hey! check this out!

http://256580096.slide.com/p/2/a+rose+started+it+all..?view=true

a rose started it all



and



started to grow...























i miss you...

bidheyos... bidheyos....

ang galeng galeng ng bedheyo namen! whew! "coin operated boy" is the best video ever made! waaaaahahahahahaha! i lab it! go lenzy!

buang hunting is fun. promise!

I'm not a big fan of Brad Pitt and I wonder why millions of females go gaga over him so much. Sometimes (well, I think most of the time), fans (mostly female) of Brad Pitt watch his movies because of him and not because of the story, the movie, or his role but because it is him and he's a beautiful man! This makes him the subject of the study, according to Cavell's idea that screen actors are not essentially an actor. Because of this I-adore-him-because-he-is-Brad-Pitt stereotyping, Brad's roles in his movies (which I know he worked hard for them) are overshadowed by the fact that he played them. In the movie, Brad is no ordinary tourist anymore. He played his role with proficiency, with experience, and this made him a REAL person not the kind of character the author creates.

Eh ano ang pagkakaiba ng screen actor sa stage actor?

Screen actors and stage actors both try to do what they can do to perfectly portray the roles given to them. What makes them different is that, screen actors' characters are created by them while in plays, characters are already established. The difference also is the photographed presence of the screen actors who acts according to what fits the cameras. The obvious difference is that, there is a real man in a theater while in a movie, there is none. Theater is live while movie is not.

As an audience to the film, I act in response accordingly to what I see and feel in a certain scene. But what I see is not live. it is just "an event standing out from the world. it is a cover, to keep something on view".

Babel is a movie which has 3 inter-related stories shot in 3 different locations (Morocco, Japan, Mexico). Movies differ a lot from drama. Movies can be edited and can maneuver more on visual, music, effects, motions, space and time. Transitions in movies are more perceived because of technology.

ang pelikulang ito ay napaka….umpf! whew! that was erotic. very sensual. ‘twas dragging. ‘twas a long movie and the music made it feel looooong….er! it was boring and hindi ko feel ang bidang babae. she’s too weak for me. she has a body though! hehe. I wish I had a body like hers! waaa!

it is branded in our minds that women always have to look good, beautiful, and presentable. well, I can say, for what?? for men to fantasize and drool over?? oh come on…. gimme me break!

in this movie, close-up shots are common. not ordinary close-up shots but close-up shots of the woman’s legs, back, butt, hands, and others! it’s like, the camera is caressing the body of the woman which makes the movie sensual, erotic and slow-paced.

I kind of noticed that the camera shots and movements stimulate feelings. movements are slow which makes me bored and sad and lonely. *sigh* eh totoo naman kasi.. ang lungkot lungkot ng pelikula.. wala naman talagang nangyari na bongga sa huli.. eh hindi lumaban ang babae. nag-try siya pero wala.. weak eh!

Citizen Kane was considered one of the best films in all time and I wonder why… Analyzing a movie is no easy task and I agree with Maya Deren.

PHOTOGRAPHY

Orson Welles made it clear that every scene must be as startlingly photographed as possible. His technique, which was in a way theatrical, was nothing new. deep focus, medium two shots, crane shots, extreme close-ups, long shots are some shots that he used which was not new at all. what makes Welles good is that, his every shot creates a dramatic scene and he has a way of making the audience think of what a particular scene tells.

EDITING

Obviously, the movie or the story was not in chronological order and this made the audience confused a little bit. The shifting of the scenes was somewhat confusing in way. In the movie, it was like, everybody is telling a story about Charles Kane and in every flashback, different personalities of Charles are seen and in a way, this makes the audience establish the character of Kane.

ACTING

Orson Welles' performance as Kane was good. If it weren't good, he wouldn't be praised on movie reviews. Other casts were not well known but each of them performed their roles well and some of them stand out like Ray Collins as Boss Jim Gettys.

SOUND

Sound is very symbolic in the film and it actually accompanies every scene throughout the movie. The music accompaniment suggests the mood of the scenes. Each shot has music appropriate to it. The Voice-of-God narration was in a way startling but it was cool.

STORY

A lot of flashbacks were shown in the movie and every flashback was of different point of views of the story teller. Flashbacks were used to hone the storyline and impart drama. The "Rosebud" motif was intended to hook the audience until the end of the movie. It actually creates a question in every audience: Who is Rosebud? However, it was just an attention-grabber after all.

IDEOLOGY

The movie was a classic tragedy. When Kane was younger, he was happy. When he got older, he became sad and lonely. He became famous, powerful and influential in the early years of his life but eventually he reached his end. when he got older, he shut himself off from everybody and lived in Xanadu.

 

 

waddaf--k! what was it? my god! that was ODD, for sure. really odd. weird. unusuall. unnatural. yeah, whatever! and he is Bjork's husband? yeah, it shows. haha! that was the worst. i mean, WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT? aaaaaaaaaargh!

 

grrrrabe! hanep talaga napanood ko na monologue. super amazing ang talent ni Rich Kiamco. bow talaga ako sa kanya. *bow. that was my first time to actually see such talent. kase mostly, napapanood ko lang sa tv eh. pero yun, i actually got to see it live. yeah!!! a monologue--it rocks!

Rich has BODY!! yeah! he is really great on stage. the presentation is entitled UNACCESORIZED with four monobloc chairs and a fantastic talent? you can say that he is a minimalist or is it because it is "unaccessorized"? but the chairs and the great voice (which changes everythime he switches characters) made me admire RIch Kiamco the most. he is such a good performer. i couldn't say more. he just blew me away. and he is hilarious too. in fact, i was laughing all throughout! he is just soooo aMAYzing! as a matter of fact (just entered my mind) he is like.... Dionysius? did i spell it right? hehe. the god of party and all that? yeah, i can actually compare Rich to the god because he did what he wanted. he reached for his dreams and didn't listen to his parents. and by doing so, look what he is now. destination: successful. kudos, Rich!

PLOT

Like every story, Antigong Agong has a plot and it follows the oh-so-famous and oh-so-always-mentioned Freytag's Triangle. It sure does have an introduction where the actors themselves introduced their roles and what they do. The rising action is where Sam wants to marry Fatima but he has no money as dowry so he planned to go to Iraq but instead, Fatima's grandmother gave him a quest to find the antigong agong and if he finds it, he can marry Fatima without dowry. The climax is where Sam and his friends experienced what their ancestors experienced 100 years ago in Mount Dahu. The falling action is where they came home and got the antigong agong. The resolution is where they made their realizations after knowing what happened a century ago in their land.

 

CHARACTER

The characters in the play are all equal. There was no lead roles, whatsoever, because it is about the community, therefore, the actors are called emsemble and also because it is a musical play. Evaluating the characters through Aristotle's Peotics is so damn hard. I can't put it into words but here are some of what I learned. Aristotle stressed out that actors should be:

1. good in acting
2. appropriate
3. true to life
4. consistent

 

DICTION

The languages used in the play are acceptable, of course. The lines are mixes of Filipino, their native tongue, Tausug, and a little bit of English. It is just right that the writer used these languages because it is easy to understand and the audience are all Filipinos! Although they insert some Tausug lines, which not everybody understands, the writer still managed to not affect the play and the attention of the audience.

 

THOUGHT

Thought and diction go together. The actor should do what he is saying and he can incorporate it to his thoughts. Whatever he thinks, he says and acts.

 

SPECTACLE

The stage design they have is good and their costumes and props, awesome. It may not be really "bongga" but it showed that they really put on efforts to make a production like that. Kudos to their stage designer, who is also their singer and actor! *applause* The stage is not easy to make, for sure. It takes a lot of engineering and creativity to put up that stage. It was quite high and I think if i climb up there, my legs will shake like crazy! hehe.

 

MELODY

Without the spectacle and melody, the play will be bland. Too bland. It will not be called a musical play if there's no music! The songs were very catchy and it was easy to sing. I actually sang along during the performance. hehe. But now, i forgot the lyrics. hehe. They used native instruments adn their ensemble was fantastic. Their lead singer was soooo amazing! She has this really great voice and she was one of the actors too! Muti-talented! whew! cool. so cool.

it sucks when you go to school so early only to find out that your professor is out of reach. haha. grrr. so i had to wait for almost 7 hours. gosh. but, the show, antigong agong, was worth the wait. i had fun. i was totally entertained. the story is very good knowing that the writer is a two-time Palanca awardee. really fantastic! *clap *clap

the show was superb! it tackled a lot of issues such as discimination, unemployment, women rights and the fad, seeking for greener pasture.

AND, COMA 110 speaking, or aesthetically speaking, the play was based on true events that happened 100 years ago in Jolo, Sulu. the play is a copy of the copy of the truth. but even though it's a copy of copy, the essence is  still there. it wasn't removed. it was passed on. right on!