(a promotional still from the movie “Masahista” as published in the flyers distributed by the U.P. Film Institute, used here for educational and non-commercial purposes.)
Summary:
It is doubtful however whether the MTRCB has jurisdiction to review educational materials, such as films and digital materials, used in U.P. in pursuit of its objectives of providing higher education. In particular, the films screened at the U.P. Film Institute are selected by the Film Department of the U.P. College of Mass Communication for the purpose of raising film literacy in general and fulfilling all of the course requirements and curricular objectives of the film school in U.P. And for that, it is the faculty of the Film Department that has jurisdiction to choose what films would be screened and how; the Chair, the Dean, and maybe on policy questions, even the University Council, the highest academic policy making body in U.P. , all as authorized under the U.P. Charter (as amended, Republic Act 9500). The MTRCB can come and watch the movies but they cannot in any official capacity be made to believe that they can exercise their monitoring function at the U.P. Film Institute any more than they can monitor the lectures and multi-media presentations used inside classrooms in U.P.
I was informed yesterday that the MTRCB (Movie and Television Review and Classification Board) wrote U.P. stating that henceforth they will be “monitoring” films being screened at the U.P. Film Institute and that if they “see” that any movie is “pornographic”, they would file complaints in court. Good. Any person is welcome to educate himself/herself by watching films shown at the U.P. film Institute – films that are also shown in classrooms and film schools as in fact the U.P. College of Mass Communication Film Department administers the activities of the Film Institute. It is doubtful however whether the MTRCB has jurisdiction to review educational materials, such as films and digital materials, used in U.P. in pursuit of its objectives of providing higher education. In particular, the films screened at the U.P. Film Institute are selected by the Film Department of the U.P. College of Mass Communication for the purpose of raising film literacy in general and fulfilling all of the course requirements and curricular objectives of the film school in U.P. And for that, it is the faculty of the Film Department that has jurisdiction to choose what films would be screened and how; the Chair, the Dean, and maybe on policy questions, even the University Council, the highest academic policy making body in U.P. , all as authorized under the U.P. Charter (as amended, Republic Act 9500). The MTRCB can come and watch the movies but they cannot in any official capacity be made to believe that they can exercise their monitoring function at the U.P. Film Institute any more than they can monitor the lectures and multi-media presentations used inside classrooms in U.P.
Of course, anyone is free to file a complaint in court, as among the standards, oft-quoted, for what constitutes obscenity are: if the material “appeals purely to the prurient interest” and has no utterly “redeeming social value” or “no literary, scientific, artistic, merit.”
Apparently, the move of the MTRCB stemmed from a columnist’s comment that the Film Institute had become a “haven” for “gay porn”.
Here’s a bit of advice to the MTRCB: 1) Maybe, just maybe, it might be useful, before being pushed by a knee-jerk reaction, to ask the columnist or your “informer” to specify what movie or movies are being referred to as “gay porn”. Because…some of the movies there star Judy Ann Santos; and Boots Anson Roa; and Tommy Abuel; and Anita Linda. It might be big movie news to find out whether these actors have suddenly made a career shift to porn. And second:
2) It might be useful too, to watch the films first before judging them.
Since the “informer” of the MTRCB did not specify which films shown at the Film Institute were gay porn, i looked at the flyers and just concentrated on those that fall under the genre “gay and lesbian films” . As i understand it, this is an entire genre in international film festivals.
Now, one of your standards for judging whether a movie is pornographic or obscene is that it has no utterly redeeming artistic, literary merit or social value. This maybe is a subjective standard but one could go by watching the film itself; the next best thing,maybe, is to look at how the film had been adjudged in international screenings . Here are the films shown at the Film Institute.
Tell me, which one or which ones are gay porn? Are you about to tell me that the MTRCB can tell U.P. what it can and cannot show as educational materials within the University?
1) “Serbis” Centerstage Productions, Swift Productions (France.)Direction: Brillante Mendoza: Official selection for the Palme d’Or – 2008 Festival de Cannes; Winner, best director, best actor for Gina Pareño, Vladivostok International Film Fest of Asian Pacific Countries; Best Southeast Asian Film – 208 Bangkok Int’l FF; Official Selection, 2008 New York Int’l FF
2) “Masahista”. A Gee Entertainment Presentation of a Centerstage Production. Direction: Brillante Mendoza. Grand Prize, Golden Leopard-Video – 2005 Locarno Int’l FF; Winner of Audience Prize – 2006 Torino Int’l Gay and Lesbian Film Fest; Winner of Interfaith Prize – 2006 Brisbane IFF;
3) “Sikil” (“Unspoken Passion”). New Life Cinema. Direction: Ronaldo Bertubin. Official Selection – 2007 Valencia Film Festival/ Cancun IFF; Official Selection 2008 Palm Springs IFF/ 2008 Frameline FF/ 2008 San Diego Asian FF
The other films in the category of “gay and lesbian films”, and their synopses, are: 4)“Quick Trip” – Director’s Cut. “A blue-collar bi-sexual dumped by his gay lover wanders about and ends up hanging out with a new acquaintance he’d wish to be the right guy to heal his wounded heart.” 5) “Lovebirds”. Pro Productions. Direction: Ronaldo Bertubin. “A secretive bachelor turns the lives of his conservative parents upside down as his romantic other-half he found by way of the worldwide web is revealed to be a he.”
Which one or which ones of these have utterly no redeeming social value or utterly no artistic, literary merit? More important, does the MTRCB have jurisdiction to tell U.P. what it can teach and how to go about it?
(a promotional still from the movie “”Sikil” as published in the flyers distributed by the U.P. Film Institute, used here for educational and non-commercial purposes.)
And finally, here’s a review of one of the movies shown in the category “gay lesbian film” written by columnist Mario Bautista, on the film “Masahista”.
Quote “Digital films take over mainstream movies
Quote “ FREEHAND By Mario Bautista, People’s Journal
Quote”WINNER OF THE best picture award in the video category of the Locarno International Filmfest, “Masahista” (“The Masseur”) is the directorial debut of former production designer Brilliante Mendoza. After watching it, the first thing that strikes you is that it has a very Filipino sensibility, particularly the scenes involving the wake of the lead character’s father. The Filipino orientation becomes even more pronounced when compared to another digital film, “Mga Pusang Gala,” which has a very Western sensibility.
Quote “The story revolves on Iliac (Coco Martin), a masseur in a gay massage parlor called Maharlika, and his session with a customer who dubs himself as Marina Hidalgo (Allan Paule), who uses this as his pen name in writing romance novels. While Iliac renders service on Allan (this is a very long sequence and the film returns to it repeatedly until film’s end), the film’s narrative also moves on and shows him going home to his family in San Fernando, Pampanga.
Quote “The film’s structure is divided into two specific milieus: inside the sleazy massage parlor and the wake of Iliac’s dad in Pampanga. The director says they did extensive research in Manila’s massage parlors and they discovered that more than one half of its masseurs hail from Pampanga. He himself is from San Fernando so he thought it best to set one-half of the film’s story there.
Quote “The film has many quiet sequences that manage to be very moving, like the juxtaposition of the scene showing Iliac undressing his client while, in the province, he is also shown helping to dress up his late father on the embalming table. All throughout, you’d see that Iliac does not seem to be affected at all by the things he does, like when he allows Allan to enter him and he is just shown seemingly detached while staring at a lizard on the ceiling. This makes his breakdown scene very touching, sobbing uncontrollably as he looks at the things his father left behind, including the shoe sizes of him and his siblings that his dad kept so he can buy them some footwear.
Quote “The film’s documentary style allows the juxtaposition of explicit sex scenes with the wake and burial scenes in an almost objective but chilling manner. What the film lacks is a major conflict in the story that needs to be resolved. It just shows the life of Iliac in the massage parlor and with his family. He is perfectly aware of his duties to his customers and to his family and fulfills them all without any complaint. The film succeeds in showing what transpires exactly inside a gay massage parlor and demonstrates the depraved things that masseurs and customers do in the confines of their narrow cubicles and we’re glad the MTRCB allowed these scenes to be shown uncut. But no doubt the gay sex scenes are part of the reason why the film was bought by foreign distributors, just like other local films of this kind: “Macho Dancer”, “Burlesk King” and “Midnight Dancers” that are all about sex workers who cater to gay patrons.
Quote “Very little is required of Jaclyn as the mother other than to provide her grieving presence. She has minimal dialogue here. It’s Allan and Coco who have the most important roles and they are both good. We won’t be surprised if Allan would be nominated as best supporting actor for his portrayal of the client who betrays his gay nature through little nuances in his facial expressions and the way he speaks while he is butt naked almost all throughout the movie.
Quote “Coco’s innocent good looks perfectly suits his role as the poor provinciano with a dehumanizing job in Manila. He is very natural even in the way he delivers his lines, like when he tries to persuade Allan to buy him a new pair of rubber shoes.
Quote “Our heart goes out to him when Allan refuses to pay him the amount they’ve agreed upon after using his body. He reminds us of Leandro Baldemor who’s also chinky-eyed like him. They both have a clean-cut projection on screen, looking like they’re not really suited for bold roles that require them to do lascivious acts. We just hope Coco will not end up like Leandro whose career never progressed beyond doing such sexy roles.
Quote “”Masahista” is definitely one of the better local films we’ve seen so far this year.
Quote “Technical credits are above average, particularly the cinematography by Timmy Jimenez and Monchie Redoble that’s surely much better compared to those of other digital films shown this year. Also commendable are the spare but effective musical score by Jerold Tarog and the production design by Benjamin Padero that convincingly recreated the claustrophobic confines of a massage parlor cubicle.
Quote “Admittedly, the film is also a commentary on the gripping poverty in our country that forces a lot of young people to throw dignity into the wind and go into the oldest profession just to earn a living.
Quote “We have a feeling that in next year’s awards derby, most of the films that will compete are digital films as we have yet to see a mainstream movie this year that can qualify as best picture. Even in the forthcoming Metro Manila filmfest, most of the entries are fantasy and horror flicks. So, in all probability, “Masahista” and other digital films like “Roomboy,” “Sa North Diversion Road,” “Ilusyon” and “Big Time” will get the most number of nominations.” Closed-quote.
From http://www.journal.com.ph/news.asp
marichulambino.com 