who was never given the chance to return to his homeland. At the time that the "white men" were recruiting savages for their exhibit, Markod's wife was pregnant, which is why he was so hesitant to leave her. However, the “white men” promised him that he would return home in time for the birth of their child, so, Markod packed his things and went to America. In the “Bontoc Eulogy,” Fuentes illustrates the history of Filipino’s in America by centering in on how they were treated and how they were treated and how their culture was exploited and made a mockery of by their white counterparts.
This particular film gave me a greater insight into the history of Filipinos in America. I had no idea that Filipino’s were ever brought to the states in order to be part of an exhibit where “white people” could see their ways of life and laugh at them for not being civilized. It disturbed me greatly to see how the men, women, and children were treated because they were portrayed as if they weren’t human. Instead one could say that the men, women, and children were treated like animals at the zoo.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Module 4 - P. Standefer - “Santa Santita”
Two important themes in "Santa Santita" are the cyclical nature of Filipino life and “Road through Tribulation”. The cyclical nature refers to trans-generational patterns in living, the best example of which is the main character and her relation to her mother and the Filipino people of the distant past. Between her and her mother, the main character is rebellious and prefers the life of a teenager who goes on dates with people that her mother would obviously not think are suitable to a life of religious calling. She runs away from home which causes the death of her mom and sends her into a period of self-questioning. As a means of earning income, the main character takes up her mother’s former position as a prayer woman, or someone who accepts donations from others and prays to God on their behalf. She turns out to be very successful because for some reason, God chooses to answer the prayers that she makes for others, but later she realizes that she has actually lost control of her own life and must be responsible for the needy as an intermediary with God. Towards the end of the film, she truly becomes a mirror image of her mother as she prays sincerely to save the rebellious youth’s, her boyfriend, son but is unable to evoke a positive response from God just as the mother prayed for the main character at the beginning of the film but was unable to evoke a positive response during her own lifetime.
My hypothesis of the cyclical nature of Filipino life, including this mother-daughter cycle is a token example of what happened, and continues to happen, to the Filipinos as a people. Although there was no evidence within the film that this was a long-running cycle other than the fact that the whole female line mentioned in the film became prayer women, I think the filmmaker tried to make this connection. The beginning of this cycle was when missionaries from colonial Spain came to convert the Filipinos. The Filipinos were in a similar rebellious, anti-religious calling state when the “motherly” Spaniards prayed and proselytized for their conversion. The end result was the move from Animism to Christianity, or an overlay of Christianity on top of Animism if you believe localization of religion happened, and that Filipinos essentially became “prayer women” which was passed from those early Filipinos down through generations until it reaches the characters in this film. As noted above, there is very little empirical evidence of this in the film which is why it is just a hypothesis.
The second theme, or “Road through Tribulation”, refers to character development in a story where the character begins in a state of being lost although they do not realize it, then a state of difficulty where many challenges and misfortunes confront them, and finally in a state of being found or at peace with their fortune/life. Most characters in this film are affected by this theme. The boyfriend of the main character is one such example. The boyfriend is in a state of rebellious, bad boy-style behavior when he first meets the main character. During the course of the movie, he kills a person and experiences the death of his son which causes him to question many things, including the existence of God, but finally finds peace after his incarceration.
Moving back to the main character’s predicament after her mother’s death, the viewer sees a certain amount of hypocrisy practiced by the Church leaders, especially the main priest. The main character is essentially an unskilled laborer doing the exact same job as her mother had done and that others were still practicing, but she is denied use of the Church for her new profession. Being a prayer woman or selling rosaries like she did at the outset of the film are the only jobs she knows and can survive with, but the Church denies her even that and so are condemning her to possible starvation. Since the Church by the standards of John 2:12-25 is already a den of iniquity and Capitalism which warrants its complete destruction on theological grounds, the main character’s denial of the use of the Church for subsistence income is an ethical violation rather a moral one.
So the reader does not mistake my condemnation of the Church above for an attack on Capitalism, I would add that after disregarding religious ideals there is not a single system of economics that allows, in my opinion, the opportunity to live ethically more than Capitalism. To qualify that last sentence, I also have to note that the factor of humanity, both the good and bad aspects, is an integral part of this argument. Living ethically requires a goal-oriented life because to live ethically means that a person must put themselves in a position to ensure the survival of those with which they come in contact. This includes both not exploiting others for unneeded profit (like in colonialism) as well as having the means to help those in need. In this argument, to live aimlessly or to waste time/be lazy is actually unethical because by not acquiring money, property, political favors, knowledge, etc. a person is stating their indifference to the plight of people who were not blessed with an easy life.
My hypothesis of the cyclical nature of Filipino life, including this mother-daughter cycle is a token example of what happened, and continues to happen, to the Filipinos as a people. Although there was no evidence within the film that this was a long-running cycle other than the fact that the whole female line mentioned in the film became prayer women, I think the filmmaker tried to make this connection. The beginning of this cycle was when missionaries from colonial Spain came to convert the Filipinos. The Filipinos were in a similar rebellious, anti-religious calling state when the “motherly” Spaniards prayed and proselytized for their conversion. The end result was the move from Animism to Christianity, or an overlay of Christianity on top of Animism if you believe localization of religion happened, and that Filipinos essentially became “prayer women” which was passed from those early Filipinos down through generations until it reaches the characters in this film. As noted above, there is very little empirical evidence of this in the film which is why it is just a hypothesis.
The second theme, or “Road through Tribulation”, refers to character development in a story where the character begins in a state of being lost although they do not realize it, then a state of difficulty where many challenges and misfortunes confront them, and finally in a state of being found or at peace with their fortune/life. Most characters in this film are affected by this theme. The boyfriend of the main character is one such example. The boyfriend is in a state of rebellious, bad boy-style behavior when he first meets the main character. During the course of the movie, he kills a person and experiences the death of his son which causes him to question many things, including the existence of God, but finally finds peace after his incarceration.
Moving back to the main character’s predicament after her mother’s death, the viewer sees a certain amount of hypocrisy practiced by the Church leaders, especially the main priest. The main character is essentially an unskilled laborer doing the exact same job as her mother had done and that others were still practicing, but she is denied use of the Church for her new profession. Being a prayer woman or selling rosaries like she did at the outset of the film are the only jobs she knows and can survive with, but the Church denies her even that and so are condemning her to possible starvation. Since the Church by the standards of John 2:12-25 is already a den of iniquity and Capitalism which warrants its complete destruction on theological grounds, the main character’s denial of the use of the Church for subsistence income is an ethical violation rather a moral one.
So the reader does not mistake my condemnation of the Church above for an attack on Capitalism, I would add that after disregarding religious ideals there is not a single system of economics that allows, in my opinion, the opportunity to live ethically more than Capitalism. To qualify that last sentence, I also have to note that the factor of humanity, both the good and bad aspects, is an integral part of this argument. Living ethically requires a goal-oriented life because to live ethically means that a person must put themselves in a position to ensure the survival of those with which they come in contact. This includes both not exploiting others for unneeded profit (like in colonialism) as well as having the means to help those in need. In this argument, to live aimlessly or to waste time/be lazy is actually unethical because by not acquiring money, property, political favors, knowledge, etc. a person is stating their indifference to the plight of people who were not blessed with an easy life.
Santa Santita- Christine4Heysoo
The film “Santa Santita” was very symbolic in many ways to the belief and culture of the Roman Catholic Church and also Christianity. The title itself foreshadows a character that is pure, holy, righteous, and at the same time behave in harlotry ways. The ‘Santita’ to me sort of devalue the meaning of the word ‘Santa’ in the beginning. It basically translated the title to ‘Unholy Saint’, which I think is an oxymoron. Also, I saw a parallel in that Malen’s mom was the ‘Santa’ while Malen was the ‘Santita’ and Santita killed the Santa. However in the end, the Santita was transformed and became the Santa that brought healing and joy to the people. The film exposed many of the activities that some catholic churches in the Philippines allowed. For example, businesses such as intercessory prayer for people who needed help and then collecting payment for the service. When did a prayer require payments? I saw the differences between having a relationship with God through prayer. Also, people had depended on others to pray for them instead of themselves going directly in the throne of the Lord. The parish also has turned their eyes from the miracle works of God and seeing the recover of health for the young child to be a work of the devil. Some of the parishioners in the film like the priest that live in the basement had tagged himself with hypocrisy because of his tendencies to get drunk and also to hide from the truth. It was actually Mike who enlightened the priest to change because of what Mike said when they were drinking although Mike did not know it. The beginning was creepy and scary because of the way it started. It started with a girl walking on the sand with barefoot and seemed lost. I did not realize that it would be Malen. The music or sound effect they used was very captivating in a bad sense. The beginning really grabbed the viewers’ attention or it also could have turned off them.
Her mom alone raised Malen, which seemed to be short for Magdalena, and they sell services like praying and rosaries to survive. Their life seemed to be parallel with Mike in that Mike too sell services to people by driving and I guessed for sex. Magdalena in the bible was a prostitute was able to receive forgiveness from Jesus and this paralleled with the life of Malen. All of the characters were having a hard time with Mike’s son being sick, the priest was hiding from his problems, however Malen’s mom still kept her faith in her God but mostly prayed for Malen so that she was protected always and safe. Mike did not have faith on God but instead he blamed God for how his life turns out to be. Malen was forced by circumstance to follow her mother footstep in her devout intercessory vocation after her mother died. I guessed there are things that we are thought or brought up by our parents that stay with us and these things are guiding us in making decisions even when there are other forces that come along. For Malen, it was Mike that came along which could have diverted or swayed her away from her God given purpose she did not compromise. There was a scene about the two lover making love and in Mike’s back, there was this demonic tattoo and this to me symbolized how the light and darkness met. This scene seemed to be the force that caused Malen to dream about her being crucified with blood oozing in her hand and feet like Jesus. This also led to her confession to the priest and finally availing herself to be used by God. When Malen was healing the nun’s foot, it symbolized how Jesus used to wash his disciples feet. There was an interesting scene when the nun and Malen talked about their service to God. The nun confessed that there were times when she felt cheated because people took advantage of her and that they should serve without consolation. I found it awkward in that Mike waited for his son to die then brought him to her for healing when Mike knew that he could have taken his son when he was still alive and that was because he did not believe in faith, the power of prayer, and the God that answer. What I would do differently is that if I was Malen, I would tell the people that they can go to God directly so that people do not be depended on others to pray for them. I would also add how Mike’s transformation process came to be.
Her mom alone raised Malen, which seemed to be short for Magdalena, and they sell services like praying and rosaries to survive. Their life seemed to be parallel with Mike in that Mike too sell services to people by driving and I guessed for sex. Magdalena in the bible was a prostitute was able to receive forgiveness from Jesus and this paralleled with the life of Malen. All of the characters were having a hard time with Mike’s son being sick, the priest was hiding from his problems, however Malen’s mom still kept her faith in her God but mostly prayed for Malen so that she was protected always and safe. Mike did not have faith on God but instead he blamed God for how his life turns out to be. Malen was forced by circumstance to follow her mother footstep in her devout intercessory vocation after her mother died. I guessed there are things that we are thought or brought up by our parents that stay with us and these things are guiding us in making decisions even when there are other forces that come along. For Malen, it was Mike that came along which could have diverted or swayed her away from her God given purpose she did not compromise. There was a scene about the two lover making love and in Mike’s back, there was this demonic tattoo and this to me symbolized how the light and darkness met. This scene seemed to be the force that caused Malen to dream about her being crucified with blood oozing in her hand and feet like Jesus. This also led to her confession to the priest and finally availing herself to be used by God. When Malen was healing the nun’s foot, it symbolized how Jesus used to wash his disciples feet. There was an interesting scene when the nun and Malen talked about their service to God. The nun confessed that there were times when she felt cheated because people took advantage of her and that they should serve without consolation. I found it awkward in that Mike waited for his son to die then brought him to her for healing when Mike knew that he could have taken his son when he was still alive and that was because he did not believe in faith, the power of prayer, and the God that answer. What I would do differently is that if I was Malen, I would tell the people that they can go to God directly so that people do not be depended on others to pray for them. I would also add how Mike’s transformation process came to be.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Module 1--C. Abe
Personal Reflection to "Nailed"/Summary of article "Ethical Relativism"
The film “Nailed” was about a woman named Lucy from the Philippines who claimed that she was “possessed” by the baby Jesus, or Santo Niño. Lucy said that the Santo Niño appeared to her in a dream, telling her that she must crucify herself to the cross as he did, and that she was to bear the sins of her people. When she woke up, she had scars on her hands, further causing her to believe that she must carry out her dream. People believed that Lucy had supernatural powers to bear pain. They came to this conclusion after looking at the scars on her hands.
Throughout the film, the narrator repeated the phrase: “‘I’m not part of this trance’ the words were always at the tip of my tongue.” The narrator presented Lucy’s story in such a way that although Lucy and her duty to the Santo Niño intrigued her, she did not feel that it was overall beneficial to Philippine society. “The umbilical cord stretches 14, 000 miles across water, across history, across routines that are rituals.” She was simply referring to Catholicism as a religion with such rituals.
As the narrator read through the Ten Commandments from the Bible, she quoted the first commandment that God had commanded us to follow: “You shall have no other gods before me.” This caused me to picture Lucy and her belief that she was to be crucified. It angered me. I do not believe that it is possible to be “possessed” by Jesus, as she claims, nor do I believe that He would tell her to crucify herself. According to dictionary.com, to possess (of a spirit, esp. an evil one) means “to occupy, dominate, or control (a person) from within.” Possession of spirits always has a negative connotation, for example, being possessed by demons or the devil. It is not possible for Jesus to possess our lives because He does not control our lives, but rather gives us free will to choose our actions. Therefore, Lucy was not called by Jesus but probably an evil spirit.
Her whole crucifixion goes against the first commandment because it causes people to “worship” her and not God. In reality, Jesus died on the cross more than 2,000 years ago to forgive us of our sins. He bore the punishment for our sins, being whipped and beaten, and then nailed to the cross. God never intended for anyone else to have to go through such a violent punishment, but allowed Jesus to suffer so that, after bearing our sins, we would be redeemed and welcome to be in God’s presence, and ultimately, that we would be welcomed into Heaven when we die.
Summary/Reaction: “Ethical Relativism” by Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer
According to the article, cultures differ widely in their moral practices. Different people groups have different beliefs as to what is morally or ethically correct. Ethical relativism is the idea or theory that a culture’s moral system is based upon the beliefs or values of the culture itself. For example, in some cultures it is ok to commit suicide, while in others including American society, it is not. In essence, ethical relativism is the attempt to justify the wrongdoings in a particular society, as a means to support the culture’s uniqueness and traditions.
However, most ethicists argue that ethical relativism is not theoretical. The article states, “Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.” Moreover, ethical relativism implies that as individuals we are all entitled to our own beliefs of what is morally and ethically correct. If this were true, then what would prevent people from doing as they pleased, as they deemed appropriate? This would create havoc in the society.
The film “Nailed” was about a woman named Lucy from the Philippines who claimed that she was “possessed” by the baby Jesus, or Santo Niño. Lucy said that the Santo Niño appeared to her in a dream, telling her that she must crucify herself to the cross as he did, and that she was to bear the sins of her people. When she woke up, she had scars on her hands, further causing her to believe that she must carry out her dream. People believed that Lucy had supernatural powers to bear pain. They came to this conclusion after looking at the scars on her hands.
Throughout the film, the narrator repeated the phrase: “‘I’m not part of this trance’ the words were always at the tip of my tongue.” The narrator presented Lucy’s story in such a way that although Lucy and her duty to the Santo Niño intrigued her, she did not feel that it was overall beneficial to Philippine society. “The umbilical cord stretches 14, 000 miles across water, across history, across routines that are rituals.” She was simply referring to Catholicism as a religion with such rituals.
As the narrator read through the Ten Commandments from the Bible, she quoted the first commandment that God had commanded us to follow: “You shall have no other gods before me.” This caused me to picture Lucy and her belief that she was to be crucified. It angered me. I do not believe that it is possible to be “possessed” by Jesus, as she claims, nor do I believe that He would tell her to crucify herself. According to dictionary.com, to possess (of a spirit, esp. an evil one) means “to occupy, dominate, or control (a person) from within.” Possession of spirits always has a negative connotation, for example, being possessed by demons or the devil. It is not possible for Jesus to possess our lives because He does not control our lives, but rather gives us free will to choose our actions. Therefore, Lucy was not called by Jesus but probably an evil spirit.
Her whole crucifixion goes against the first commandment because it causes people to “worship” her and not God. In reality, Jesus died on the cross more than 2,000 years ago to forgive us of our sins. He bore the punishment for our sins, being whipped and beaten, and then nailed to the cross. God never intended for anyone else to have to go through such a violent punishment, but allowed Jesus to suffer so that, after bearing our sins, we would be redeemed and welcome to be in God’s presence, and ultimately, that we would be welcomed into Heaven when we die.
Summary/Reaction: “Ethical Relativism” by Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer
According to the article, cultures differ widely in their moral practices. Different people groups have different beliefs as to what is morally or ethically correct. Ethical relativism is the idea or theory that a culture’s moral system is based upon the beliefs or values of the culture itself. For example, in some cultures it is ok to commit suicide, while in others including American society, it is not. In essence, ethical relativism is the attempt to justify the wrongdoings in a particular society, as a means to support the culture’s uniqueness and traditions.
However, most ethicists argue that ethical relativism is not theoretical. The article states, “Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.” Moreover, ethical relativism implies that as individuals we are all entitled to our own beliefs of what is morally and ethically correct. If this were true, then what would prevent people from doing as they pleased, as they deemed appropriate? This would create havoc in the society.
Module 3--C.Abe
Critical Reaction: “Thinking Ethically” by Velasquez, et al
The theme of the article was that although it is difficult to deal with moral issues, there are guidelines to help make the process easier. Listed in the article were five different approaches to resolving an ethical issue successfully: The Utilitarian Approach, The Rights Approach, The Fairness or Justice Approach, The Common Good Approach, and The Virtue Approach.
The Utilitarian Approach, formulated in the 19th century is based on the idea that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil. In this approach, the goal is to weigh the options and effects in an ethical situation and then to choose the action with the least harm and greatest benefits.
The Rights Approach is solely committed to serving the individual. It promises individuals their rights, or “justified claims on others” (“Rights” article by Velasquez, et. Al). In other words, the rights given to individuals directly affect other people. The article “Rights” by Velasquez, et. al gave this example:
“If I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone.”
Philosophers who support this approach suggest that human beings are set apart from other beings because of their ability to choose what they will do with their lives. These philosophers claim that it is because of this freedom of choice that gives humans the moral right to have their choices respected.
Next, the Fairness or Justice Approach is rooted in Aristotle’s teaching. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, believed that “equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally.” This type of thinking tends to be very complicated, however, because it is difficult to measure fairness and even more difficult to maintain a level of fairness with all people. As humans, we are imperfect and thus have a tendency to show favoritism to people, while at the same time discriminate against others. It is virtually impossible to promote equality among all people.
The Common Good Approach describes a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago. It seeks to provide everyone—regardless of social status, income, etc-- with the same resources, policies, social systems, and institutions. According to ethicist John Rawls, the common good is “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage.”
Finally, the Virtue Approach seeks to provide and promote rich and pure character, above all else. Virtues such as honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are ones that hold high esteem and priority in this particular approach. The approach causes one to reflect on the way he or she is living, communicating with others, dealing with problems, and overall maintaining a level of virtue. The idea is that the more virtuous a person is, the more ethical he is. A virtuous person is able to clearly and confidently solve problems, confronting wisely and gently when necessary.
The theme of the article was that although it is difficult to deal with moral issues, there are guidelines to help make the process easier. Listed in the article were five different approaches to resolving an ethical issue successfully: The Utilitarian Approach, The Rights Approach, The Fairness or Justice Approach, The Common Good Approach, and The Virtue Approach.
The Utilitarian Approach, formulated in the 19th century is based on the idea that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil. In this approach, the goal is to weigh the options and effects in an ethical situation and then to choose the action with the least harm and greatest benefits.
The Rights Approach is solely committed to serving the individual. It promises individuals their rights, or “justified claims on others” (“Rights” article by Velasquez, et. Al). In other words, the rights given to individuals directly affect other people. The article “Rights” by Velasquez, et. al gave this example:
“If I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone.”
Philosophers who support this approach suggest that human beings are set apart from other beings because of their ability to choose what they will do with their lives. These philosophers claim that it is because of this freedom of choice that gives humans the moral right to have their choices respected.
Next, the Fairness or Justice Approach is rooted in Aristotle’s teaching. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, believed that “equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally.” This type of thinking tends to be very complicated, however, because it is difficult to measure fairness and even more difficult to maintain a level of fairness with all people. As humans, we are imperfect and thus have a tendency to show favoritism to people, while at the same time discriminate against others. It is virtually impossible to promote equality among all people.
The Common Good Approach describes a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago. It seeks to provide everyone—regardless of social status, income, etc-- with the same resources, policies, social systems, and institutions. According to ethicist John Rawls, the common good is “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage.”
Finally, the Virtue Approach seeks to provide and promote rich and pure character, above all else. Virtues such as honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are ones that hold high esteem and priority in this particular approach. The approach causes one to reflect on the way he or she is living, communicating with others, dealing with problems, and overall maintaining a level of virtue. The idea is that the more virtuous a person is, the more ethical he is. A virtuous person is able to clearly and confidently solve problems, confronting wisely and gently when necessary.
ETHICAL RELATIVISM - A. Flores
This paper begin with a parroted summary of Velasquez and etal’s work and a personal reaction. In gist, Velasquez and etal argues: “cultures differ widely in their moral practices.” They emphasize this becomes problematic because ranges of social practices considered morally acceptable in some societies are condemned in others. The practice of infanticide, polygamy, sexism and torture leads us to question whether there are many universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a mater of “‘cultural taste.’” Morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture and the only moral standards against which a society practices can be judged are its own – the theory of ethical relativism. It is cautioned by Velasquez that a possibility of no common framework for resolving moral disputes is present or reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically – “Utopian.”
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures.
The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, Kant’s volition of self-determination, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures.
The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, Kant’s volition of self-determination, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?
REACTION TO AMERICAN ADOBO - A. Flores
SUMMARY: The film is a story centered on a group of Filipino “close friends.” The story focuses on each individuals “drama” as they endeavor to reach their mission or personal goal. As they go through a life-changing ordeal they get to see a different perspective of themselves. In the end, the characters seemed to have corrected perceptions of themselves by others and they become “at peace” with themselves.
REACTION: I will start my reaction with two questions. Is the movie a correct portrayal of migratory Filipinos? Were they honestly at peace with themselves at the end? Before I proceed, just agree with me that, historically, the movie made an impact in some major American cities. My rationale: attentions were given to American Adobo by being nominated in some major categorical movie-award. With all the attention given to the movie, many non-Filipino viewers may have had (excuse the pun) a taste of the Filipino lifestyle.
The old saying is true. “Birds of a feather flock together,” meaning people are attracted to others who are like themselves. In the film context, all characters were somewhat affluent Filipino professionals living in a large American city. This setting is plausible. Here is my reservation.
Beside World War II films, I can’t remember any big-budget film portraying Filipinos. If such is the case, won’t Mr. John Smith, who lives in New York, never been to the Philippines, never been exposed to any Pinoy-movies or Filipino culture, develop some sort of stereotypes of Filipinos. Filipinos who comes to America always makes it – they become materially wealthy. The danger in the portrayal may push the thousands of migrated Filipinos in the United States who are living paycheck-to-paycheck into the world of shame since they “did not make it.” It may lead them or encourage the Filipinos to pursue the character’s lifestyle, to get caught up in materialism - even if you cannot afford it.
Other stereotypes in the subtext of the film include the Filipinos to be carnally interested in people with Nordic-stock. This is shown from the plot lines were one of the character questions whether to maintain a relationship with her unfaithful white-boyfriend. A gay-male “lives for” a sickly white-male-friend. A character who is supposedly to be the most intuitive, keeps asking what sounded like an uninterested white-male on the phone for dates (she marries a white-Amerikano in the end). And lastly, a sexually active young man is first seen with a “clueless blond” and also end up with a blond. Except for the last, this plotline just sounds like a marketing ploy to all white-men to go to the RP where they can easily find a “partner.” And not only can they find a “more than willing” or a desperate partner, they can find (what all Filipinos are) - sadist. All Filipinos will tolerate anything in a relationship.
Through American Adobo, Mr. Smith is programmed to believe that he will have the freedom to engage in infidelity with a Filipino partner. Just sing her a song and she will forgive. When you are old or if you get sick, your Filipino-partner becomes an instant nursemaid. They are as devoted to their partners as they are devoted to their religion.
And the final stereotype, there are three “sexes” in the Philippines – male, female, and gay. I have many Filipino-gays inform me that they are convinced homosexuality is tolerated in the Philippines. “Normal dayta [it’s normal], why do you think all Filipino movies always have a gay character in it?” My question then (based on the movie), it is okay to have a Filipino-White gay relationship, but not Filipino-Filipino gay relationship? The newspaper editor somewhat suggested to his male friend that he was not interested in a platonic relationship. However, he could be a “mommy-partner” by checking on his friend’s children now and then.
From this thought, comes this thought. Are Filipinos only needed for favors? Yes, I know enough of the culture why the editor asked his gay friend to look after his children, but it is the subtext from that scene. First he angrily preached to his wife that the maid is a human being, a better human being although a maid, because of the goodness in her heart. His psychotic, materialistic, bossy wife should not treat the maid as sub-human. But then, the gay character is just a person who can do him a favor, not some he can return his love to, what his friend really wanted for years. The editor and his wife become, in subtext, both masochists. Must all Filipinos be portrayed as living a life of drama, as sadist, or sadist-dramatist? Could character in Filipino films be really at peace when they are still performing task for neo-colonialist who now have different tactics? That is my problem with American Adobo
I will end this paper referring to one of my initial questions. Were the people in the film honestly at peace with themselves in the end? Can the portrayals of Filipinos in American Adobo affect how Filipinos (in the worldwide diaspora) can honestly find peace in themselves?
REACTION: I will start my reaction with two questions. Is the movie a correct portrayal of migratory Filipinos? Were they honestly at peace with themselves at the end? Before I proceed, just agree with me that, historically, the movie made an impact in some major American cities. My rationale: attentions were given to American Adobo by being nominated in some major categorical movie-award. With all the attention given to the movie, many non-Filipino viewers may have had (excuse the pun) a taste of the Filipino lifestyle.
The old saying is true. “Birds of a feather flock together,” meaning people are attracted to others who are like themselves. In the film context, all characters were somewhat affluent Filipino professionals living in a large American city. This setting is plausible. Here is my reservation.
Beside World War II films, I can’t remember any big-budget film portraying Filipinos. If such is the case, won’t Mr. John Smith, who lives in New York, never been to the Philippines, never been exposed to any Pinoy-movies or Filipino culture, develop some sort of stereotypes of Filipinos. Filipinos who comes to America always makes it – they become materially wealthy. The danger in the portrayal may push the thousands of migrated Filipinos in the United States who are living paycheck-to-paycheck into the world of shame since they “did not make it.” It may lead them or encourage the Filipinos to pursue the character’s lifestyle, to get caught up in materialism - even if you cannot afford it.
Other stereotypes in the subtext of the film include the Filipinos to be carnally interested in people with Nordic-stock. This is shown from the plot lines were one of the character questions whether to maintain a relationship with her unfaithful white-boyfriend. A gay-male “lives for” a sickly white-male-friend. A character who is supposedly to be the most intuitive, keeps asking what sounded like an uninterested white-male on the phone for dates (she marries a white-Amerikano in the end). And lastly, a sexually active young man is first seen with a “clueless blond” and also end up with a blond. Except for the last, this plotline just sounds like a marketing ploy to all white-men to go to the RP where they can easily find a “partner.” And not only can they find a “more than willing” or a desperate partner, they can find (what all Filipinos are) - sadist. All Filipinos will tolerate anything in a relationship.
Through American Adobo, Mr. Smith is programmed to believe that he will have the freedom to engage in infidelity with a Filipino partner. Just sing her a song and she will forgive. When you are old or if you get sick, your Filipino-partner becomes an instant nursemaid. They are as devoted to their partners as they are devoted to their religion.
And the final stereotype, there are three “sexes” in the Philippines – male, female, and gay. I have many Filipino-gays inform me that they are convinced homosexuality is tolerated in the Philippines. “Normal dayta [it’s normal], why do you think all Filipino movies always have a gay character in it?” My question then (based on the movie), it is okay to have a Filipino-White gay relationship, but not Filipino-Filipino gay relationship? The newspaper editor somewhat suggested to his male friend that he was not interested in a platonic relationship. However, he could be a “mommy-partner” by checking on his friend’s children now and then.
From this thought, comes this thought. Are Filipinos only needed for favors? Yes, I know enough of the culture why the editor asked his gay friend to look after his children, but it is the subtext from that scene. First he angrily preached to his wife that the maid is a human being, a better human being although a maid, because of the goodness in her heart. His psychotic, materialistic, bossy wife should not treat the maid as sub-human. But then, the gay character is just a person who can do him a favor, not some he can return his love to, what his friend really wanted for years. The editor and his wife become, in subtext, both masochists. Must all Filipinos be portrayed as living a life of drama, as sadist, or sadist-dramatist? Could character in Filipino films be really at peace when they are still performing task for neo-colonialist who now have different tactics? That is my problem with American Adobo
I will end this paper referring to one of my initial questions. Were the people in the film honestly at peace with themselves in the end? Can the portrayals of Filipinos in American Adobo affect how Filipinos (in the worldwide diaspora) can honestly find peace in themselves?
NAILED & BONTOC - A. Flores
CRITICAL REFLECTION TO: NAILED & BONTOC
BONTOC
Bontoc is in line with Linton’s writing questioning the media’s ability to influence audience members. The danger he claims is that the presented media-material has a “direct and virtually inescapable impact.” And if there is no direct impact, “the media [in this case the film] could have indirect effects ‘by shaping the materials of knowledge, norms, and judgments which people acquire and then apply in everyday life.” The lack of detachment and lack of self-consciousness of this relationship between the viewer and the screen world cause him or her to the activities and events portrayed as more real than imaginary.
And that is exactly what Bontoc was warning against. Besides the immoral point of almost “kidnapping” human beings from their environments to be used as commodity for-profit (“Two Filipinos died from freezing in the train car”) the US clips, if one was to believe Linton’s article – portrayed Filipinos as vicious, tribal, dog-eaters. What some in mainstream America now believes.
NAILED
With my attached essay for ethical relativism, although I hate the notion that the colonialist ingrained in the Filipinos’ mental belief that the immoral practice of annually nailing someone is moral – from a religious culture, I have to go with liberty. The film should have been entitled “SCREWED,” - by the Catholic colonialist.
I have every reason to say the practice to be abhorrent, but hey, it is her religion. It is her choice. Beneficence prevail, because of the STRONG belief, although may be considered by some as deluded, that everything is momentary. Everything is temporary. Every suffering is rewarded for the next life awaiting in Utopia.
The more pain, such as whipping, the more absolution, hence your reward will be great. This is why we have extremist Muslims not afraid to, dare I say, perform what others may call immoral acts of terrorism.
BONTOC
Bontoc is in line with Linton’s writing questioning the media’s ability to influence audience members. The danger he claims is that the presented media-material has a “direct and virtually inescapable impact.” And if there is no direct impact, “the media [in this case the film] could have indirect effects ‘by shaping the materials of knowledge, norms, and judgments which people acquire and then apply in everyday life.” The lack of detachment and lack of self-consciousness of this relationship between the viewer and the screen world cause him or her to the activities and events portrayed as more real than imaginary.
And that is exactly what Bontoc was warning against. Besides the immoral point of almost “kidnapping” human beings from their environments to be used as commodity for-profit (“Two Filipinos died from freezing in the train car”) the US clips, if one was to believe Linton’s article – portrayed Filipinos as vicious, tribal, dog-eaters. What some in mainstream America now believes.
NAILED
With my attached essay for ethical relativism, although I hate the notion that the colonialist ingrained in the Filipinos’ mental belief that the immoral practice of annually nailing someone is moral – from a religious culture, I have to go with liberty. The film should have been entitled “SCREWED,” - by the Catholic colonialist.
I have every reason to say the practice to be abhorrent, but hey, it is her religion. It is her choice. Beneficence prevail, because of the STRONG belief, although may be considered by some as deluded, that everything is momentary. Everything is temporary. Every suffering is rewarded for the next life awaiting in Utopia.
The more pain, such as whipping, the more absolution, hence your reward will be great. This is why we have extremist Muslims not afraid to, dare I say, perform what others may call immoral acts of terrorism.
SANTA/SANTITA - A. Flores
CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO SANTA/SANTITA USING IACCINO’S
PSYCHOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON CINEMATIC TERROR:
JUNGIAN ARCHETYPES IN HORROR FILMS
AS A FRAMEWORK
As a terse synopsis, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror film. Why so? Characters “used to depict th[e] struggle between the ‘good and evil’ self” were presented in the film (Iaccino, p. 4). In addition, these characters are what Iaccino describes as archetype. Archetypes, according to Jung, are the left over traits in modern man from time when we walked on four appendages. These primordial traits are buried below our consciousness. “One genre that has provided a suitable outlet” for this archaic trait or expression is the horror film (p. 4). Hence, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror films for the films portrayals of archetype characters associated with horror.
Starting with the mother/child archetypes, Santa/Santita pushes these characters to the front of the screen. The nun suffering from a dermal disease, the mother who is the intercessor for those who are afraid to or do not know how to approach God, and the daughter who eventually becomes an instrument of god – all archetypes of the “helpful or nurturing agent.” The miracle-performing daughter is endowed with life sustenance, comfort, security, and was associated with fertility. Since archetypes can be both good and evil, the wealthy married woman provided the archetype of ancient Eve – the temptress, the seducer, and the poisoner.
However, the brilliance in portraying the archetype of Santa/Santita or mother/child archetype comes from the miracle worker's great portrayal of playing both good and evil throughout. Her innocence at the beginning of the movie trying to convince people to purchase a protective charm and minutes later kicking a helpless blind handicap. A pretending young sick child later becomes young man’s fertility companion. A miracle worker mystical Virgin Mary figure who asks someone to assist her in a confession. The director throughout included a constant play in mother/child archetypes. Even the young-sickly innocent son of the non-believer survivalist becomes the heroic child making a god-like deed by presenting himself as redeemer. He was or became the ransom for his father’s sins.
The film also presented the persona/shadow archetypes. How many masks did the cobra-tattooed character wear in order to attain his diabolical needs? He was the Dr. Jekyll charmer as he dated the miracle worker, to his son and uncle, and to his “business clients.” He dons the mask of Dr. Jekyll “for the benefit of others and for self-advancement” (Iaccino, p. 6). He instantly becomes Mr. Hyde when threatened or if things do not go his way. He resorts to his phallic symbol, his gun, his manhood to avenge the wrong that was done to him.
Iaccino wrote, “The person’s real ‘face’ remains hidden underneath and may never have a chance to be fully expressed. Sometimes the role that a person plays becomes so strong that he or she becomes a victim on an inflated ego; namely , the role is so convincing that other are not only deceived but also manipulated by this sophisticated (and power-hungry) actor ( p. 6). Hence, the male-hustlers son died, and he demanded the miracle worker to bring the dead back to life, and it was not possible; he resorted to his inherited animalistic way of expressing an unexpressed expression – an action that is similar to a roaring howl. That is as close as you can get to an archetype.
There were also other archetypes portrayed. The wise man/magician archetype. As mentioned earlier, when the miracle worker is desperate for advise, for directions on her God-given power, when things are almost at a lost between choosing carnal pursuits or curing the sick, the wise old man appeared, the alcoholic priest who performs the confession.
Then there is the animus/anima archetype. The male prostitute actually becomes the victim. And Eve reincarnated as Mrs. Hoffman becomes the seducer-vanquisher. The masculine is deceived by the feminine. The conquering warrior is the feminine.
Since all of these archetypes and other archetypes that could not be discussed in this paper are present in the film, and since having these archetypes in the films qualifies as a horror film, Santa/Santita qualifies, according to Iaccino, as a horror film.
PSYCHOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON CINEMATIC TERROR:
JUNGIAN ARCHETYPES IN HORROR FILMS
AS A FRAMEWORK
As a terse synopsis, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror film. Why so? Characters “used to depict th[e] struggle between the ‘good and evil’ self” were presented in the film (Iaccino, p. 4). In addition, these characters are what Iaccino describes as archetype. Archetypes, according to Jung, are the left over traits in modern man from time when we walked on four appendages. These primordial traits are buried below our consciousness. “One genre that has provided a suitable outlet” for this archaic trait or expression is the horror film (p. 4). Hence, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror films for the films portrayals of archetype characters associated with horror.
Starting with the mother/child archetypes, Santa/Santita pushes these characters to the front of the screen. The nun suffering from a dermal disease, the mother who is the intercessor for those who are afraid to or do not know how to approach God, and the daughter who eventually becomes an instrument of god – all archetypes of the “helpful or nurturing agent.” The miracle-performing daughter is endowed with life sustenance, comfort, security, and was associated with fertility. Since archetypes can be both good and evil, the wealthy married woman provided the archetype of ancient Eve – the temptress, the seducer, and the poisoner.
However, the brilliance in portraying the archetype of Santa/Santita or mother/child archetype comes from the miracle worker's great portrayal of playing both good and evil throughout. Her innocence at the beginning of the movie trying to convince people to purchase a protective charm and minutes later kicking a helpless blind handicap. A pretending young sick child later becomes young man’s fertility companion. A miracle worker mystical Virgin Mary figure who asks someone to assist her in a confession. The director throughout included a constant play in mother/child archetypes. Even the young-sickly innocent son of the non-believer survivalist becomes the heroic child making a god-like deed by presenting himself as redeemer. He was or became the ransom for his father’s sins.
The film also presented the persona/shadow archetypes. How many masks did the cobra-tattooed character wear in order to attain his diabolical needs? He was the Dr. Jekyll charmer as he dated the miracle worker, to his son and uncle, and to his “business clients.” He dons the mask of Dr. Jekyll “for the benefit of others and for self-advancement” (Iaccino, p. 6). He instantly becomes Mr. Hyde when threatened or if things do not go his way. He resorts to his phallic symbol, his gun, his manhood to avenge the wrong that was done to him.
Iaccino wrote, “The person’s real ‘face’ remains hidden underneath and may never have a chance to be fully expressed. Sometimes the role that a person plays becomes so strong that he or she becomes a victim on an inflated ego; namely , the role is so convincing that other are not only deceived but also manipulated by this sophisticated (and power-hungry) actor ( p. 6). Hence, the male-hustlers son died, and he demanded the miracle worker to bring the dead back to life, and it was not possible; he resorted to his inherited animalistic way of expressing an unexpressed expression – an action that is similar to a roaring howl. That is as close as you can get to an archetype.
There were also other archetypes portrayed. The wise man/magician archetype. As mentioned earlier, when the miracle worker is desperate for advise, for directions on her God-given power, when things are almost at a lost between choosing carnal pursuits or curing the sick, the wise old man appeared, the alcoholic priest who performs the confession.
Then there is the animus/anima archetype. The male prostitute actually becomes the victim. And Eve reincarnated as Mrs. Hoffman becomes the seducer-vanquisher. The masculine is deceived by the feminine. The conquering warrior is the feminine.
Since all of these archetypes and other archetypes that could not be discussed in this paper are present in the film, and since having these archetypes in the films qualifies as a horror film, Santa/Santita qualifies, according to Iaccino, as a horror film.
FRAMEWORK FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING - A. Flores
Velasquez etal mentions five approaches to deal with moral issues. The utilitarian approach, Immanuel Kant’s individual rights, fair or justice approach, common good approach, and the virtue approach. The utilitarian approach stems for John Stuart Mills’ view of paternalism – choose (for someone) the best action out of many for the right decision. Kant’s approach is personal choice. The third approach is to avoid discrimination or favoritism when making a choice. The common-good is to make a decision to benefit the entire community. The last approach is the most religious conscious of all the approaches.
Here is what I think. We cannot approach an ethical decision without choosing a part from all five approaches mentioned. I have always believed in Kant’s view; the inalienable right to choose self-determination. No matter how evil the outcome seems to be, humankind must have the right to choose for themselves. If a person chooses to abort a fetus, commit rape, cannibalism, if it is their kuleana (business) - it is their right. If their action is illegal, with their own decision comes penalty, still they have the right to choose their own course. Who are we to infringe on their rights, what they believe must be right. Is the practice of marijuana smoking for the Rastafarian’s religious purpose unethical? Were the headhunting practices of the mountainous people of the Philippines (presenting a severed head to the bride’s family) unethical? Must we encroach on people’s individuals rights?
As a hypocrite, I will say, yes – paternalism has its place. I always trample on my children’s individual right. I shamelessly preach my utmost volition for Kant’s theory, however, discard this belief so I can paternalistically be able to lead them in the “proper path.” Supposedly, I have experience that they should take in consideration - paternalistic suggestions to trample on their individual right for self-choice.
Going back to the thought of not being able to make an ethical decision without including all approaches, here is my reasons why think this way.
Take the case for the use of blood transfusion. If a persons religious belief is to abstain from blood (take the meaning of “abstain” at face value), even under the most dire medical situation, the person will refuse blood transfusion. A person may religiously believe that this life is momentary – a better and permanent afterlife is possible if he/she is faithful to all the laws of his/her belief. Moreover, if one of the tenets is to abstain from blood, the person will abstain from blood even if it means death. Therefore, the person has every right to choose for herself ethically not to have blood transfusion even if it means death because that is her faith. That faith guides her inalienable right.
However, this ingrained belief in no blood transfusions is a paternalistic belief given or dictated to her by her religion. “God will not grant you everlasting life,” the church says, “if you violate the law on blood.” So here, two approaches are claimed in order to choose an ethical choice. The virtue approach also applies since is she is now making to her pre-disposed moral principles – do not violate God’s law. The common good approach could be reasoned that by refusing blood transfusion and if the medical emergency becomes successful, medical care will change their practices and the reliance for blood transfusion will be reduced. Thus, the whole healthcare industry will be revamped.
I could make claim that choosing or accepting no blood is a fair- judgment but a greater question comes to mind. What if she is pregnant, and if she does not choose a transfusion and she kills herself and her baby? Would this not violate the justice of fairness approach, in the unborn child’s perspective?
Therefore, in everything, it is not easy to use just a single approach in order to make an ethical decision. Using a multi-approach, a synthesis of several approaches sometimes is the best approach to make an ethical decision.
Here is what I think. We cannot approach an ethical decision without choosing a part from all five approaches mentioned. I have always believed in Kant’s view; the inalienable right to choose self-determination. No matter how evil the outcome seems to be, humankind must have the right to choose for themselves. If a person chooses to abort a fetus, commit rape, cannibalism, if it is their kuleana (business) - it is their right. If their action is illegal, with their own decision comes penalty, still they have the right to choose their own course. Who are we to infringe on their rights, what they believe must be right. Is the practice of marijuana smoking for the Rastafarian’s religious purpose unethical? Were the headhunting practices of the mountainous people of the Philippines (presenting a severed head to the bride’s family) unethical? Must we encroach on people’s individuals rights?
As a hypocrite, I will say, yes – paternalism has its place. I always trample on my children’s individual right. I shamelessly preach my utmost volition for Kant’s theory, however, discard this belief so I can paternalistically be able to lead them in the “proper path.” Supposedly, I have experience that they should take in consideration - paternalistic suggestions to trample on their individual right for self-choice.
Going back to the thought of not being able to make an ethical decision without including all approaches, here is my reasons why think this way.
Take the case for the use of blood transfusion. If a persons religious belief is to abstain from blood (take the meaning of “abstain” at face value), even under the most dire medical situation, the person will refuse blood transfusion. A person may religiously believe that this life is momentary – a better and permanent afterlife is possible if he/she is faithful to all the laws of his/her belief. Moreover, if one of the tenets is to abstain from blood, the person will abstain from blood even if it means death. Therefore, the person has every right to choose for herself ethically not to have blood transfusion even if it means death because that is her faith. That faith guides her inalienable right.
However, this ingrained belief in no blood transfusions is a paternalistic belief given or dictated to her by her religion. “God will not grant you everlasting life,” the church says, “if you violate the law on blood.” So here, two approaches are claimed in order to choose an ethical choice. The virtue approach also applies since is she is now making to her pre-disposed moral principles – do not violate God’s law. The common good approach could be reasoned that by refusing blood transfusion and if the medical emergency becomes successful, medical care will change their practices and the reliance for blood transfusion will be reduced. Thus, the whole healthcare industry will be revamped.
I could make claim that choosing or accepting no blood is a fair- judgment but a greater question comes to mind. What if she is pregnant, and if she does not choose a transfusion and she kills herself and her baby? Would this not violate the justice of fairness approach, in the unborn child’s perspective?
Therefore, in everything, it is not easy to use just a single approach in order to make an ethical decision. Using a multi-approach, a synthesis of several approaches sometimes is the best approach to make an ethical decision.
THE COMMON GOOD and IMELDA - A. Flores
Using the two materials (reading and the film) as my framework, I conclude that Imelda is “sinless.” Let me first aver that I am politically neutral (at least I think so), never voted for any political party to be put in office, and I have not done a thorough research on the Marcoses. All I know about them was through second hand community gossip and media presentations. So, if I remove my conscience or bias and remain legalistic using just two materials, I will argue why Imelda is sinless.
However, let me first answer the required Reflection Questions. The question of common good is an important question because ethically no society is able to achieve its goal if “common good” is to be followed by its definition. For the common good! Velasquez and etal defines common good as, “having the social system, institution, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.” Since most societies are pluralistic, different people with different agendas pushing for the common good will never reach a unanimous stand.
I don’t quite understand the second question, however, actors act in accord with the common good usually to appease the viewing majority – most of the time the moral majority. If the actor projects the image that the public wants or demands – this should produce a facet for the common good. I will skip questions 3- 5 since the revolutions were portrayed minimally in the film and this questions may pertain to the other film not viewed yet.
Finally, the last question, since the Filipinos’ individual rights were already being violated, most individuals sacrificed their individual rights “for the common good.” They protested for a new collective government. Now back to my “mode of analysis” (Berger) defense of “Mother Santa Imelda” - the sinless, the immaculate. As Berger mentions, “The purpose of film criticism … is to interpret and explain film.” And I would like to add as Berger mentioned, not to criticize but to understand. Also, I would like to remind my readers, it is an OBJECTIVE analysis.
If we set-aside for a moment the question of “for whose good?” and “discard the notion of relative values” and just concentrate in the meaning of “for the common good,” Imelda has fulfilled her ethical requirements. Common good is reached when “members relatively [have] ready access to their own fulfillment.”
Imelda’s maxim was, “If I lived well, the poor lived well.” Although (if I may take the liberty to say, no pun intended) that her thinking may be deluded to us, if her notion of “I for all succeed” is to be taken as truth, she succeeded in reaching “for the common good.”
Admittedly, she lived a “beautiful” life. A lavish life. Although frowned upon, she put the Philippines on the map by applying make-up to it. Although, immoral to some, her intent of for the common good of the Philippines, in and in her words, “for the honor of the Philippines,” she and the population attained a façade of “common good.”
Yes, the population was drunk by her didactic reasoning and as a coping mechanism for the parentless beggar in the Smoky Mountains, the beggar gives her blessing to Imelda to perpetuate the common good. The actor is playing the viewers psychological want and goal. Since Imelda is such a great actor, she is working for the common good.
Even her questionable “edifice complex” did generate somewhat of an economic push. The dress, the shoes, the arts, the childish idea of creating Philippines as the center for the arts in Asia made her stay true to her maxim of presenting the Filipino people as living beautiful. In the interest for the Filipino, did she not say when she is to be seen in public, she gets ready for an hour for dignitaries and royals but one-a-half hour for the common Filipinos?”
Since she was able to get the population “drunk” (the way the harlot, Babylon the Great, got everyone drunk in the book of Revelation) with her goal, the impoverished deluded, naïve citizens (what seems as a whole) seems to have accepted her mission. Thus, if she keeps up her bargain to keep being beautiful (remember Velasquez and etal, “choose to [continually] do [her] part) and if the “swayed” people choose to continually revere her as mother demi-goddess, she and they are innocently doing what is “common good.” Remember, when they came into her closet, “they found shoes, not skeletons.”
God, save us.
However, let me first answer the required Reflection Questions. The question of common good is an important question because ethically no society is able to achieve its goal if “common good” is to be followed by its definition. For the common good! Velasquez and etal defines common good as, “having the social system, institution, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.” Since most societies are pluralistic, different people with different agendas pushing for the common good will never reach a unanimous stand.
I don’t quite understand the second question, however, actors act in accord with the common good usually to appease the viewing majority – most of the time the moral majority. If the actor projects the image that the public wants or demands – this should produce a facet for the common good. I will skip questions 3- 5 since the revolutions were portrayed minimally in the film and this questions may pertain to the other film not viewed yet.
Finally, the last question, since the Filipinos’ individual rights were already being violated, most individuals sacrificed their individual rights “for the common good.” They protested for a new collective government. Now back to my “mode of analysis” (Berger) defense of “Mother Santa Imelda” - the sinless, the immaculate. As Berger mentions, “The purpose of film criticism … is to interpret and explain film.” And I would like to add as Berger mentioned, not to criticize but to understand. Also, I would like to remind my readers, it is an OBJECTIVE analysis.
If we set-aside for a moment the question of “for whose good?” and “discard the notion of relative values” and just concentrate in the meaning of “for the common good,” Imelda has fulfilled her ethical requirements. Common good is reached when “members relatively [have] ready access to their own fulfillment.”
Imelda’s maxim was, “If I lived well, the poor lived well.” Although (if I may take the liberty to say, no pun intended) that her thinking may be deluded to us, if her notion of “I for all succeed” is to be taken as truth, she succeeded in reaching “for the common good.”
Admittedly, she lived a “beautiful” life. A lavish life. Although frowned upon, she put the Philippines on the map by applying make-up to it. Although, immoral to some, her intent of for the common good of the Philippines, in and in her words, “for the honor of the Philippines,” she and the population attained a façade of “common good.”
Yes, the population was drunk by her didactic reasoning and as a coping mechanism for the parentless beggar in the Smoky Mountains, the beggar gives her blessing to Imelda to perpetuate the common good. The actor is playing the viewers psychological want and goal. Since Imelda is such a great actor, she is working for the common good.
Even her questionable “edifice complex” did generate somewhat of an economic push. The dress, the shoes, the arts, the childish idea of creating Philippines as the center for the arts in Asia made her stay true to her maxim of presenting the Filipino people as living beautiful. In the interest for the Filipino, did she not say when she is to be seen in public, she gets ready for an hour for dignitaries and royals but one-a-half hour for the common Filipinos?”
Since she was able to get the population “drunk” (the way the harlot, Babylon the Great, got everyone drunk in the book of Revelation) with her goal, the impoverished deluded, naïve citizens (what seems as a whole) seems to have accepted her mission. Thus, if she keeps up her bargain to keep being beautiful (remember Velasquez and etal, “choose to [continually] do [her] part) and if the “swayed” people choose to continually revere her as mother demi-goddess, she and they are innocently doing what is “common good.” Remember, when they came into her closet, “they found shoes, not skeletons.”
God, save us.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
American Adobo -Christine4Heysoo
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.
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.
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)