Wide Shot

wide shot ISSUE NO. 1 / MAY 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS REEL TIME Man on the Street • 6 President’s Thoughts • 8 Movie Reviews The Secret in Their Eyes • 11 Batman V Superman • 12 Brooklyn • 14 Cheap Thrills • 15 Paraiso • 15

In Memoriam • 16 REEL TALK

The Long Way Around: Hell hath no fury like the Fury Road • 18 MMFF and The Filipino Film Industry: Where Did It Go Wrong? • 20 It’s About Time Leonardo DiCaprio Won as Oscar • 21 Spotlight Meets the Philippines • 22 Superheroes in Cinema: A History and a Future • 24 Are the Oscars Still Important? • 28 White Picket Fences • 30 LFC in Motion: A Review • 32 BLOOPERS Ask Franny • 36 Summer Movie Releases • 41

editorial team Editor-in-Chief Jessica Brown Deputy Editor Gaby Gloria Features Editors Joshua Chan Kristofer Purnell Sachi Siquijor Editors Hans Obusan Jauncho Zarate Picture Editor Patricia Salonga Promotions Isaiah Limpin Advertising and Printing Paolo Palanca Dispersal and Placement Pia Salazar Design and Layout Ida de Jesus Illustrator Dianne Aguas

Letter from the President Dear reader, THANK YOU for picking up the Loyola Film Circle’s very first issue of Wide Shot!

The organizational year may be over, but in a way this magazine is LFC 18’s culminating project—not just as the Documentation and Publication committee’s ultimate product of their blood, sweat, and tears, but also as the entire organization’s last effort for the year to promote a film culture in the Ateneo.

Wide shots are commonly used in film to establish where the action will be taking place. Seeing a bigger picture sets the stage for whatever’s about to happen, and reminds us of how the characters stand in relation to everything else. Before diving into dialogue and movement, many movie scenes typically start with an exterior shot of a house, or a quick look at a road sign, or a bird’s eye view of a city below. But I think we tend to forget that wide shots are just as often used as a way to close a scene: after all is said and done, the camera pulls away and we are made to look at what remains—and things have been forever changed. A wide shot isn’t there just to tell you where you are, but to make you consider different viewpoints on things familiar or strange. That’s what LFC’s pool of writers and photographers have set out to do in this issue.

LFC turned 18 this year. My pitch at the beginning of my run as president was that this would be the year the org would come of age. It

was my hope that we would pick ourselves up from whatever internal problems had plagued us in the past. It was my hope that we would get wiser as an organization and work together to reorient a love of film back to our collective center. And after more than a year of watching my members grow into genuine film enthusiasts and student leaders, I’d say we took a step in the right direction. To me, Wide Shot represents all of that, and potentially so much more.

With that, I will concede to one of the golden rules of cinema: show, not tell. Everything you need to know as proof is in the succeeding pages.

So, for the very last time, thank you. Thank you, dear reader, and thank you to the Loyola Film Circle—my home.

Until always,

Emilio Luis D. Hofileña

LFC 18 President

4

WIDES H OT

M AY 2016

5

man on the street

“Love, Rosie. Feel ko kasi I’m the type of guy na parang okay lang mag-wait eh. So parang walang nangyayari haha! Kaya siguro parang Love, Rosie—baka umasa ako someday, baka kahit magkaroon siya ng ibang guy, okay lang… kung kami, kami.”

Wesley Dela Cruz (2 BS ME)

transcribed by Kristofer Purnell & photographed by Pat Fongwan

If your love life were to follow a movie’s plot line, which would it be and why?

Casey Lumagpas (2 AB PSY) “All I can think of is The Notebook, but I’d be the guy. I want to take care of someone like that. When I see that I just wanna be that person who cares so much, even when the other person doesn’t remember me, at least they’re taken care of.”

Arielle Locsin (3 AB COM) “Because I’m a child and I love Disney so much, I actually want it to be something like Tangled. The thought of having two people where you’re meeting a new person and you feel like, ‘oh, I wouldn’t like this person or he’s not someone to be with kahit friend lang’, but it’s the beauty of starting to know someone and see their flaws that makes you fall in love with them—I think that’s so beautiful because you grow together as one, not just as individuals.”

“I think I’d follow Easy A. Because I love Emma Stone first of all, and because she sacrificed herself for others. And in the plot she got her love story in the end pa rin; and she’s a real person even though like her character’s pretentious at first, but then in the end she stayed true to herself and with staying true to herself she still found the love of her life.”

“I have it, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, so we can kick ass together even if we’re from different places.”

Niki Gema (1 BFA ID)

Pia Domingo (2 BS LM)

6

WIDES H OT

M AY 2016

7

P RESI DENT’S THOU GHTS

Always Better on the Big Screen: Preserving the Theater Experience Film piracy is an easy choice in the Philippines. It’s easy because we don’t get a lot of movies here in the first place. Our video stores, online streaming services, and television channels don’t have a lot of content. Only very few local movies get DVD releases, and—in cinemas—local mainstream film studios are lucky to release more than two films every quarter. Indie festival runs are restricted to a select few theaters for one to two weeks—and then most of their entries never see the light of day again. Foreign film distribution isn’t as strong as it could be either. So why hope for a theatrical release when you can see the same movie for free at your own convenience when it gets released online?

There are legal and economic implications, of course, to film piracy. But what is really worrisome is how this culture of settling for online downloads and watching movies in the privacy of one’s home is robbing many of us of the beauty of the theater experience. It becomes difficult to convince people to sit and wait for movies to be released in cinemas when they can just sit and wait for movies to be released for free on the internet.

But there’s really just something special about sitting in a dark movie theater, and allowing a good film to completely enthrall you for two hours. The theater experience always enhances the quality of the film you’re watching. That’s because theatrical releases are made to be seen on a big screen.

First, let’s look at how the audio-visual elements of a film can become enhanced in a movie theater setting. Take, for example,

8

WIDES H OT

Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, 2013). I watched Gravity for the first time in a packed cinema, and I have never watched it again in its entirety.

In my opinion, it is a movie that can only be seen in a cinema. I’ll go as far as saying that watching Gravity on TV or on a computer monitor is tantamount to watching a completely different movie altogether, because Gravity is a movie very specifically created for the theater environment.

Surround sound is put to expert use in the film; Sandra Bullock’s and George Clooney’s voices float in, muffled, from different directions, while the vastness of outer space isn’t heard so much as it’s felt through the sound design.

Most importantly, the blackness of the cinema erases the divide between screen and audience.

During the film’s seventeen-minute opening shot, I immediately felt like I was actually in space. I felt like I was seeing stars even in my peripheral vision. Other people on the Internet have reported feeling something close to vertigo during the scene. You get the sense that you’re not just sitting in your seat anymore, but hurtling through space with the characters. Watching and listening to Gravity with earphones on may give you a bit of an idea of the theater experience, but I have to emphasize that actually being there—unable to escape the blackness of the environment and unable to disconnect your earphones—is something else entirely.

Another example—this time for showing how movies utilize sound in a cinema—is The Babadook ( Jennifer Kent, 2014). Many of the best horror movies in general are also some of the best sound-designed films of all time. And again,

you can really only appreciate them in the environment where they were meant to be viewed. The Babadook, in particular, has a number of moments when static and audio distortion can be heard traveling from the left speaker to the right, or from front to behind—and the effect is terrifying. I remember actually looking up, to my left, and to my right during these moments, to see if these noises were coming from inside the theater. The sound design of The Babadook is so good that it made me feel unsafe sitting inside a movie house. Watching it on a laptop with earphones on doesn’t come close.

But what about dramas and comedies that aren’t as flashy? This point is a bit harder for me to articulate, but I still also believe that relatively simpler movies that only really feature characters talking to one another can still be greatly enhanced by the movie theater environment.

Take, for example, Before Midnight (Richard Linklater, 2013). The film is mostly made up of mundane dialogue between the two leads as they walk around Greece. How does the darkness and surround sound of a theater make the experience richer? Simply put: the theater helps us focus on what’s going on. Watching a movie on a laptop does not get rid of the million-and-one distractions in your room. Watching something on HBO won’t stop someone from barging into your room and throwing you off from the story.

Immersion is something many viewers take for granted, but is something that is key in maximizing a film’s potential effect on a viewer.

There is a certain point in Before Midnight when the audience is subjected to a long, unbroken shot during which now-married lovers Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine ( Julie Delpy) have an intense, heated argument in a hotel room. Watching this scene on TV or on a laptop isn’t fully immersive; the option to change channels, pause, stand up and do something else, or simply stop watching out of discomfort is always open. What the theater does is that it takes away those options.

It forces you to confront the discomfort of seeing these two characters fight. The theater environment actually forces you to experience a scene completely differently, because it demands attention, and denies pure detachment. You are made to consider more deeply the things you are seeing.

This is where learning how to watch a movie comes in. There really is an art to it (or,

at least, a recommended way of doing it). A movie offers you all these elements, and it is your responsibility as a viewer to try and take in the full picture. I know that sounds demanding, especially for self-proclaimed casual viewers. But it’s really not difficult, I promise. All it entails is attention, patience, and a reasonable enough level of respectful silence from the audience.

You don’t “fail” or anything if you don’t pay complete attention to a movie. You just miss the opportunity to maximize the experience. You miss seeing the best possible version of the film—that best possible version being the one wherein you, the viewer, are fully immersed. Sometimes it’s the viewer that makes the film truly great.

In conclusion, I would love for people to rediscover the magic that a movie theater has to offer. The screening of a film like Gravity in cinemas was a once-in-a-lifetime event; people will literally never experience that movie the same way ever again. The dawn of online streaming services and the Golden Age of Television might hurt (if not totally kill) the beauty of conventional moviegoing in cinemas. So it is my hope that people remember to go to the movies at least once in a while. I know it can be expensive to go to a cinema, but if you maximize the theater environment, you will be in for a completely different experience.

M AY 2016

9

Got a Secret, Can You Keep It

A review of El Secreto

FILM REVIEWS

10

WIDE S H OT

de Sus Ojos

Set back and forth between the time periods of 1974 and 1999, El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes) is an Argentinian noir film that set a whole new standard for the genre after it premiered in 2010.

Directed by Juan Jose Campanella, the 2010 film gained international acclaim after it received the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film—a feat uncommon for a non-English movie with such a plotline.

El Secreto stars Ricardo Darin (previously known for 2000’s Nine Queens) as retired federal agent, Benjamin Esposito, Soledad Villamil as the judge, Irene, and Guillermo Fracella as Esposito’s friend and assistant, Sandoval. The film opens in Buenos Aires in the year 1999, where the now retired Esposito is beginning to start on a new novel based on a case he worked on 25 years prior.

Flitting between present and past in the context of the grim, politically-charged atmosphere of ‘70s Argentina, the audience follows the group’s pursuit for justice in the rape-murder case of Lilliana Coloto, a young, recently-wed woman who was found dead in her home.

Darin’s portrayal of the sad, brooding character of Esposito was ironically filling in the sense that he brought out the emptiness and feeling that something was missing from his life.

This hollowness was perhaps best represented by the missing ‘A’ key in the typewriter that was brought to attention multiple times in the film.

Fracella’s Sandoval provided necessary comic relief to the otherwise serious thriller, with the actor masterfully executing the right tone and timing for his character’s scripted quips. Villamil, on the other hand, was sharp in her portrayal of the Harvard-educated Irene. Her delivery and body language were on point, especially when it came to the restraint she had to portray with Esposito.

by Gaby Gloria

While Darin, Fracella, and Villamil gave exemplary performances, it was the screenplay itself that helped give the film its necessary edge.

Though seemingly structured like a path of bread crumbs leading to a definite conclusion, the film surprised in its capability to make a full turn with the emergence of the final disclosure. What is even more impressive is that in order to lead up to this, it did not rely on the action-packed car chases, gun fights, and psycho criminals that usually characterize Hollywood crime-thrillers.

Instead, its focus was set on a deeper level, as seen through the recurring theme of passion.

Passion shown in its various forms was what drove the film forward. First, through the romantic tension between Esposito and Irene’s complicated relationship, then eventually, through Esposito and Morales’s relentless search for the killer, and finally with Gomez’s obsession towards Lilliana and football games.

Though a crime thriller at its purest, El Secreto was successfully able to integrate and highlight themes not usually associated with the genre.

Tense moments were offset by comical ones, and the essence of nostalgia sprinkled in bits all throughout displaying unrequited love and emptiness were all somehow resolved in the ending, giving a more than satisfactory sense of closure to its characters and its audience.

RATING:

M AY 2016

11

Batman V. Superman: Falling Short from New Heights

by Antonio Miguel N. Adre Regarded by many as DC’s unofficial answer to Marvel’s already expansive Cinematic Universe, Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice had a lot to live up to. Now that the dust has settled and the hype glasses have been thrown away, the question remains: Was it any good?

Before I start, let me just say that I am neither a die-hard Marvel or DC fan. That being said, I have read and watched enough material over the years to more or less get a feel for what makes the heroes, worlds, and comic-book movie franchises great. Now, with that business out of the way, let’s get right to the bad news first.

Like nearly every film, Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice has flaws. While keeping this review spoiler-free, I would like to say that luckily, there are no plot breaking flaws within the movie. Unfortunately, one of the film’s major hiccups involves the way one of the titular heroes is portrayed. As the very core of the story is based on pre-existing stories, it’s natural that there are going to be assumptions regarding the characters and how they behave. For example, Batman is expected to be both brooding and cryptic because that’s the common personality the character embodies in the source material. On the other hand, Superman is expected to be both idealistic and moralistic.

Now I’m not saying that the movie is banned from deviating from the formula.The film however,

12

WIDE S H OT

contains some actions of certain characters that break what made them unique. There is certainly always enough room to innovate and reinvent a character (like the numerous portrayals of Joker throughout the years), but if you deviate or change something that’s considered core to the character, then there’s definitely going to be some confusion and a sense of disconnection from the character that audiences know and love. This movie doesn’t defile the characters in any major way, but it does, at times, make you pause and ask: Wait, character X doesn’t do that!? or I don’t remember character Y being like this!

Another small issue with the film is what I like to call “Intended Stupidity.” This is when movies have a habit of infecting the characters with idiocy for the sake of dramatic effect or to magnify a scene. An example is: if person A wanted to kill person B, person A wouldn’t waste time on talking or using weak weapons but go straight for the kill. Instead, for the sake of showing off to the audience, person A would avoid the logical approach and instead go for what would entertain. Ultimately, Dawn of Justice has too many of these moments in spades, where characters that should know better apparently don’t.

One sub-type of this is selective use of powers.

For example, if someone has the power to read minds, you don’t expect to see him threatening

someone for information when he can just get it through his powers, but they show it anyway for character development or dramatic effect.

This movie is riddled with these “He has so and so, why didn’t he use so and so instead?” or “He knows about this, why didn’t he just do this ?” kind of moments. Thankfully, that covers most of the undesirable elements of the film, the rest being so insignificant you could consider it nitpicking.

Now that I’ve delved in what Dawn of Justice got wrong, here’s what it got right. First of all, the fight scenes and visuals make for an appetizing display of action and suspense. Sometimes they can be a bit over the top, but as it is a superhero movie, flashy action scenes aren’t too out of place.

The use of CGI and practical effects are always an issue, however, but I can say that the film correctly strikes a good balance between the two. If you’re really looking for the telltale signs of CGI, you’ll definitely find them. However, if you just immerse yourself into the action sequences, the CGI is hardly noticeable.

Another thing I have to applaud the movie for is its casting. Though I mentioned earlier that there are moments when the way the characters go against what the source material usually presented them as, regardless of how they were portrayed, the actors owned their characters to the core. Henry Cavill played this version of Superman extremely well, capturing the emotional

struggles that have come to define Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel.

Not to be outdone, Ben Affleck practically radiates brooding vigilante, with his thousandyard-stare that speaks volumes about the Bat’s internal struggle as a hero damaged by childhood trauma.

Wonder Woman, although not as big a character as Batman or Superman, was given new life by Gal Gadot. I would even venture that her actions on set definitely brought this ages old character to the modern stage, with a spunkiness and confidence that differed from Marvel’s take on female protagonists. Classy, mysterious, and definitely not a person to mess with are just a few words to describe this incarnation of the Amazon princess.

Speaking of class, Bruce Wayne was not the only rich boy in town. Jesse Eisenberg brings something unexpected to the table with his portrayal of Lex Luthor in the film, turning the brilliant and arrogant supervillain into something that resembles an amalgamation of Mark Zuckerberg meets Steve Jobs, with a dash of unhinged, evil psychopath thrown in.

Though with its ups and downs, Dawn of Justice is a definite must see for anyone who wants to enjoy a superhero flick. Although it’s not perfect, and it’s definitely not the formula we’re used to when it comes to these kinds of films with its dark atmosphere; all these changes help make it stand out from the rest of the pack. The critics definitely haven’t held back any punches when telling us about the ills of this film, but I would say that it all boils to down to the hype and how you level your expectations. With a solid cast, progression that doesn’t noticeably drag, and action scenes enough to give fanboys strokes of joy, Batman V. Superman: Dawn of a Justice is a relatively good opener to the DC cinematic universe.

RATING:

M AY 2016

13

Brooklyn

BY LORENZO ESCOBER

There’s nothing particularly groundbreaking about John Crowley’s period drama Brooklyn, what with its wistful simplicity and relatively conventional plot, but that is precisely what makes the film so refreshing. Timeless and laid back, this Saoirse Ronan-led coming-of-age story is a homage to a simpler era, an ode to self-discovery, and of course, an open love letter to the Irish people. Like a pastry, the film is delicately layered, carefully crafted, and holds one exquisite performance at its custard center.

The performance in question is of course Ronan’s, who comfortably steps into the shoes of Ellis (say it like you’re Irish—EH-lish) Lacey, a young immigrant to America who finds herself caught between two worlds.

Embellished with harmonious pastel-colored imagery, the film’s vintage costumes and sets are sure to be adored by those nostalgic for 50s New York. Brooklyn transports and delights, gleefully reveling in the beauty of the past while still managing to captivate an audience so far removed from the era. Sticking to universal themes, the film panders to a wide market, and anyone who has felt either lost, conflicted or deeply in love will find in its heroine a character worthy of admiration. Crowley’s direction is also a triumph, in the sense that it manages to create a masterpiece out of what could otherwise be a mundane, predictable story about a lovestruck Irish immigrant.

No amount of good direction, however, would be effective without the actors the film so greatly

relies on. Ronan’s character development is a thing to behold, starting off as a dainty ingénue before transforming into a determined, strong-willed lady. This change is subtly realistic, well-calculated and intelligent; a perfect complement to the film’s direction. Emory Cohen proves to be a genuinely likeable complement, and seems to embody the loud, expressive, endearing qualities of the big city. Juxtaposed with Domhnall Gleeson’s stoic, distant character, Cohen is easy to love, providing Ronan with the dramatic support she doesn’t necessarily need, but nonetheless benefits from.

What makes Brooklyn such a curiosity is that it deals with issues that have been addressed countless times in the past, and so theoretically, shouldn’t offer any unprecedented material. But everything about it is executed so masterfully that the film gives new depth to age-old emotions, capturing the melancholia of homesickness, and eventually the healing, barrier-crushing powers of love. The film is at once rich and delightful, charming and sad. Its capacity to engage even the most cynical of viewers is a display of the value of a project that is secure in its vision. It dares to question, dares to dream, dares to exist, really, and hinges heavily on the themes of reinvention and individualism. Like the American dream that beckons so many of Ellis’ people to the shores of liberty, Brooklyn is an invitation to search within, to forge a new identity, and eventually, to take a leap.

CHEAP THRILLS

PARAISO

by Juancho Zarate

by Sachi Siquijor

Cheap Thrills is a black comedy-thriller about two friends going through financial problems and are willing to do anything—and I mean literally anything—for money.

They meet this couple, and out of their desperation, the rich couple starts offering money to whoever among the two can do what they ask them to do—a sort of set of challenges that starts an avalanche of bad shit going downhill.

Without giving too much away, while the ending was cliché, the buildup that led up to it was great regardless.

It started off kind of slow and gentle, but as it went on, it kept getting rougher, dirtier and so shocking that it left me holding my breath in awe.

By the end of the movie, the only thing that you’ll be left thinking is: “What the fuck was that?”

It’s a great movie about dehumanization for the sake of money (which I can relate to on a personal level). It might not have the most impressive body of work (e.g. camera quality, advertising, cast) considering that it’s a film festival movie, but it comes highly recommended. I’d rather watch it in the cinema over most films pumped out of the copy machine these days. The acting is great from all four main actors—almost like I’m watching the most disturbing documentary I’ve ever seen in my life. The message it sends is relevant in all contexts: We are a people ruled by money, and our lives are just one big quest for gold; along with the dragons that come to claim it. Given the chance to see it again, I would do so in a heartbeat.

On November 3, 2013, Typhoon Haiyan, locally known as Typhoon Yolanda, made landfall in the Philippines and caused devastation particularly in the city of Tacloban. Now, the setting of a devastated city is used and framed as the backdrop of Nash Ang’s Paraiso (Paradise).

Focusing on a father who lost all 23 members of his family, Paraiso deals with the drama of one man who lost everything. Presented in black and white, with dialogue inter-sped between panoramic shots of the ruins of Tacloban, Paraiso heavily utilizes visual narratives to convey the bleakness of the situation.

Yet despite the film’s accolades, one of which was first place at Portugal’s Cine’Eco, the film drags a bit. While the film heavily relies on shots of the bleakness of the situation, many of these are overtly extended and unnecessary. The suffering of the victims is almost treated as grief porn—it ends up being overtly gratuitous at times.

But despite the slow pace, the film is simple and effective. While the victims of the disaster are portrayed as over the top in their plight, their resilience and struggle to restore normality is touching. Like the smiles of Tacloban’s children, Paraiso reminds us all that through all the destruction and pain, there is hope for the future.

RATING:

RATING:

RATING:

14

WIDE S H OT

M AY 2016

15

In Memoriam

2015-2016

Wes Craven

Gunnar Hansen

David Bowie

Michael White

Wes Craven was famous for

Hansen was best known for

David Bowie acted as Thomas

White produced the cult

his horror films, particularly

playing Leatherface in The

Jerome Newton in The Man

classics The Rocky Horror Picture

those that were slashers. He

Texas Chain Saw Massacre. He

Who Fell to Earth (1976) and

Show and Monty Python and

directed the Scream series as

died on November 7th, 2015.

Jareth the Goblin King in

the Holy Grail. He died on 7th

well as the first installment of

Labyrinth (1986). He died on

March, 2016.

the Nightmare on Elm Street

the 10th of January 2016.

franchise. Wes Craven died on August 30th, 2015.

Dean Jones

Robert Loggia

Alan Rickman

Erik Bauersfield

Dean Jones was an actor who

Loggia was a memorable

Alan Rickman was famous for

Erik Bauersfeld was famous

acted in the famous Herbie

actor who made appearances

his roles as Severus Snape in

for voicing Admiral Ackbar

films from 1968 to 1982 and

in Jagged Edge, An Officer and

the Harry Potter franchise as

and Bib Fortuna in the original

the original Beethoven movie.

a Gentleman, Scarface and

well as playing the Sheriff of

Star Wars trilogy. He died on

Jones died on September 1st,

Independence Day. He died on

Nottingham in Robin Hood:

the 3rd of April, 2016.

2015.

December 4th, 2015.

Prince of Thieves and Hans Gruber in Die Hard. He died on the 14th of January, 2016.

John Guillerman

Brooke McCarter

Douglas Slocombe

Guy Hamilton

The British film director

Famous for his role of Paul in

Slocombe did cinematography

Guy Hamilton directed four

directed a remake of the cult

1987’s The Lost Boys vampire

for the first three Indiana Jones

James Bond movies: Goldfinger

hit King Kong in 1976 which

horror comedy, McCarter will

films, which was paid homage

(1964), Diamonds Are Forever

starred Jeff Bridges and Jessica

always be remembered. Brook

to by the cinemtographer of

(1971), Live and Let Die (1973)

Lange. Guillerman died on the

McCarter died on December

the Kingdom of the Crystal

and The Man with the Golden

27th of September, 2015.

22, 2015.

Skull. Slocombe passed away

Gun (1974). He died on 20th

on the 22nd of February, 2016.

of April, 2016.

Melissa Mathison

Haskell Wexler

Tony Burton

Prince

Melissa Mathison was

Haskell Wexler was a

Tony Burton was best known

Prince, although was primarily

well known for writing the

cinematographer who was

for acting in the Rocky series

a singer, he starred in four

screenplays of The Black

one of film history’s ten most

as Duke. He died on February

movies: Purple Rain, Under the

Stallion and E.T. She died on

influential cinematographers,

25th, 2016.

Cherry Moon, Sign o’ the Times

November 4th, 2015.

according to the International

and Graffiti Bridge. He passed

Cinematographers Guild. He

away on April 21, 2016.

died on December 27, 2015.

16

WIDE S H OT

M AY 2016

17

The Long Way Around

HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE THE FURY ROAD

by Julius Sambo

Max Rockatansky stands alone in the middle of the road. He checks his piece, a sawed-off shotgun, and notices that it has only a few rounds left in its barrel. In front of him lies a cavalcade of warriors hell-bent on pursuit. Behind him, a small plane gets ready for take-off. He rushes towards his car, a Pursuit Special, and floors it; his one hand now gripped tightly on the wheel, the other on his gun. Max doesn’t see an exit. He knows he doesn’t need one. With everything he has left, he rushes towards this ensuing army. Max wouldn’t be called mad if he didn’t abide to such reckless decisions.

Max now walks alone. He wanders through what once was plains teeming with life, but now arid, all life replaced with emptiness, with barely any trace of the civilization that it once cradled.

Max walks and looks for a place he can call home. What Max didn’t know is that it would take 30 years for his story to even reach its next destination.

When George Miller created his first Mad Max film, he created a phenomenon. It was an idea that demanded its own sphere of influence, creating an icon that permeated and reshaped pop culture and apocalyptic fiction. Miller created a world where desolation and despair bore fruit to savages, where resource shortages gave way to barbarity and really sick-looking cars, and where style complemented function in the most obscene ways.

It was the movie that launched his career, Mel Gibson’s future in Hollywood, and the whole of Australian film into the coveted limelight. The first film in the franchise, Mad Max, was released in 1979, becoming the most profitable film in that era, making over $100,000,000 with a $380,000 budget. The first sequel, The Road Warrior, followed in 1981, and the third installment,

18

WIDE S H OT

Beyond Thunderdome, in 1985. Each one was more commercially successful than the one preceding it. There was no end to this behemoth. It had become an icon that must never cease to die.

By 1987, Miller already had crafted the foundations for the next installment of his magnum opus. He described what he wanted for the fourth Mad Max film as one like a “continuous [car] chase”, with the audience having to keen over the scenes to become imbibed with the story’s mythologies, “and that the McGuffin, the thing that everyone’s in conflict over should be human because to some extent or another we’re all commodities in the world.” However, nothing came into fruition, until nine years later when Miller, while on a plane ride across the Pacific, dreamed up his whole vision for the film. Thus, Furiosa, Imortan Joe, and the War Boys along the Fury Road were born.

In 1996, Miller was ready to set his course towards the barren wastelands of future Australia once again. Negotiations happened, a proposed television was thrown into the mix, and Mel Gibson’s refusal to reprise his role was rumored, but none of this was expected to completely derail the project. Within a year, a portion of Fury Road was storyboarded, with the whole story designed, written, and drawn by 1999. With over 3500 storyboards, the film was practically finished, as if an animated film in a crude state. Despite the rigorous process of creating a whole new portion of the world of post-apocalyptic Australia for Max to roam around in, by 2001, the movie was set for filming. To top it all off, Mel Gibson, despite requiring a sizeable sum to coax into joining the project, was on board to reprise his role. This is when the first of its multiple roadblocks appeared.

With the September 11 attacks inciting more rigorous security protocols and the plummeting

of the US dollar, Fury Road’s production was also in peril. Transfer of equipment from the United States to Australia was stalled, and the production budget cut by 25% due to the disparity in US to Australia dollar exchange rate widening. By 2003, Fury Road officially declared hiatus.

In between the hiatus years of 2003 to 2009, the legend of the Fury Road refused to die. Come 2005, there were news of the film resuming production, with the possibility of Mel Gibson being replaced. The following year, Max was found in the person of Heath Ledger, who, according to Miller handpicking the star himself, exuded “that maleness, charisma, and restless energy, which you need to play a relatively still character. However, Ledger’s untimely demise in 2008 became the second major roadblock that the production had to skirt around. Miller then had to search for his new Max. Despite not having had a final casting replacement for Ledger, George Miller announced in October of 2009 that filming and production would commence soon. It was set to become a hundred-million-dollar project, expected to create over 500 jobs over a 2-and-a-half-year timeline, filmed over the plains of New South Wales, Australia. On the casting side, over half a dozen names were thrown around, but Miller zeroed in on Tom Hardy for Max, and Charlize Theron for Furiosa. This was set to be the beginning of the film’s long road to culmination.

Fury Road endured wars, terrorism, and tragedy, but nature was one enemy that the

production didn’t expect to face. Rain decided to fall on the usually dry and sunny outback of Broken Hill, New South Wales. The empty, orange, and sandy landscapes of what should have been Fury Road gave life a chance, transforming the scenery with greenery. This further stalled production by a few months with hopes of the land returning into its original state. However, nature refused to give, and Fury Road had to move out of Australia and journey into the deserts of Namibia in South Africa. However, not everything still went smoothly as Namibian conservation groups expressed concerns over production damaging local flora and fauna, and Warner Brothers hovering over and meddling with shooting to procure a 2013 release date.

Miller stood his ground, and filming officially wrapped up in November of 2013, pending post production and editing, with an expected release date of May 2015. 30 years, $376M, and ten Academy Award nominations later, here we are, finally at the end of the Fury Road.

In a Vanity Fair interview, Miller spoke of never having intended to return for a second Mad Max film, making a fourth installment beyond unimaginable. “But the story seeds in your head,” he says. “I’ve become sort of hardwired for the imaginative life. There’s nothing else I can do.”

Great ideas permeate and persist; and some stories, no matter what comes their way, be it nature, despair, or a woman scorned, survive. They fight, they live, and they refuse to die.

M AY 2016

19

MMFF and the Filipino Film Industry The Metro Manila Film Festival (MMFF) was first introduced as the “Manila Film Festival” by Mayor Antonio Villegas in the heart of June of 1966. It was a quick 12-day celebration of our local culture with intricate floats and foreign films being banned. Though at first not a success, and it seemed that the festival would no longer continue, during the rule of Ferdinand Marcos in 1975, it was relaunched, and by 1977, The “Metro Manila Film Festival” then officially became an annual affair.

The festival was full of both prestige and acclaim. Famed legendary Filipino directors such as Eddie Romero, Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal, and Mike De Leon took part as well, with the entries boasting famous talents such as Nora Aunor, FPJ, Joseph Estrada, Christopher De Leon, and many more. The MMFF was a celebration of cinema with high-class and a distinctly Filipino calibre. Serious and casual filmgoers alike embraced the celebration.

But now, the MMFF is now a shell of its former self. Films are produced not with heart, but instead with commercial appeal in its soul.

People who used to anticipate the festival grew to resent it. Numerous controversies have flown year-by-year for the pettiest of reasons, such as a fandom war and even full-on walkouts of anger. What has happened to the MMFF? More importantly, what has happened to the Filipino film industry?

Part of the changes that affected the festival for sure was the slowly but surely changing mindsets of film producers, which actually started in practice of the 1980s. They seized the opportunity to make bank with famous love teams or stars. The box office receipts flowed in, no matter the quality. Pretty soon, producers adapted the “pito-pito” strategy of cinema. Films would be quickly financed and shot in 10 days to recoup its cost quickly and make money. Although

20

WIDE S H OT

by Joshua Chan

these films were relatively mainstream and with varying quality, they brought in the money and thus everyone followed suit. This trend gradually affected the Metro Manila Film Festival as well.

This culminated in the 1994 MMFF, wherein then-chairman Alejandro Roces declined to give the six major awards, stating that all of the entries were undeserving. Upon a closer look, the 1994 MMFF seems eerily similar to the MMFFs of modern day: big stars all in mainstream comedies, some with contrived romance and dramatic plots; with random horror and action films thrown in for the sake of diversity.

But while the 1994 MMFF was supposed to set the alarm off not only for the festival, but the film industry as well, unfortunately, the industry hit the snooze button. Eventually, as news died down on the festival, the trend simply continued.

Mainstream cinema remained unchanging, and it came at a price. The industry eventually started to lose steam as it crawled in the early 2000s, with very few memorable or quality movies made beneath the dominance of foreign Hollywood blockbusters.

Almost by miracle, the film industry was reborn as it crawled to the present decade of the 2010s—not by quality, but by box office standards. Year after year, box office receipts for local films grew, despite quality being as stagnant as before. The true renaissance of the film industry was during the 2010s with the inception and prevalence of independent films such as Ang Babae Sa Septic Tank, Taklub, Six Degrees of Separation from Lilia Cuntapay, Metro Manila, and Senior Year. They all garnered critical acclaim, not only in the Philippines, but abroad as well.

Unfortunately, by this point in time, especially with the emergence of social media and diehard network fans who seem to only watch films created by their “home” network, these movies were mainly ignored by cinemas.

Capitalism seemed to dominate multiple cinemas in the Philippines, especially by the behemoth and near-monopoly of SM Cinemas, who own at least 50% of the screens in the Philippines. The same applied to the MMFF as well. Gems such as RPG: Metanoia and Thy Womb were quickly pulled out of cinemas due to tepid receipts in contrast to the other bankable entries (the latter even going as far as losing nearly all its screens in the first two days of the festival).

The disqualification of Honor Thy Father for best picture, honestly the only good film in the recent MMFF, is a testament to how low the Philippine film industry has fallen, choosing to make money at the price of art.

Indie film directors are discouraged by the occurrence. If their film will simply get tossed aside after a few days of being shown, how are they to continue pursuing and perfecting their craft? If the only decent movie worthy of awards is disqualified, what does that say about the industry? There are random and truly beautiful gems that have been popping out in recent years (Ang Kwento Nating Dalawa, shown at LFC’s Loyola Screen is an example), but how many of them truly get the audience they need or even the time to garner said audience?

The problem, ultimately, is as much with the audience as the film-makers and cinema-owners.

If you give the audience the “kilig” factor, no matter how mediocre the movie is, they will see it in droves. If you stock a barebones script with stars, the fans will come. It is a true statement that you cannot see a proper mainstream Filipino film these days without a shoehorned romance element (even the horror movies).

While mainstream movies can be good if it they are well-thought-out or just well-made, producers and studios must tweak and change the formula if the industry is to get any better - with the support of an audience.

To cite some examples, two terrific modern Filipino films are Erik Matti’s On the Job, produced

by Star Cinema, and Jerold Tarrog’s Heneral Luna, produced independently by Artikulo Uno Productions. On the Job, despite carrying a starstudded cast, was viewed by most cinemagoers via Twitter as “boring” “walang kwenta” and “walang love story diyan action yan eh boring siguro ang corny.” Despite critical acclaim, On the Job flopped at the box office and barely made half of its 47-million-peso budget, causing Star Cinema

to presumably abandon all other creative projects and to stick with the tried and tested romcom formula. Heneral Luna, on the other hand, was an Indie film with random TV spots on GMA and ABS-CBN. As expected for an Indie film in this day and age, it debuted to excruciatingly weak numbers, and in less than a week, it was in danger of being a giant box office flop with a 247 million peso budget. However, due to support, aggressive online campaigning, and several university professors urging their students to see the movie, the film became one of the biggest success stories of the year. It was the giant that grew from nothing, that surprised everyone and made enough bank to merit a spiritual sequel.

Despite being an indie film with little-to-no stars and minimal advertising, it still managed to do what On the Job failed to do: get people to see it.

It’s evident that ultimately, the cinemagoers, theater-owners, and film producers simply have to step it up. In the end, the Filipino film industry still has a beating heart, yet these four seem to refuse it. Ultimately we, as cinemagoers must demand better choices as well as for the industry to provide said choices.

Right now, there is a chain reaction of events brought together by the MMFF 2015 controversy. There is now officially a court case exposing everything wrong with the MMFF. There is a movement to simply kill off the festival and relaunch it. Perhaps this may be for the better and be the true wake-up call the industry will finally have to answer. After all, sometimes to do better, we must start anew.

“Makaka-recover ka.” ­—Anthony Lagdameo, That Thing Called Tadhana

M AY 2016

21

It’s About Time Leonardo DiCaprio Won an Oscar

by Gaby Baizas

22

WIDE S H OT

Leonardo DiCaprio is definitely no stranger to the silver screen. You’ve probably seen him as Jack Dawson in Titanic, Dom Cobb in Inception, and Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street. He has starred in over 35 movies and has always been acclaimed by critics while maintaining his status as one of the biggest movie stars in history.

Funnily enough though, Leo never won an Oscar for the longest time. At least, not until the 88th Academy Awards ceremony in 2016.

After five Oscar losses, Leo finally bagged an Oscar for his sixth Academy Award nomination for Best Actor as Hugh Glass in The Revenant.

Although he definitely deserved the award after being mauled by a bear and going as far as to eat a whole slab of raw bison liver for the role despite his vegetarian diet, fans all over the world still celebrated his first-ever win with great delight after a long streak of Oscar losses, snubs, and resulting memes.

Although DiCaprio said that his role for The Revenant was “the hardest performance of his career,” it is obvious that he has been giving his all into all his roles ever since he became an actor.

His intense work ethic and passion certainly left both fans and critics wondering why he had never been chosen to win an Academy Award before, and made the eventual rejoicing much greater.

For starters, DiCaprio has been a shining star ever since he was simply starting out as an actor. At the age of 19, he received his first Oscar nomination for his role as Arnie Grape in 1994’s What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. Leo played Arnie, the mentally delayed brother of the titular Gilbert Grape played by Johnny Depp. Due to his lifelike and believable portrayal, anyone who saw the film could have believed DiCaprio was legitimately mentally challenged in real life. In fact, Arnie was only written as a minor character, but DiCaprio’s portrayal of the role stole the show. He would then go on to state that playing Arnie was “the most fun I’ve ever had as an actor.”

Spotlight Meets the Philippines Like some actors, DiCaprio ensures he studies his material in order to give an excellent portrayal of all his roles. Examples are him spending a few days with mentally challenged children to observe their behavior and mannerisms for What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?, learning to dance the polka with co-star Kate Winslet for Titanic, and of recent, learning to build a fire and speak two Native American languages for The Revenant. While some actors simply act for a paycheck, DiCaprio takes great lengths to portray his characters masterfully.

Another fact about DiCaprio was that the actor suffered from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as a child, but claims he has been trying to control it ever since. For his role in The Aviator, however, he stopped trying to control it in order to portray Howard Hughes better.

After working on the film, it became harder for him to regain his control on his OCD. In Django Unchained, when DiCaprio meant to slam his hand on the table, he accidentally crushed a small, stemmed glass, and his hand started actually bleeding. He proceeded to stay in character until the rest of the scene, and when director Quentin Tarantino called cut, DiCaprio received a standing ovation.

Overall, it’s no wonder why everyone was so puzzled over DiCaprio’s Oscar losses. It is clear that he puts in so much heart and soul into doing the best work possible as an actor. The Academy never fails to see DiCaprio’s talent, hence his multiple nominations. It’s possible that his losses were due to tougher competition.

The losses did not stop his fans from believing.

If anything, awards truly do not dictate the true skill and worth in the film industry. From now on, with an Oscar finally in his hands, Leonardo DiCaprio is definitely going down in the history books as one of the best actors of all time.

One of the purposes of journalism is, to quote reporter and columnist Danton Remoto, “to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” No doubt this ideal was present in Tom McCarthy’s biographical drama film Spotlight. Starring Academy Award nominees Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Stanley Tucci (also starring Liev Schreiber, John Slattery, and Brian d’Arcy), the film, which was set in Boston, 2001, follows the special investigative team of The Boston Globe, called Spotlight, as they tackle cases involving child sex abuse in Boston by Catholic priests. The Spotlight team underwent months of investigation (deferred by the 9/11 attacks), interviewing attorneys and suspected priests as they strove to publish what was considered a controversial topic—one that would win them the Pulitzer prize in 2003.

The task of a journalist is never easy, and Spotlight depicts this in the numerous phone calls made by the team and their unending chase for information from different sources. The topic itself is contentious, brought upon by new editor of The Boston Globe, Marty Baron (portrayed by Liev Schreiber), and put to words by one of the members of the Spotlight team, Ben Bradlee Jr. ( John Slattery), “The Church will read that (the investigation) as us suing them. So will everybody else.” As controversial as it may be, the script, written by McCarthy and co-writer, Josh Singer, known for The West Wing and The Fifth Estate, pulls audiences into a hidden story that needs to be told to the world. The film’s intention, as well as the actual Spotlight team, was not to taint the Catholic Church, but to expose and reveal the truth, just as a journalist should.

Alito Malinao writes in his book, Journalism for Filipinos, that “the press in the Philippines has often been criticized for imbalanced reports by stressing the bad over the good news.” Being the most populous country in Asia with Roman Catholics, a news story such as one covered by the Spotlight would certainly capture the attention of the people. In fact, around the same

by Kristofer Purnell

time as the events covered in Spotlight, there were priest pedophilia cases being rung around the country, being covered up by the CBCP (Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, the official organization of the episcopacy of the Philippine Catholic Church), until they were accused of such by a missionary priest—episodes of which are similar to the plot of Spotlight. The only difference is that no news company decided to investigate these cases had there been any allegations. If Malinao’s statement is true, cases of priest pedophilia in the Philippines would fall under the “bad news,” and yet, there was no one to report about them. A reason for this would be a conflict of belief, that is to say, a matter of religion.

This should not be an issue for a reporter’s main interest is to serve the public and offer them the truth, even it meant exposing faults in their religious leaders.

After the Spotlight team released their long-researched article, they received many calls of other cases of priest pedophilia. It was a message that, by their bravery, they were able to give as a small cry and as a starting point for other voices to be heard. It is something that Filipino journalists should strive for. Malinao also says in his book that the press “is called the Fourth Estate, with the function of fiscalizing the three branches of government…to be adversarial in nature.” After Spotlight, the press should do the same for the Catholic Church and for every practiced religion in the country. Truly, there are many risks in journalism, especially in the Philippines, but those are risks that define the power of the press. As stated in the first part of Section 5 of the NPC-promulgated Code of Ethics for Filipino Journalists, “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.” The people deserve to know the truth, and that is what gives quality recognition to the Spotlight team and McCarthy’s Spotlight for disclosing the real happenings of such a precarious topic.

M AY 2016

23

Superheroes Superheroes in inCinema: Cinema:AA History and History and AAFuture Future B Y K E V I N E V A N G E L I S TA

24

WIDE S H OT

In 1938, Action Comics released its first ever issue with the strange cover of a man with a blue suit and a red cape lifting a car over his head. Ever since, the superhero genre has reigned supreme over American comic books to the extent that whenever the word “comic books” are mentioned, it’s usually the kind with superheroes that comes to mind first and foremost. The success of the superhero genre when it comes to movies however has been a lot more recent, and perhaps even a lot more controversial. As of now, nobody doubts that superheroes and their villains continue to reign supreme over the panels and speech bubbles that gave birth to them, but the success of their counterparts on film is beginning to be questioned. Is the superhero genre in movies a fad and trend that’s quickly losing steam? Are they running out of creativity resulting in formulaic films that are basically the same stories told over again just with different costumes and powers?

Is the genre becoming a haven for nothing but

endless and repetitive reboots? Or is it simply that superhero movies are getting old and that no one is really interested in them anymore? To find out, lets take a brief trip down memory lane.

In the 1950s and 1960s, superhero movies weren’t anything like they are today. Technology back then didn’t exist to properly do these characters and their powers justice (just look at ANY pre-1970s superhero movie or pre-1990s Marvel movie!) and the genre as a whole just wasn’t seen as lucrative in Hollywood because of the expensvvvvvves that would be needed to film something on as a large a scale as the genre demanded. For this reason, superhero movies during this era usually only appeared in the form of Saturday night children’s serials on TV, with occasional big screen adaptations such as 1951’s Superman and the Mole Men and 1966’s Batman (based off of the popular and acclaimed TV show) being of note. These movies had more camp than depth however, and focused more on M AY 2016

25

simple entertainment rather than anything truly ambitious. While today they are seen as pioneers of the genre and good movies in their own right, neither of them (nor any of the movies that came alongside them) could do quite enough to lift the superhero film genre from the rut of “low culture and even lower quality” that it had fallen into.

This would all change however in 1978, when a movie poster came out that promised viewers it would “make them believe a man could fly”. When the movie itself was released, groundbreaking special and visual effects would indeed make millions believe this, but great casting, excellent storytelling and direction, and a balance between classic superhero humor and surprising gravitas would make millions realize something else; that to truly bring a superhero to life on the silver screen was neither impossible nor impractical.

On the contrary, its popularity, critical acclaim, and success at the box office made it something movie studios suddenly couldn’t resist. In this way, Richard Donner’s Superman truly changed the game for the genre and jumpstarted the Golden Age of Comic-Book Movies. Soon sequels started appearing left and right, and new characters such as RoboCop, Swamp Thing, Supergirl, The Punisher and (most notably) Batman began getting their own film treatments. Whenever a movie was a success, a franchise would be made and toys would be sold, merchandise would be created and the superheroes only got more and more popular as time went by. Soon however, the endless amount of movies being released about the costumed heroes began to experience a dip in quality. This culminated in the disasters that were Superman IV: The Quest for Peace in 1987 and Batman & Robin in 1997. For a time, it seemed as though the superhero genre was revealed as nothing more than a trend that had lived gloriously but whose time had finally come.

In 2000 however, a new movie was released, this time by Marvel Studios (whereas DC

26

WIDE S H OT

dominated the Golden Age) that once again proved that the superhero genre had much more to offer than originally believed. This film, of course, was Bryan Singer’s X-Men, and its quality effects, talented acting and excellent storytelling once again proved the deciding factor in making this film a success both financially and critically. This film would spawn a franchise that would continue to with films like First Class and Days of Future Past continuing to show quality filmmaking and promising box-office sales. Hot on the heels of the first X-Men movie would come Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in 2002, which would both garner critical praise and break box-office records. It too would go on to spawn a trilogy only to be rebooted in 2012 with The Amazing Spider-Man which would also spawn its own franchise. Both of these franchises paved the way for what could be called the Silver Age of Comic-Book Movies.

Lately, this success has only continued, with new takes on the superhero genre as a whole continuously reviving interest in old characters through reboots and generating interest in new ones through original films. Films such as Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy brought realism and a new dark and gritty tone to the superhero film, while less conventional superhero films like Brad Bird’s The Incredibles brought social drama and family issues to craft an original sort of superhero story. Even smaller successes like the Blade series, Hulk, Unbreakable, Hellboy, and even Watchmen contributed to the advancement of the genre in Hollywood, while several non-Hollywood superhero films such as Japan’s Ultraman, India’s Krissh, Thailand’s Mercury Man and even the Philippines’ Captain Barbell have spread the genre worldwide with their success in their own countries. With the release of Iron Man in 2008 introducing us to the massive and ambitious Marvel Cinematic Universe, the superhero genre exploded yet again with films beginning to focus less on individual

characters and more towards building worlds and establishing comic continuity within the films.

This caused a massive surge of interest in comic books as a whole and has only served to contribute to the immense popularity of superhero movies nowadays. With DC Comics attempting to start their own cinematic universe with 2016’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and other franchises continuing with new plans, the Comic-Book Movie seems to be going full steam ahead with no sign of slowing down.

Throughout history, comic book and superhero movies have only proved to come back stronger than ever whenever interest seems to wane. Time and again, the answer to what causes this success seems to not differ at all from any other film. It is, in fact, fresh ideas, great casting and acting, excellent script and direction, and simply good storytelling to which these movies owe their groundbreaking success. Whenever comic book movies display these traits with creativity, good things are sure to follow, and as long as comic book movies can prove to both be quality work and financial successes, this is trend is sure to continue. Adding to this is the freshness and creativity that new comic-book arcs and characters can bring to their film counterparts.

While the world may be saturated with heroes like Captain America and Superman, there are several other takes on the superhero that haven’t been explored in film. Upcoming movies like Doctor Strange promise to show us an entirely new facet of the superhero world that we haven’t seen before with magic, while Suicide Squad allows us to journey along the story with the villains having the spotlight instead of the heroes.

Films like Deadpool give us interesting new superhero archetypes while successfully becoming box-office hits. As long as new ideas are faithfully and creatively explored, there’s an endless well of potential to be mined to provide more color and spice to the genre.

In closing, let me recall an experience I had that proved to me that the superhero genre was far from dead. While surfing the Internet one day I came across a video that somebody took inside a cinema in what I believe was India. The movie playing was The Avengers in 2012. As the video surveyed the faces of the huge crowds that had gathered hours before the movie started, consisting of families, children, students (some of which had watched for nine times already) you could feel the excitement and the buzz in the air. When the movie played and the final actions scenes started, all you could hear was roaring, cheering, whooping and hollering; and when the shot circling around the Avengers was shown, you couldn’t even hear the movie anymore. This, more than anything else, proves to me that superhero films are far from dead or dying, and that as long as people remain both passionate about seeing their heroes on the screen and bringing them to life on the silver screen, it won’t show signs of weakness anytime soon.

M AY 2016

27

Are the Oscars Still Important?

`

by Lorenzo Escober

What do the Oscars really stand for? Who exactly does the Academy set out to acknowledge? In recent years, Hollywood’s biggest night seems to have lost some of its credibility, although one can argue that it isn’t so much due to an actual decline in tastefulness but an increased awareness on the politics behind it all. Has this wariness been brought about by ubiquitous social media complaints that Leonardo DiCaprio, possibly Earth’s favorite non-Oscar winner, still has no golden statue to grace his mantlepiece? Or has the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag been a more recent catalyst in cultivating an attitude of indifference towards the awards show? Nevertheless, many have pointed out an overarching pattern, a shockingly consistent formula the Academy has more or less adhered to throughout the years.

Let’s do a quick little mental exercise. Think about the Best Picture contenders of recent

28

WIDE S H OT

years. You’ll find that many of the nominees (and some eventual winners) have more than a few things in common. Period dramas are a big hit with the Academy, especially those that center around World War II (The Imitation Game, even the alternate history Inglorious Basterds) or the Holocaust (The Reader, Schindler’s List). Films based on true stories generally receive praise (The Theory of Everything, American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave), while those that center around the performing arts unfailingly permeate each year’s awards race (Birdman, The Artist, Black Swan).

These “requirements” have been shamelessly checklisted by numerous Oscar bait films desperate for a win, and while some have failed miserably, others have gone on to bring home the golden man. This leads us to the question, do Oscar nominations properly represent the year’s best, or are they simply a collection of

personal favorites selected by a board of aged, out-of-touch, white men? We don’t consciously follow this train of thought; sometimes we just want to see all our favorite stars in the same room.

Indeed, the very foundation of the Oscars, (that is, the Oscars), have taken a backseat to the overlong circus of high fashion, stilted teleprompter monologues, and made-for-Twitter gimmicks. The red carpet has been saturated with so much glitter and glamor that it has become harder to decipher what Hollywood really cares about these days: excellence in the art of film, or which designer Actress A is wearing? This isn’t to say, of course, that the show is a bore.

Personally, I think the Oscars are a thrilling spectacle. Acceptance speeches are heartwarming, some jokes are actually hilarious, and each time Jennifer Lawrence trips, I fall in love with her even more. Musical performances are also stunning, from Lady Gaga’s medley of The Sound of Music to Adele’s career-defining Skyfall. Is any of this uncalled for? Absolutely not. The Oscars are a big fat tribute to Hollywood, by Hollywood.

Theatricality, coordinated star power, and above all, capital E-entertainment are to be expected.

But behind the polished façade lies something of real worth and substance: a desire to recognize the best in the art of film. This goal however, has been somewhat skewed by the Academy’s unrelenting bias towards very specific types of movies. Back to Leo, who stars in the critically acclaimed Alejandro Iñárritu drama The Revenant.

All signs seem to be pointing to his imminent and long overdue win for Best Actor this year. Why, you may ask? Besides its consistent streak at lesser award shows, The Revenant possesses almost every single quality Oscar voters love. Also, and this is something a few analysts have missed out on, Leo is 41 now. Those familiar with the Oscars know that actors 40 and above have a much greater chance of winning. The Revenant is also a gritty, very serious drama. The Wolf of Wall Street, though well-loved and well-written, was, at the end of the day, a comedy, and the Academy seldom gives comedies the love they deserve, no mvatter how hysterically funny they are. Leo was perfect in the role, and though he exhibited moments of true dramatic prowess, the material was ultimately too comic, and yes, he wasn’t 40 yet.

Can everything be that simple though? Can the entire awards race be cracked with a single formula? There are exceptions to the criterion, for

sure, but in the long run, can just about any film be great if it followed everything to the letter? I say we’re asking the wrong questions here. An award doesn’t make a movie great. A movie is great when you say it’s great. Straight Outta Compton and The Force Awakens didn’t score any major nominations this year, but does that make them bad films?

Hell no. There are no winners or losers in art.

We make our predictions, hoping our favorites are recognized as superior to the competition, then we sit through the telecast and finish either satisfied or disappointed. But doesn’t this defeat the whole purpose? Shouldn’t we just watch a film, like a film, and be done? My point is this: an Oscar is just a trophy; and yes, it’s a nice, shiny, iconic trophy of solid gold that comes with a hefty salary increase, but at the end of the day, nothing can quite measure the beauty of a performance, the precise cutting of a clip, or the masterful way an auteur asserts creative control over a production.

What matters is individual impact, the boundarycrushing power of visual language, and the sensitive, intimate imagery that brushes the human spirit.

The Oscars can’t quite put together a truly definitive nomination list. Nor can Cannes, Sundance, or the Globes. The Academy means well, but a film can only really be validated by the viewers themselves.

This connection to the art is fluid, it is changing, and it cannot be substantiated by a gold statue.

I’m still gonna watch though.

M AY 2016

29

B Y AN N A CAYCO

The Oscars 2016 just goes to show that Leonardo DiCaprio could win an Oscar before a person of color could be properly recognized in Hollywood.

To make matters worse, black centered movies, like Creed and Straight Outta Compton, had won awards received by their white crew.

There was also no addition to the 1% percent of women of color winners in Oscar history.

In other words, this year’s Oscars was whitewashed again. Severely whitewashed. Again.

Whitewashing usually refers to how white characters are casted to portray originally colored characters. From this, one can further explain it as the complete disregard of people of color and their capabilities to create amazing films. The most recent incidents of this are the casting of Scarlett Johansson in the film adaptation of the Japanese franchise, Ghost in the Shell and the casting of Tilda Swinton as an ancient Tibetan sorceress in Marvel’s Doctor Strange.

One of the reasons for doing so is because POC leads don’t “sell”. Director Ridley Scott was guilty of having an all white cast for his movie Exodus: Gods and Kings, that was set in ancient Egypt. He explained in an interview with Variety, “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from suchand-such. I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.”

This begs the question on what exactly are the criteria for an Oscar nomination. Ironically, none of them consider box office sales. It’s the voting process that gets complicated. All members of the Academy must list down their votes for each category and the films with the most number of votes are included in the official nomination list.

But with a roster of 5,765 voting members, whom 94% are white, this doesn’t really come as much of a surprise that part of their criteria is also to be white.

30

WIDE S H OT

It’s a never-ending cycle. POCs aren’t able to tell their stories because there are very few people who are willing to fund them since the audience prefers white and prominent actors, directors, and etc. The Academy, which is predominantly white, implicitly propagates the message that POCs do not belong on the silver screen, therefore reinforcing racist ideals on the audience. Blacks, Asians, and Latinos are all trapped in a glaring white picket fence.

But is it impossible to break the cycle? On a more daring note, do we still need the Oscars?

Do we need a bigoted, close-minded, and elitist group of people who focus on names, brand, and race to tell us what movies we should watch? Try imagining life without the Oscars. Other awards shows, like the Screen Actor Guild Awards who awarded more POCs in one year than the Oscars have in 5 years, could always replace the void it has left. And with the massive drop of viewership, the lowest in 8 years, maybe people are starting to think this way as well.

M AY 2016

31

LFC 18 CORE

Fete Du Film, a film festival, aims to showcase three unique films of foreign cinema (all shown simultaneously in three different venues) to Ateneans for free! Last October, Ateneans screamed their hearts out as they watched either Spanish found-footage classic [REC] (d. Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza), acclaimed Korean psychological horror A Tale of Two Sisters (d. Kim Jee-woon), or gory French gothic flick Livide (d. Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury). Fete Du Film served as a delightful, frightening treat for all who dared to come on the eve of Halloween.

The First Grand General Assembly welcomed new and returning members to Loyola Film Circle. The theme for this year was ‘Sci-Fi’ where people dressed up as their favourite character from that genre. Members were introduced to the committees within the organisations as well as the events for the year.

The first out of two Loyola Screens showcased the local film called Ang Kwento Nating Dalawa. The movie was about a relationship between a college teacher and his student and how their love gets pulled in different directions. After the movie showing was done, those who attended were able to ask question to Nestor Abrogena, the director, about the film.

Isapelikula is a series of film classes that is designed to show the members how to make a film where it ranges from cinematography to script writing. With LFC’s own members, such as Mawee Ng who writes the scripts for the O-Film, and people from the industry, like Dan Villegas who produced That Thing Called Tadhana, people were able to take away valuable information that allowed them to make their own short film.

34

WIDE S H OT

Under the Stars was an open-to-all even that was held in Bellarmine field on February the 12th. This was the night when everyone came together to enjoy a night with his or her friends or significant other. It was filled with music, food, fun, love, and film.

ROUND UP

YEAR END

Kinetic Aesthetic was a design x film seminar that showed how design is used in the process of filmmaking itself. Loyola Film Circle alumnae Lyka Gonzalez and Yums Catabijan spoke about their Cannes Film Festival featured film Agos: The Manila Dream and how design played a large part in their film direction and production.

With first semester out of the way, retained members were reintroduced to the world of film through the Second Grand General Assembly.

Members were introduced to the projects of the semester as well as to each other through activities.

Just before hell week started, the Loyola Film Circle was able to have their yearly ball. Then called the Yule Ball before the academic calendar shift, the End of Year Ball allowed members to bring a friend or date to the Ball where awards were given out, music was played and delicious food was eaten.

Fete deux Film was the second part to Fete du Film. Instead of horror movies being shown, this time around the team showed free foreign comedy movies that were open to all Ateneans. The three movies showcased this semester were Spy Time, Shaolin Soccer and 200 Pounds of Beauty.

The Film Literacy Classes were three classes that were aimed at increasing members’ critical views on film and appreciation. The classes were taught by Atenean professors and were unique in their own as they tackled different viewpoints on film, such as Theology, Filipino and Science and Technology.

The second Loyola Screen showed the movie Sleepless. The movie was about the relationship between two friends, who can’t sleep and have their own problems to deal with. Those who went were able to ask questions to the director, writer and special effects supervisor.

M AY 2016

35

Frany Asks

THIS THING CALLED LIFE

proceeds to jump in the lake to impress him. Then he drops one of the most playerific line in movie history: that’s not Lake Minnetonka.

Pictured: NOT Lake Minnetonka and Apollonia (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bb/d8/24/ bbd824b8bc21d9c3854c8e3c71ba56bc.jpg)

Imagine flipping through channels on ye’ ol’ television. We talking Young Frany somewhere on the Northside of Chicago in the 90s looking at a forty-pound magical box looking for whatever a young boy looks for. He comes across this old movie from the 80s. He doesn’t know no better, so what he doesn’t realize is that this experience will change his life forever.

“The Kid” takes a young pretty girl to a lake. He tells her, “you have to purify yourself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka.”The young girl is astonished at such a proposal but strips down anyways and 36

WIDE S H OT

This may have been the first time Young Frany ever saw a naked girl on television because HBO used to be a luxury back then. More importantly this was the first time that he would ever see Prince: “The Artist Formally Known As” or “the Symbol.”

Now, let’s get one thing clear, this isn’t really a review on Purple Rain, although it kinda is, but it’s more a dedication to Prince and his underrated influence on culture and on me.

Flash forward a decade and some change later and its Older Frany (but not quite Present Frany) flipping through channels, but this time on a nice flatscreen plasma. He comes across Purple Rain again. It’s more than just one pretty girl and this artist whose music he rarely listened to. It’s friggin’ Prince!

Purple Rain is the type of movie me and my friends turn on and make fun of but marvel at the novelty of all the bad acting but amazing soundtrack, to the little screams and moans and suggestive dancing that we’re accustomed to

seeing Prince do. Apollonia is fine. All the women in the movie are fine. The music is fire. One thing that stands out is how Prince, who is a little on the short side at 5’3, barges into a room trying to act tough but in a vogue-like manner with that blue steel look on his face! It’s hilarious!

Seriously, it has the worst acting a movie can afford along with terrible dialogue. The whole story is pretty nonsensical but that’s what makes it charming. Unfortunately, I have never had the pleasure of Prince performing live (and sadly, I never will) but this has to be the next best thing. His performances of “Computer Blue” and “Darling Nikki” get me so hyped!

I mentioned he is an awful actor but when he performs it’s hypnotic; it’s captivating.

I have to ask myself, is this what feels like to see Prince perform? Crazy.

He’s performing! Leave him alone!

(http://deadshirt.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/darling_nikki.jpg)

dancing to at the discotech trying to impress each other with their weird body rolls and repetitive eye swipes with the peace sign. Yeah, that stuff was Prince. As corny as it is, your parents were going through study montages with their Sony Walkmans jamming to “When Doves Cry”. Yup, listening to Prince doesn’t automatically make you cool; your parents are still lame.

Prince may have lost traction towards the late 80s and early 90s with the advent of grunge rock and commercial rap. But there was one film that influenced me more than Purple Rain. I’m talking about Tim Burton’s Batman, which along with E.T. was one of the first VHS tapes I had as a kid. Now, I don’t know if Burton came up with the bright idea to use Prince as his OST and combine it with Batman, but it’s pretty gawdly. I always recall the scene of Jack Nicholson’s Joker throwing money to “Trust”. I always jammed out to that scene as a kid it’s just super fun. Young children don’t usually have the mental capacity to relate to a bad guy as they always glorify the heroes they wanna be, but long before Luke Skywalker did “the laugh” or Heath Ledger masterfully put on the powdered face and smile, Prince made me love Nicholson as the Joker. Prince somehow made it cool for little kids to be the bad guy as long as he liked to party.

Let’s talk about this for a second. Prince is super duper talented. He plays guitar and keys on top of singing his own songs. I’m not gonna research whether he writes his own lyrics or if he actually composes his entire tracks but I am going to guess that he does somewhere along the same vein as a Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder. He is just that great.

Who do you trust, Jack? Throw some money at it, Money! (http://i58.tinypic.com/2urber5.jpg)

The GOAT (Greatest Of All Time, if you didn’t know what it stood for) on the mic (https://thepalmwinetapper.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/2012_7_12_goat.jpg)

Think about it though. Prince dominated from the late 70s to mid 80s. He is the godfather and probable progenitor of the “Minneapolis Sound”. It’s the sound that popularized the background music of 80s movies with its marriage of rock and funk with those catchy synths. It’s the stuff your parents were

The moments of Prince that really live with me are two: his Superbowl XLI halftime performance and Charlie Murphy’s (Eddie Murphy’s brother) “True Hollywood Stories” which was a bit on Comedy Central’s Chappelle’s Show. If you have never seen this bit or any of Chappelle’s Show, then I suggest you stop reading and hop on Youtube…

Ok, you done? Funny, right?

M AY 2016

37

said party someone responded “Frany is really heartbroken over Prince’s death”. This may or may not be true. Who knows? What I do know is that his death got me watchin’ Purple Rain and Batman again along with listening to all his stuff on my playlist and on Youtube. I just wanted relive the nostalgia and smile. This man was special and unfortunately, I never appreciated it until it was too late.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to get through this thing called life.

All hail Prince: Partyman.

Game: Blouses

(http://1.images.comedycentral.com/images/shows/chappelle/videos/season_2/ CHAPPELLE_02_0205_CLIP_640x360.jpg)

First, that Superbowl performance was the first time I actually paid attention to Prince on stage. I had only one reaction: oh my goodness. Now, my Chicago Bears got destroyed by Peyton Manning’s Indianapolis Colts that year but all I will remember is Prince because basically performed the Purple Rain soundtrack! The gawdly moment he switched guitars for his “Purple Rain” solo, a large cloth went up, and there it was; a large silhouette of Prince holding his “symbol” on national television in front of millions worldwide. I couldn’t believe they allowed this on TV. I actually am not sure people knew what was going on. It was insane. It was sublime.

Prince holding his…symbol.

Partyman

(http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr337/val34prince/ vlcsnap290403bg5.png)

Prince standing over Eddie Murphy’s brother

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg8dffXWMAEg9IO.jpg)

Now, I’m 5’3, same height as Prince. You tellin’ me that this cat was ballin’ dudes out the gym like that? Actually, not so hard to believe considering he was laying down dope tracks on top of laying down fine women. The name of the game is talent and this dude got it.

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ 2402954.jpg

Front left to right: unfamous dude #1, unfamous dude #2, famous dude. Oh it’s real.

Prince apparently was on his high school basketball team and it’s probably unfathomable that this 80s Minnesotan rockstar was prolific at any sport other than hip thrusting, floor humping, and bedroom Olympics with beautiful women, but believe it or not he was. Crossin’ dudes like Iverson and snatchin’ rebounds like Charles Barkley. In an interview with Charlie Murphy, he also stated he had the pull up jumper like Steph Curry.

It hit me so hard when Prince died. I didn’t realize it would. It hit me more than when Michael Jackson died. It actually hit me more than when Phife Dawg of A Tribe Called Quest died. There is even a rumor that I left a party when “Purple Rain” came on and when a girl asked why I left

38

WIDE S H OT

Me when Prince died

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/03/29/ ap_090911089838_sq-3271237f28995f6530d9634ff27228ca e88e3440-s900-c85.jpg)

I am not exactly the biggest Prince fan but I wanted to put some respeck on his name and make sure that the movie community doesn’t forget his memory.

Put some respeck on it.

(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_ article_image/birdman-breakfast-club_raj02f.jpg)

So, in Prince’s immortal words in the beginning of Purple Rain:

THROWING MY OWN TOMATOES

by Jose Antonio Guillermo Vilar

Does RT influence YOU to watch or avoid certain movies?

Yes, and no.

Ever since I discovered Rotten Tomatoes at around 10 years old, it has since been my go-to source for what films and TV shows to watch out for, how released films are doing (both financially and critically), and for the occasional tidbit of film and TV-related information from today’s pop culture zeitgeist.

While seeing a film with a “Fresh” rating on the site might entice me to check it out, seeing a film with a “Rotten” rating on the site won’t stop me from checking it out, provided there are elements (i.e. awesome actors, distinctive storylines, cool action sequences, decent SFX, etc.) present in the film that manage to pique my interest. I still watched Batman v Superman and didn’t hate it, and I am still game for a Sucker Punch sequel.

For me, it is subjective. You may or may not like something. Other people will not always share your tastes. Rotten Tomatoes serves as a guide for me to expand my own film horizons by giving me different opinions on different films, while at the same time affirming my own individuality by proving to myself that I am someone with his own personal tastes and sensibilities—whether or not I agree or disagree with those different opinions.

M AY 2016

39

The Shallows

Ghostbusters

Release Date: June 10, 2016

Release Date: June 24, 2016

Release Date: July 15, 2016

Now You See Me 2

The BFG

Lights Out

Release Date: June 10, 2016

Release Date: July 1, 2016

Release Date: July 22, 2016

X-Men: Apocalypse

Central Intelligence

Star Trek: Beyond

Release Date: May 27, 2016

Release Date: June 17, 2016

The Legend of Tarzan

Me Before You

Finding Dory

Release Date: June 3, 2016

Release Date: June 17, 2016

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

Independence Day: Resurgence

The Secret Life of Pets

Release Date: June 24, 2016

Release Date: July 8, 2016

Release Date: May 20, 2016

SUMMER

Alice Through the Looking Glass Release Date: May 27, 2016

Release Date: June 3, 2016

40

WIDE S H OT

Release Date: July 1, 2016

The Purge: Election Year Release Date: July 1, 2016

Release Date: July 22, 2016

Jason Bourne Release Date: July 29, 2016

RELEASES

The Conjuring 2

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

Suicide Squad Release Date: August 5, 2016

M AY 2016

41