A few days ago, I was reading Roger Ebert's blog about 'Kinatay", a Filipino film which competed at this year's prestigious Cannes film festival. He mentioned the film was unwatchable, so much so that he apologized for calling Vincent Gallo's "The Brown Bunny" the worst film in the festival's history.
It's not just Roger who dislikes the movie. Several prominent critics from the Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, and Variety have noted how bad they felt the movie is. Of course everyone has their own opinion on what makes a film good or bad, but what is truly worrying about the the movie is how it was jeered at its reception and eventual awarding (more on that later).
It's not just Roger who dislikes the movie. Several prominent critics from the Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, and Variety have noted how bad they felt the movie is. Of course everyone has their own opinion on what makes a film good or bad, but what is truly worrying about the the movie is how it was jeered at its reception and eventual awarding (more on that later).
Boos--a different sort; what you might call a consensus boo, without any lines of defense to make things interesting--filled the air the night before following Philippine director Brillante Mendoza's grim slog "Kinatay" - Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune
Sure enough, when the credits rolled, a wan, smattering of applause met a not-insignificant round of boos. Booing -- real booing (especially of something that can't hear it) -- is uncomfortable because I always expect it to lead to something worse, as though a chorus of boos leads straight to riots in the streets. I left before the credits ended. So who knows, maybe the red carpet is on fire as I type. - Wesley Morris, Boston Globe
"Kinatay," a Filipino low-budgeter with a centerpiece scene devoted to the butchery of a woman, may have enthused some of director Brillante Mendoza's hardcore fans but appalled most others; surely Un Certain Regard would have provided a more appropriate home for this than did the competition. - Todd McCarthy, Variety
Mr. Mendoza, a rising talent who was at Cannes last year with the rowdy "Serbis," could use all the help he could get with this movie. A morality tale that he wields like a blunt instrument, "Kinatay" hinges on the inaction of a police-academy student while a prostitute is murdered and dismembered. The movie had its respectful fans, but many others fled the theater. - Manola Dargis, New York Times
With all of the bad feedback, I apologized to Roger as a Filipino and film critic for the film. I felt embarrassed as a movie lover, seeing a compatriot's film panned and booed.
And that's when, go figure, I got called out for being a disgrace to my country.
Several commenters derided me for lacking pride in the film, our country, asking my why I had the nerve to apologize for a film which I had nothing to do with. I asked for civility, but several Filipinos piled on criticizing Roger for being anti-Filipino and for the apologizers for their "treachery."
Then Brillante Mendoza won the festival's best director award, whose announcement was just as shocking, if not more, as his film's reception.
This may all seem like a criticism of Brillante Mendoza and his work, but it's far from it. I'm happy that he's been rewarded for his hard work. His craftsmanship is well above that of his peers in the Philippine entertainment industry, and he strives to make films that are important to him and not to commercial interests.
Those awards were perhaps not expected, but were well-received. Then the jury started springing surprises that didn't go over as well.
The biggest was the Best Director Award to Brillante Mendoza of the Philippines, for the very violent "Kinatay," one of the worst-received films of the festival. It involves the kidnapping, torture, rape, beheading and dismemberment of woman by members of the police force.
The announcement was greeted by loud booing as the festival's press corps watched on closed circuit TV in the Debussy theater, next door to the Lumiere, where the ceremony was held. - Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
... when Filipino filmmaker Brillante Mendoza won the directing prize for "Kinatay," in which a police academy student witnesses a series of depraved acts committed against an exotic dancer, the hoots from the press corps reached a crescendo. Accepting his award, Mendoza seemed as surprised as anyone that Huppert's jury recognized, as he termed it, "my kind of cinema." - Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune
The biggest shock of the night was the Best Director award, which went to the Filipino Brillante Mendoza for his grisly kidnap film Kinatay, one of the most reviled films in the competition. - Ben Hoyle, Times of London
However, do not mistake how I feel about his efforts with how I feel about the film, which is at the moment, leaning towards shame. It's true that I have not seen the film, and therefore have no final opinion of it. But when the most recognized film critic in the world says that a movie is the worst in the history of Cannes, you have to take notice.
I have listened to Roger Ebert for almost half my life now, and for people to call him racist and populist is to show ignorance or jealousy. No man in the last in the past several decades has done more to illuminate films of every kind, regardless of who their from, where they're made, or what they intend to do. Sure he operates in the mainstream, but when you actually read his reviews, very few can match his intelligence.
As for me, I reserve the right to say sorry for a film, if others reserve the right to feel pride in it. Now that Mr. Mendoza has won, those same accusers who are so outraged by us apologists now feel immense national pride. How dare they? Did they have anything to do with it?
When "Slumdog Millionaire" won the Best Film Oscar, many Indians felt that same fervor of pride or anger. Some didn't like the references to dogs, some were elated at an India-focused movie receiving film's highest honor. Don't think for a moment that if a Filipino did the same, we Pinoys would be losing our minds.
Is that a bad thing? To apologize or feel pride in a film we have no hand in making? Of course not. For movie lovers, we have much at stake, whatever those investments are. If you're happy with Brillante Mendoza's win for his work with "Kinatay," then more power to you. An award at Cannes for all its criticisms is still a valued prize. Personally, I don't feel pride in a film that has caused so much revulsion among audiences.
But who knows? That might change once I've actually seen it.
when i heard this on the news i though "wow! galing ng pinoy". I didn't know how badly the film was received by those who've seen it. so what happened? good directing but poor story or the gross violence was just too much?
Mike: There are several reviews about the film, including Roger Ebert on his blog if you like his work. I myself cannot comment until I've seen it.
I think that Mendoza deserves the award. I, also, believe that the judges at Cannes saw that Mendoza was making a bold and serious statement about conditions in the Philippines. With all the killings here especially political killings, I think that the film may "jar" some heads to think and speak out and to cause some good. Most times, good comes out of public shame. Mr. Ebert does not know our situation here and has reviewed the movie as a "movie" and nothing more. I have, personally, seen worse in American films with a good rating from Mr. Ebert. The film was filmed in a low-budget manner and this tends to intensify the drama of the movie.If millions of dollars were invested in special effects etc. maybe it would have been more acceptable to Mr. Ebert.
I think the movie was made as a harsh statement on the "Philippine Condition" and it accomplished it goals.
Mike: Hi JB. It's alright if you disagree with Ebert on some of his reviews as we all may have differing opinions. But how does Ebert's lack of knowing the Philippine "condition" have to do with appreciating a movie? Should other critics who panned the film be criticized as well for not knowing in advance the context of "Kinatay?"
It's most likely that the Cannes panel who awarded Brillante Mendoza were not aware of Philippine conditions as well. But they awarded him anyway. Does their lack of awareness make them less qualified to judge the merits of the film? Of course not.
The very fact that the film was released in Cannes no less was most likely to enlighten any audience of the hardships shown in the film. Movies by their very nature invite us to understand its characters and their realities. Ebert's lack of Philippine awareness (if he exhibits any) isn't a requirement for him (nor is it for any film critic) to give judgement. He judged what he saw.
There is much of a duality in your post. The duality of giving recognition to a filmmaker who makes anti-audience films.
I think Brillante Mendoza opens a lot of questions on CINEMA SPECTATORSHIP, a branch in film studies which have had in itself problems: one, interpretation of ideas, and two, the theoretical approach to be used.
Certainly, Brillante's two features, Kinatay and Serbis, fall into anti-audience category and Mr. Mendoza filmed it that way. since we, audiences, cannot remove the rights of Mendoza to establish such films or even judge him for being a disgrace to the country's pride, i suggest to resolve this duality by proposing a new kind of approach to criticism, which i think ebert wouldn't mind to bother --- NEOFORMALISM.
NEOFORMALISM, theorized by famous whistle-blower on film studies, DAVID BORDWELL (blogs at http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/), and his wife, KRISTIN TOMPSON, which came from HISTORICAL POETICS, has a focus on the FILMS CONSTRUCTIONAL PRINCIPLES and EFFECTS, their constitution, functions, consequences and historical manifestations.
Using this framework, we can approach KINATAY with enough OBJECTIVITY because we only use the aspect of HOW THE FILM WAS CONSTRUCTED, not the implications of the film being a shame, or sociological implications or even its reception. NEOFORMALISM does follow the INTERPRETATIVE School, a school which EBERT and most of film critics belongs, because it only evaluates how the filmmaker crafted the film, how elements interact and function, how the mise-en-scene help, or cinematography.
EBERT is not film theorist to start with. He started as a journalist and becomes the eponymous film critic that we have today. Though famous for predicting box office hits, i cannot see the significance of EBERT's writings to FILM as a whole.
FILM STUDIES today is a stagnant field because the interpretative school have reached the establishment of the GRAND THEORY (SLAB THEORY - Saussure, Lacan, Althussere, Barthes) which is used extensively by critics on analyzing films. With the fear of being gobbled up by other fields such as SOCIOLOGY or JOURNALISM, Film studies must stand up to its own and BORDWELL's NEOFORMALISM came to the rescue.
(see http://www.davidbordwell.net/articles/Bordwell_Lingua%20franca_vol10_no2_March2000_34.pdf)
***
I Quote from your comment:
"Ebert's lack of Philippine awareness (if he exhibits any) isn't a requirement for him (nor is it for any film critic) to give judgement. (sic) He judged what he saw. He judged what he saw."
I disagree that films should be 'judged'. I think the most proper word for this one is EVALUATE. Films must be evaluated not judged and this is what a critic must achieve - OBJECTIVITY amidst the SUBJECTIVITY (the shallow individualism) describe by many people to the medium.
***
Ciao!
Sorry for a poorly written comment, i am in a hurry. ;-)
Mike: Hi Adrian. Surely you jest about poor commentry. :)
You are correct in saying that Roger is not a theorist, as he belong to journalistic circles than from the academe. As one who approaches film from a mainly theoretical standpoint, his views may not be of much value.
However, one cannot deny the impact he has had in educating the less learned movie devotees (which I consider myself part of). David Bordwell is an immensely influential critic who stays out of the mainstream, but I don't think he should classify him strictly as a theorist. As Ebert has said in one of his blog posts (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html)
"David Bordwell, who I admire beyond measure, is a rarity: A respected film academic with a shelf of important books to his credit, who writes in clean, clear, elegant prose. If you see one of his books that intrigues you, you can read it with confidence that you will be able to understand it. Bordwell has a particular disinterest in academic systems that produce writing about themselves. Like Pierre Rissient, mentioned above, he is a Man of Cinema. And not too august that he and his wife, Kristin Thompson, another famed scholar, drive down from Wisconsin to Ebertfest and join us at the Steak n' Shake in the midnight hours. They have written general books, textbooks, and "On the History of Film Style," which pulls the subject together and is built on an intimate familiarity with the first 110 or so years of film."
Roger's impact on the discussion of film is immeasurable, as David Bordwell says so himself in his foreword to Roger's recent book "Awake In The Dark":
"Roger Ebert has blended prodigious energy, keen judgment, wide knowledge, probing insights, and a sharp sense of humor into some of the most perceptive commentary on cinema published in our time. In the tradition of George Bernard Shaw and Robert Hughes, he practices a graceful and deeply informed art journalism. Some pieces he writes are ephemeral, but nothing he writes is trivial."
I understand the distinction you make with judgment and evaluation. I think this comes with which group of film criticism you come from, it being informal or formal (respectively). To each his own. :)
Another one ---
NOEL VERA (famous Filipino film critic) has a take on EBERT's Criticism to KINATAY...
he said of EBERT:
" As for Ebert--haven't much use for the man, or his writings, or anything he has to say on Filipino films, or any film in general. Far as I'm concerned he's The Great White Middlebrow of American Cinema, and I can't afford to be too bothered by the fuss he's spouting through his blowhole."
(see http://criticafterdark.blogspot.com/2009/05/roger-ebert-kills-brillante-mendozas.html)
I TOTALLY AGREE TO MR. VERA!
Mike: I've come across Mr. Vera's comment. He is a very intelligent, if somewhat distant film critic. If you feel the same, that's just fine.
To Mr. Mirasol,
Why apologize for the film and even imply that Kinatay only entered the festival due to connection? Gosh!!! I feel sorry for you.
Mike: Where did I imply this?
On the bright side, I guess it's better that this "Philippine Defense Squad" nonsense only went as far as Ebert's blog.
At least we didn't have some lame-brained politician declaring all the movie critics as 'persona non grata' or making foolish threats. Now that would be a national embarrassment.
Yikes. I hope this does not start a race towards who cam make a more gruesome film in the country. Knowing Filipinos though, I am afraid that might just happens. I am happy a Filipino won the award,and relieved it was not another "Gay themed" film. I don't really think the film makers today are painting a good picture of what the Filipino is all about. I know that some of them are portraying reality, but there is much more to us than our poverty and the corruption that exists in our government. If a person totally unfamiliar with our country will use the films we submit to international competitions as a learning resource for the Philippines, he'd surely think Filipinos are a bunch of poverty stricken, violent, and sexually deprived homosexuals.
Please, more Magnificos, more Plonings, more Himalas, more Jose Rizals.
Mike: Well, I'm sure learned moviegoers will know that one film does not make it representative of its origins.
Noel Vera is clown who just can not accept that someone has nerve criticise filippino movie.
Kinatay's violence is just calculated sensationalism, this so called "film" would be totally forgotten without it, and that is only reason it is there.
Mike: Now now. Mr. Vera is very knowledgeable about films, particularly Filipino ones. Though I do wish he would refrain from name-calling, as should we all.
Came in from the Ebert blog :)
About Slumdog Millionaire and its reception in India: It's true that there were some people making an issue of the dog reference. There were those who felt it demeaned India by highlighting poverty. Yet the majority who disliked it just felt the movie wasn't good enough.
The euphoria that began with the Golden Globes was suddenly tempered with a "is that all there is to winning the Oscars" mentality when SM did win big there. Even A.R. Rahman's music (which won 2 Oscars) was acknowledged as a far lesser work than his many previous scores. But of all the awards, those were the ones most Indians felt they owned given Rahman's influence on film music here.
Anyway, nice blog.
Mike: Thanks for clarifying that. The dog references are only what I found on internet news pages (you know the media).
I went through your blog as well. :) Keep on writing! There might be a name for us "Ebert-fans." Pauline Kael's fans are "Paulettes". Are we "Ebertricians?" :D
To: JB
I cannot agree more, JB, as per verbatim, what you said about Ebert and his review of the movie, Kinatay,
'Mr. Ebert does not know our situation here and has reviewed the movie as a "movie" and nothing more.'
That's what it's really about. Nothing more. nothing less. It has no negative connotation.
I certainly didnt feel offended reading Ebert's review of the movie.
I, just like Michael Mirasol, am one of the biggest fan of Roger Ebert.
I call him, Sir Roger Ebert. He should be knighted for his contribution in the world of FILM ARTS.
He made me understand movies and their basic structure.
He made me understand difficult movies that I don't get it at first viewing.
He made me become a movie fanatic.
Oh heck he made me fuckin passionately-obsessed with FARGO, and FRANCES MCDORMAND!
His review of FARGO is 'why I love the movie(s)!'
www.rogerebert.com
Archie :)
......I have not seen the movie, is Coco Martin in it? Yum!