Monday, December 21, 2015

TAKLUB (Brillante Mendoza, 2015)




Not quite so simple to work on a project with a measure of autonomy when forces of influence must be looking over your shoulder, presumably kibitzing, presumably obtruding and controlling the proceedings and what the outcome would look like. That Brillante Mendoza’s Taklub was produced by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and other government agencies raises the red flag and begs the question: in this country of valorized reciprocities too sacred to violate, isn’t the position of this film (about the post-apocalyptic aftermath of typhoon Yolanda) one of calculated quid pro quo? In other words, how does Taklub dodge the charge of moonlighting as a form of state propaganda? How does the state counter the widespread perception that there continues to this day to be a lack of initiative to rebuild ground zero, viz. the areas hardest hit by typhoon Yolanda? What accounts for the tokenistic humanitarian aid and infrastructural reconstruction long after landfall? Fast-forward another year from the film's chosen timeframe and the news has reported the failure of the president to attend the second anniversary of one of the worst disasters ever to hit our shores. Foreign donations and pledges supposedly continue to pour in for the rehabilitation of Tacloban and its vicinity, but no mention of that here; on the contrary the paucity of non-governmental help is even hinted at. There is also no mention of the long-standing enmity between the president's family and the Romualdezes, the ruling clan of the devastated province, which may have spelled the denial of aid, the much-needed logistical/financial lifeline. This way Taklub seems to exist in a spatio-temporal vacuum. Many of the characters, meanwhile, act catatonic and listless, seem to be muttering to themselves, muted. The landscape looks it, too, that is, when it comes into focus: shot with shallow depth of field so that the background is blurred away, the better to gloss over the bleak and dismal terrain.  

Write-ups point to Taklub as an example of advocacy: with its theme of "disaster preparedness," but with a thrust of how not to act in a time of calamity (and therefore rubbing salt into wounds and reproaching its victims). While at it, how to explain the contradictory feeling that the filmmaker and his brain trust are engaging in double-speak, in particular when the film intercuts images of devastation with a passage from Ecclesiastes: “There is a time to search, a time to give up,” it counsels at some point. Does that not presume on human nature and smack of fostering resignation and defeatism? Sure, these words are a gambit to foster closure for those who are still in search of missing loved ones already most likely dead, but it only takes a little turn of thought to strip away the state’s own subconscious message of enjoining people to let go of what has happened and by extension what continues to happen: what through neglect is egregiously left undone by the state. If letting go isn't absolute, is it conceivable to selectively let go? Forgive the unforgivable, the film seems to say in a misappropriation of Derrida. Those biblical lines then start to sound less like religious compassion than a political pronouncement of the state. We must ask where lies the more primal instinct of human resilience and struggle against adversity in a film that supposedly advocates survival and self-preservation? Does Taklub not tie itself in a knot? In this double bind, it keeps shifting the blame, trotting out various escape goats: the culprit of force majeure, for one. On cue, the film obliges with a show of natural calamities, one after another.

To set the accusatory tone into motion, the film opens with the fingering of human ignorance, one which causes a fatal fire in one of the tent cities meant for displaced Yolanda victims. Then it gets from bad to worse. There is man against the elements (typhoon, tsunami, rainstorms), man against fellow man (the danger of human crime, ignorance and desperation), before it becomes man against himself, a chaotic  mess all in all, where, ironically, religion and government  -- are they morally synonymous now? -- step in to counsel and reconcile him. 
Taklub muddles the picture by skewering everything and everyone, hence the viewer cannot single out a pronounced institutional accountability.

The film's ostensible focus are several families who have presumably been bereaved of loved ones. Aside from Renato who has lost his wife and five children in the tent-city fire, Bebeth is missing three children from the typhoon, Erwin and his siblings don't know the whereabouts of their parents. To traverse these tragedies into something ultimately conciliatory, Mendoza’s technique is to prod his characters to oscillate between philosophical altruism and pragmatism (Bebeth is like the bereaved father in the Dardenne Brothers’ The Son, to whom charity and work afford dignity.), then depicts political action that sees the state agencies supposedly making do with what little is at their disposal and then finally depicts spiritual/religious resignation (apparently fortified with those excerpts from Ecclesiastes and the reenactment of the passion of Christ). For a film that espouses disaster preparedness and depicts one demoralizing catastrophe after another, it is silent on the role played by the highest officials of the land. 


Instead of this fictional account, it is reported that Mendoza initially shot Taklub as a documentary. For reasons that may be deduced, he thought better of it, or someone made him do so. Perhaps, it was the line of lesser resistance. You can imagine the can of worms a factual account would have opened and the ensuing finger-pointing. Just remember how the the reports of a mounting death toll were ultimately silenced once the extent of casualties was becoming established. Would we have known the ultimate truth in the abandoned documentary? Would it have unearthed not just the corpses but the politicians behind the conspiracy of neglect that has aggravated Yolanda's aftermath? We pretend not to know, not to repeat ourselves. We just want to see the shelved documentary, not this sanitized, fictive version. For now, we can only ask philosophically. Between what is inflicted by man or by nature, what has been our worse tragedy? We shake our heads. Not in incomprehension, but in stark remembrance. We've figured out the answer a long time ago.   


Tuesday, November 24, 2015

DAYANG ASU (Bor Ocampo, 2015)




The dogs are not Disneyfied. They are pitiful pawns, commodities of mercantilization. Another animality earns notoriety, in full display, but no sense of compunction here, about the crimes portrayed, about the depraved with double lives, described in a trickle-down hierarchy, about this "dog nation" that hints at a descent into cannibalism. The resolution is part retribution, but also heralds an open end, a testament to the resilience of entrenched culture of crime and corruption. It takes a page from Godfather III, a prelude to Godfather IV which would have depicted a new reign of terror. The ascendant protagonist in Bor Ocampo's film, however, is a reluctant participant, someone thrust into it, a wounded tiger (or a wounded dog?) who must lick his wounds and respond to the ferocity within.

The circle of crime. The vortex of it all. Herein lies Dayang Asu's focus, yet, for good or bad, it verges on moral ambiguity. Good in the sense that the audience was clapping at the end of it, but suspect in the sense that its peripheral depictions go overshadowed. For one, the film's sacrificial victims, in the form of Muslims, get buried in more ways than one. Consequently what Etienne Balibar might refer to as "internal, differential racism," which underlies our society to the detriment of minorities like Muslims, is touched on but goes under-theorized. (Based on cultural differences, the religious racism surrounding Islam is common to us and Balibar's France). Missed opportunity, but it would have been conversely a polemical flashpoint had the film taken that route. (Ralston Jover's Hamog, another festival entry, enfleshes its Muslim characters with more depth, but just the same problematizes them.)   

What occupies the quicksilver time, instead, is the fast montage about a nation, set in the microcosm of Pampanga, in the thrall of men in power abusing power, while everyone downstream follows suit or cowers in fear. Nothing new, except that these proceedings are observed by formative eyes. Here the tension between nomos (law/order) and physis (chaos), however, is a source of humor and horror. For, in truth, the figures who wield law and order are the very forces of chaos. The film tosses us red herrings that there is hope, but how is the underworld portrayed in any national cinema, let alone the one with such rich iconography of crime we keep patronizing, Hollywood?

Blunt metaphor to hit our heads with, but there are two kinds of dogs here: one is the privileged dog that gets to fetch a middleman’s price and lands in the lap of innocent coddling and petting. The second kind is not as lucky, gets butchered for the mouths of those who have lost civilized conduct. But these dog-eaters are cunning. Some have families, well-grounded even, who have no clue what they are up to. As for the wretched dogs, none gets spared. But none becomes so feral as to bite back as in Samuel Fuller's White Dog (a better film) or Kornel Mundruczo's White God (a worse one). In all these films, ultimately, the rabidity of men is what's truly in the crosshairs.

Behind the camera, Bor Ocampo is up to the task: his award for best direction isn't undeserved. Speed, shifty editing, is his calling card, his tribute to Eisenstein perhaps, with a restless kinetic feel that propels us, disoriented and hard-pressed to catch up from one shot to the next, as if the establishing shots are all but jettisoned and most of the shots are always-already in the middle, where action and the colorful, piquant turn of phrase (mostly in Kapampangan) are the only logic. Like bullets ricocheting, like a Morse code sending out a dire message in rapid dots and dashes, the film keeps us on the backfoot, until the unraveling at the end. An end for which, originality aside, Mario Puzo would have done a double-take. 

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

BUKOD KANG PINAGPALA (Sheron Dayoc, 2015)



He awakens her, a religious devotee, from a vegetative sleep, a long-standing coma. He heals her of paralysis, festering bed sores and all, and then soon he is ravishing her in her sleep and whispering commands in her ears. Is he the real thing or some opportunistic being in sheep’s clothing? In this religious horror mystery, questions like this are asked to make us doubt our received pieties of many centuries. In this, it tries to be polemical, but in this, for better or worse, it is unsure of conviction. That, and ammunition.

It is little we haven’t heard of before, no matter how this entity in question looks like Jesus Christ according to Davinci: dark beard, a crown of thorns, and flowing hair like a Nazarenite. No, no matter how the house under seeming possession seems like a gallery of religious European artifacts, like some symbolism emanating all the way from the Quattrocento. The proceedings are as breakable as the house’s statuary.

Of course Roman Catholicism as European/Spain’s religious legacy is the target here. But Dayoc’s new film -- something atypical of his previous work -- falls short even in its portentousness: the biblical rhetoric spouted all throughout is rehashed and regrettably underwritten – to think that three heads share screenplay credits. Many of the lines sound like trite expressions of damnation cut and pasted from some unlettered forum or message board. Sure, they may be read as symptoms of postcolonial malaise, but little is done with this chestnut that is imaginatively new. It is almost already everyday stuff. To find someone answering to the name of God or something just as bizarre, you need only to peruse the news about our religious cults or the strange characters coming out of the woodwork during election season.  

Despite this film’s efforts to make itself controversial and polemical, the script is lackluster, unsubstantial, miserably wanting. The polemic it foists on us feels uneven, unsure about how to achieve the demonization of Christianity while floating the possibility that the whole shebang isn’t of divine inspiration at all. It plugs in worn-out biblical symbolism – a dove here, a serpent there – to keep us guessing. But it just comes off playing safe, too calculated and too medieval. Its real target is thinly veiled, after all, whether he shifts shape as a succubus or as flesh and blood.
  
In a country where the excesses and pitfalls of (false) devotion and religiosity are quite apparent – even movies have depicted this skepticism from Bernal's Himala onwards – this is not uncharted territory anymore. So much so that films -- like Miss Bulalacao, another competition entry -- have widened their scope to include extraterrestrial intervention and determinism in man’s affairs. Not that I approve of it. It’s just one deus-ex-machina for another.

For better or for worse, Bukod Kang Pinagpala’s stabs at horrifying us away from religion, in the end, are attended with laughter and tittering. No one was into it. No one in the audience was. Not the actors and actresses with their empty, worn-out lines, and half-hearted performances. Not even the subtitlists were in the know. At times the captions refer to the supernatural figure with reverential capitalized pronouns, sometimes that’s out of the window. Pity, it seems as if Dayoc was trying to do a Kleist or a Bunuel, but the latter’s humor and irony, for one, are nowhere in sight. From a familiar and therefore challenging premise, the film isn’t equal to it, but only gives way to profane reactions for the wrong reasons.      


Tuesday, November 10, 2015

MANANG BIRING (Carl Joseph Echague Papa, 2015)




THE OTHERING OF THE ILOCANA


Admittedly there is much in the making of Manang Biring that translates as sheer Greek to me. Until today, I had never sat through a full-length animated movie done exclusively with the use of rotoscoping. I’d once seen a few brief glimpses of Linklater’s Waking Life, but had found the film overlong for one sitting, decided to take a rain check and forgot about it. My first impression of this modality of animation was that it works to impart an oneiric, sometimes comics-like quality, sometimes painterly dimension to live action. Rotoscoped imagery might remind you of the distortions and flatttenings of modern art, from Matisse to Munch, from Expressionism to Fauvism to Hyperrealism, or it might come across as animated comics done by a skilled draughtsman. A virtue with great applications, apparent even then.
  
No question, there is a serious art to it. There is also the artisanal dedication in the attention to detail that it entails. These days, however, there’s also recourse to the labor-saving substitute of 2D and 3D applications (even Adobe Photoshop can do it at a pinch) not to mention more powerful gpu and cpu rendering that can be had on the cheap. Beyond being an exercise in style, however, a work like Manang Biring makes you wonder what makes an animator take the pains to essentially make two movies – one, a live-action representation, the other, the rotoscoped product, a representation of the representation -- for the price of one. 

In Manang Biring, there seems sufficient justification for a full-length feature rotoscoping: one, that no other Filipino has done it, and two, the film features apropos material (e.g. dream sequences, moments of absurdity) that is less easy to achieve with live action, and more evocative if done with the stylization of rotoscoping. My own sense is that, as this is a sort of elegy in honor of the filmmaker’s mother, a rotoscoped world affords the filmmaker a grieving distanciation, a mediation, a dressing of the wounds for something that remains fresh and unhealed in his memory. Manang Biring is further homage to Papa's late mother as well as  a sublimation of grief. If last year’s award-winning Ang ‘Di Paglimot ng Mga Alaala captured the mother's actual footage, this time, Papa swings to the other end of the spectrum with fictionalized animation.

From all appearances, Manang Biring entailed easily more time and elbow grease to put together than last year's debut, but Papa’s paean to his mother this time proves not without logical clunkiness and betrays, unwittingly, reservations about the idea of motherhood. As the titular mother, Manang Biring errs on the side not of motherly instinct but of worldly irrationality predicated on timidity and vanity, illegality and sheer lack of horse sense.

As if, in the end, after all, this mother does not want to be seen with warts and all. As if this tough Ilocana who bludgeons burglars and sells abortifacients in front of Quiapo Church suddenly grows deathly afraid (more afraid than death even) at the mention of a daughter who has gone missing for years and who now makes her whereabouts known all but too late -- when Manang Biring is battling for her life. If anything, someone faced with mortality knows no modesty when it comes to the comfort of family. One is truest at the verge of dying.

When Manang Biring receives word of her daughter’s homecoming, though, a daughter who has hitherto scarcely been a good, filial example, what does Manang Biring do with her borrowed time? She burns the candle at both ends committing one far-fetched, illegal scheme after another in an effort to make money to extend her life: teaming up with her erstwhile burglar in order to steal from an ecstasy dealer to selling the narcotic pills herself at a club for ravers. When all else fails, she conspires to put a stand-in in her place when the appointed time comes. That doesn't sound like human nature, let alone the verity about mothers. It sounds like the stuff of pure comics. Here are some of the reasons for the use of rotoscoping, after all.

If Kurosawa’s Ikiru is about how a terminally ill man tries to do his best to help his community, Manang Biring, all but to the end, is about scheming and deception, a headscratcher that even involves a male impersonator taking her place. Maybe it’s my naivete kicking in and the likes of Kanji Watanabe are a thing of the past. Cynicism, they will sing, is the ballad of the times.

Which begs a common sense question, my most nagging incredulity at this supposedly up-with-the-times world, this quick-fix world: why are the proceedings anachronistically trapped in a time warp where Manang Biring has to wait for many long months to get in touch with her daughter when she can get hooked up with latter-day telephony at an instant? And who even takes pains to write snail-mail these days? Perhaps Papa begs not to repeat himself, as videocam dialogue was the main motif of his debut film. The point of the delay of course is to dangle the specter of drama and death over the slowly-fading figure of the mother. There’s no question what obsesses Papa at the moment, there's no question about his sincerity about it, but the turns and devices of narrative should be better thought out in future projects.

Admittedly the foregoing may sound less than flattering, but let me temper that with a confession. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Manang Biring goes on to win the grand prize and subsequently make the rounds of overseas festivals. The film has virtues, I suspect, that only honest-to-goodness filmmakers can put a finger on. Papa is a filmmaker's filmmaker, full stop. He looks set toy go from strength to strength, what with all his technical wizardry to make even worthier, if not truly masterful films. His passion for filmmaking is immense. Ambidexterous in his command of the medium, even. He is like a Jan Svankmajer with his restless versatility who leaves little to chance. He is a meticulous animator who must be his own worst critic, teasing out detail after detail that may slip the casual eye. And his nods to cinema are those of a studious and devout adherent. Notice the littlest salutes to traditional filmmaking: how, for instance, a fish-eye lens effect bloats Manang Biring’s face. Note how he tries to achieve in rotoscope such cinematographic values as narrow depth of field and deep focus. Notice how timelapses of clouds swirl over Manang Biring as if ready to consume her. Pity, though, she all but cowers, even when she alternatively looks toughest. 

Fight or flight? Manang Biring seesaws between the two extremes. Part of the unsettled internal conflict seems to stem from the long tradition of othering the Ilocana has undergone in screen representations. Much like the way the Waray has been portrayed as the other, the Ilocana as the other may still derive from the way Gloria Romero portrayed Manang Biday, the tough and feisty Ilocana, in the 1950s: tobacco munching, tough-talking, bellicose, armed with a two-by-two. Minus much of the trappings, Manang Biring channels this regional archetype, but dubiously extends it to naturalize an unlawful aggression, a wrong-headed means to stay alive. This defines a hamartia that is then compounded by a contradictory hamartia at the other extreme, that of Manang Biring being made to look like a timid, vain old lady when it comes to the matter of her daughter. Things don't add up. She seems, after all, not so much a more nuanced character as a confused and addled one. Mestastasis in the brain? Maybe. Maybe, and this is perhaps what the circuitous and clunky detours of aporetic feeling Manang Biring wishes to convey: everyone quakes at the prospect of death, even more so the prospect of a guilt-ridden, lonely and undignified death.        

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

88:88 (Isiah Medina, 2015)




Abstract time, a mode of temporality invoked and highlighted by Isiah Medina in this experimental sortie, might be read as a shorthand for a concept of time that runs counter to concrete, empirical, linear, historical time, a time that parenthetically encompasses the growing problems of social disaffection and precarity persistent within the film's locality. Abstract time negates the despondency of this immanent concept of time that is reified and commodified by bandyclocks and stopwatches which dictate the duration and segmentarity of working life. This open-ended, eternal concept of time seems to be the only recourse for an emancipatory possibility in the future, in a society where the regimentation of time has become the site of social imprisonment and disenfranchisement. Abstract time also repeals what concrete historical time has enshrined and become coextensive with: Philosophy, for instance, is discredited as an ineffectual tool of explaining the logic of existence. Reason, that legacy of Enlightenment, has also ceased to be a source of meaning. If it were ever useful, it has stopped to serve the purposes of the powerless and the poor. 

Set in the less-than-thriving suburbs of Canada where the sometimes angry, often disenfranchised and unemployed young folks find themselves marginalized from the socio-economic apparatus, the film subjects them to artistic sublimation, rendering them as subjects in an unusual variety of documentary, although it hardly looks like one, even if it might as well be one because its socio-economic concerns, its quest for ontological meaning, capture the fears and frustrations, the ruminations and dreams, the desperation and deprivation of its characters. In the background we hear their voices in the act of reading and engaging in rationalization. They quote and recite from books and their own writings, but sometimes the sound they make is a mundane one of blowing off steam. What is all but obfuscatory, however, is how their difficult lives are given expression in murmurs or in half-audible whispers, often disembodied, off screen, as if spoken in nascent madness, as if realizing the subversive nature of their words, as if sensing the surveillance by those who may suppress their notions of resistance and recalcitrance, their notions of revolt. What is sometimes frustrating is how much of the volume of the film is deliberately turned down to our incomprehension so that one must strain to listen and make the words out – sometimes to the point of futility -- made more confused and incomprehensible by the overlap and confusion of simultaneous voices, whether expressing a sentiment or giving voice to a personal idea or a passage in a book.

Despite a certain sense of despondency, Medina creates an atmosphere of airiness, an artifice of buoyancy, through the visual motifs of his formal and stylistic experimentation. The nature of what the camera captures could be termed impressionistic and casual and repetitive in their occurrence: we get many outdoor shots of pavements and concrete surfaces of suburbia, side by side with the private quarters and bedrooms of youthful couples. Visuals and sounds, for the most part, do not always go hand in hand, seldom complementary in an effort, it seems, at estrangement. The mechanics of montage contrast stylized frames of saturated colors with seemingly washed-out frames of suburbia: the better to declare the film's experiment and the better to show the desolation of life on the ground. But it is the human dimension that gives heart to the film for it is that which lives, breathes and aspires for better life: a brief but poignant image is that of a sharing of a sandwich sliced in half presumably for hungry couples who can't afford a square meal.   

Cinematically speaking, however, the most notable and most courageous aspect of Medina’s worthy project is its uncompromising and stubborn refusal against narrative and formal conventionalism. Apart from the added stylization in post-production -- sometimes genuinely startling and striking, sometimes simplistically conceived and executed -- there are sequences of striking unfamiliarity and and points of view that further render the unicity of technique. But what Medina does with all of it is what makes the enterprise worthwhile: the film complexifies into a poem of singular tonality expressing what it means to survive and to be alive -- a living, breathing palimpsest inscribed with the voices of the marginalized, their thoughts and feelings, their fears and aspirations. However frustrating, this palimpsest is inscribed with dehumanized articulations: unfinished sentences, bits and pieces of them, and sometimes thoughts and ideas trailing off, yet crescendoing into an accumulation of disparate voices that threaten the strictures of linear, univalent time, of a future that hangs in the balance. In the final reckoning, it is abstract time that may protect us from everyday temporality entrapping our movement and freedom. Abstract time may be a means to afford us a line of flight, a return to infinity.  


  
P.S. Never got around to reading the synopsis, can merely guess what the title is about, but this is my take on it. 

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Christopher Pavsek - The Utopia of Film: Cinema and Its Futures in Godard, Kluge, and Tahimik (2013)

No review here. Just picked it up. Didn't know about it until Sir Eric himself (aka Kidlat Tahimik) tipped me off about its publication.

Everyone must know about this already, but worth repeating is another Tahimik sighting, a brief cameo, in Werner Herzog's "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser" as Hombrecito, a self-reflexive nod to a character in an earlier film, "Aguirre: The Wrath of God", that of an aboriginal flutist who accompanies the doomed Aguirre down the Amazon River. Back to Kaspar Hauser, Tahimik not only plays the flute but makes up a spiel in Tagalog. No one seemed the wiser, except that Tahimik would go on to excerpt this cameo for one of his own films, "I'm Furious Yellow."


Worth mentioning, too, is a book entitled "Geopolitics of the Visible," edited by Rolando Tolentino, where Fredric Jameson describes "Perfumed Nightmare" as an example of "Art Naif." Coincidentally, I've been calling it very similarly, consubstantially, as "Faux Naif," in reference to more contemporary films (e.g. the works of John Torres, Raya Martin, Shireen Seno) that seem to trace their roots to Kidlat Tahimik's distinctive style.  

One should also check out the magazine Cinema Scope, particularly the spring issue for this year. It contains an interview with Tahimik regarding his latest film "Balikbayan # 1." 

Monday, August 17, 2015

AN KUBO SA KAWAYANAN (Alvin Yapan, 2015)






Every filmmaker of note seems haunted by its specter: the nostalgia for our nation's lost origins. What they, and perhaps each of us, seek, however, isn't dissimilar from a Derridean trace, a reference to the past that seems elusive, ill-defined and indeterminate, "a mark of the absence of a presence, an always-already absent present." Yet our historicist and history-conscious filmmakers persist. In Kidlat Tahimik’s “Why Is Yellow The Middle of The Rainbow?” the director-narrator recognizes the virtues of the Native American shaman and brings him to an apotheosis as an ideal parallel to our own babaylan, our own bygone version of the seer and miracle-worker. In the cinematic corpus of Auraeus Solito, it is the babaylan of Palawan that serves as the conduit of old, healing wisdom. In Kristian Sendon Cordero's "Angustia," a heroic Bicolano shaman is placed in favorable relief against a headlong Spanish man of religion. Meanwhile Lav Diaz's expansive explorations of the so-called Malay time are hypostatized examples resulting from a yearning for idealized roots. In "Todo Todo Teros," John Torres lends the soapbox for Diaz to expound on what he had read of Pigafetta's famous chronicles of Magellan's expedition, in particular the accounts of Cebu, detailing the natives' cultural precocities. Even in the already postmodern phase of his mature work, Raya Martin invokes precolonial nativism as a life-saving, albeit superstitious, talisman that finds expression in such works as "Independencia" and "How to Disappear Completely."

The attempt to locate the ideal historical substrate for our vanished civilization and culture, the attempt to retrieve it, can be vaguely read into Alvin Yapan’s latest work. As in many films that take this route, there is a crypto-mystical tonality to the proceedings. In "An Kubo Sa Kawayanan," the bamboo house seems alive, surrounded by woods also stirring with strange, enchanted animals and insects. And the inhabitant of this hut, a kind of hermit, has turned inward in the hut's solitude, in her quasi-schizophrenic state. (She speaks to herself, perhaps in response to all the decoded flows of labor, capital, and commodities that encircle her: the lure of technology, the lure of jobs, the lure of the city and the world.) The hut seems to know the past as much as the future: how its stairs begin to creak as if to forewarn its tenant of threat and danger. How it appears to tell the hermit in dreams what is about to unfold.

In The Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard writes: “The hermit’s hut is a theme which needs no variations, for at the simplest mention of it, “phenomenological reverberation” obliterates all mediocre resonances… Its truth must derive from the intensity of its essence, which is the essence of the verb “to inhabit.” “ Yapan's hut is indeed surrounded by breathtaking solitude and enchantment, but it cannot hide itself as a rickety structure, a site of decay. Yet it seems to serve its sentinel as an oracular house that imparts wisdom and admonition – it communicates with her -- and extending the hut as a metaphor of immensity and cosmicity, it might be the Filipino's larger habitation. Time and place. History.

Our enchanted, indigenous history, then, as hopelessly propped up by its last, steadfast tenant. Although the hut seems structurally unsound, and perhaps untenable, Yapan constructs his locus-of-hut-as-history with something endemic, resilient and pliant: the bamboo. How he frames the primeval grass with lyricism: how it rustles and sways in the winds. How it is buoyant in water. And in seeming contradistinction, Yapan intercuts these bucolic images with those of mammoth ships, presumably of global trade and commerce. Side by side, the bamboo seems valorized, quixotically so: that matrix of our folklore, of our creation myths, from which our first man and woman emerged (i.e. Malakas and Maganda). And the mystical bamboo hut with its enchanted milieu speaks like the old wisdom it evokes.

If the hermit’s hut and its vicinity stand for precoloniality or that so-called idealized past, Yapan, however, seems confined, mostly, to mythopoetic gestures inscribed on the terrain of global and domestic conjunctures (Yapan has mined this vein of postcoloniality and globalization before in films like "Ang Panggagahasa kay Fe" and "Debosyon"). Little here, it seems, can be offered on how the course of history will have to change. If Yapan views the past with idealism, it is almost perhaps as an automatic reflex to invoke the "unalloyed" past. For where to locate our vanished origins, the “arche,” the beginning? It would be ridiculous to subscribe to the nostalgia of Levi-Strauss, who rhapsodized how man should revert to a savage/precultural stage of anthropological development. History is after all contingent and aleatory and not trapped in describing circles, let alone in primitive temporality. What lies ahead can thus not be determined in advance. Nonetheless we must not lack historical perspective -- that history is not a smooth continuum, but composed of ruptures and breaks. Instead of mystifying the originary past, we must nurture an appreciation of history that enjoins a development of a philosophy of resistance, whether materialist or not, one that can challenge a faulty status quo, whether with a syncretic horizon or not, and offer the possibility of a genuine and significant change.