Dear Cinema Evaluation Board,
See, I tried to understand.
When people comment in my reviews regarding the top grades you give to films that I pan, I try to keep quiet.
I caught an interview with one of your members some time ago, brought on to talk about the independent cinema boom in the country. And he talked about how our independent films were pandering to foreign audiences. He also talked about how the board prefers to give good grades to films that look good, that have a certain film quality not found in digital features. Because we have to uphold some sort of technical standard, he said. And that's why films like Baler get an "A," while arguably better films get by without tax rebates.
And i thought, okay. It's not ideal, but I turned my way of thinking around, choosing to look at your board as simply a way of keeping an industry afloat, using the tax rebates to give studios a boost after spending a lot of money on a big blockbuster movie.
And so, while I did not think much of your grades, I didn't outright hate them, either. I saw them as mostly harmless, if a little misguided. And I thought, hey, we can all have different opinions.
But then you gave an"A" to Pitik Bulag.
See, I was buying your line about how you gave priority to films that look good. I thought it was a shallow way of looking at things, but an acceptable one, a way that takes into account the somewhat condescending but generally accepted idea of an "average" moviegoer. This is not a film that looks good. You cannot in any way claim that this movie represents any kind of technical achievement. I suppose you did not notice the parts of the film where for no reason whatsoever, the movie becomes letterboxed for a few seconds. Out of nowhere, the movie changes its aspect ratio.
An "average" moviegoer is still smart enough to realize that something went wrong there. Why couldn't you? An "average" moviegoer could easily tell that the direction was abysmal. You said it was "masterfully done?" I'm afraid that your standards for mastery are woefully low. By that standard, every eight year old in the country is a master. Seriously, hand any eight year old a camera and I'm sure they could make a better movie than this. At the very least, it wouldn't have all those stupid sex scenes in them.
And you complain about how independent movies fall back on sex or gay scenes or poverty to reel in foreigners. Now, granted, this isn't a film that will reel in foreigners. It's far too dumb to do that. But this movie does feature that trifecta of objections, while adding some unnecessary violence along the way. In fact, the first three scenes are a sex scene, a macho dancer scene, and a lesbian sex scene. And all these scenes are obviously exploitative, and could've been cut completely without affecting how the story turned out.
I say "story" but that's being really generous. "A tightly woven story," you say. I don't think you know what that means. Tightly woven stories tend to make sense. Tightly woven stories stick with realistic characters, and don't fall back on ridiculous stereotypes. Tightly woven stories make sure that every scene contributes to some sort of larger picture, and don't just throw in a macho dancer scene because that's the kind of thing that brings people in Indiesine.
See, I tried to understand you, choosing to believe whatever reasons you gave for giving your grades. But you've gone too far. There is no way in the world you can justify to any average viewer that this movie deserves the 100% tax rebate you've afforded it. While your choices have never been great, this one reveals something far more insidious. You must actively hate cinema to have regarded this film so highly.
Either that, or you're just corrupt.
Either reason will do. Either way, you're still not worthy of the place you have in our industry. I've always known this, but I foolishly accepted it as a harmless thing.
No more.
I'm picking a fight.
With no respect, whatsoever,
Phil Dy
See, I tried to understand.
When people comment in my reviews regarding the top grades you give to films that I pan, I try to keep quiet.
I caught an interview with one of your members some time ago, brought on to talk about the independent cinema boom in the country. And he talked about how our independent films were pandering to foreign audiences. He also talked about how the board prefers to give good grades to films that look good, that have a certain film quality not found in digital features. Because we have to uphold some sort of technical standard, he said. And that's why films like Baler get an "A," while arguably better films get by without tax rebates.
And i thought, okay. It's not ideal, but I turned my way of thinking around, choosing to look at your board as simply a way of keeping an industry afloat, using the tax rebates to give studios a boost after spending a lot of money on a big blockbuster movie.
And so, while I did not think much of your grades, I didn't outright hate them, either. I saw them as mostly harmless, if a little misguided. And I thought, hey, we can all have different opinions.
But then you gave an"A" to Pitik Bulag.
See, I was buying your line about how you gave priority to films that look good. I thought it was a shallow way of looking at things, but an acceptable one, a way that takes into account the somewhat condescending but generally accepted idea of an "average" moviegoer. This is not a film that looks good. You cannot in any way claim that this movie represents any kind of technical achievement. I suppose you did not notice the parts of the film where for no reason whatsoever, the movie becomes letterboxed for a few seconds. Out of nowhere, the movie changes its aspect ratio.
An "average" moviegoer is still smart enough to realize that something went wrong there. Why couldn't you? An "average" moviegoer could easily tell that the direction was abysmal. You said it was "masterfully done?" I'm afraid that your standards for mastery are woefully low. By that standard, every eight year old in the country is a master. Seriously, hand any eight year old a camera and I'm sure they could make a better movie than this. At the very least, it wouldn't have all those stupid sex scenes in them.
And you complain about how independent movies fall back on sex or gay scenes or poverty to reel in foreigners. Now, granted, this isn't a film that will reel in foreigners. It's far too dumb to do that. But this movie does feature that trifecta of objections, while adding some unnecessary violence along the way. In fact, the first three scenes are a sex scene, a macho dancer scene, and a lesbian sex scene. And all these scenes are obviously exploitative, and could've been cut completely without affecting how the story turned out.
I say "story" but that's being really generous. "A tightly woven story," you say. I don't think you know what that means. Tightly woven stories tend to make sense. Tightly woven stories stick with realistic characters, and don't fall back on ridiculous stereotypes. Tightly woven stories make sure that every scene contributes to some sort of larger picture, and don't just throw in a macho dancer scene because that's the kind of thing that brings people in Indiesine.
See, I tried to understand you, choosing to believe whatever reasons you gave for giving your grades. But you've gone too far. There is no way in the world you can justify to any average viewer that this movie deserves the 100% tax rebate you've afforded it. While your choices have never been great, this one reveals something far more insidious. You must actively hate cinema to have regarded this film so highly.
Either that, or you're just corrupt.
Either reason will do. Either way, you're still not worthy of the place you have in our industry. I've always known this, but I foolishly accepted it as a harmless thing.
No more.
I'm picking a fight.
With no respect, whatsoever,
Phil Dy
Current Mood:
annoyed
Current Music: Dinosaur Jr. - Pieces
1 hit | Leave a trail













