Answering additional questions from the Film Criticism Talk

Ilagay ko lang dito yung mga tanong kanina na di na na-entertain mula sa talk dahil kinapos ng oras at saka yung mga tugon ko dito.

From Andrea: What can you say about sa increasing “meta-ness” at self-referencing ng mga pelikula? Tulad po ng reliance sa mga pop culture references and established tropes

It’s been going on since the 80s, at least on pop culture productions from the west. As a former colony, it is only logical that we’re receiving this late now. Pero yung referencing, is not something that we receive now as a novelty. Reflective to ng sinasabi ni Fredric Jameson ng pastiche ng postmodernism, pero itong theorization is already some 30 to 40 years old! Yung pwede lang nating initially ma react to it ay, walang bago dito. It can be anything: a symptom of postmodernism, creative poverty of mainstream bourgeois culture that is reflective ng increasing class impunity. In matters ng film criticism, unfortunately, there’s so much we can do against it. Yung sources ng creative poverty na to comes from aspects outside of aesthetics and art / film production.

From Jet Ramos : Para sa atin, how can we successfully incorporate values and new storylines nang di nasisira ang pagiging commercial ng movie?

How can we as what?

What values? How new are these “new storylines” you’re referring to?

Siguro alluding to the question above, questionable yung attempts and claims to novelty sa ngayon for as long as the same people are holding the means of production of cinema, as exhibited by the pseudonovelty ng “Unconfined Cinema”.

From JOMARI COSGAFA :What elements can we apply to make a good critic to a certain film po?

I really think what critics, or writers, need is clarity. Clarity in writing, clarity in argumentation, on openings and closure. A clarity that exhibits actual thinking. Not sure really what a “good critic” is, but I’m sure looking for clarity on anything that I read. If they/you don’t think anything about what you’re trying to write is clear at the moment, don’t write it yet.

From Michael Kevin Galang: since yung idea ng film / cinema ay derivative from the practice / dialectical relationship ng film production at criticism, possible ba yung transition from (meta-)criticism to a ‘positive’ (meaning, may pinoposit) film theory, lalo na sa ph?

Well, matter din ang practice ng commitment. Haha. If somebody will commit to the task of theorization, I think it will not be impossible. The only problem with the Philippine intellectual sphere is that, no one is taking intellectuals seriously, even intellectuals themselves, to actually be productive. They take everything as a chore or an academic requirement. They are not to blame though, as most intellectuals live in precarity in this country. Struggle for a better life siguro can give way for better theorization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *