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.