Rigodon

Tomorrow this movie, Rigodon, will be showing in theaters with two cuts R-16 for SM and a Director's cut of R-18 in all other cinemas.

This is a movie that we did on and off for 8 months.

I know the first question that pops in everyone's mind: In these times, is an adult movie still relevant?

It surely is.  Rigodon, once titled Punto De Bista, was a script we already had for 4 years now.  From a director who has done several adult movies, Scorpio Nights 2, Ekis, Dos Ekis and Prosti, it would be easy to dismiss this new film of mine as somewhat predictable. So how then can I claim Rigodon to be relevant?

As someone who loves the industry I'm in and who adores all sorts of movies, we all wish that we could get to see other kinds of movies in our theaters other than Twilight: Breaking Dawn.  You wish that there would be movies that would cater to any mood, topic and flavor without judgment on its moralistic stance.

I have been fighting to get this movie made not because I only want to see nudity in our movies but also because I want a variety of movies to thrive in our industry and nurture a movie audience that will be open to anything and everything cinema can offer.

The past years we saw a surge of local rom-coms and low budget horror movies with the occasional indie offering that has become predictably formulaic.  Other than that, we turn to Hollywood and foreign movies to get a different serving in our movie-watching appetite.

Rigodon is relevant as a movie that dares to challenge what can be shown in Philippine cinema nowadays.  it is relevant to give the audience a different kind of experience other than what we're used to.

It may not be a film for everyone, but it certainly deserves a space in our movie houses.

Watch It For What It Is

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: 

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.

From Film To Farm

I have always been in the movies.  19 years, I think.

I love movies.  I love watching them and making them too.  I love the experience it brings watching it.  Movies introduce me to so many worlds from the eyes of its creator.  

I used to ask myself, "If I was not making movies, what would I be?".  Back then I 'd always settle for a lousy answer.  If I weren't in the movies, I'd probably be teaching film or acting for drama in some school.

Lately, I've developed a love for food, for cooking.  And if I were to be asked now what I would be if I'm not in the movies, I'd probably answer, cooking.

My love of cooking may probably have been borne out of my frustration with movies.  The frustration of seeing some crappy movies critically acclaimed or box office hits.  The disappointment of a lot of local movies that are badly done and are merited in spite of.

I've seen a lot of movies and witnessed first-hand the process by which they do it.  And it pains me to see that not a lot of thinking goes into executing it right.  Unlit night scenes are passed off as realistic.  Poetries snuck into the narrative to pass it off as art.  Stories are achieved through editing and not really from a deliberate and conscious way of achieving the vision for the movie.  Non-actors that don't know how to act are used to give the project that legitimate verite-feel even if it ruins the narrative.  Disjointed scenes due to a lack in foresight are labeled abstract.  

Cinemalaya and Cinema One are mostly training good writers as opposed to real filmmakers.  Most of the breed of young filmmakers now are out to trick foreign film festivals into getting their movies with their view of Third World culture as opposed to pushing the identifiable form and content of Philippine cinema to serve it to its local audience. 

When I started in Manila working in the movies, I probably had not less than 10 concepts for movies I wanted to do.  And I was arrogant to say then that I was pretty damn sure such ideas for movies will be blockbuster hits and critically acclaimed.  I never got around to working on it when I started working on a real movie set.  Mainly because seeing how a movie is done humbled me.  I realized I didn't know enough.  One by one, after each movie I worked on as a crew, my ideas slowly got weeded out.  I realized they were not good enough.  The amount of thought that goes into one shot of film is just so much that I figured, I will need to learn a few years more before I even venture into staging one scene at the most.

I was lucky to have been taught by the best.  Peque Gallaga.  He taught me what movies should be like, That movies should be that, movies.  Grand in theme, big in storytelling. Anything smaller than that is TV.  He has instilled in me that story is just the beginning.  It's executing it that matters.  Everyone has a good story to tell but to tell it in cinematic terms is what matters in cinema.   "The Road Home" was a simple story but it was really a piece of cinema.  "Crash" Of Paul Haggis was a good story, but it was not so much a piece of cinema.

Movies nowadays, in Philippine context, have become too easy to make.  Anything can be passed off as good.  A few laughs and it will be hailed.  A long uncut scene and it becomes groundbreaking.  A few dream sequences and it's already avant-garde.  A story about the indigenous tribe of Cotabato and it becomes a masterpiece.  Maybe my taste for movies have become too old-fashioned.  Maybe the world has revolved a number of times and I didn't witness the change it brought to filmmaking.  Or maybe, too, mediocrity has just become an accepted state of things in this country.  That we're already too happy to get a few laughs from Willie Revillame, get a few gayness from Vice Ganda or enjoy the butt crack of Derek Ramsay.

Movies are so unlike cooking food.  A fried raw fish is a fried raw fish.  There's no other way to call it.  A burnt piece of meat cannot hide its bitter taste no matter how you call it as art. What you send out from the kitchen is as naked as the heart and thinking that was put into it. If it tastes good, it tastes good.  If it tastes bad, it surely will taste bad.  You can't mask it with a loud sentimental ethnic Tiboli music or a melancholic, pseudo intellectual narration or some stylish MTV-type editing.  It is what it is.  Bad.

Over the last two years, I have bought a farm in Don Salvador Benedicto.  A place high up in my home province Negros Occidental.  The climate is like Baguio.  It is about an hour from my home city, Bacolod.

In the last 4 years or so, the government of Negros has made a highway from the North to the South of Negros using mainly Don Salvador as the main route.  I envision that in the next 5 years, that main route will give birth to a lot of commercial establishments from gasoline stations to stop-over restaurants, even hotels and resorts.  I've got my place right beside the main highway in the Northern part near San Carlos and that's crucial.

I started with a 6-hectare lot and now I have bought the plot of land next to mine, another 6-hectare land right beside a river.

While I was out buying the land, I was also busy collecting books on farming, sausage and ham making and now, I'm getting books about cheese making.

Here's the plan:  Build a farm on it.  Pigs, chicken, goats, maybe cows, vegetables.  By the side of the road, make a restaurant that cooks ingredients only picked fresh and slaughtered fresh from the farm behind it.  All the left-overs, turn it into sausages, hams and cheeses. The menu will be based solely on simple, organic stuff from my backyard.  No fancy molecular gastronomy stuff.  Plain rustic, family-style meals with no more than 5 to 8 ingredients to a dish.  

The restaurant will have a deli section and a coffee shop (serving only local Arabica beans). I will export a brick oven in the kitchen and make some freshly baked pizzas (I've got several versions of pizzas in my collection of recipes.  Just need to find the right texture I want).  Maybe I've been watching a lot of Hugh Fearnley-Wittingstall River Cottage, but I really think becoming a farmer is not such a bad idea.

Cooking, as opposed to filmmaking, is not open to memorable lines for the trailer.  Cook the dish in the kitchen, serve it to the customer, peer through the kitchen door to see if their face lights up or frowns, then that's it.  Just like film, cooking is about taste.  But in cooking, there's instant gratification.  Cook it, serve it, they eat it and then you get the answer, as quick as that.  

Right now, I'm still in my movie making mode.  There's still a lot of movies to make.  With the newly re-established Reality Entertainment Company of ours, I will have my hands full in the next two years.  Developing and producing movies for, not just me, but with our stable of directors.  We hope to release our brand of filmmaking in 2012 hoping that we can put our work where my mouth is.  I really think we have a good bunch of movies in the pipeline.  We don't claim to be the savior of local cinema or the makers of the best there is out there but we'll definitely bring our kind of movies to the theaters hoping that we can find an audience for it.

If the audience tells us that our movies suck, that we actually just live in our delusions of what good movies should be, then I guess it will be time to put this dream of farming to work. Then maybe my frustration will be proven wrong and it's just right that I end up in my own little world up in my farm, cooking whatever the hell I want.