I know this post might be coming in a bit too late but I recently read the reviews on the movie "Rakenrol" and I just felt the need to write about it.
"Rakenrol" is a movie directed by Quark Henares co-produced by our company Reality Entertainment with Furball, Quark's company.
I don't want to sound defensive...no...yes, I am defending it. I am defending it not because I co-produced it. I could never care less. We also produced "Binibining K" (Binibining what? Yeah, I know. You guys haven't seen it. Good!) way back and I even wrote the story but I'll be the first to admit that it's crappy. So no, I am defending Rakenrol because I truly think it's a good film.
It's not a masterpiece, granted. Hell, no artist ever claims that he's making a masterpiece. Quark never claimed he was making one. He just made a movie that he wants to make.
"Rakenrol" was a movie straight out of Quark's "Super Noypi" disappointment. Quark approached me about a script he wants to shoot and asked if our company would be interested to co-produce it. He sent me the script. I read it and I liked it. I may not know a lot about local music but I liked how Quark and his co-writer Diego Castillo laid down the characters of the movie. What I liked about it is in its honesty of the kind of movie that it is. Quark said that it's about a bunch of people trying to form a band and it follows the pains, the craziness, the loves and the joys that the group goes through.
We've seen movies like this. We all love these feel good movies. Movies with characters that are trying to prove their worth to the world. "The Commitments" by Alan Parker, "Revenge Of The Nerds", "Reality Bites", "Cool Runnings". It's not new. But what I like about the script of Rakenrol is that it's uniquely Quark. I can see him in the movie. And that's my gauge of a good script, if the author imparts something of himself in the material. Shallow or deep, the quirkiness, the romance, the humor and the heart of "Rakenrol" is truly Quark. That's why I pushed my partners in our company to co-finance the movie and produce it.
I am not a groupie of Quark. In fact, I don't like "Gamitan". I felt it was derivative and was not coming from any local insight on the Filipino psyche whatsoever. I liked "Keka", a lot. Quark has a way with his characters. They all seem very real to him. We may not know who these characters are but to Quark, it sure feels like he knows who they are inside out.
That's one of the things the critics say that they don't like about "Rakenrol". That the characters were not fleshed out fully. But for movies of this genre, the characters are essentially archetypes and that's it. But look at the work that went through with the actors playing the characters in "Rakenrol". They are spot on. The nuances are so fucking good that I even asked Quark how he was able to make them do it with such grace and ease (except for Ramon Bautista. I really think he can't do gay!). To be fair, having these characters work so well together, the performances and with that chemistry is something to be impressed about. I think it should have been singled out.
Even the storytelling, the film language (except for the Genta Ogami plot angle which I feel is dated) had a lot of thought into it given the limited resources of the movie. I think it should have been pointed out as well. The soundtrack is just memorable and just right in pushing the emotion and the energy of the movie. But no one talks about any of this. Have we become so numb of watching too many local movies that have crappy film aesthetics that we are now just watching movies only for what it's trying to say and not on how it's told using the medium?
What I also like about the movie is that it did a genre rock band movie exactly the way a genre rock band movie should be done. Only that it's Quark's way. His own take on it. I hate to go watch a movie that promises to be a horror movie only to see that it's actually just a psychological thriller. Nowadays, I don't know why people tend to shy away from making genre movies. "Serious" indie filmmakers tend to see genre as something beneath them. Why? Where did this loathing for genre come from? Have we watched too many Cinemalaya/Cinemaone/Cinemanila movies that watching a genre movie isn't satisfying enough anymore? Wouldn't it be more of a question on your skill as a filmmaker when you're asked to do an action movie and you deliver, instead, this pseudo-intellectual discourse on peace in the midst of war? Rather than doing a genre movie that's asked of you and do it as good as you can better than anything that's been done on that genre?
Most of the critics mentioned that "Rakenrol" wasn't personal enough. Who are we to say that? Just because it's light and funny doesn't mean it's not personal to Quark. And whether it's personal to the filmmaker or not, is beside the point of movie watching. Why can't we just enjoy watching movies for what it is? Does one have to say something deep and affecting in a movie to make it personal?
"Rakenrol", some say, is not about music. So what? Quark never claimed he was making "Bird" or "The Cotton Club". How much of music do we need to hear to be able to call it a music movie? Do we need a separate sequence on how the band decides on a tune? Do we necessarily have to see them discuss the meaning of music in their lives?
I once gave a talk in Ateneo that the problem with most critics in the Philippines is that they don't know how to "critique". That they are mostly film reviewers. Alexis Tioseco, who I didn't know then, was seated in the room and asked me why I think so. I explained that a good critic, would see a movie based on the filmmaker's body of work and not just by his individual works. Meaning, with Rakenrol for example, the movie should be seen based on the filmmaker's previous works. And it speaks so much about what kind of movies Quark is interested in making. And we should see it from that perspective and critic him in that context.
As a viewer and a critic (in a lecture-ly tone), our job is to take the movie for what it is and analyze it for what it only is and not for what it's not. Once a critic starts offering suggestions on what the movie should and should not have then that's not the critic speaking anymore but the frustrated filmmaker in him. But in this day and age where everyone can speak his mind anywhere and everywhere on the net, what right do I have to tell anyone the step-by-step guideline to good film criticism?
I respect only a few local directors. Quark is one of them. I respect him, just like Rico Ilarde and Jon Red, for doing the kinds of movies they want to make. No agenda. And in this present landscape of "cinema of intention", where movies are hailed because mainly of the weight of its meaning and importance, it takes a lot of courage, conviction and honesty from these guys to go against the grain and do the kind of movies they do. To do movies about an ex-girlfriend, about a day at school, about mixing the monsters and the ghosts. I respect them for that as much as I respect Lav Diaz' conviction on doing his movies longer than what people expect them to be.
Every filmmaker have their hits and misses. Some are good and some not so good. But it's in the honesty of the filmmaker's filmmaking where respect is really won in the end. Quark chose to make a little charming movie Rakenrol in the midst of almost everyone in the industry scampering to do some socially relevant, self-reflective, cultural, deeply meaningful, "important" films. That's something to be lauded.
Why are we so forgiving about other indie movies and not of Quark Henares? Is it because Quark, despite his apparent available resources, didn't make an important film worthy of Cannes' notice?
Making a movie is not easy. It can't be just about meaningful ideas that you want to convey. There's actual work that's really involved in making it. With Rakenrol, the actual work is really on how it was put together. And to me, that's enough to be commended about any movie out there.
As in Stephen Sondheim's Putting It Together:
It takes a lot of careful assessment to comment and analyze other people's work. One has to look at the particular work from all angles before making any sweeping judgment. I, myself, take serious thought before giving judgments on anything I write on this blog just to, at least, try to be fair and balanced. And I am not even a critic.
Bit by bit, putting it together
Piece by piece, only way to make a work of art
Every moment makes a contribution
Every little detail plays a part
Having just a vision's no solution
Putting it together (That's what counts)
Art isn't easy
Every minor detail
Is a major decision
Have to keep things in scale
Have to hold on to your vision
It takes a lot of careful assessment to comment and analyze other people's work. One has to look at the particular work from all angles before making any sweeping judgment. I, myself, take serious thought before giving judgments on anything I write on this blog just to, at least, try to be fair and balanced. And I am not even a critic.
There is a big responsibility that rests on the film critic's shoulder because the weight of their words matter to the reading and viewing public.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truths we, critics, must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."
There, I said it.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truths we, critics, must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."
There, I said it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves" - Brendan Francis Behan
ReplyDelete"A good critic, would see a movie based on the filmmaker's body of work and not just by his individual works..." A-men! We don't have critics in the Philippines. Just a bunch of showbiz reviewers...
ReplyDeleteMabasa sana ito nina Oggs Cruz at Philbert Dy...
ReplyDeleteHi Sig, nabasa ko na. Thanks Erik for your just defense of the film. Without bowing down to some of your points, I really do think that Rakenrol is a film worth defending. I have read Philbert's defense of the film in his Esquire blog and it made sense, and that for me is enough to respect the film without liking it wholeheartedly. That other people saw something in it that I couldn't and convince me of the sincerity of their liking it is proof that the film is worth fighting for.
ReplyDeleteQuark is one of my heroes. I probably won't be writing as extensively as I do if Quark didn't make me realize that I was doing something I should be doing other than lawyering. That is why it pains me to be disappointed with the film, for the reasons I have stated in what I have written in my blog and in Twitch. However, the beauty of writing about film, whether it be real criticism or just showbiz reviewing, is the discourse that happens right after it. For me, a film that divides viewers has more import than one that plainly pleases. It is through this communication that both filmmakers and people who love and write films better themselves.
Though there are perks in doing so, I have never thought that writing about films is glamorous. I've always told my friends that critics or reviewers are parasites, since we feed on other art to make our art. Without the films, we're nothing. So Erik, thanks for this. It is something to ponder on.
Oh yeah, I enjoyed Binibining K for what it is. Thanks for properly using Jojo Alejar.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteREPOSTED IT, LOL!
ReplyDelete"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truths we, critics, must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."
For me, a work of a critic is not easy. Especially that of a Filipino critic, critiquing about Philippine Cinema. In the Philippines, we only have a handful: sir roland, oggs, chard, dodo, noel vera (who've gone to the states), the late alexis, phil. A total of: 7 critics, only 5 actively working in the Philippines. And with the huge of amount of films released this year, it's hard to scope them all, it's hard to write for all those films and not one them are doing it full time. They have jobs. They also have enumerable excuses on not writing at all - "its a waste of time, i need to focus on my job more". They're doing it because they're passionate about cinema. And its not something you can just shrug off or pretend to be. Some people can be pretentious, but at least, pretentious or not, its for the love of cinema. Only Alexis did it full time, rich lucky boy he was.
These people do not merely offer short comments on films, they offer "criticism" drawn from their long time engagement with cinema: its rhetoric, language, dynamic nature. And not just cinema, but the whole cultural scene surrounding a film. The critic's level of engagement with cinema is different from a filmmaker. The filmmaker is a doer, a maker, an artist, while the critic's role is to write about what the filmmaker has done. Of course, its a bit off when a filmmaker writes a criticism of his own film. They need a third party opinion from someone who have watched all of what cinema has to offer, someone who is deeply engaged with the nature of cinema, someone who can evoke a commentary with a staggering implication on film history and his immediate film culture.
I've always considered the words written by the notorious ANTI-FILM-CRITIC blogger HarryTuttle, (http://screenville.blogspot.com/2006/11/consensual-criteria-for-good-critic.html)
He said that there are four main criteria to become a good critic:
4 main criteria :
1. Love of Cinema : passion + curiosity (for discoveries and novelties). Watching a lot of movies.
2. Culture : expert of cinema history (1000 or 2000 essential films to know to be able to relativize the creativity/skill of new movies against past production) + deep general culture (arts and real world, which is the source of cinema inspiration)
3. Cinema technique knowledge
4. Writing Quality : style, communicative enthusiasm, readable, clarity, pedagogy.
And also :
5) Sensibility : emotion. To develop affectivity even for disliked movies.
6) Stance without prejudice : Judgement rooted in critical theory trends without rigid ideology.
7) Objectivity : no influence by the majority of opinions, nor by personal mood/instinct.
8) Sense of hierarchy (values) : Being able to make pertinent comparisons. Freedom and independance of thinking, against the editorial line, other critics and social fads)
*****
ReplyDelete"I explained that a good critic, would see a movie based on the filmmaker's body of work and not just by his individual works. "
Auteur Theory is very limiting for a film critic. You are bounded by "the director's previous works". You won't be able to write for his debut (if in case, he never made shorts prior to that film), you can never write a critique about Night of the Hunter. It's Laughton's only film, and its masterpiece btw! Classical Or even Brakhage.
Filipino films do not always follow the auteur tradition the french posted in the 60s. We're a different kind. We're forming a new approach in filmmaking like our cousins in Thailand. (I actually believe that Apichatpong was a big hit in the west because he has a strong auteur presence since all his films are connected.) Our Raya Martin is not an auteur filmmaker either, his style is varied. Mendoza can be auteur. Quark can auteur I guess.
Btw, i like Quark's rakenrol. It's a good film. One of the better films released this year. But for me, Auteur Theory is dead. :)
************
""In many ways, the work of a critic is easy..."
ReplyDeleteYeah. I had a reply to that:
http://criticafterdark.blogspot.com/2008/02/dvds-ratatouille-we-own-night-only.html
Erik has a point and it's in the title of the blog post. There really is no other way to go to a film, or any work of art, for that matter: literary, visual, culinary. It's crucial, though, to course it through one's own experience, articulate your own discourse with the work, the film that is and not so much the filmmaker. No piece of criticism should be objective, is what I think. And if I have any biases against , and even for, a filmmaker, and it happens to leak into a piece, then so be it. My only responsibility at that point is to write the piece like a motherfucker.
ReplyDeleteDisagree with Behan, though. That whole art critics can't paint/ food critics can't cook / book critics can't write fiction / film critics can't make films argument is so tired.
Thanks, Oggs! I normally wouldn't react to film reviews by critics whether it's for my movies or for others. But I am just getting tired of the present landscape of our cinema where everyone is just making films about anything they can think of using maybe just a clever, one-line premise or a brilliant, or so they think, insight on Philippine society. A lot of the movies going around now are short films stretched into a full- length feature. And most are intellectual discourses rather than actual movies that breathes and have something you can call a soul.
ReplyDeleteRakenrol is one of the few movies that has a life of its own. I can't say that for most of the movies that's been hailed over the past years.
I don't know if it's the function of resources or accessibility of the medium or the filmmakers being just clever but I feel that a lot of these movies are pre-mature, not fully grown. It may also be that we have a new audience excitedly awaiting to devour any film that's different from the mainstream, that we are may still be less discerning as an audience as to what kind of new and fresh ideas are really good or are just being downright clever and exploitative.
I really do hope to read reviews that not just talks about the ideas in the film but also its references, its influences, its place in relation to our cinema of the past, it's craftsmanship, etc. That way, the work of the filmmaker is not dismissed merely on just the substance of the film but it puts the movie in context as to what it might really be as a movie.
wasn't going to comment because it's "improper", but there seems to be a healthy conversation going on here so... fight! :)
ReplyDeletei recently went to a talk by the video artist Laurie Simmons, and they asked her how she reacted to criticism. her answer was this: "no matter how accomplished or successful you are, criticism will always get to you.i know people who are millionaires and national artists, and when they read a bad review of their latest show they are just DESTROYED. it will always get to you, and if you know that, and accept that, it makes things a little better."
to be totally honest, i was really hoping Oggs would like Rakenrol. mostly because i've been following his reviews since Keka, and Rakenrol was a film I promised to only three critics: Alexis, Phil and him. so of course it hurt that he disliked it. I knew before the review came out that he didnt like it, simply because he said nothing, and I actually encouraged him to release the review anyway. I think, for filmmakers, criticism hurts because we put so much of ourselves into our films. especially with a movie like Rakenrol, where Diego and I put a lot of our personal experiences and memories out there to for all to see, only for a critic or two to judge it as "contrived" or "a mess". i think what affected me more was that some local critics said it was alienating and an inside joke, while foreign critics,who should have been the ones alienated, were more welcoming.
but yes, discourse is important. I told alexis once that a good review is like having coffee and a meaningful conversation with someone after a film. in a weird way i'm happy that people still took the time to think and write about the movie, even if they disliked it(the same cannot be said of blog commenters. face it Oggs, you have the meanest people reading your blog). the only review i actually hated of Rakenrol was some pseudo-intellectual fucker who said i didn't deserve to dedicate the film to my friends Alexis and Nika. but yeah, it's true what they say about opinions and assholes :)
on a final note, i realized something when i read oggs review of rakenrol (and i told oggs this): it's the first time in a long time that i didn't feel i had to apologize for anything. at this point i dont really care about being an auteur or having indie cred or getting awards. i just care about the movie, and realizing that made me really happy. it's even more meaningful now, now that i've been away from the camera for so long.
haba nito ah. on a lighter note, i find it absolutely touching that my producer stood up for me, because it means he's happy he made the movie. i'm happy we made the movie too. thanks erik :)
quark wala casing gay element kahirapan o social realism kaya ayaw nila hehehehehehehe
ReplyDeleteat saka yung mga nag fe feeling na mga critics bigla na lang sumulpot sino ba yang mga yan at san ba sila nanggaling ano ba pinag huhugutan nila? Dahil uso nakikiuso tapos ngingitian ka at pupunta sa mga gathering mo tapos titirahin ka punyeta sumayaw na nga lang tayo. hehehehehehehe
ReplyDeleteJUN! MISMO!
ReplyDeletePS i miss you
Wahahaha! Puta, yung pagkasulat mo, Jun, parang naririnig talaga kita magsalita a!
ReplyDelete