Neckstrap

Director: Ryan Murphy 

Screenwriter: Ryan Murphy, Jennifer Salt

Starring: Julia Roberts, James Franco, Richard Jenkins, Viola Davis, Billy Crudup

Running time: 133 mins

Certificate: PG

Pay, sit, watch, groan. Yawn, fidget, stretch. Pray for end of dire film about Julia Roberts’s emotional growth, love the fact it can’t last for ever. Wince, daydream, frown. Resent script, resent acting. Grit teeth, clench fists, focus on plot. Troubled traveller Julia finds fulfilment through exotic foreign cuisine, exotic foreign religion, sex with exotic foreigner Javier Bardem. Film patronises Italians, Indians, Indonesians. Julia finds spirituality, rejects NY, gives Balinese therapist 16 grand to buy house. Balinese therapist is grateful, thankful, humble. Sigh, blink, sniff. Check watch, groan, slump.

Film continues, persists, drags on. Wait, wonder about Julia Roberts’s hair, wonder about Julia Roberts’s teeth, wonder about Julia Roberts’s conversion to Hinduism. Check iPod, check cellphone, roll eyes.  Listen to people at the back talking. Listen, listen and listen more. Pray that they grow quiet. Check for bed sores.

Julia meets wise old Texan, sweet Indian girl, dynamic Italian-speaking Swede who thinks “Vaffanculo” means “screw you”. Julia does Billy Crudup, James Franco, Javier Bardem. Ex-husband, rebound lover, true romance. Hate Crudup, like Franco, love Bardem. Divorced Javier emotionally gives. Ex-wife, uninterested. Absent, off-cam, unnamed. Julia likes it, needs it, prefers it.

Movie passes two-hour mark, unfinished, not over yet. Bored? Me too. Laugh. Laugh harder. Comedy? Whimper, moan, grimace. Wriggle, writhe, squirm. Eat own fist, pray for death, love the rushing sense of hunger. Topple forward, rock in chair, have to be carried out of cinema. Feet itching for the door. Mouth craving for a drag.

Reach life crisis, form resolution, ask boss paid year’s leave to go travelling. Boss stands up, shakes head, silently mouths the word: “No”. Nod, turn, return to work. It’s Friday. Wake up.

Never. Do it. Again.

In only a few days, two events put the Philippines on the map again; the failed rescue of Chinese nationals and a failed response by a beauty queen. What do they have in common? Nothing much. But taken together, they are both of peril and promise. Our country, after the recent ‘automated’ elections, appears to be back-peddling economically and politically while the rest of Asia is heading the opposite direction. What is amusing is, the Philippines is different; it has a high literacy rate, agricultural self-sufficiency and a homogenous population. Then why can’t it transcend to be a darling of the international investment community? The 1960s was a good year. Why can’t we bring it back? Because of apathy. The people don’t have a high demand of themselves or of the government. The willingness to accept a low standard of performance has taken its toll on the psyche. So don’t be surprised if the PNP tried to negotiate well after a reasonable length of time resulting in the death of 8 HK nationals. The special assault team knew what to do but failed. Why? The priorities were misaligned. The safety of the hostages should’ve been paramount. The results are sadly similar and consistent with the expectations many people have of performances in other areas. Our country has descended into a competition of political dynasties. The question is, why do the people keep on electing these so-called leaders? It’s apathy possibly. Let’s take a look at Venus Raj. She’s beautiful, poised and full of grace. But her response is otherwise. How could this 22-year old, who prepared and sacrificed a great deal didn’t come up with a more sensible response? Was she nervous? Who wasn’t? The entire world was watching much like Monday night. Everybody was nervous. It was instead a missed chance and just like that, the people were making excuses. If the Philippines wants to get its act together and live up to its potential, it needs to demand more of herself. She can achieve this by stopping making excuses for its failures and ending its acceptance of her current demise. President Aquino promised to put an end to nepotism and corruption in government. The people should make sure he does this. When the police screw up a hostage rescue, the people responsible should be fired. And when a beauty queen blows an attempt to become the glory of the Philippine people, it should be recognized as such. We missed the bus, yet again. *paraphrased from the Huffington Post with personal opinions

Si Ed, isang sikat na direktor ng pinilakang tabing, ay namatay noong katapusan ng Mayo bunga ng komplikasyon sa puso at pagkawalay mula sa kanyang inaakalang katuwang sa buhay. 

Huwag na natin alamin kung ilang taong gulang na si Ed. Sabihin na lang nating magulang na siya sa buhay-buhay ngunit murang-mura pa rin kung magmahal.

Isang tahimik na nilalang, wala sa anyo ni Ed ang pagiging masintahin. Ngunit sa kanyang mga huling sandali, bumaliktad ang kanyang mundo at nagpakilala ang isang taong nagtatago mula sa hukay sa kanyang puso; isang katauhang nagmimistulang tuko kung makakapit sa ideyang may katuwang tayong lahat. Ang walang patumanang paghabol niya sa inaakala niyang katuwang simula’t sapul pa lamang, ay isang katibayan na kahit ilang sandali lamang silang nagsama, karapatdapat lamang na pagtuunan ito ng panahon hanggang sa huling sandali.

Madaling araw ng Linggo ng malagutan ng hininga si Ed kasabay ng pagpanaw ng kanyang pagasa. Ngunit ang paniniwalang ang buhay ay isang tagpi-tagping kumot na bumubuo ng lahat ng mga pangyayari, ay buhay na buhay pa rin sa kanyang isipan.

Sa kabuuan, pinabaunan tayo ni Ed ng isang palaisipan; ang uniberso ay palaging naghahain ng mga pagkakataon. At kailangan nating pagsaluhan sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya; upang makarating tayong lahat sa ating nakalaang tadhana.

Dalawa ang pinaglalaanan ng salitang ito. Gamit pang permiso o sambit sa paglisan. Marahil ang katanungan ay kung kailan ito gagamitin ng wasto. 

Sa unang banda, ang taong may nais na malaman, makamtan o di kaya’y gawin para sa ibang nilalang, ang pamamaalam ay isang wastong paraan upang maliwanagan ang ilang bagay; intensyon at pakay, paglugar sa tamang panahon at oras at ukol ito sa pagbibigay ng tiwala mula sa nagbibigay ng permiso. 

Sa oras na humingi ng paalam sa isang nilalang, humihingi din siya ng tiwala. Tiwalang mahirap ipamahagi ng basta-basta. Ito ay tiwalang magbubunga ng ilang katanungan. Kung payagan ko, may kalakip ba itong katiwalian o may kalakip ba itong kapalit? Kung payagan ko, binubuksan ko ba ang aking pinto para sa kanya? Kung payagan ko, hindi na ba niya kailangang magpaalam muli? Ang pagbigay ba ng permiso ay pagsangayon?

Sa kabilang banda, ang pamamaalam ay kapatid ng paglisan, paglimot at pagkawala. Ang pamamaalam ay hudyat din ng pagsuko sa laban na maaring ikamatay ng apoy na matagal mo nang binubuhay. Pagsukob din ito mula sa mga posibleng suliraning darating dala ng una mong hakbang palayo.

Ang pagbanggit ng paalam ay pagyakap muli sa iyong pagkatao; ang imahe ng solitaryo o imahe ng kalayaan. Malaya kang kumilos at maghanap muli. 

Ngunit, sa kabila ng lahat, uulit ang sirkulong ito ng walang paalam mula sa iyo.

Magpapaalam ka ba o magpapaalam na?

Ang babaw pala,
ng swimming pool na ito.
akala ko malalim,
nakakabagok pala ng ulo.

Sa aking pagkakaalam,
malalim ang babagsakan.
Kababawan lang pala,
ang kahihinatnan.

Ang dami kong gustong gawin,
backstroke, breast stroke at freestyle.
Ni hindi ako makatalon,
at makalublob ng mahusay.

May isa pa palang problema,
sa balak kong ito.
May kasama akong tatalon,
mauuna lang ako.

Sinusubukan lang pala,
kung ako’y masasaktan.
At bigla-bigla akong tinulak,
ng sigurista para malaman.

Sa sobrang babaw,
wala akong maintindihan.
Oo, masaya mag-swimming,
pero wala palang katuturan.

To my friends in Manila and Singapore,

It’s been a good ride and this time, the destination is Singapore. I will be having my first international photo exhibit along with two artists. The show is dubbed PRESENCE. We will be mounting 12-15 black and white, canvass printed pieces and it will offered to the viewing public if they so wish to purchase some. It will be on August 11, 2010. If everything goes well, there will two more shows lined up in 2011. :) 

We hope to see you in SG. Thank you mga kaibigan. Salamat sa lahat. :)



White Canvas Gallery is located at 78 Chuan Guan St., Tiong Bahru. If you are taking Tiong Bahru Road, make a turn at Seng Poh St., near the Tiong Bahru Market. White Canvas Gallery is right at the end of this very short street. If you are taking the MRT, get off at Tiong Bahru Station. It is a 5 to 8-minute walk to the gallery. Call 6220 8723 for directions or email at ricky@whitecanvas-gallery.com White Canvas Gallery is open from Tuesday to Saturday, 1-8pm.

Naalingpungatan sa kanti,
ng mga pangungusap.
Umalingawngaw sa isipang,
hirap pa sa pagkurap.

Nakakapaso sa mata,
maanghang sa dila.
Bumabakas ang pait,
ng bawat salita.

Maganit ang pagguhit,
humahabol paibaba.
Walang patumana ang pusong,
bumubuntung hininga.

Lalamunang naninikip,
sa paghinga’y kinakapos.
Mga salitang matatalim,
sumusugat, tumatagos.

Lumulubog ang bubog,
kumakayas sa kalamnan.
Humihiwa, bumabaon,
hanggang sa kaibuturan.

Tinitiis ang hapdi,
ng bawat talata.
Makaalpas lamang sa sakit.
naghihintay magmanhid.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that when people hear the name Robin Hood they should immediately think of an archer loyal to Richard the Lionheart fighting against the injustice of tax laws imposed by Prince John normally through the rival the Sheriff of Nottingham. From Errol Flynn to Kevin Costner the delivery of Robin Hood has always been varied but the structure and the core of that story is what allowed it to make sense and remain familiar to audiences. It appears Ridley Scott has taken some notes from the likes of Tim Burton and Joe Johnston by taking a known source and throwing out everything of the structure except for the name. If you don’t recognize anything that occurs throughout Ridley Scott’s prequel re-envisioning ofRobin Hood then no one blames you because its just Scott’s convoluted, paradoxical, and history twisting interpretation of the classic fiction tale. 

So what is so drastically different about this version of Robin Hood that makes it so difficult to give it a solid review? Well we are introduced, with cheating title cards, to the scenario at hand where Robin Longstride is an archer in the first crusade under Richard the Lionheart. Where it deviates strongly is when we learn that Robin is completely disillusioned with Richard’s crusade because of the slaughtering of Muslims. 

Are there any political messages becoming obvious yet? 

Putting that to the side it actually gets weird when Richard dies in battle, taking away the entire original core from the original Robin Hood tale where Robin is loyal subject of Richard and objects to Prince John’s abuse of the throne in Richard’s absence. Then things get really complicated when we are introduced to a completely new character named Godfrey who is attempting to create civil war within Britain while also aiding King Phillip of France to overtake Britain. John becomes king and marries Eleanor of Aquitaine, which is Ridley Scott’s combination of actual history and The Lion in Winter making Richard and John based on historical figures rather than complete fiction. This could be a benefit but it isn’t handled well in the drastic deviation of the Robin Hood tale. 

Robin and his merry men aren’t quite merry, especially Little John who is a bit brash and a drunkard. In fact, it is actually difficult to explain everything here in a sort of synopsis because it tries to balance everything from civil war, improper taxation, blatant contradictory political messages, a power hungry King, and an awkward love affair that involves mostly everyone from the original tale by name except, of course, an essential factor being the Sheriff of Nottingham who appears momentarily for no good reason at all if not to just be presented that he actually exists in this convoluted prequel re-envisioning.

Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood does indeed reek of desperation trying to recreate the epic nature of Gladiator by claiming the successful grounds of another epic work known as Braveheart. The inspirational speeches, the soaring music, and the fast paced sword and arrow action done through editing all make great evidence to Scott attempting to recreate the formula that made his Oscar winning film so good.

Alright so the acting is alright despite the obvious age problem and the action is well done even if it doesn’t even come close to matching Gladiator or even Braveheart.

So what is Ridley Scott’s intention of re-envisioning the story of Robin Hood? Well its simple brow-beating at its best lecturing audiences across the world on foreign invasion of Muslim countries and that we should be living in communes where everyone has an equal share at nature’s table.

You can’t say. live without any government and be one with nature at the same time as speaking of being equal under the law, a human institution. Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland trip all over themselves in their prequel Robin Hood by making the story too convoluted by attaching multiple and varying plot devices, including manipulation of civil war and Robin Hood’s back story which some stranger seems to know all about it without any prior indication that he knew otherwise.

Adaptation is certainly a screenwriting art form that isn’t well respected in the modern age because it appears all screenwriters think they can be better than their source. Ridley Scott’sRobin Hood is far from being anything close to the original source because it’s a complete re-envisioning of the tale focused more on back story than it is with character motivations and development. If you take away the original core you need to provide a believable and even flowing new one to replace it if you want the film to be paced properly with no obvious glitches. 

Did Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood hit the spot? 

If you’re targeting two hours of good film entertainment, then this one can be missed.