Monday, March 25, 2013

In Review: Aparisyon


Directed By: Vincent Sandoval
Stars: Jodie Sta. Maria, Mylene Dizon, Raquel Villavicencio, Fides Cuyugan-Asensio

What I Liked
Great performances from its cast, beautiful cinematography, scenes that are difficult to watch are executed with great skill

What I Disliked

Editing is dissatisfying and makes narration more confusing, dotty execution of tension--could have benefited from more tension

Gist
Mainly a social commentary about religion's role and its limitations in the face of actual danger (or more likely an allegory of the role of the Church during the period of civil unrest), Aparisyon lags a bit on some spots but is otherwise a brilliant showcase for its talents.

Sister Lourdes (Sta. Maria) is new in her cloister. Trying to find her place in the monastery run by the serene but austere Sister Ruth (Cuyugan-Asensio), she decides to accompany Sister Remy (Dizon) on her extern duties to town, selling herbal medicines the nuns make. One night on their way back, they were attacked by bandits. This event leaves the nuns rattled and stirs trouble in the convent.

Aparisyon is set on the tumultuous parts of the Marcos era when the dictator was readying the declaration of Martial law. The setting is in a very secluded convent which automatically eradicates the need of the production team to recreate the events during the Marcos era. The props team recreated some radio news and newspapers but other than those, the Marcos regime is very much like a background noise over the daily convent life. I feel like this is a missed opportunity that Sandoval could have exploited to create more tension in the convent, but instead, we are given a very serene set up, dotted by some pinches of tension which never really seem to tighten. For good or bad, this puts much focus on the convent where most of the story is taking place anyway. To my mind, this was done to bolster the idea that the convent is a safe place for its inhabitants. It also struck me as an allegory of the Church wanting to keep itself separate from politics during the early stages of the Marcos era unrest to keep itself safe from the outside world.

Something I noticed immediately at the start of the movie that put me off was the editing. There were scenes that were cut off a bit too soon, while towards the end there were scenes that lingered a bit too long. In fact there were too many cut scenes that you didn't know where the story is going. This is a shame because the cinematography is actually beautiful and the editing at times lessens the efficacy of these images if the scene takes too long or too short to transition. Eventually, this editing problem fixes itself towards the end, particularly in the revelation scene.

Sandoval however was able to extract a lot from his cast. Cuyugan-Asensio who played the haciendera-turned-rape victim Inday Lorenzo in Peque Gallaga's masterpiece Oro Plata Mata found herself transfigured into Sister Ruth, a quiet mother superior whose black garb and paper-white complexion denotes her capacity to be austere and strict. Cuyugan-Asensio's execution is beyond reproach. One would believe that she has been a nun for a long time, a role she performs with authority. At times, she is frightening and too quiet to figure out. Villavicencio, on the other hand, who plays an even more stern and direct Sister Vera, the convent's second fiddle to Sister Ruth, was equally terrific particularly with her scenes of contrition and on the revelation scene. There is something with Villavicencio's voice that sounds so motherly and strict and perfect for the role she played. Plus points for having her hair cut to a certain length (albeit too long still and too salon perfect for a nun's--or was that a wig?).

Naturally, the leads, Jodi Sta. Maria and Mylene Dizon needed to be as good and they managed to be. Dizon puts her signature pragmatic, resistent, and stern school of acting without needing to sound mean or antagonistic, which is necessary for her role as Sister Remy, an extern nun. Dizon though might be overusing this stern "character" in her work, and may need to pick up lighter roles or roles that would not necessarily ask her to be "Mylene Dizon." She remains a brilliant actress, convincing, and powerful, but I feel like I've seen too much of this Mylene and whether it's the nice or evil Mylene, the lines are starting to blur to look as if Mylene Dizon is portraying herself on-screen. Sta. Maria on the other hand sheds the innocent goody-two-shoes of her mainstream hit of a character Maya to don the habit of Sister Lourdes. Initially, she is kind, innocent, eager, but towards the end, Sta. Maria has her character transform into a miserable train wreck, a task she executes with great dexterity. And how I wish her fans get to see this movie in case they forget how great an actress she can be, given the material. Not to disparage her mainstream work though, but I'd say that partly the reason of "Be Careful with My Heart's" success is her capacity as an actress and ability to extend with her co-leads and create chemistry with them, something she managed to do with Dizon and the older nuns, too.

Sound editing is sparse on this production but when they do come they are a welcome addition. I have to note the use of Latin prayer hymns. The dead language being sung actually provides a healthy addition of fear, mortification, and solemnity.

Aparisyon in its whole feels like a social commentary on religion's chosen role and its limitations in the face of actual danger. Yes it does lag on some spots but Sandoval's hand makes the performers deliver an otherwise brilliant showcase. It may feel like a chamber piece at times (but isn't it?) but the skill of its execution (performance, cinematography) belie the budget. By Sister Ruth's stern declaration and forbidding of Remy to do anything outside the convent that falls outside their conventional duties feels feel like an allegory of how the Church wants to stay out of the government's business during those tumultuous times--at least until they couldn't anymore, which is also analogized by Sister Remy leaving the convent and joining activists.

It may also feel like an allegory of Marcos's rule. I thought that Sister Ruth represents Marcos in that she was suppressing the real events that took place, eventually sending Sister Remy (a possible allegory of Ninoy Aquino) who knows what is happening really. Sister Ruth's insistence that the convent is safe (when in fact it is not, as evidenced by the stolen chicken and the assault) seems to liken it to Marcos's disguising of the Philippines with his New Society propaganda--until it couldn't be hidden anymore and even his closest affiliates break (in this case Sister Vera represents Marcos's allies who jumped ship). Sister Marcia (the old mother superior) seems to represent the Filipino community who at first thinks Marcos is practically the good Lord (as evidenced by Marcia mistaking Ruth for the virgin Mary). Then at some point things go awry and Marcia says Ruth is the devil himself, the same way the Filipino community unmasked Marcos. If Sandoval was in fact doing this, then his work is so subtle and skillfully executed. It's so brilliant to think it that way. Then again, I could be looking into it too much and finding analogies when there are none.

A number of scenes I would like to note before I close this review.

Spoilers Start Here

First: the several confrontation scenes between Dizon and Fides-Asensio. There was no explosion or what not, but when there were, they were quietly tense ones--lending some credence to the tranquility that nuns should be exhibiting. Remy, the pragmatic one, wants social justice and for the church to intervene other than praying. But Sister Ruth wants them to fulfill their duties and just continue praying. In the end, Remy's prayers were proven to be nothing more than desires unfulfilled. Perhaps Sister Ruth has forgotten what "Ora et Labora" means and was too scared to break the silence in their convent. Remy was the one aware that prayers without work amount to nothing and sadly, in the end, she would always have herself to blame for things she thinks she could've done something with.

Second: the confrontation scene between Sta. Maria and Dizon was powerful. But I find fault in that it took forever to build up and when it was happening, it was taking too long that it was starting to dilute itself. There is a presence of pain and sadness and helplessness and of being trapped and as soon as Sta. Maria was breaking down on Dizon, the camera pans out and the tension is released, but man did it take forever.

Third: the revelation scene is my favorite scene. For most of the movie, they have been dropping hints, but the execution of this scene is so pained, so conflicted, so helpless. The execution didn't paint the older nuns as cowards but as helpless women who are as helpless in the face of danger. And the worse part here is that they try to cover this up by telling themselves that this is the will of God, when in fact they could have done something and continue to do nothing for months until they could not have it anymore. Villavicencio shines the  most in this scene. Her pain is so felt, so real, so helpless and her contrition later on shows her to be the better person. But was it ever enough? Is contrition ever enough for something one could have prevented. Sandoval doesn't answer this and leaves the question to its audience. Is it ever enough to just say that it's God's plan when possibly we know we are the ones who enact that plan.

Spoilers End Here

If anything, I am now feeling bad that I missed Cinemalaya last year and resolve to make sure I get to catch it this year. My disappoint from watching this film is that this is what should be mainstream. That intelligent movies should not be independent film watched by like 4 people. When I was watching this at the moviehouse, there's like 15 of us at the most, and this is more heartbreaking than the movie itself. Years ago, epic films were made with big studio backing and grand marketing. Now, we have to wait till Cinemalaya to watch this sort of films from local talents and outside your film buff friends, nobody knows this movie. Nobody understands how good it is. This is sad and frustrating. Films like Bwakaw, Lilia Cuntapay, etc from last year had to bargain with movie houses, plead, just to have their movies screened to mass audiences who prefers the latest installment of Twilight or that rehashed Kathryn Bernardo - Daniel Padilla starrer. Truly, this breaks my heart.

Now do I recommend this film? Yes. This is exactly the film you need to watch because like its Cinemalaya brethren, it makes you think. We need more of these kinds of films. We need filmmakers to regain the trust that when they attempt something bold, we the people will respond. That an indie film doesn't need to have Eugene Domingo to be watched. That it doesn't need to be directed by Brillante Mendoza to be spectacular (not a fan here tbh). Yes this film is good. And local movies should be at the very least like this. But what we keep getting are rehashed stories with over-the-top script / unlicensed adaptations of foreign movies that changes nothing in a person.

Judgment: 3.9 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 170 to 190 pesos. I paid 175 pesos.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

In Review: Stoker


Directed By: Chan-wook Park
Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode

What I Liked
Beautiful cinematography with pronounced, haunting imagery, great performance by its cast


What I Disliked

Unlikable / unrelatable central character, screenplay makes for an unnecessary length that makes the film feel slow with little to nothing happening.

Gist
Miller's screenplay allows for Park to practice beautiful cinematography punctured with haunting images, but it's a double-edged sword that hurts the film with turtle-paced storytelling that dillydallies too much to deliver imagery over story.

India Stoker is a privileged young lady who prefers hunting fowl over shopping. She also has a peculiar ability to hear the softest of whispers and see clearly even things faraway. On the day of her 18th birthday, her father died in a car accident of unspecified causes. Following her father's funeral, her father's only brother, Charlie, arranges to live with her and her mother. And while her mother finds Charlie an enigmatic and delightful company, India has nothing but suspicions that Uncle Charlie is up to no good.

Mia Wasikowska didn't exactly shoot to international renown after her major box office hit of a Disney movie, Alice in Wonderland last 2010. She has often chosen to do indie movies (The Kids are All Right) or movies that don't get released in this side of the globe (Albert Nobbs, Jane Eyre). Nevertheless, she starred in 5 movies more or less since. In Stoker, we find that Wasikowska is just as disturbed as someone who just came out of Wonderland. Mia's "India" is a sociopath who with an affinity for keeping herself looking vintage. Later on, this sociopath blooms completely to a psychopath, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The film is based on Wentworth Miller's script that made it to the list of best screenplays written in 2012. In a nutshell, it was based on Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, with Miller stating that it starts off similarly and goes a separate path. Spoiler alert: it goes full away to the direction that the Hitchcock film didn't take. This is braver, to be honest. But in such a case, the execution needs to be done extra carefully because you might end up having an unlikable lead, something that rubbed off to me. I don't like India Stoker and I don't understand her. Sure, her character was written to spawn mystery (was she in love with her dad? Were they having an incestuous affair? Why didn't she just finish off what she did in the end earlier, what's the difference between the stairs and the mother's bedroom anyways?). She just wasn't written in a way that would make one curious enough to know / dig deeper for the answers. And with that said, I think the vision was good but the execution was forced. 

Adding to that, the screenplay / editing felt gimmicky, lending a contrived vibe throughout the short playing time, as if forcing some sense of mystery to its audience. And in that attempt it made the movie feel longer than it is with little to nothing happening. Though to the screenplay / editing's credit, it allowed for Park's haunting cinematography which is one of the things that the movie has going for it.

On top of my mind, there is one scene among many that was filmed so well that it etched itself to my memory: The piano scene. In this scene, India starts playing the piano and was soon joined by an uninvited Uncle Charlie. For most of the scene, India is unwelcoming but Charlie is persistent. Eventually, India gives in and kept on going to the point that she was on the verge of a dry orgasm only to find the seat finally vacated. This scene: Amazing.

Anyways, I couldn't find fault with the acting as there was nothing explosive going on. If ever I would have any complaints with the characters, it is with how they were written not how they were performed.

Overall, It's an OK movie. There are pros and cons and I find it hard to feel that the pros outdo the cons or vice versa. I remember myself getting bored for a lot of the running time and I actually couldn't relate to any of the characters that I soon feel that I was disengaging from the movie if not for the beautiful cinematography. Miller's screenplay allows for Park to practice beautiful cinematography punctured with haunting images, but it's a double-edged sword that hurts the film with turtle-paced storytelling that dillydallies too much to deliver imagery over story. Would it have been better otherwise? I am not sure because the cinematography might get affected so maybe the only thing that can be fixed is the way characters were written. Maybe let the audience in on what they're thinking because from this point of view, I felt so blocked and eventually disengaged, watching pretty pictures.

Judgment: 3.3 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 150 to 170 pesos. I paid 190 pesos.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

In Review: Oz: The Great and Powerful

Directed By: Sam Raimi
Stars: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz

What I Liked
Clever, witty, respects source material, grounded on the wizard's humanity than the witches' or The Land of Oz's magic

What I Disliked

CGI wasn't completely to my liking 

Gist
Imaginative, entertaining, respectful of its source, and grounded on humanity, Oz: The Great and Powerful's magic is derived from the flawed humanity core of its story and a strong supporting cast that's half-human and half-CGI. It's a movie about sticking to your own faults and making the most out of them, something the movie did well as an example.

Oscar Diggs is a traveling magician, performing in two-bit towns to a half-filled tent audience. But he's also a con man, and a loveless / friendless philanderer who thinks that his ways will lead him to greatness. But one day, after his performance in Kansas, a strongman running amok sends him flying on a hot air balloon that got caught up in a tornado. Where he lands, however, is not a place known to men--a place ruled by witches, filled with magic and flying monkeys.

When the movie first came out, critics have criticized the casting of James Franco and Mila Kunis, with Franco's performance being particularly described as wooden and forced. Then there was also the frequent complaint that the movie doesn't have any sort of magic that the 1939 predecessor that it prequels to. All those said, my expectations for this movie has been tapered. I was really gonna be seeing it just for Michelle Williams. I was ready to pass on the movie. But that wouldn't be fair and I gave it a watch anyway. So was my surprise.

First, I would like to address the thing with Franco. I am not a big fan of him. In fact, I find his voice, as well as his little brother's, annoying. And to be honest, I haven't really seen much of his movie. I mean other than Spiderman and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (which I didn't enjoy much, and I actively avoided 127 Hours because I don't like the whole premise), I haven't seen much of Franco in the movies. I am also aware that a great deal of critics hate him deeply and actually take good care to nourish that hate (of him and his arrogance). Anyways, those said, I think most of the hate affected their enjoyment because to be honest, I think Franco did well. Sure, he's no Robert Downey Jr., who was Disney's primary choice (and oh what magic would that make) but that would be boring already. Downey would take the role and do it so effortlessly that already I am no longer interested seeing it. Don't get me wrong, I love him, but it seems like the role of Oz would not challenge him, or would simply present itself as another iteration of him or of Tony Stark or of Sherlock Holmes. It will be so predictable how he would tackle it.

Going back to Franco, I think he is Oz. I mean the way Oscar Diggs was written was practically based on his personality. Oz can be a bit of an arrogant, self-serving asshole. And yes, with what I've read about Franco, that's him. But he's also got a heart and goodness, something he's not very good at displaying. Again, James Franco. Oz was a guy in need of redemption and maybe so does Franco. Those said, I actually enjoyed his performance. Sure, his smile is reminiscent of the Cheshire Cat's and is often more menacing than sincere, but he has so many redeeming scenes in the movie where he brought forward the humanity out of the big CGI fog.

And speaking of CGI, I don't really understand why Disney had to make it such an Alice in Wonderland Party. While it's pared down and more simplistic than the mess of Wonderland, it's still a bit cartoonish, something that's aspiring to be Avatar but only manages to be Smurf. Though plus points to the CGI team that made Finley and the Little China Girl. Those two scene-stealers provide much of the movie's heart and are the conscience-steerers for Oz.

Of the three witches, Kunis was the looniest. I'm fine with her performance, to be honest. It wasn't career-defining, but it wasn't movie-breaking either. In fact, I don't find any fault in her performance. She was angry mist of the times anyway, and probably that was for the better. Weisz was good, but not completely detestable. She's so svelte and composed and rarely dips into her villainy. But when she does, you still couldn't hate her enough. Best performance of the three, and of the movie, however, belongs to Michelle Williams, whose royally blonde portrayal of Glinda managed to combine desperation, feist, hopefulness, and elegance in equal measures. Her Glinda matches the atmosphere of Oz under the Wicked Witch's control: Desperate yet hopefully jovial and put together. It's a close tie between her and the China Doll, though.

But what I like most about the movie is how clear it puts its morals: sticking to your own nature and finding redemption in it. Oz was a con man who wants to be a great person. He know his nature and for a reason, he thinks that there's no redeeming him. But the things he has gone through in Oz makes him realize how he could turn the tides and find the good in his ways. Disney managed to do this in a clever way. The dialog was written well, particularly the exchanges between Williams and Franco at Kansas then near the end at Oz. It is at the end too that Franco's Oz shows his heart and matures into wisdom.

The overall tone of Oz is imaginative, entertaining, respectful of its source, and grounded on humanity. Its not as loony or magical as, say, its studio kin Alice in Wonderland. Its magic is derived from the flawed humanity core of its story bolstered by the strong supporting characters adding more volumes into the story. It's a movie about sticking to your own faults and making the most out of them, something the movie did well as an example.

Judgment: 4.3 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 200 to 250 pesos. Paid 300 for 3D. Not sure the 3D matters.