SEGUERRA. Judicious handling of potentially controversial move. FILE PHOTO
This is not a good month for us, as far as viewers and reader reactions are concerned. Some respondents razz us about our “anticolonial mentality” exhortations, which we keep pushing—and they keep pushing away.
“What’s the problem?” a reader huffs. “The world has gone global, so we have to keep up with it—or lose the race!”
Our meek retort: We have nothing against globalization, but not at the expense of “local” being regarded as inherently inferior to “foreign!”
Another bone of contention that some readers have been gnawing on is what they deem to be our “excessive” faith in the talent of the now adult Niño Muhlach. They agree that he was really special and amazing as a child star, but that’s all in the past, his time has passed and nothing we say or do can change that!
All we can say in Niño’s defense is that, if he’s given a major, well-scripted indie showcase, he might still surprise us all. Please remember that, for many years, we “defended” the “has-been” Nora Aunor, and then she made a successful comeback via “Thy Womb”—and people are belatedly singing her praises again.
We’re not saying that the same retroactive epiphany will happen in Niño’s case, but he also deserves another chance—as he’s already demonstrated by way of some deft and daft cameo portrayals in recent indies like “Juana Change.”
On the issue of Charice “outing” herself, some reactors believe that she “pushed” it too hard to boost her career prospects. They favor Aiza Seguerra’s approach when she herself announced her gender preference, with much less noise and fanfare. And they ascribe her career’s continuing success to her judicious handling of her potentially controversial move.
Thank goodness, we got better marks for our recent article on “The Voice of the Philippines,” which was cited for clarifying some key issues related to local singing tilts and making reader-voters think more instructively about what they find outstanding in singers’ performances in these parts (we’re not just talking about our addled preferences for birit).
Back to the nay-sayers: Some readers were ticked off by our less-than-enthusiastic notes on Sam Milby’s portrayal of Judy Ann Santos’ violent husband in her recently concluded teleserye.
They thought he was convincing in his big thespic departure from his usual “lightweight” roles, and that his belated efforts to speak in Filipino should be encouraged. —Uh, if you say so…
As for our notes on “Showbiz Police’s” first telecast, some readers opined that Lucy Torres-Gomez’s relatively bland cohosting style shouldn’t be taken against her, since the show should present a variety of approaches. Not all of the hosts should be gung-ho and “breaking news”-oriented, so Lucy’s presence gives the program the balance it needs. —Message received.
Our recent article advocating the elimination of provocatively clad (or unclad) and sexily gyrating dancers on local noontime shows elicited this reaction from a reader: “I agree. I’m a senior citizen and in my youth, I had to go to bars and beer gardens to ogle at sexy dancing girls. These days, all I have to do is switch on my TV set at noontime!”
—Surely, times have changed—but, do we want to go that way? Our vulnerable children deserve to watch less “confounding” fare on noontime TV!
Other readers are up in arms over Miley Cyrus’ radical change of image, from sweet and perky Disney darling, Hannah Montana, to the “twerking terror” she has become on some of her recent TV outings.
What is going on? Miley’s own dad shared his take on the controversy in a televised interview last month: People should understand that his daughter is no longer a “sweet” teenager, so Hannah Montana has to be “killed” so Miley can start this new chapter in her career with a clean slate—as a young-adult star who can tackle mature roles and themes.
So, it was an intentional move on her part to “shock” the TV audience into realizing that Hannah is—dead and buried!
Sexy moves
Fine, but some viewers point out that Miley’s sexy moves were so awkwardly and smarmily pulled off that she wasn’t likely to gain many new fans that way.
On the film awards scene, some observers are agog over and cheering the unexpected inclusion of three movies about the Philippines in the Foreign Language category of the upcoming Oscars: the official Philippine bet, “Transit”; the UK entry, “Metro Manila,” and a film from Singapore, “Iloilo,” about a Filipina maid and the boys she took care of in the Lion City.
The feat is most unusual and unexpected—a fluke, actually. But, it’s still early days in the competition, which could go any which way, so excited speculations about its final outcome are not in order.
Let’s just savor the rare phenomenon for what it is, then simmer down and realize that making it in this category of the Oscars isn’t just a matter of superior filmmaking, but also a lot of (expensive) promotions, since hundreds of US Film Academy members have to be reached and convinced to vote for “our” film.
At this point, “Metro Manila” would appear to have an advantage over the other two “Filipino” productions, since it won the audience award at Sundance. However, even that edge is not all that clearly quantifiable, so let’s just wait and see.
(PS: “Metro Manila” is showing here on Oct. 9. Watch it and see for yourself what the excitement is all about.)