Unexpected reversals

AGUAS. Belated discovery.

Talk about stunning plot twists and unexpected reversals, “Bagito” last Wednesday, Feb. 4, firmed up a major storytelling shift suspected for some days now by the series’ regular viewers—Drew (Nash Aguas) is not the father of Vanessa’s (Ella Cruz) love child!

Most likely, the actual dad is Vanessa’s nasty former boyfriend, and Nash’s character, Drew, was used to “protect” the louse—but, if that’s the case, it makes Vanessa an even lousier character. Imagine, she screwed up Drew’s young life something awful, just to suit her devious purposes?

An even more daunting problem is the fact that Drew has already fallen paternally in love with “his” son—so, how will he cope with the discovery that he’s been cruelly fooled? And, what’s he going to do about the baby his defended for so long? —He can’t simply “unlove” him, can he?

In addition, there’s a lot of “collateral damage” involved; Drew’s parents and other relatives, his BFF who secretly loves him (Alexa Ilacad)—etc.!

Ugly, bitter consequences

That vixen, Vanessa, certainly stirred up a Pandora’s Box of ugly and bitter consequences with her monumentally irresponsible fabrication!

Our recent article on TV commercials has elicited diverse reactions. Are there too many TV spots, way past the authorized limit per hour? The general consensus of viewers, based on their experience: A long-suffering “Yes.”

What about the best TV spots, as far as viewers are concerned? They cite commercials featuring “family” situations, young-old relationships, and spots that are “soft-” rather than “hard-sell,” especially “institutional” spots that promote good Filipino values.

What about the worst spots? A particular turn-off seems to be the one about a guy offering somebody else a snack—and then suddenly swallowing the proffered gift himself! An irritated viewer describes the commercial as “nakakagago,” and vows to not patronize the product so cynically being advertised. Yes, it’s supposed to be cheesy and funny—but!

Colonial mentality

Another viewer shares that our recent pieces on colonial mentality and preference for Broadway shows are being discussed in communications classes. Good! That’s what we want to happen, that issues people usually take for granted are focused on for productive cogitation and learning. You don’t have to agree with us—but, let’s talk about it!

What about our article on local male stars’ “emasculation with consent?” That’s turned out to be even more controversial, but deeper discussions should reveal that we’re not just talking through our teeth. Some male stars know what we’re talking about, and they resent the safely bland roles that they’re being made to play.

On child-friendly shows, a viewer says it isn’t enough for TV channels to put up “parental guidance” advisories, since parents are often unavailable to young viewers because they’re working. So, TV channels should practice self-regulation more rigorously, and telecast only “GP” fare— because (unsupervised) children are almost always watching.

On the so-called members of “show biz royalty” who have been “crowned” of late, a colleague observes that the term used to be reserved for members of old show biz clans like the Cruzes, Ilagans and Salvadors, whose stellar “reign” has been multigenerational—very different from the current situation, where “first-generation” “royals” are hastily “crowned.” —What do the real and “entitled” royals think of that?