Cannes #4: What were they thinking of?

Damn, Roger, this is some poignant stuff. Especially in light of a typo in your conclusion: "who summons the inner strength to top fight back for her future" that leads me to assume that this was raw copy that received a cursory proofread. I point out this typo in the most flattering way possible.

I am most affected by this article because I frequently find myself apologizing for the type of film you describe. I sometimes feel obligated to defend the idea film, especially idea films that are programmed to repulse the audience. I will argue that there is some honor in provoking the most base of physical reactions from a crowd, and often find myself citing stuff like Marcel Duchamp's Fountain or Bunuel's eyeball slice to defend filth like Cannibal Holocaust or I Spit On Your Grave! (I mention this specific title because of your stance on it. I could name reams and reams of films that are made to provoke similar reactions. Some of which you have liked.)

However, I have found myself at something of a moral crossroads recently. I am a screenwriter, a screenwriter at the beginning of what I hope will be a successful and dignified career. As a screenwriter, I have decisions to make. I can do horrible things to my characters for the sake of an idea, or a theme. I do have a soft spot for horror, and skew towards tragedy wherever possible. I tend towards the darkest aspects of humanity, I find myself writing about the best of our species following paths of enlightenment to ruin.

It is easy to structure a film around an idea, and there is often gravitas in a mean spirited idea. Consider the recent Last House on the Left remake, or either version of Funny Games. These are extremely well made films, that are built around an intent to disturb and/or nauseate. The viewer is implicated if they find the film entertaining or enjoyable, and is forced to re-examine other films of the same ilk in light of the new accusation. It is hard to imagine someone who can appreciate the thesis statements these films offer without appreciating the viscera along with it.

I've been drinking, Roger, so I'm reaching this conclusion in a roundabout way. What I'm trying to say is that any writer with a sense of decency or respect will treat their characters as if they are real human lives. Character, theme, idea, story: all of this stuff needs to be unified, and one element can not be sacrificed arbitrarily for the sake of another. I seem to be able to find value in something that is deliberately constructed to displease, but that doesn't mean that this type of value precludes my enjoyment of films that are, well, enjoyable.

Life is fleeting, and we should love it. When tomorrow is uncertain, we should enjoy today. It's hard to justify spending time on a film like "Kinatay", as you describe it, when every moment of life offers the possibility of so much more. It is easy to be hateful, it is hard to be good. Thank you for your thoughts, Roger, I find your insights invaluable and hope that my ramblings make some kind of sense here.

Thank you for being a soldier of cinema!

Z

Precious was a sensation at Sundance this year. Many Sundance sensations don't stand up to closer scrutiny, but I am so glad to see this film is the real deal. Go Mo'Nique!

As a film critic and a Filipino, I apologize for Mr. Mendoza's film. Not exactly a worthy follow up to SERBIS.

Ebert: And, I hear, not allowed to be shown in the Philippines for legal reasons. I sort of liked "Serbis."

Hi Roger,

I am currently in Cannes, working out of an office on the Croisette across from the Palais. Work ends Tuesday/Wednesday and I am here until the end of the festival and I am very worried that when all is said and done, I will have attended the largest film festival in the world and will have not seen any films. This is already probably the longest I have gone in my life and I'm going through withdrawals.

I have no credentials as they are very expensive.

Is the Cannes film festival, once frequented by such cinophiles as Truffaut and Godard really so exclusive now that a general film lover can no longer attend a film at the festival? I have found no way to buy a ticket as a member of the general public. There is an organization for cinophiles that from what I can tell is only an organization you can join if you are a resident of Cannes. I've read that this organization arranges screenings for the general public to see after the premiere, but I've yet to learn of where those screenings are and how you can find out about them. All of the theaters around town seem to have the same rules as the palais. No badges, no entry. And what about critics week and directors fortnight and un certain regard that I've read about for years? Any way to see anything?

Help! They forgot that films are about the audience!

Thanks for any help you can give me. I'm still determined to run into you and Chaz somewhere in town. Just you wait.

Ebert: Racen's new blog entry gives you hope. It explains how she was able to get a ticket to Ang Lee's black-tie screening and walk the red carpet at no expense. Did you bring a dark suit and a tie (black, preferably, but need not be a bow tie)? He method gives hope for any screening.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/evans/

Ebert: It's not a public festival but a business convention. There are a lot of poor students here, but they have credentials. That said, you should be able to hustle some tickets. Hang out in the American Pavilion. There are also the free movies on the beach.

Can you even get into the pavilion without a badge? I have a plan B... but let's see if I can do this WITHOUT disguises.

Mr. Ebert, since you bring up films that lack character development or a "story purpose," I was wondering if you have seen "Begotten", the experimental film by E. Merhige? I found its visuals striking and was surprised at the impact it had on me. Perhaps dedicating a film to an Idea can create something worthwhile in the right hands?

Mr. Ebert, since you bring up films that lack character development or a "story purpose," I was wondering if you have seen "Begotten", the experimental film by E. Merhige? I found its visuals striking and was surprised at the impact it had on me. Perhaps dedicating a film to an Idea can create something worthwhile in the right hands?

There are a lot of poor students here, but they have credentials.

Hey, I just re-read this and realized that this sentence was in response to my having said the credentials are expensive. There are free credentials that are offered to students if they provide proof of their enrollment by April 1st of this year... the same free credentials are also given to people who work in film or write about film, direction, writing, producing, publicity, sound engineers, journalists (I think yours for example are free), but they will not give a free badge to assistants. It's not just an American thing. We're internationally treated as the urinal cakes of the industry.

I could obtain a market badge but that is over 300 euros/400 dollars. That's what I saw to be my only option and that's what I was referring to as them being expensive.

Thank you so much though! I'll sneak around through the crowds and see what happens.

The film you describe reminds me a little bit of "Jeanne Dielmann," Chantel Ackerman's film in which a lonely woman simply performs mundane household chores for over three hours. It sounds like a parody of an art house film, but I happened to see it a few months ago and, call me crazy, but I think it was one of the best films I've ever seen (Jonathan Rosenbaum has written fairly extensively on it, I think, and he makes some good observations).

Mr. Ebert,

Have you reviewed (or seen) Salo? I can't find any evidence of it on your site. I ask because this is a movie I always think of when the subject of thoroughly unpleasant films is raised. But here's the thing: I think Salo is a worthwhile film. I find it hard to explain why. I think the main reason is that I felt like I was watching an accurate portrayal of a certain type of person. The movie does seem to be saying something about the world (especially when one recalls all the horror of the 20th century). When I think of that film, I don't usually dwell on the horrible acts, but rather I think about the personality of the torturers and their sense of entitlement because of class and rank.

Then there's trash like Cannibal Holocaust. The problems with this film are legion. When I think of this film, all I remember is the violence against animals and rape. The movie really has no redeeming value (such an understatement). The film has no application to real life for me.

I assume you have a similar problem with Kinatay. (I have not seen it, and likely never will.) I assume that when you think of this movie, all you can think about is the violence and despair. In that respect, the filmmaker has failed.

Chances are slim that I will ever see "Kinatay," but what you write reminds me of "Salo," a movie I keep bugging you about. Both movies are about "Ideas," and both use extreme violence and cruelty. ("Salo" has so many Ideas, it actually includes a bibliography during the opening credits, for crissakes.) But "Salo" is deliberately filmed in a flat, non-sensational way. The way you write about this one makes me think that if the second half hadn't been so stylized (loud noises, Queasy-Cam), the content might not have bothered you so much. You might have defended it, as you defended "Irreversible." I don't know if it's a matter of the idea offending you, or the way the movie shows it. I also haven't seen "The Brown Bunny," but Gallo apparently improved his movie -- while maintaining his Idea -- by changing the style through editing.

So does Ebert's First Law apply to this new movie?

Hi Roger,

I've yet to see Mendoza's last two films, but having seen a pair of earlier works, "Tirador" and "Foster Child" in particular, I can attest to his talent as a filmmaker.

Foster Child provides a uniquely detailed glimpse of the business of foster care and child adoption as export in the Philippines. A product of the digital age, Mendoza does tend to let the camera linger, allowing the viewer to experience the daily minutiae of living in the slums; cooking a meal, changing clothes, taking a bath, etc. Though rather than being tedious, I felt that this style worked towards building a very convincing central relationship between the temporary foster mother and foster child.

The relationship is so strong, and the performances so mannered, that as the oppressive weight of the capitalistic system slowly and inevitably tightens, the story builds towards a strongly effective conclusion. I thought it was a very good film Roger, and I hope you get the chance to watch it in the future.

Don't all critics have their audiences? I imagine that those of us who read you will tend to share your taste in movies, and I certainly don't think I'd enjoy a movie that unfolds as you described. But a critic who claims that the movie has its merits would probably have a following who agrees, and thus they would be the target audience, right?

Though I have to admit, I have no idea who these people would be.

Thank you for putting it so eloquently, Roger. This is exactly how I felt after watching Gaspar Noe's Irreversible. I felt like the director had gone out of his way to punish the audience, from beginning to end, and call it art. And I felt that among my art-house, coffee-shop, film-circle friends, that I alone would have to be the kid who screamed that the emperor had no clothes on. And even worse, that the emperor was giving us all the finger. With its opening image of a old, fat, naked, sweaty guy, to the violent scene in the club entitled The Rectum, which I am told was scored with sub-sonic frequencies that police use to quell riots to make it even more stomach-churning, to its nine-minute unbroken rape shot, the viewer starts out shocked, disgusted, and, in my case a little physically ill. The queasy-cam technique in use on these shots did not help, either. What's even more insidious is the hour that comes after, when we see the happiness, and joy that these characters had beforehand, and as the picture becomes rosier and rosier, the audience is made to feel crappier and crappier. Sure, the movie is done with its violence, but it becomes even more disturbing. and the capper? The woman who is raped and beaten within an inch of her life? At the beginning of the story, she found out that she was pregnant, and sitting on a park bench, contemplating the beautiful future she has ahead of her, the camera pulls away, starts spinning, out of control, the score becomes a series of weird, animalistic growls, and it all wraps up with a blinding white screen, and ear-splitting feedback. What a fine night out for everyone.

The critics all seemed to heap praise upon it (Your praise was measured, but positive), calling it a supreme artistic statement, as I knew they would, but I felt that it was something that I wish I could erase from my memory.

I remembered your argument with Gene Siskel over The Doors years ago, where you argued that although the film was well-made, that you didn't recommend that your audience see it and gave it a thumbs-down, saying it was too unpleasant to watch.

I loved The Doors, but was disturbed for days after seeing Irreversible. My question is: You recommended one for being too unpleasant an experience, and praised one despite it being an unpleasant experience, over a decade apart. Have your tastes changed? Or your patience level, perhaps? I know mine have, over time. I am 30 now, and when I was 20, I went to the theater for everything - art house, indie, blockbusters, chick flicks, foreign films, you name it. I took a chance more readily, and more often, because I had the disposable income and the free time to do so. Now, I really can't afford to go out and pay for a theatrical experience that equates to punishment disguised as art, no matter how much merit it may have.

An acquaintance of mine (we are both french Canadian) got himself an aussie girlfriend. He just got back from down under a few weeks ago and I asked him the highlights of his 3-week trip.

To my complete astonishment the first thing he told was not about the beautiful climate or that it is Fall instead of Spring, no it was simply the following: " Did you know that in Australia 2 out of 3 men thinks it's OK to beat his wife or girlfriend".

So I guess there part of the world that are prime markets for this kind of movie. It is sad and even sadder that the Cannes Festival propagates that kind of behavior.

Philippe

Well, I know it wasn't your intent but you've got me intrigued -- intrigued at just how bad this film is, having seen 'The Brown Bunny.' Do I tempt fate and try and see it some day? It may only be a few Netflix clicks away from arriving at my door in the future?? I think of your maxim: a movie is not what it's about but 'how' it is about something -- you indeed seem very put off by the 'how' with this picture. Is that to say that there may be a good movie in there somewhere had the last 45 minutes been handled differently? Or, does 'THE IDEA' encompass both the content and the form in this case, making any redemption for the film moot since it would inevitably entail a complete knockdown and restructuring job and thus make any such revision an entirely new and separate experience?

I've just come from 'The Informers', and generally agree with your review and rating (it leaves a bad taste but is not a one-star movie as most suggest). In that film the 'how' is what saved it from becoming a COMPLETELY unpleasant experience. It sounds conversely like 'Kinatay' failed across the board with you, but, it did get you riled up to the point of blogging about it when you could have just dismissed it and moved on. It did linger in your mind and get under your skin a bit -- isn't THAT at least preferable to forgettable two-star or two & 1/2-star movies??

I think I have that much better of an idea now as to why Ebert will never see Salò.

Sometimes I think seeing a movie as bad as you felt this one was can be a cathartic experience. I feel like sometimes the worst movies are not the truly awful ones, but the mediocrities, the movies where the two best friends finally realize they're in love or the sports team wins the big game and blah blah blah. I would take a movie as terrible as "Kinatey" over "Ghost Of Girlfriends Past" any day of the week.

That being said, this sounds awful, almost as bad as "Chaos," a movie that you inspired me to watch. Whenever I read a zero star review from a major critic, I think to myself "I gotta see this now. It can't be that bad, can it?" And usually, especially with you, Roger, I come out of the theater and realize that the critic was right, and I've just wasted hours of my life on soul crushing garbage. After suffering through "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Chaos," "September Dawn" and more recently, "Expelled," I guess I'll have to avoid "Kinatey" if it ever gets released here.

I wonder if you'll think Lars Von Trier's 'Antichrist'is as bad as this. That has already garnered some amazingly bad reactions.

Just out of curiousity, do you consider this film to be in the same vein as Haneke`s Funny Games (perhaps more the remake than the original)? Ive seen neither as I suppose I lack the mindset that may philosophize the need to view the degradation of the human spirit for its own sake, which seems to be what the remake was about, and this film too, and what you object to.

I suppose there is a slippery slope. Or perhaps such films are really hard to make, and thus easy to fail. Take Goodfellas. It had an Idea. It couldve been yet another mindless `mob movie`, it had the violence, the `style`, but succeeded in calling attention to numerous things at once: the actual nature of the characters involved (in contrast to the Corleones) and questioning the voyeristic titilation audiences appreciate viewing such characters `in action`. So it succeeded because it was aware of a better purpose than merely showing psychopathic gangsters `in action`, and was able to get there.

The most harrowing, disturbing movie I have ever seen is STAR 80, and it wasn't just because it was about real people, but because writer-director Bob Fosse and actors Eric Roberts and Mariel Hemingway did such a superb job of reminding me that it was about real people. I Spit on Your Grave is trash because unlike STAR 80 or, say, the original versions of Last House on the Left or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, there's no such investment in the characters, and it becomes just an excuse to depict bloody violence and revenge for fun and profit. It sounds like Mendoza forgot this important lesson.

Wow, your characterization of Cannes as business convention- never realized that. Quite a contrast to Toronto, from what I understand. I volunteered for the Vancouver Internation Film Festival for a few years and vow to one day do Toronto.
I am looking forward to Precious- not going to let Mariah Carey bias me against it.
My husband will be looking forward to `Thirst,`as he loved Òld Boy.

I've been teaching Hamlet in my Intro to Drama class at a local correctional facility; my students, if I may understate the case, know a thing or two about the bleaker side of life. Our discussions of Hamlet's character have been interesting: While some say he's a coward, others point out that we know this because Hamlet himself tells us. We talked about the idea of a "self-aware" play, one that knows it's a fiction, and jumps into its Idea with both feet. Hamlet is all about acting, but not pretense--it "knows not 'seems,'"--and the class by and large appreciated the need for all that bad craziness--Polonius' death, Ophelia's murder, Laertes' decision to avenge his father dishonorably--in the service of a confrontation with the moral questions posed. In short, the opposite of an Idea like the one that seems to be at the heart of Kinatay, which you imply wants the self-awareness without any heavy moral lifting.

I can remember being a teenager and watching a few gore films--Hershell Gordon Lewis kind of stuff. What disturbed me was not so much the sights on the screen as the thought of the people filming it somehow thinking they were being clever--at least clever enough to work the exploitation market. But all they gave us was the garishness of evil, and not its banality, its moral bankruptcy. Ho-hum; my Drama students and I'll take Oedipus any day. At least there the eye-gouging and hanging evoke not only fear, but pity.

Sorry for the lecture; still in teacher-mode.

Thank you, as usual, for your thoughtful writing, Roger. One question: How would you compare "Kinatay" with something a long the lines of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial killer"? Why is "Kinatay " so "not good" and "Henry" the opposite? Thanks a lot.

Ebert: "Henry" was a very well-made film. It wasn't the violence in "Kinatay" that bothered me so much but the visual and aural style.

I've always had a soft spot for Lions Gate Films and here's why:

"Lions Gate Films was formed in 1995 by Frank Giustra, a Vancouver investment banker hoping to capitalize on the growing film industry in his home town.. Its first major box office success was American Psycho in 2000, which began a trend of producing and distributing films far too controversial for the major American studios. Other notable films included Affliction, Gods and Monsters, Dogma, Saw and the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which became the studio's highest grossing film." - WIKI

Ie: they don't suck. And why I don't hold "Saw" against them. :)

Talk is cheap - you are what you produce and release and the body of films coming out of Lions Gate is an example I wish other studios would follow. It's a healthy mix, you know? And "Precious" yet another gem to add to the list.

Someone asked me in another thread if a woman's journey was different from a man's, and if so, how? I said the obstacles defined the journey, although to be sure poverty plays a great role. As it does in "Precious" - for how it narrows ones choices. To which I'll now add made even worse moreover, by the influence of marketing on the perception of beauty when beauty is qualified as "external" and from a male point of view - which has increasingly become the "female gaze" now; the blind having taught many with sight to poke out their own eyes.

It's also an example of the hero's journey hello Joseph Campbell - for LOOK at the landscape she has to navigate, holy crap! Milton's Lucifer had it easy, by comparison.

"Based on the novel Push, by Sapphire, "Precious" is the story of a Harlem teenager who is severely abused by her mother, habitually raped and twice impregnated by her father, and treated like garbage by just about everyone in her life. The one thing Precious's abusers don't succeed in killing is her imagination, and for instance, while being raped, in her mind's eye she sees herself making a grand entrance at a film premiere. The pictures in her photo album talk to her, and this large, awkward girl looks in the mirror and sees a beauty queen with cascading blonde hair. This is not a preachy film, but one that grabs you from beginning to end as Precious comes back from the edge of desolation to discover the immovable force of her own willpower." - Barbara Scharres

I loved that part of Scharres review. And "From the edge of desolation is discovered the immovable force" is now staring at me from a post-it-note I've got on my PC. :)

"Precious" should be required viewing for all teenage boys so that later, when they are men, they don't need to ask women "how do our journeys differ?" They differ in that women don't need to ask men that question; we grow-up hearing all about yours.

The film of course, will appeal to Feminist sensibilities but that's not what makes it great; quite the opposite. It transcends gender because at its heart, it's about a human being and its themes are universal. Pain is pain. You don't have to be Jewish for example to be moved by Schindler's List. You shouldn't have to be a woman therefore in order to relate to "Precious".

All of which is to say, I hope men check it out too!

As for "Kinatay"...

It brings to mind another film called "I Spit on your Grave" - which was originally released under the title "Day of the Woman" and meant to be a feminist piece, according to the director:

"In the commentary for the Millennium Edition, Zarchi said that he was inspired to do the film after helping a young woman who had been raped in New York. He tells of how a friend of his and his daughter were driving by a park when they witnessed a young woman crawling out of the bushes bloodied and naked (he later found out the girl was taking a common shortcut to meet with her boyfriend when she was attacked). They took the girl with them, took his daughter back home, and talked with the friend on whether they should take her to the hospital or to the police. They decided to take her to the police first, which they soon afterwards discovered was a mistake — the officer, whom Zarchi described as "not fit to wear the uniform", delayed taking her to the hospital and instead insisted she answer questions about her assailants, even though her jaw had been broken and she could hardly talk. Finally, Zarchi insisted to the officer that they take her to the hospital right away. Zarchi said that soon afterwards the girl's father wrote him a letter of thanks for helping his daughter, and wanted to give him a reward, which he turned down. In the same commentary, Zarchi denied that his film was exploitative, and that the violent nature of the film was necessary to tell the story. He described actress Camille Keaton as "brave" for taking on the role." - WIKI

I haven't, nor do I have any intention of seeing "Kinatay". It sounds like yet another example of the above, wherein in order to tell a story about male violence, a filmmaker uses too much of it for failing to see any other way to make his point.

I've mentioned her numerous times inside your Blog Roger, but Mary Harron (a Canadian filmmaker and screenwriter) and the brains behind "American Psycho" understood how to show violence when the recipient is female. You turn the camera's gaze onto the male. Like Edouard Manet, you pull an "Olympia" and stare back.

When the object of abuse is too much the focus, you loose sight of the abuser, making the message a moot point. It's not that I don't think men "can't" tell these stories, but rather, imo it's a rare male director who can. I'm sitting here scratching my head now, trying to think of some and it's hard.

Maybe "Klute"..? It's been ages since I saw that one, though.

At any rate, poor Roger; I felt sorry for you after reading your review of "Kinatay" - as those aren't gray cells you're ever going to get back, eh? :)

And I've heard the buzz now about the Sunday screening of Lars von Trier's film "Antichrist" - oh dear. You're certainly having an interesting week. I envy you the weather and everything else there is to enjoy at Cannes this year, but I do not envy you some of the selected films.

P.S. I hope Chaz is okay too. :)

I feel the only value these movies have, is to remind us what a great movie really is. That's all. Sweet and sour, grass is always greener, and other cliches.

I feel like this review, with some changes in names and places, could have been a review of the 2008 "Funny Games." (I never saw, nor will I ever see, the previous one).

I was expecting this, as Serbis was also quite the most reviled film from last year's line-up, but worse than The Brown Bunny? I don't think there's hardly a film out there that merits that kind of cred. At least Mendoza didn't whip out his dingdong and showed a full-on fellatio scene for absolutely no reason/entertainment purpose whatsoever. I guess an idea film wouldn't be so hard to swallow over an idea film whose main idea is to glorify one's own...er, cock.

I haven't seen the film, obviously, so I can't comment on it extensively, but the detailed plot you provided makes me feel like I've already seen it in my head (which is a good thing, don't worry). It seems just about right, something that Mendoza would do, and something that admirers of his work would appreciate. It may be a little too literal compared to Serbis, but I would still love to see it and try to, as you put it, make sense out of it, or at least the idea out of it. Gaspar Noe's Irreversible and Lukas Moodyson's A Hole in My Heart have their share of "fans", which is not exactly the best thing a filmmaker would want to have his film compared to, sure, but hopefully Kinatay can find a critic/audience who would at least try to get past the conceit of the idea, try to understand the motivation behind it, and illustrate more clearly where the filmmaker actually failed, if the critic felt that he did, than just merely writing it off as a filmmaker exercising conceit (what is film making anyway, but exactly that?).

Then again, thank you for paying attention to this small film. And! I'm really happy to see that you seem all well and fully recovered, as I know going all the way to Cannes and coming up with these reviews and meeting deadlines and stuff must not be easy. Kudos to you sir.

Ebert: And, I hear, not allowed to be shown in the Philippines for legal reasons. I sort of liked "Serbis."

Well, knowing the entertainment industry in the Philippines, it's not surprising. It's not the movie is frowned upon, it just might not appeal to mass audiences.

The Philippine government and movie lords never promote Filipino films if they aren't commercially accessible. Back home, only those in the know know about how artistic SERBIS is, or how it garnered some praise in international circles. When Raymond Red won the Palme D'Or in 2000 for his ANINO (SHADOW), the Philippine press was virtually silent about it (either they didn't know or care).

But I digress. Mr. Mendoza has a penchant for making worthy films, and I'm pretty sure he made KINATAY (SLICED UP) with good intentions. Tragically, such events happen a lot in the Philippines, where the victims are grusomely disposed of by crime lords, the military, or the police (they sometimes are all the same).

He has stated in interviews that he did so to enlighten the public. But the question is, will people want to see it, and will its message be heard? We shall see.

Sometimes you really, really, really hated some movies, and that sometimes ignites my curiosity about them. Drawn to them is just like "The Vanishing"(Dutch version, not American version). I have endured some worst films recently, and, as critic wannabe, I sometimes want to test myself again("If you want to be a movie critic, you have to watch films like this...").

1) Funny Game U.S. and Funny Game

When I read the plot of "Kinatay", these movies instantly came to my mind. Cardboard characters are humiliated, ridiculed, and killed just because of "The Idea". Okay, violence is not cool, but you can get it more satisfyingly from other movies like "Kalifornia". Mr. Haneke, we are at least little better than people at Colosseum in ancient Rome because the movies are not real. My 7-year-old young cousin can see that.

2) Missing (2009)

Some girl is kidnapped by middle aged man who owns chicken stew house and chicken farm. She is locked in the basement, humiliated by this pervert man, and, above all, forced to endure third-rate David Lynch show by that man channeling Takeshi Kitano. After enduring one hour, we are forced to see this girl ground alive and her remains were fed to chickens. After that, girl's sister comes to the town to find her, and the police does not believe her because he seems quite normal to them. Well, he is devoted son to his sick mother, who is alive but less vivid than Mrs. Bates.

Thankfully, everything in one of the worst Korean movies in 2009 is shown in very, very incompetent way. It just made me infuriating and that's all.

3) Mandate (2008)

It takes some talents to make the film like "Kinatay", but sometimes total lack of talent can make it possible. The worst Korean movie of 2008 is about two exorcists chasing the devil who can possesse people freely. You can see who is possessed because he becomes No.1 patient for dental clinic. The devil loves to rape or kill people and these scenes for shocks are jaw-droppingly inert. Night scenes are shown with very low light. By the way, one exorcist is motivated by Protestant Church. Now I understand why Catholic Church always has to be associated with fighting devils in movies. Always trust experienced professionals.

I haven't seen Kinatay but I've been following Mr. Mendoza's progress for a while now. You have to realize, Roger, that most of his films are just porn. Poverty porn, actual porn and now...torture porn. It's all exploitation cinema masquerading as Art through the use of "real time" technique, as preached by his screenwriting guru Armando Lao. A handful of Filipino filmmakers have adopted this technique...and have succeeded in fooling many, particularly the theorists you speak of. Good thing they haven't fooled regular audiences.

Roger -

In the reading of your description of "Kinatay", I am reminded of your reviews of the 2005 films "Chaos" and "Wolf Creek". These are of a kind in terms of subgenre, as Zack references with "The Last House on the Left", in that they presume to mine the darkness of men's souls. But what I think you're getting at with the worthlessness of these films (and having tried to watch some of "Wolf Creek", you can be sure I'm on the same page here) is that there's really nothing being said. These kinds of nihilistic, utterly unbearable works do not serve an artistic purpose by repulsing us. The analogy may be slightly odd, but I certainly wouldn't appreciate a deliberately nauseating meal from a cook trying to remind us that not all food is good.

You point out that filmmakers like Mendoza labor under the belief that they have an Idea, but what these films prove is that they don't. There is nothing easier in the world than saying "everything sucks". It is as useless a non-statement about reality as "everything is awesome". And indeed, can you imagine a film made of pastels, ponies, fairies, and flowers, where absolutely nothing ever happens and there's not even the pretense of a conflict? These also exist, of course, passed off as entertainment for toddlers. And they're just as non-reflective as reality. Absolute optimism and absolute pessimism are equally infantile, and the only reason works of absolute optimism are less objectionable is because it'd be nice if a little of it would rub off on us when we're feeling down.

So maybe filmmakers like Mendoza don't have Ideas. Maybe the problem is that they're resolutely convinced that they do in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps they've been watching too many pastel pony films.

An interesting review that leaves me with a couple of questions. Is KINATAY a highbrow exploitation film that repelled you because of its content, or a misguided arthouse film that repelled you because of its formal and directorial choices? I'm curious (not necessarily intruiged) by the film, and re-reading your piece I'm having some trouble acertaining which of the two it might be. (I appreciate your article isn't a multiple-choice quiz and that the answer might be one, both or neither).

Variety (which largely disliked the film) notes "On a purely technical level "Kinatay" impresses..", and describes the opening sound design much as you did without describing it as a deal breaker. Screen Daily (which liked it better - i.e "..grimly compelling.. well-made") doesn't note any issues with the sound mix, pro or con. Both Variety and Screen Daily note that most audiences will have issues with the content, without really suggesting that the formal aspects of the film will massively trouble audiences one way or the other. Reading the two reviews I've mentioned after yours, I learn (unclear from your own review) that the abducted woman is graphically raped onscreen before being murdered (your careful use of the word "..eventually.." in a key sentence may have been your method of suggesting as much of that aspect of the film as you cared to). Was this latter element of the film the straw that broke the camel's back in regards to your overall feelings about the movie, or were you as equally offended by those formal choices you described such as the long, dark, disorienting sequence that was filmed in the back of the van?

I suspect most audiences, especially mainstream ones, will share your feelings towards the movie - but it's also true (as you noted) that most mainstream readers will never see it. Equally, I suspect that the graphic nature of the film will probably cause other viewers (such as those that gather on various cult film websites and forums) to seek it out. Most of those posters on those cult film websites blend somewhat with the sites that discuss contemporary Asian action/exploitation/horror films (Grady Hendrix, ex-Variety, posts on many) and this already seems like the sort of film many of them will be curious to check out simply from the mixed word of mouth. Your feelings about the movie couldn't have been clearer, but reading the other reviews I mentioned makes me wonder whether the particularly extreme content within this movie pressed a personal button, and if you perhaps responded by targeting the formal qualities of the film as a whole in reponse out of anger. Any cult film worth his (or her, though they're outnumbered by the guys) salt will be aware both of your emotive review of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, and Joe Bob Brigg's surprisingly articulate defense of the film on the DVD commentary of that movie, where he singles out your original review to represent the various mainstream critics who hated that movie. Your review of this new movie reminded me of that earlier one - both movies, as far as I can tell, graphically depict a woman being assaulted - and I thought I'd double-check to see whether you hated this one for the same reasons. Neither of the other two mainstream reviews I found of KINATAY hints at formal incompetence, but both note the graphic depiction of a rape with degrees of dismay. You turn away somewhat from describing everything that the film presumably shows in that regard, while noting offence at formal and directorial choices that the other mainstream critics had no issue with. Reading other reviews after yours makes the film sound closer to a quasi-exploitation movie than an academic toy for theorists, but of course I haven't seen it yet, much of this here is guesswork, and there may well be other obvious formal choices within the film that tip its hat towards the obscure, semi-academic nonsense that you describe.

I've read your entire piece - a thoughtful, well-written one - a third time, and to me it feels like a reaction from someone affected and annoyed by the content of the film, who then chose to camoflauge their response by pointing elsewhere at formal elements that would serve as a useful secondary target. (I'm sure if I see the new TRANSFORMERS movie at Imax, it will likely be noisier and more annoying than the obnoxiously loud viewing experience you described here). If the film wasn't afflicted by those long scenes of murk and loudness, would you have liked it any better, or did the eventual, unpleasant fate of the woman in that house damn it for you, and you chose to summarise that dislike by moving away from issues of content and more towards issues of form? Just curious.

good day, sir.

as a filipino first and director second, i must admit to a small but distinct feeling of shame whenever i hear that a local film is being featured in an important international film festival. and this is without even having ever viewed the movie in question.

just last night i heard that a friend of mine is in a movie that made it to cannes. my first reaction? 'good god, what have they gone and done now.'

and as i was trying to wrap my head around the news, i imagined what you, sir, would think once subjected to this particular film.

as i mentioned, this is all without having seen the movie in the first place. ideally, we should all be more supportive over here and give our burgeoning film makers a decent chance to make it, which would be much easier to do if so many decent chances hadn't already been blown.

but, if you permit, i will tell you the truth, sir. it doesn't matter to anyone here what you write about 'kinatay'. it won't matter one bit. all everyone will ever know is that a filipino movie made it to cannes. is it a good movie? it has to be, goes the classic argument.

it made it to cannes.

I must confess my weakness for films with "l'idee fixee," dating back to Quentin Tarantino's first interview with Charlie Rose when discussing Brian De Palma's adaptation of THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, he admitted the film was a failure yet it still piqued his interest because, "Hacks don't make movies like this." It reached critical mass when I helped arrange the first theatrical screening in decades for Menahem Golan's misbegotten future-disco-biblical-glitter musical THE APPLE, which I'm sure must have been a "Dog of the Week" on your old show decades ago. It's a movie with an idea - the wrong idea, to be sure - but damn if he doesn't commit to it right to the bitter end. And frankly, I find it's naive aspirations to greatness endearing. So if you need someone to blame for that 90 minutes of your life you lost so long ago returning as a cult phenom, blame me.
And the defenses continue...SOUTHLAND TALES, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE, ALL THIS AND WORLD WAR II, OBSERVE AND REPORT...much as women are attracted to bad boys, I'm ridculously drawn to blind ambition that has been otherwise and perhaps rightfully denounced by wiser folk like you. I'm not a complete mark, pardon the pun: I am the loudest denouncer of the equally "fixed" ORLANDO, WET HOT AMERICAN SUMMER, CRANK: HIGH VOLTAGE, MINDWALK, and subUrbia.
What can I say? For as much as pretentiousness annoys me, it also turns me on. That being said, I think I will likely avoid KINATAY

MICHAEL MIRASOL, BE PROUD OF OUR COUNTRY. TO MR EBERT, I SUGGEST YOU SHOULD GO TO THE PHILIPPINES AND LEARN MORE OF OUR HISTORY AND CULTURE.

BY THE WAY, SERBIS WAS SHOWN HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES. CORRECTION.

Ebert: I was referring to his new film. See my favorable review of "Serbis."

I don't understand how someone could make a boring, pointless crime film set in a crazy city like Manila. When you have a chaotic urban atmosphere, a good level of financial desperation, and a protagonist ready to take moral and physical risks, you have the basic elements of a good old-fashioned crime thriller. Someone should have forced Brillante Mendoza to read a few Jim Thompson novels for inspiration before making what sounds like a completely irritating film.

I

Mr. Ebert, i'm a Filipino filmmaker too. Aren't we in danger of being "prescriptive" though? Cinema is a very young art, and even the likes of von Trier, Loach and Ming-Liang, much more so the "newer" filmmakers like Mendoza, are still discovering, rediscovering and expanding their cinema.

Ebert: Very true. But a film must alienate audiences with some caution.

While I'm wondering if my earlier lengthy form vs. content post will show up, I'll add that (re Philippe's statement above) 2 out of 3 Aussie guys definitely think it's okay to beat their wife or girlfriend, so long as we let them beat us back the third time around. This tactic works with chess, Monopoly, tennis and card games such as Uno but might not ultimately have much bearing on finding prospective audiences for KINATAY via nationality, though 'Philippe' should be well aware that the French film INSIDE matches whatever extreme content 'this kind of movie' might have to offer.

I'VE SEEN YOUR FAVORABLE REVIEW ON SERBIS MR EBERT. THANK YOU. I CAN STAND WATCHING KINATAY HUNDRED TIMES THAN WATCHING SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.

Director David Lynch's latest movies might have that effect on people, which are movies that make sense, but don't seem to.

But I recently didn't finish watching a movie that I rented called "36 pasos" (36 steps), a subtitled horror movie. It was made on a 5,000 dollar budget.

It started off pretty good with two older teenagers driving around telling dirty jokes looking for a rumored brothel that supposedly shut down a few decades earlier. Then they hit a girl with their car and she dies and they get the hell out of there while one of them says: "see! I told you it still exists", and they seem to still want to pursue the place as they drive off. An ominous foot fills the screen as the car fades into the distance.

Then the movie shows teenage girls playing with a water hose in bikinis and laughing in the daytime, having a good time, doing a choregraphed dance number and then an arguement breaks out inside the house hinting at what is happening and then some redneck-looking stereotype guy breaks through the glass of a patio door from outside and kills the girl who seems to be the trouble maker and disappears, while the other girls scream and then have no reaction to this except to wrap up the body in a trash bag, throw it out by a log and keep talking about decorating.

Then it shows a girl in school talking to a teacher after class and then starts to walk home when the redneck guy sexually molests her nearby the school, I think.

That is where I turned it off because I was watching it with my little cousin, and we both were talking about how that movie was not making any sense afterwards.

I looked up the movie just now and it turns out that the girls are trapped in the house and forced to follow the rules "Silence, Obedience, Tolerance, Yielding and Having Fun", says, best-horror-movies.com. It also says:

"Director Adrián García Bogliano is making the statement that the women in 36 Pasos represent every woman living with the demands of a patriarchic society. Follow the rules or you will get your head crushed in by a sledge hammer. Eventually something has got to snap."

"36 Pasos is a wonderful sub-titled journey into horror, gore and social commentary. Filled with gallons of blood, action and an intricate plot this Argentinean entry to the world of horror is worth a watch – and if the production cost was truly $5,000 as reported this work borders on genius."

Maybe I'll check it out again and watch it by myself, but it was packaged like an idee fixe, though not really being one, like "Kantey". 36 steps is how far the girls need to run and escape to the automobile outside. The fondling scene, I think was a flashback for how he picks the girls. I found this clip of the movie, it's after the hit-and-run, the water hosing (which was about 3 minutes in length; it's leisurely with the "girl's having fun" scenes) and before the school scene . http://vimeo.com/2855433 (about ten minutes into the movie) Maybe you'll see what I mean.

I am outraged by two things here...or probably two people...You and compatriot Michael Mirasol...first, Mr. Mirasol, who are you to apologize in behalf of Mendoza and as a Filipino? You are a disgrace! Either you are a Filipino who is based somewhere and is not sure anymore what he is talking about (the Philippines and its film industry). Mr. Ebert, this review is so unfair and I almost want to cry...don't ever think of coming here for you are not welcome.

Ebert: I was not reviewing the Philippines, but a movie. There is a big difference. My opinion of your nation could not be higher. When I attack an American film, does that mean I dislike America?

Did you ever see Glitter with Mariah Carrey? That's what your blog post reminded me of. I couldn't sleep for a month after seeing that and I still throw up any time I see glitter in an arts and crafts store.

Sir, I apologize for my fellow country man's concept for a film. I just can't believe how he went real low with this one. Well our entertainment industry here in the Phillippines isn't exactly doing well. Our local visionaries have absurd visions which will likely end up as obscure and distasteful. We couldn't seem to get out of the dark because because our place is frustating place for a film maker (our mainstream only knows 3 kinds of films Slapstick, Action-Comedy and MeloDrama and all must be star vehicles! and absolutely no government backing and people support to real film makers ) and our society ain't doing any better ( kinatay (butchered) and chop-chop victims pop up now and then ) so guys like mendoza who might as well be cynical and frustrated as anyone else here is ends up doing Awful Movies like this.

Well I would also like to ask sir, have you seen Inglorious Basterds cause I'm a big Tarentino fan and if you have sir Is this the movie that will finally par up to that of Pulp Fiction?

Really hope you answer to the Inglorious Basterds thing cause I'm such a fanboy and also I would like to thank you for all these interesting reads and reviews. You truly are an essential for every moviegoers! WORLDWIDE! hehe... hope my country can produce something your really gonna like in the coming years.

More Power and Health, from the Phillippines
Daniel M.

I now know that when I look at Cahiers du Cinema's Top Ten from this year, Kinatay will definitely be on it.

If Ebert could think creatively and analytically (properly) he wouldn't be an unproductive clod or a critic for that matter. Putting a French saying in your emotionally stunted critique of an obviously unpleasant, uncompromising film doesn't prove Ebert's "artsy-critic" cred. Ebert seems to despise art. He's a glut for pop-culture, which by definition rules out anything that is intellectually/emotionally challenging with the slightest bit of depth. That's his job. He speaks for the common man who watches films simply for the escapism and to see "cool stuff" on a big screen.

He makes smart-ass remarks about films like Wild At Heart while saccharine fluff like Transformers is just "goofy fun" ya'll!

If you like to be challenged and enriched by art (on film or any other medium) stop paying attention to this shill for the lowest common denominator, he writes reviews for the same folks that love monster truck shows and actually pay to see Larry the Cable guy live (and not to throw rocks at his hollowed out melon head).

Ebert: I hope you enjoy my reviews when you begin reading them.

I was going to type this up earlier, but I figured we were smarter than that. Guess I was wrong.

I was worried this would happen the moment I saw the review. I must apologize on behalf the Philippines; we have been the thinnest-skinned nation in the world for many many years now--dating all the way back to the declaration that Claire Danes was persona non grata for not liking the Philippines, and reaching all the way to last year's embarassment when Filipino sensitivities flared up on a 10 word throwaway line in Desperate Housewives. This behavior has always been ridiculous, and I am afraid that it's only going to get even worse as more Filipinos latch onto it.

To the Philippine Defense Squad: can you not tell the difference between a review of a bad movie and an insult to the country? This review may have been scathing, but if you'd bothered to read any of Ebert's other reviews (particularly his 0/1-star reviews), you'd realize that the only thing that makes this one stand out is the fact that you are climbing all over it trying to once again spin things in a way that makes you feel as insulted as possible.

Roger,

Get ready for a backlash from insecure Filipinos (my countrymen, just to be clear) who can't stand criticism and who think any negative word about a piece of homegrown art (or crap) is an insult to their frail sense of national pride. That's the reason film criticism fails to flourish in the Philippines--we have easily wounded egos.

re Heidegger's remark: LOL! Read Roger's reviews first, dummy!

I recall Precious being called Push when it was at Sundance. I couldn't imagine what could have prompted a title change...

Mr. Ebert, you were reviewing a film in a manner so unfair that it makes even other people who haven't even watched the film take it as it is (for you have had some following over the years) Little is known about this island nation except for the blurry images you people have read and heard in your condescended news formats...if a film appears and sounds weird and unacceptable in your standards (based on your biases as a misguided westerner, then don't take it where it shouldn't be...say your piece but dont ever pose a glitch to discredit this film from not being worthy of patronage). I think Brown Bunny is a very personal film and terribly misfired. Kinatay (by the way is aptly translated Butchered and not spliced up), like my worries before about Serbis - although a film that provokes international commotion, may not best represent the country as a whole - but I believe, the film has enough cultural remorse presented through its characters...and you all have no IDEA about that...you dont know what is and what is not an idea here...and I suggest that you should seriously consider retirement for your IDEAS are no longer fresh, and getting stale....while film makers are getting more bold, brazen, and defiant - in a way you wont have to get puzzled what they were thinking...or whatz the noise about ---told you, your old ears wont survive the traffic here (and we can be as touchy as hell, when one of our own gets unfairly treated outside our house)...this is why American critics shouldn't be allowed to review international films (for Lord,forgive them, they dont know what they are doing)

Ebert: And you know all this without having seen the film?

Roger, I completely sympathize with your experience -- I'm certain that I would have found watching "Kinatay" just as unbearable as you did.

However, I can't resist pointing out that this movie places you in a position I have found myself a few times, watching movies to which you've assigned four stars. I trust you and have no doubt that the virtues you describe are there, but they are largely inaccessible to me because I find watching the movie unpalatable in some major way.

Examples: "Weekend", your third-favorite movie of 1969, which I still consider the worst moviegoing experience I've ever had. The slow, slow, 360-degree pan if a scene with no discernible action was a torture for me. Altman's "3 Women", in which the Shelley Duvall character was so insufferable that all the other characters wanted to leave the room as soon as she came into it. You found that character fascinating; I found myself empathizing with the other characters to such a degree that I wanted to leave the room in which the movie was being shown. A couple of French language movies, "The Son" and "Pickpocket", in which the emotions were understated in a way that drew you in, but pushed me away.

I intend to revisit "Weekend" some day. It's still not the sort of movie I care for, but I expect that, at age 60, I'll be able to perceive more of its ideas that I did as a young pup of 20.

There's a gulf between movies that merely entertain us, and movies that challenge us. Sometimes it's hard to cross the bridge over that gulf. You've done more than any other person on Earth to help me make the crossing, in dozens of movies I've seen attending Ebertfest and going through your Great Movies list. For some movies, the percentage of people unwilling or unable to make the crossing is high. For "Kinatay", evidently the percentage is 99.999999.

To: Archie Del Mundo and John Roque

Hi guys. May I ask what exactly did I say to disparage my home country? Did I say anything negative about Mr. Mendoza? Was I incorrect about my descriptions of how our film industry promotes our own films? If I am incorrect, please feel welcome to correct me in a civil manner.

Hi

First things first, I watch movies. My mind is so open to movies, I like the Dorf and Ernie series' as well as Amelie. Did I just blow your mind? Secondly, I'm Filipino. Born, raised and lived in the Philippines 99% of my life. To the Pinoys who commented here (and I use Pinoy derogatorily): Lighten up. Or get laid. Getting laid makes you less of an ass than normal.

shall we make this personal?

- rafa santos sounds fake.
- john roque's an ass. apparently he's equating the content of kinatay as philippine culture. correction. not apparently. he is equating the conent of kinatay as philippine culture
- emman dela cruz writes "cinema is a very young art". it is if she thinks she's still in the 1920s
- yep. john roque's an ass. his comment on may 18, 2009 3:21am proves it
- archie del mundo needs to get laid for what he comments on may 18, 4:27

did Mirasol say anything wrong? no
did Mirasol insult Mendoza? Nope. if he is insulted, then he needs to get out more
did Mirasol insult the Philippines? the Philippines can take it. its the pinoys who can't.

and to those who are getting worked up over my saying I'm Filipino second. "(Filipino expletives)".

Hi

First things first, I watch movies. My mind is so open to movies, I like the Dorf and Ernie series' as well as Amelie. Did I just blow your mind? Secondly, does it matter if I'm Filipino or not? Cause if it does, TOUGH MEAT!

To all the Pinoys. Make no mistake, you are Pinoys. Not Filipinos or Pilipinos. Pinoys. Lighten up.

did Mirasol say anything wrong? no
did Mirasol insult Mendoza? Nope. If he is insulted, then he needs to get out more
did Mirasol insult the Philippines? The Philippines can take it. its the pinoys who can't

You know I long ago gave up on trying understand a director who sees it as his or her goal to push their audience away. While not every movie need embrace the audience and have communion with them, if they continue to push the viewer until they leave the theater entirely, then what the hell was the point?

This is excusable I suppose when the director is young, visionless, and talentless; at least then they can say 'You weren't MEANT to 'like' it' when the inevitable bad reviews pour in. But when accomplished directors spit in your eye, well now that's just nuts.

Entertaining review. I enjoy that you seem to remember that reviews of movies should be based on the peoples enjoyment of the art and not just for the idea of art.

Sometimes bad "arty" movies have a strange draw to them... I mean I have Abbas Kiarostami's "Ten" on my shelf to watch right now. I know i'll hate it, but I will surely watch it. I did so much appreciate reading your review of "The Taste of Cherry" after watching it for sure. It made me realize that it was okay to hate it.

Ebert: I was not reviewing the Philippines, but a movie. There is a big difference. My opinion of your nation could not be higher. When I attack an American film, does that mean I dislike America?

According to Not Always a Fan, you do. ;)

Like a bad penny, “Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom” seems to make regular appearances in these threads. Thanks Roger for your description of “Kinatay,” a film I will avoid. I have had film conversations for many years with friends from college and life, and for some reason I’ve been told to watch “Salo.” “Cannibal Holocaust” is another work I’m told I must view. I avoid both for a variety of emotional and philosophical reasons. A film which disgusted me on varying levels, “Caligula,” saddens me to this day. The film detailed torture and mutilation. Not sure if the unspeakable scenes or the fact that such films exist, disturbed me more. It’s difficult to understand why a director, given the honor (and money) to create within the film medium, would choose a project whose only purpose is to exploit the suffering of men and women. I refuse to watch “Salo” and “Cannibal Holocaust” because of the deep sadness I felt after viewing “Caligula.” Learned my lesson there. Won’t do that again! There are no truths to be derived from scenes detailing the torture of children and animals. Such scenes, even if the director is attempting to make a lazy statement on the ugliness of humanity – and most are not – cater to a morbid lump existing within the saddest corner. Don’t get me wrong, there are strange films ranking high on my list – “Freaks” (1932), “The Conqueror Worm” (1968), “Ms. 45” (1981), “Tattoo” (1981), “Black Sunday” (1960), “Crash” (1996), “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover” (1999), “The Devils” (1971), “Re-Animator” (1985), “Blue Velvet” (1986), “Death and the Maiden” (1994), “Reservoir Dogs” (1992), “The Time of the Wolf” (2003) and so on. There’s a fine line. I avoid the films that cross it. Life’s too short.

Ebert: I'm gathering I really must watch "Sado."

To Marie Haws,

`Male` violence? You consider these characters as representing, predominantly, males? Not socio-paths, psychopaths. But, males. No need to respond. Seems a tad harsh. :)

One thing that escapes me is the decision to see or not see a movie based on a critics opinion, or anyones opinion. Try thinking for yourself. Why reserve that responsibility for others?

Ok, bit of a rant: ;p

This is one aspect I dont get about your profession, Ebert (though I am not focusing on you nor your profession, just the role of the `expert`). Educate me. Inform me. Broaden my knowledge of cinema. Connect cinema to broader themes even. Enrich my experience (god help me, but I actually manage to learn some things by reading your reviews). But how it gets from that to `well, ebert gave it a bad review, so I wont bother to see it` escapes me. And I am grateful.

Ebert: I agree whole-heartedly.

Poorsploitation strikes once again !

But such a cunning bastard is he, this Brilliante Mendoza fella. It is extremely apparent that he did take note of the backlash he got for his last clusterfuck, not so he could improve his mentality and craft– but so that he could shield it much better from bad publicity. He clearly realized that what he was dishing out was outdated sleaze, while everyone else was generally going the direction of grimdark, brutal noir, & wouldn't want to stand out that way again.

So he basically replaces sexual porn with violent pornography. Instead of fetishizing and commodifying the ' sexual degradation of the least of our brethren, he decides to serve up the harrowingly real torture, and abuse our innocents experience in the hands of a barbaric rule for foreign consumption !

This is what he & his supporters would pass off as ' worthy cinema '. Not that it was much of a success, from the looks of things...

Roughly two decades or so ago, the first time a Filipino movie made it to the Cannes competition, it was by a brave and courageous filmmaker. A true patriot. The film was ' Bayan Ko : Kapit sa Patalim '. Now, that was a full-blooded, honest-to-god evocation of a country's social suffering. One w/c was powered by a heavy sense of purpose and conviction. Like this ‘Kinatay’ here, it was also made during the time of dictatorship, and a period of social downturn, and decay. The significant difference being that the film actually stood up against this, w/ which the director himself took stage, and used the limelight that Cannes provided as podium to protest the fascism's continued oppression, with fire in his heart,& while wearing a dress that literally bore the words ' justice '. He was, and shall always be, a living proof that Filipino cinema can actually mean something.

Brilliante Mendoza, on the other hand, is the direct, exact OPPOSITE of such a person: an almost bizzaro creation only the minds that brought on this financial crisis could ever conceive; in the face of another tyrant, and practically the same circumstances. One evidently driven by poisoned morals and priorities, and spite towards his own Filipino kind. He is symptomatic of this materialist regime, as well as apologist for its brand of cowardice and greed. His stuff is deliberately bereft of any meaningful social critique or analysis, and in denial of larger context besides facsimile, and that is very reflective of his mindset.

We are talking about a guy who, when at one point was confronted with criticism regarding his needless close up shot of a boy's ass puss beng popped by a bottle, went on spinning this as a boon, saying perhaps this could 'enlighten' the foreigners about our beautiful culture, and maybe invite them to plunk some dollars & visit our country - & sort of turn our people’s reprehensible state into a perverse ‘ eco-tourist’ attraction.

Yes, this guy would actually pimp the sad plight of his people in order to save himself. That’s how much our nation means to him.

Maybe that's what repelled you from this movie Mr. Ebert. The fact that somebody as amoral, and callous, and cruel could exist in this world, and share the stage. I don't think any one with good sense would really wanna have to deal with THAT on celluloid.

****
He aims to enlighten ? Please. What is he really saying here that Filipinos won't pick up in tabloid news programs, anyway ? It's not like we need to be hit over the head repeatedly by how our votes don't matter, how we ain't worth garbage, and that we are suppose to be blamed for the sins our corrupt politicos have done in cahoots with money-grubbing priests. We don’t need more pointless tableaus of this sick reality. We want our heroes back, mother ****** !

Why are the Filipinos apologizing? So weird.

Please ad me to the frothing queue pitchforking your courtyard and demanding a viewing of Salo. The Criterion people have done their usual terrific job of packaging this somewhat lost gem, and I do not miss the 30 bucks spent. Funny Games U.S. is also one of my faves these past few years. Torture porn they are not. Teen-steered gore porn is worthless for me; intellectually framed, and perhaps most importantly, socio-political oriented violent and sexual fare is an important anti-dote or counter to the vacant Faster and Furiouser and Tom Kinkades of the mass-market.

So yes, please do see Salo.

Ebert: I have long intended to and now realize the hour has come.

H

This kind of thing, the Idee fixe, seems to be something that happens to low-budget movies. I can easily imagine the filmmaker saying that he didn't have enough money for this and that, or somehow making that known at some point. Low-budget movies seem to have these kind of filmmakers. That's of course, not what I'm saying about All low-budget movies.

For trivia, I'd like it if there were big-budget Idee Fixe's that someone could name? The bigger the budget, the better.

This is what Mendoza says about "Kinatay":

"My film is based on a true story, explained Brillante Mendoza. When I was doing research for my film Slingshot, I interviewed a number of petty gangsters. One of them was a former criminology student whose confession to me was much like Peping's story. I put the story in the back of my mind as an excellent subject for a film. I was drawn to the idea of talking about death in an incongruous situation and time. I wanted to show how absurd it was."

By David Laccay on May 18, 2009 12:19 AM

"I haven't seen Kinatay but I've been following Mr. Mendoza's progress for a while now. You have to realize, Roger, that most of his films are just porn. Poverty porn, actual porn and now...torture porn. It's all exploitation cinema masquerading as Art through the use of "real time" technique, as preached by his screenwriting guru Armando Lao. A handful of Filipino filmmakers have adopted this technique...and have succeeded in fooling many, particularly the theorists you speak of. Good thing they haven't fooled regular audiences."

This sounds like the calling card of a low-budget studio trying to publicize a certain reputation for reputation's sake. This seems to validate my theory that Idee Fixes are something low-budget studios practice because they want to be in teh big league not realizing that there is no such thing as big league, only big movies.

I have yet to see Kinatay. I liked Serbis, but with reservations. I was thoroughly impressed with Slingshot, and I'm ambivalent but quite intrigued with Foster Child. Mendoza's best work seems to be his least seen, Manoro (The Teacher), about a little Aeta girl who attempts to teach her tribe how to read and write in time for the national elections. Mendoza's first two films, The Masseur and Kaleldo, are worlds apart, the former being a deviation to the sub-genre of macho dancers as popularized by Lino Brocka in the late eighties, and the latter being the traditional familial melodrama.

The first time I've heard about the news regarding a woman being chopped into pieces by her depraved killers, I was consumed by extreme disbelief and rage. However, the news was also sensational --- it became the subject of several documentaries and I believe, a couple of films, earning a killing in the local box office. The sensationalism felt cheap simply because it was capitalism taking advantage of the depravity of humanity. This is what I want to know, can Mendoza film the topic any other way?

By rinoa on May 18, 2009 9:20 PM: Why are the Filipinos apologizing? So weird.

I say: yeah, itz weird that those Filipinos abroad think that their skins are no longer brown...and they don't seem to have any plans of coming back. They've developed some sort of mentality which we call here as "talangka" (crab, when someone gets up, somebody else pulls him down)...Id rather apologize to Siskel or Medved, but this is utterly ridiculous, such motivation is insane....thatz what im ranting about, why would they identify themselves as such and such and apologize to Mr. Ebert? Mr. Ebert is not the entire audience. He's grown too old not realizing what he really wants in a film. The medium is evolving, always wanting to break free - and films shouldn't always have to cater to everyone's agenda and biases, lest the critic's.

JASON REYES, is that how you want to represent yourself as a Filipino? Remember when Julia Roberts tried to say how horrible she were when she did all those crazy things to break up her best friend's wedding? and Mcdermott told her "it's lower than that" - well, i say, you're much lower than that. Is that what you learned back home? Filipinos living abroad are terrible - their attitude towards all things left back home is proverbially "non grata"

Mr. Ebert, I want to apologize for my behavior. We were taught here since childhood to respect the elders, and to never talk back. But I have to say Im quite stubborn and rebellious, but tis isnt what I want to represent myself nor my being a Filipino. But what Ive learned especially my parents is to never waver when you or one of your own gets attacked outside our home.

Being listed at the Cannes is more than a joyous thing for Mendoza, but "for whatever itz worth" itz a national pride. We find it hard to continue the day when Miss Philippines failed to get into the Miss Universe top ten. We can't take it, thick or thin-skinned, when we heard that a young girl here was raped by an American G.I. Joe, we can't take it when an american actress would say, "the whole place is crazy, with cockroaches and dirty people" and the more we can't take it if the honor that has been afforded to us in some film festival in Europe will just be tarnished with "from the Philippines, the worst in history, and all those crappy lines, blah, blah"
Cannes, like any international contest, has each country pinned to particular films - if itz not in any way the competition is about the political geography of the film - then, letz just drop the country nameplate. And stop mentioning where they came from.
More than anything, more than distribution - Cannes is first and foremost is about cinema art-nouveau, and COMPETITION. If the distributors think KINATAY is not marketable, then fine - but don't say that noone can take watching this for more than 45 minutes, blah, blah - for that is being pre-emptive, prescriptive, and UNFAIR.
Sorry Mr. Ebert, tough luck, when you attack something that bears our label, our nameplate - you're attacking the whole country as a whole - didnt LINGUISTICS teach you enough?

Ebert: According to the traffic counting software, in a year this blog has had more than 500,000 visits from more than 170 nations or possessions or dependencies or city-statesnot including the United States. I have criticized countless films from a majority those countries. Until now I have not received a single message confusing a negative review of a film with a negative review of a country.

Some of our most valued regulars on the blog are from the Phillippines.

Hi Roger. I hope your health is doing better these days. I am a filipino-canadian guy who naturally grew up watching a variety of movies from the philippines. As a kid I have observed and come to the conclusion that there are 3 profit guaranteed genres for movies that mostly all filmmakers there tend to make:

1) the light-comedy fare which contains a lot of singing, dancing, and romance (usually a may-september type), and sometimes some melodrama along the way (family kidnappings, robbery, inexplicable gun play, etc.). Most of the times having the characters set in the hard knocks of life (mostly in slums).

2) Rambo type movies also containing the same type of melodrama above.

3) and the dreaded "TRUE STORIES!!" genre, a category in which "Kinatay" seems to falls into.

The 3rd worries me the most. In a country that prides itself, due to Roman Catholic pieties, in banning international films like "The Piano" (due to it's "excessive" nudity), I find it so very hard to believe that the nation's censorship system allows films just like "Kinatay" to be played in the nations multiplexes.

To my surprise, according to you, "Kinatay" cannot be shown in the Philippines. Because I have endured watching so many other movies it sounds like. There was a TRUE STORY about a girl who was chopped to death and whose remains was stuffed in a garbage bag and left on the sidewalk. There was a TRUE STORY movie about a woman who became a prostitute and worked in Japan whose ultimate fate was to be raped and killed under the Yakusa sword. There was a TRUE STORY about a family killed in a brutal massacre inside their home, whose oldest daughter as murdered in such a fashion that if I were to describe it i'd feel unclean and unwholesome about myself. There was a TRUE STORY about a woman whose many siblings were killed on a way to a road trip but she herself narrowly escaped death, even by being attacked with a hammer. To be fair i've stopped watching films produced in the Philippines, but perhaps the list may have gone on and ON! On a side note, some of those films were filmed shortly after the reported real life incidents. It feels as if the filmmakers were cashing in on all the sensationalism before these investigative stories got too old.

With the films i've mentioned above, I've always wanted to ask its filmmakers what do they get out of this? Did they think they were being public servants? Did they feel they were doing justice to the victims families and friends by re-enacting the murders in such a way? Because, you see, there's never an attempt to draw any psychological conclusion (Anthony Perkins in "Psycho" comes to mind). No attempts being made on any kind of motives that could at least draw pointed thoughts and opinions through any evidence at hand ("Reversal of Fortune"). Actually, really, I don't think anyone watching any of those movies are allowed to ask themselves any fair opinion on what they just witnessed on screen ("The Accused"). I can easily imagine the audience being angry, but what could they possibly use out of their frustrations, and to what end?

I hope your panning of this movie will have a following among other film critics that must serve as a wake up call to the filipino film industry. And I hope the next time any filipino director submit a new, more meaningful film at Cannes, well, it's best described on your review of EYE FOR AN EYE (1996) where you have observed: "As you consider the two movies, you may be inspired to painful conclusions about good and bad art."

Ebert: Actually I don't object to the violence but to the way those scenes are filmed in long unbroken hand-held underlit takes with aggressive noise levels.

The film got the lowest possible rating today from the panel of French film crtitics charted by the daily French festival newspaper.

Shame on Archie Del Mundo, really.
This is what you get when you are incapable of engaging your nation, and standing up against it's abusive, illegitimate regime who is doing the REAL damage. You get your ' country ' from somewhere else. You get it from Manny Pacquiao the boxer, and you get it from an utterly worthless film. And everytime, you are left dirty, pathetic, and wanting.

Get a real cause. Stand up for the actual maginalized, instead of the douchebags who make money off of them.

"Ebert: Until now I have not received a single message confusing a negative review of a film with a negative review of a country."

I told you it was coming. Archie del Mundo's reaction is one of two typical Filipino reactions to negative criticism. The other one being something like "What films have you made to give you authority to judge other filmmakers?"

This is hilarious.

Mr Ebert

i'm a filipino, and its sad for me to see that You didn't like 'Kinatay'. you know, only few Filipino films gets recognize abroad. i was so excited to see this because now that i'm 18, i will be able to see a film by Dante Mendoza. do you know that there isnt even one Video Renting store here that has 'Serbis'. its sad that Filipino doesnt recognize or understand films. they love stupid comedies, forced drama, and dumb action flicks. and now, i'm at my most dissapointed. i havent been this dissapointed in a while. i always watch your Reviews on the net(with Mr. Siskel and Mr. Roeper). i'm really sad that you didn't like the movie. and now, i think, alot more people won't be able to see it. i apologize for the movie, but i think this is mendoza's way to catch peoples attention. If he didn't make it brutal or shocking enough, people won't even know that it exist.

still i'm proud that there is a Filipino film that is selected for Cannes, though i'm really dissapointed(i might not even be this dissapointed if Pacquaio lost to Hatton)

ps. I remember when i read your comment about 'The Brown Bunny'... your first statement was that it was 'The worst premiere in Cannes history'... i remember lauging and thinking, 'Man, this must be one god-awful movie'. But now hearing that you think 'Kinatay' is the worst, i feel bad for laughing at Gallo. still, i respect your opinion. and though they might be some negative reaction here about your statement. i still think you're the best critic of them all.

Ebert: I have heard that the film will not be shown in the Philippines because of its depiction of actions by policemen. My review will niot have any effect. Become a filmmaker!

Ebert: Some of our most valued regulars on the blog are from the Phillippines.

`I have friends that are (fill in skin pigmentation, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc here)`.

I kid! I kid!

Sounds like youve wandered into a domestic situation. Can happen to anybody. Whatever you do, dont take sides. Theyll both kill you.

I wanna correct an error I made. I meant Ernest series. The one by Jim Varney. Ernest. Not Ernie. On to the festivities.

Archie, You wound me with your movie-based insult, with a Julia Roberts one no less. If my sarcasm is lost in this series of tubes, then I would like to specify that I type the previous sentence with sarcasm. You can do better Archie.

I am what you may call a New Filipino. Sensible, open minded, handsome, smart, man-sexy, has a sense of humor, and too humble to be arrogant. Archie you have got to understand, This is the Cannes Film Festival. This is international. The French will see it. The English will see it. The Russians will see it. The Atlanteans will see it. And if the X-Men movies are any indication, Mutants will see it too. The whole world will see it. And if the world don't like the entry from a Filipino director (artist?) then tough meat. Go make a better one next time. You, as a Filipino, have the never-ending duty to be open-minded and take criticism like a man. The label-nameplate attacking the country thing is just uncool and the rape thing with the miss universe top ten. That's just wrong and out of place. We're only talking about movies and films. or talkies if you prefer. Sidenote: Cannes is used in the context of an event name. Like Edinburgh International or Kuala Lumpur International. They just happen to be names of places.

The world does not necessarily have to like the Philippines or whatever crap or gold that comes out of its collective creativity. If you're gonna be sensitive about every single negative comment on trivial stuff like movies, being in the top ten of whatever, or towards the country or whatever it produces, then you're just gonna have to grow a pair cause you're playing with the big boys now. And if the world starts hating us, not because we're terrorists but because we're no fun to be with, then I'm blaming you.

Two more things to think about: First. Think of things this way: Someone says Kinatay is the worst film in Cannes history. It just so HAPPENS that its made by a Filipino. No big deal right? Hows that? Does that work for you? Second, one movie does not equate an entire country.

There has got to be way to transmit sarcasm through the internet more efficiently. It's one of my biggest exports.

P.S. Anyone wanna confirm anything about the Cannes Film Festival giving equal opportunity to movies artsy, indie, mainstream or just plain terrible? Something along the lines of every film has to be seen or deserves to be seen.

:) A beast of such power that if you were to see it whole and complete in a single glance, it would burn you to cinders. Until you've tasted it what do you really know? And then, of course, it's too late.

I was impressed with Mr. B. Mendoza's earlier work, "Tirador". It tells the human story of slum dwellers in the city without violating the characters' humanity.

When I saw "Serbis", I couldn't help but compare its journey with that of Lino Brocka's "Insiang", also shown at Cannes many years ago. The difference is that "Insiang" found its audience in Mr. Brocka's country before it found acclaim in Europe. "Serbis" does not have the same reputation.

It seems that after Mr. Mendoza found his Cannes connection, he has purposedly re-invented his style to suit what he imagines as the international art house crowd via Cannes. The fact that French producers were willing to gamble on "Kinatay" proves that Mr. Brilliante has found his niche. Maybe he is happy now. And why shouldn't he? He has been invited to the "most prestigious" film festival in the world. He has walked the red carpet. People are talking about his film. In short, he has found the affirmation among the masters he first sought to please. From the colonialist's point of view, the "boy" has not only proven his worth, he has done so within the ambit of the colonialist's framework.

However, for obvious reasons, I do much prefer Lino Brocka's artistic integrity to Mr. Brilliante's questionable Idea of a movie.

Reply to: Mr. Ebert... grown too old not realizing what he really wants in a film. The medium is evolving, always wanting to break free - and films shouldn't always have to cater to everyone's agenda and biases, lest the critic's.

I'm pretty liberal, and I can't really explain why, but somewhere I developed a policy against "explicit violence toward women" in movies and TV.

This is NOT the same as Gratuitous violence.

Gratuitous violence is defined by the Code as being "material which does not play an integral role in developing the plot, character or theme of the material as a whole."

Where a program includes scenes of violence which are unnecessary to the progress of the story, which do not drive the plot forward, which play no role in the development or definition of the characters and are clearly serving a sensationalistic purpose, that program will be seen to contain gratuitous violence.

Here's an article from England in 1995:

Independent: Last month, Boy Meets Girl, a feature-length anatomy of violence by British director Ray Brady, was officially refused a video certificate by the BBFC. Nothing so unusual about that: it joins the BBFC's current list of 36 films that have applied for video certificates since 1984 and have been refused classification. (...a list dominated by sleazy sex titles like Bare Behind Bars, Head Girls at St Winnifred's and Tied and Tickled Number 4.)

Brady has received a two-page letter from the head censor detailing the reasons. Not only does this provide a unique insight into the normally secretive workings of the BBFC, but, because the Board is a government-delegated body, this letter reveals something of the state's attitude towards screen violence.

With a subject like rape or torture, the validity of the treatment has normally depended on the extent to which the film adopts a humane and compassionate viewpoint that aligns itself with the victim rather "The validity of the film," says Ferman, "rests on the supposition that one is watching a feminist piece in which

torture is merely a narrative device for exploring unacceptable behaviour." (end)

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/welcome-to-the-legion-of-the-banned-1581313.html

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/1999/990203g.php

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Violence Code and Sex-Role Portrayal Code.

CAB Violence Code, Article 7

7.1 Broadcasters shall not telecast programming which sanctions, promotes or glamorizes any aspect of violence against women.

7.2 Broadcasters shall ensure that women are not depicted as victims of violence unless the violence is integral to the story being told. Broadcasters shall be particularly sensitive not to perpetuate the link between women in a sexual context and women as victims of violence.

There is no doubt that the most difficult consideration for the Regional Council in this case has been the question of gratuitous violence and the related question of violence against women "unless the violence is integral to the story being told." (end)

At least three important points.

(1) In different countries, the government has recognized a problem in the portrayal of violence against women in film. They wish to avoid any complaint of censorship, but the problem is becoming too prevalent.

(2) A movie where a womwn is subjected to a violent act in connection to a sexual act.... is merely a disguise for certain kinds of hatred against women.

Women withold sex. Women are smaller and weaker. Therefore, some film makers play out their sexual inadequacies by showing violence directed against... well, in this case, a prostitute who was also a drug user.

Roger was complaining about the way a 45-minute segment... well, read his comments. My complaint is different. My complaint is that a movie that focuses on the act of cutting a woman's body up into pieces.... is a way of acting out some deep psychological problems.

(3) There are so many films that portray this behavior, it's easy to build a case for "we're just taking the next step."

Instead, I see it as a feedback loop. The more movies with this theme, the more it appears that the theme is acceptable.

I think you need to break the Feedback Loop. Instead of giving praise, make it clear that such films violate the moral standards... well, of the United States. The United States, when it comes to violence against women in movies, is actually fairly conservative. Because you can buy or rent a wide variety of movies on DVD, you might not realize that.

Reply to: always wanting to break free - and films shouldn't always have to cater to everyone's agenda and biases.

My problem here is very specific. Men who have developed a hatred for women, and act out their feelings by creating "art" that uses a theme where "bad elements of society" ie, drug dealers, are free to act on their impulses.

Hence the term, break free.

Should I post this? Not certain. I guess it's worthwhile for one observation: a writer or filmmakter may think he's creating art, but he's actually revealing a secret side of himself that he might not want out there.

I totally agree with you Mr. Ebert--a movie should always include the audience and not make them (audience) feel detached or 'alienated' as you put it. By experience, whenever I watch movies and at ANY part of the movie i feel detached, it always leaves a bad taste on my mouth--which always makes me stay 'detached' forever (if thats possible).

The thing with Filipinos (being one), yes, as the others who commented here, we are VERY thin-skinned individuals and citizens (I will not try to explain why because i will sound redundant already). **at this point, i will separate myself from them** they tend to take EVERYTHING personally (which is annoying) without giving any chance of comprehending whatever criticism they heard. Basically, criticism/comment = INSULT for them.

One other thing, here in the Philippines, when you say 'indie/independent film' most of the time they immediately say that that roll of film is great without even seeing it--because its indie! They have totally lost the essence of these types of films.

Going back, I appreciate how honest and direct your critique was. A review is plainly a review. It doesnt and shouldn't impose anything to whoever reads this thread or your article and neither to the people who will watch the film. This is from a person putting no importance of what my citizenship is. KUDOS to you!

Roger, hope Kinatay will not discourage you from seeing Raya Martin's Independencia, the Philippine entry for Un Certain Regard. High hopes for that film.

As always, Mr. Ebert, thank you for sharing your always insightful thoughts.

I am curious about how you would compare "Kinatay" with the Gaspar Noe film, "Irreversible". From reading your two reviews, it is obvious you like "Irreversible" more and bought into Noe's IDEA. However, no one sane could argue that watching "Irreversible" is a pleasant experience. Unless I missed something, it seems as if your main complaint with "Kinatay" is that it is just so damn unpleasant and hard to watch.

not a mendoza fan, probably never will be. i don't really care if the film has merit by way of a strong and authentic message about the human experience/condition--gore is gore and queasy is queasy. that however doesn't make the film bad or good its just makes it something I will personally avoid. i have heard that Salo is a fantastic film. that may be true. i will never know. same goes for Passion of the Christ.

on a side note, i've long resented the fact that there seems to be only one kind of film that a filmmaker from a third world country can make (about/set in his native land) that will open doors to international / prestigious film festivals (in the west, mostly) and that is the kind of film that caters to what foreigners believe and prescribe to be the truth about living in a third world country. as a filmmaker and writer, i am tired of films that use poverty as an artistic conduit. how many "arthouse" films have you seen that have been praised to high heavens, where all the director seemed to do for half the movie is hold/ point a camera to record a day in the life of an impoverished individual? this is cinema? a camera following a street kid pick up trash and go through a day in his life in the slums is not a story. it's just a camera following a kid picking up trash going through a day in his life in the slums. but there have been such films that received so much international acclaim that i am left wondering if what i know to be good storytelling is that -- skewed.

the west seems to accept this and films that depict more of these as the only authentic truths to be told in countries they have been told belong to the third world. as if watching films like this and praising the filmmaker for his keen insight in the truth of whatever meets some sort of quota for social activism and involvement. oh well.

"Now commences the Idea. It is Mendoza's conceit that it his Idea will make a statement, or evoke a sensation, or demonstrate something--if only he makes the rest of the film as unpleasant to the eyes, the ears, the mind and the story itself as possible. This he succeeds in doing beyond his wildest dreams."

Earlier I posted a quote from Mendoza who said that he wanted to show how absurd all the violence was, and that's why he made the movie. Demonstrating that with a lot of unpleasantness seems he wanted to give anyone in the audience comtemplating murder a good pre-emptive spanking.

Being a Filipino, it's a tad disappointing that for two consecutive years, our entries didn't exactly wowed critics. I still have to see this movie, so I would reserve my judgement.

But what baffles me is the reaction of some of my compatriots here. Why should we apologize to Mr. Ebert for seeing this film, our film? It's his choice and duty to do so. For crying out loud, he is a critic. If he didn't like it, then that's that. It's just a movie after all and only a movie from our country. We could still churn out other more impressive films. Let's just take this as a challenge and not something to be shameful about.

Ebert: I have criticized countless films from a majority those countries. Until now I have not received a single message confusing a negative review of a film with a negative review of a country.

Roger, I have been a fan of your work for more than 20 years. More recently, I have been a faithful reader of your blog. This thread is the first one that compels me to respond.

Just a couple of hours before reading this particular string of comments, I came across a transcript of an interview with actor William Smith. In discussing the film, The Losers, he said: "We shot this in the Philippines. It was a marvelous experience. Everybody was so nice to us, all the people there. But a few of the Filipinos were kind of weird, man. They can be nice to you, but if you insult them, they'll pull a gun on you and shoot you. Our assistant director got shot and nobody ever knew who shot him. They hit him in the shoulder from [far] away."

When I first read that, I didn't know if there was hyperbole (or overgeneralization) in Smith's words. I still don't know, of course---though he seems a straight shooter---but you, Roger, have clearly been confronted with a few comments here that betray a real cultural thin-skinnedism. Little good ever comes from an overly-nationalistic stance. And, at a more human, individual level, being quick to take (needless) offense seems an odd modus operandi.

Whatever. You were clearly commenting on the film, not the film's country of origin, in your initial posting here. After reading some of the feedback comments, I must confess that William Smith's words instantly came back to me with greater resonance. And that's too bad.

Anyhow, I found it odd that I would stumble across Smith's interview then read this stuff here in the same day. I thought I would share it with you. Make of it what you will!

BEST WISHES for GOOD HEALTH, Roger.

After reading through all the comments posted thus far, I'm actually relieved to find that the Philippine Defense Squad is actually only composed of two dudes commenting multiple times.

Still embarrassing, but much better than I had feared.

The topic of "reviewing the film, not the country" should be dropped once and for all for it is too dumb for this blog.

I'm a Filipino, and I think all of these adverse reactions to your review of 'Kinatay' in the name of patriotism is preposterous, not to mention terribly embarrassing to our country.

They're embarrassing because they're out of context - you were reviewing the film, and not at all making negative comments about the Philippines or the Filipino people.

They're even more embarrassing because a lot of the points they brought up to justify their negative responses are more about a gratuitous display of self-pity about our societal problems than an intelligent response to your opinions.

And even more embarrassing because you're getting all of this antagonism instead of a proper, intelligent defense of the movie BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT.

I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Ebert regarding the qualities of 'Kinatay,' because I haven't seen it myself, but this is so basic it shouldn't have to be spelled out.

The reality here is that if you make a person sit through a movie, they're entitled to their impressions of the movie, and to tell others about it. If it's a good movie, it will gain a wider audience. If it's not, then it won't.

If a family member puts up a restaurant, and the customers say the food sucks, you don't go around accusing the customers of having some personal prejudice against your family. Nor do you go around questioning their judgment. Or telling other customers that that's how you really cook your food, because of family problems, blah blah blah - especially if you haven't tasted the food.

To all of those I've just referred to:

Do yourselves and your country a favor and please show the world that you can express yourself with some dignity and intelligence.

In closing, to Mr. Ebert:

Our films seldom make it to Cannes. Unfortunately, in your opinion, this one is the worst to have ever been shown in Cannes. But it made it to Cannes. We'll do better next time

About Mendoza's Film,

I'm just going from the gut here. From what I've heard, it's another typical attempt to try to get attention using cheap, old-hat, film school artsy-fartsy tactics.

Art isn't always about shock value. Filmmaking is a craft. Not art for art's sake. I've seen too many of these types of 'filmmakers'. They'll intellectualize or defend their work with their artsy BS, when the truth is, they just wanna shock audiences because they think that's what wins awards and brands them as 'artists'.

pulease. blood and gore is so overused and a cheap shot. that goes along with prostitution, poverty, rape, gangs... it's almost like a formula.

c'mon guys, where are the good stories? Too many wannabe artists, wannabe famous, wannabe rockstars.

I've seen many Filipino films lately and they suck. My biggest peave: the acting is not convincing. It's totally not there. They can shoot a lot of beautiful scenery, artsy shots, money shots, crazy angles and 'experimental' techniques...but when the actor enters frame and speaks, i'm usually headin' out the door.

Not many people from other countries can spot this, but only a Filipino such as myself can tell if the performances are convincing enough for the characters to become as real as can be. That for me is one of the biggest challenges for the storyteller.

From what I've seen around here, many filmmakers are missing some of the most basic things in making movies. Great stories, great acting, and creativity in pushing the craft of filmmaking forward. Beginning, middle, end. Around here there are many great writers, but very few good directors. Some people think, just because they can write, they can be directors. And they'll use every cheap shot in the book to get that title.

Again I'm just going from the gut here. I haven't seen the film, and I don't think I ever will. I don't wanna pay for cringes and unnecessary stress.

Another case is Lav Diaz. I wonder what you'll have to say about his 'artistry'.

I'm a director of commercials and music videos, and i'll be doing my first feature film soon. Cheers.

I think it's not so much as Filipinos being thin-skinned as it is about this absurdly over-the-top need to prove ourselves worthy of something. We Filipinos are easy when it comes to foreigners; we always want to impress them. See even these people who are wholeheartedly agreeing to a review of a movie THEY ALL HAVEN'T SEEN, apologize for it (MY GOD, WHY APOLOGIZE FOR A FILM THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH?!), and who would trash an entire film industry without batting an eyelash in the process, just because the reviewer happened to be famous and foreign, is another way of whoring up to them whities. What the Jayson Reyes' and Michael Mirasols and Archie del Mundos of the world would never realize is that they are all actually in the same boat.

I have read other reviews of Kinatay and it seems that the violence and gore are not even near the level of the Saws and Hostels, not even comparable to von Trier's reported mangled genitalia in Antichrist, so I see that it's not really the content you're objecting to so much, but the directorial and artistic choices Mendoza made. That's fair enough, Mr. Ebert. What I take issue with though is this arrogance-which is, granted, most people would see as quite deserved-in implying that Kinatay is so devoid of any artistic merit and entertainment value that ANYONE who would even so much as ATTEMPT to make some sense out of it is being pretentious. To be dismissive of a film you're reviewing is acceptable, sure, but to effectively silence any opinion that may be contrary to yours is well, lazy at best.

Actually the whole review is confusing; you start with the "Idea" of a film auteur so I was prepared to read a dissection of Kinatay's philosphical and theoretical and even moral shortcomings, but all we really got was you complaining about the sound and the light design. You even said in one of the comments you made that the violence didnt bother you so much (so people can actually stop dropping titles like Cannibal Holocaust, I Spit on Your Grave and Salo, other reviews didn't really imply that this film is up there in terms of grossness).

And also, it's a bit off-topic, sure, but it has been touched upon so I would just like to add: IT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THIRD WORLD FILM MAKERS THAT WHAT WESTERN AUDIENCES HAVE SEEN AS REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR CINEMA ARE MOVIES ABOUT POVERTY AND CRIME, IT'S THE DAMN PROGRAMMERS' AND INTERNATIONAL CRITICS' FAULT, WHO ARE ALL, BY THE WAY, ARE FROM THE 1ST WORLD. Frances, if you watch mainstream Filipino films, films that do well in the local box office, it's all about young lovers vacationing in Greece, or handsome and rich landlords smitten by the lovely barrio lass, friends who go to the most exclusive restaurants and wear Dolce and Gabbana and Prada, escapist fluff that Filipinos consume ravenously to forget about the poverty and corruption and general despair of everyday life for at least two hours, but the international market is not interested in that. They want to know about our suffering and our despair so they can pat themselves at the back and congratulate themselves for the amazing life they've made available for their people. It's all amazing really.

Lastly, I've seen all of Mendoza's films aside from Manoro, which is sad because most say that's his best film, and though I don't think he's found his masterpiece yet (I, too, doubt that it's Kinatay), or that he's ever going to reach the artistic heights of Ishmael Bernal or Mike de Leon or Lav Diaz, probably not even Brocka, I think he's a competent film maker who's not afraid to push boundaries, even if sometimes it means he'd have to fall flat on his face. And really, the Filipino film industry needs more people like that.

all i can say about reading different comments from my countrymen, Mr. Roger Ebert's negative review on the flm KINATAY, actually i was hurt too but we should accept that it's just a mere review from a film critic and it does not mean all of the critics will agree with Mr. Ebert's review on the film. we still have to be proud that a film from the Philippines landed in the Cannes Film Festival ( THE MOST PRESTEGIOUS ONE IN THE WORLD) 2 successive years of Mendoza's films are in and that's a big honor already.

I think it's not so much as Filipinos being thin-skinned as it is about this absurdly over-the-top need to prove ourselves worthy of something. We Filipinos are easy when it comes to foreigners; we always want to impress them. See even these people who are wholeheartedly agreeing to a review of a movie THEY ALL HAVEN'T SEEN, apologize for it (MY GOD, WHY APOLOGIZE FOR A FILM THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH?!), and who would trash an entire film industry without batting an eyelash in the process, just because the reviewer happened to be famous and foreign, is another way of whoring up to them whities. What the Jayson Reyes' and Michael Mirasols and Archie del Mundos of the world would never realize is that they are all actually in the same boat.

I have read other reviews of Kinatay and it seems that the violence and gore are not even near the level of the Saws and Hostels, not even comparable to von Trier's reported mangled genitalia in Antichrist, so I see that it's not really the content you're objecting to so much, but the directorial and artistic choices Mendoza made. That's fair enough, Mr. Ebert. What I take issue with though is this arrogance-which is, granted, most people would see as quite deserved-in implying that Kinatay is so devoid of any artistic merit and entertainment value that ANYONE who would even so much as ATTEMPT to make some sense out of it is being pretentious. To be dismissive of a film you're reviewing is acceptable, sure, but to effectively silence any opinion that may be contrary to yours is well, lazy at best.

Actually the whole review is confusing; you start with the "Idea" of a film auteur so I was prepared to read a dissection of Kinatay's philosphical and theoretical and even moral shortcomings, but all we really got was you complaining about the sound and the light design. You even said in one of the comments you made that the violence didnt bother you so much (so people can actually stop dropping titles like Cannibal Holocaust, I Spit on Your Grave and Salo, other reviews didn't really imply that this film is up there in terms of grossness).

And also, it's a bit off-topic, sure, but it has been touched upon so I would just like to add: IT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THIRD WORLD FILM MAKERS THAT WHAT WESTERN AUDIENCES HAVE SEEN AS REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR CINEMA ARE MOVIES ABOUT POVERTY AND CRIME, IT'S THE DAMN PROGRAMMERS' AND INTERNATIONAL CRITICS' FAULT, WHO ARE ALL, BY THE WAY, ARE FROM THE 1ST WORLD. Frances, if you watch mainstream Filipino films, films that do well in the local box office, it's all about young lovers vacationing in Greece, or handsome and rich landlords smitten by the lovely barrio lass, friends who go to the most exclusive restaurants and wear Dolce and Gabbana and Prada, escapist fluff that Filipinos consume ravenously to forget about the poverty and corruption and general despair of everyday life for at least two hours, but the international market is not interested in that. They want to know about our suffering and our despair so they can pat themselves at the back and congratulate themselves for the amazing life they've made available for their people. It's all amazing really.

Lastly, I've seen all of Mendoza's films aside from Manoro, which is sad because most say that's his best film, and though I don't think he's found his masterpiece yet (I, too, doubt that it's Kinatay), or that he's ever going to reach the artistic heights of Ishmael Bernal or Mike de Leon or Lav Diaz, probably not even Brocka, I think he's a competent film maker who's not afraid to push boundaries, even if sometimes it means he'd have to fall flat on his face. And really, the Filipino film industry needs more people like that.

Scott wrote on May 18, 2009 5:58 PM:

To Marie Haws,

`Male` violence? You consider these characters as representing, predominantly, males? Not socio-paths, psychopaths. But, males. No need to respond. Seems a tad harsh. :)

I didn't see your post until now! And while I appreciate your concern, I don't mind responding as it's no trouble to. :)

Speaking for myself, my over all view of gender is a decades long observation based upon a pattern which only reveals itself over time, and when looked at from a distance; like the lines stretching across the Nazca plains in Peru. There's a picture there, but you can't see it from the ground, eh?

Men and women are both capable of behaving quite badly, but when it comes to extreme acts of physical violence and using force to control another, when seen from a global perspective now, it does tend to be more of a male thingy. Not exclusively though. Just more so; ie: the football is down at your end, but that doesn't mean it can't move.

So there's that. Then there's this movie, Kinatay.

"Peping (Coco Martin) is a freshly-married policy-academy student who helps a drug-gang acquaintance to collect outstanding payments. He only wants to help his family, but his first operation involves an unforgivingly protracted and wicked assault on a prostitute.

Frankly, most people will find Kinatay (it means 'butchered') either unremittingly tedious, harrowing or vile. Possibly all three. Mendoza is no gore-hound. He's more serious than Noe. This is a fiercely moral and horribly unforgettable denunciation of societal corruption." - Telegraph UK.

It is a belief held by some, that some men tend to believe "recreating extreme acts of violence" so as to tell a story involving violence, is how to go about it. It's more real that way. And what's real will better make their point for them.

What such directors fail to realize however, is that every yin has its yang - there's a reason other things exist now, and to distract us from the stuff we should be looking at; like societal corruption.

If you use brutality to draw my attention to brutality you make me recoil from brutality, despite the intentions behind it. Despite the context. There's a reason so many of us are so numb at this point, that we can only react to a punch in the face - but if you use a punch in the face, you add another thing in the world making us numb, no? An ironic catch-22, if that's the right parallel.

And there are now so many films out there (years worth, actually) wherein this is the approach being taken primarily by male directors, that it's starting to make a picture and join those lines in Peru, so to speak.

At least I can see it. But then what the hell I do I know; I'm just a canary chirping away inside a mine. :)

I wonder if anyone who brought up Salo as a comparison has seen any film of Mendoza.

While I (obviously) haven't seen Kinatay yet, I can understand why this movie has been described as unwatchable, having seen Mendoza's previous work. The realism evoked by his films can only be described as ... frightening. So, it isn't so much about the content, but HOW the content is delivered in this case.

Since we are mining darkness with "Kinatay" and "Antichrist" (I will absolutely not watch the former, but am looking forward to the latter), a few more notes on “Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom” (1975).

I have railed against the promotion of this film as must-see art for many years, though accept scholarly analysis as valid. I simply question any film that crosses the line "Salo" does. There IS a line in the film medium. An image cannot be unwatched, having more power than a thousand words. A child will not read "The 120 Days of Sodom," but they could accidently view "Salo." A viewer can close a book, but how easy is it to close the film in a theater? Can one stop the DVD in time? As noted earlier ad nauseum, I made the mistake of watching the unedited version of "Caligula" during a midnight show with college friends. I was depressed for many days, feeling violated by a medium and art form I loved. After that ordeal (I suppose I was a rabbit in the woods), I refuse to even remotely risk that trauma again.

I accept "Salo" is a film with artistic aspirations (as compared to the sh** known as "Caligula," and I do quote Roger's ZERO star review). I accept the director, cinematographer and composer who created "Salo" are extraordinary talents. I do not accept any film that portrays in any manner, no matter the theme, the graphic torture of young teenagers/children. Knowing what we do about Pasolini, should we not ask if this film is truly an examination of the potential evils of our own culture, or if this the director's own fantasies? Should he have opened that door? Should the line have been crossed? If these were adult victims, not sure if I would feel similar rage.

Perhaps we should also ask, could this film serve as stimulation to a deviant mind? "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" was a fine film, but it too crossed the line, specifically the home invasion and murder of the family. It appears almost half of "Salo" is a "home invasion." Is it not far more difficult to make the same thematic point without resorting to animal perversions that, frankly, exist within us all? I know humanity has the potential of evil. I know "Blood Meridian" is regularly thrown across the room. But that's a book of words without a single photograph.

I find it difficult to believe that one of the finest film critics in history has not seen "Salo," a film that has been infamous and on the market since 1975. I do not know you Roger and can only make a guess based on your written word. I would estimate you have avoided it for a reason (though it's doubtful "Salo" will have much of an effect after having sat through "Kinatay" and "Antichrist" back-to-back). Anyway, for a man who has made some interesting comments (some of which I do not agree with) on past films such as "A Clockwork Orange," "Last House on the Left" (1972), "Deliverance" and even "The Manson Family" (2005) - to paraphrase, "It achieves what it is trying to do. Still doesn't mean you should see it." - I find it interesting you are now prepared to subject yourself to the nastiness of "Salo." Though you have to love "to the frothing queue pitchforking your courtyard and demanding a viewing of Salo."

I believe the film medium has certain boundaries far different than the written word. And I know people would argue the point endlessly. I also know any discussion on "Salo" will sadly cause more people to see it, kind of like those protestors outside of "The Last Temptation of Christ," a film I saw and admired the day it opened. Thanks.

Marie Haws,

David Cronenberg was once asked how he could make such disturbing movies that contain often bizarre and violent themes and images. Was he acting out inner demons? He replied that, to the contrary, his movies are in direct contrast to who he is within and what he identifies with. He also felt that that enabled him to approach such themes on surer footing, more objectively, as theme and not self-representation.

I cannot critique your opinion on brutality itself. I have my opinion that there is something more complex at work, that movies are primarly entertainment, are too shallow to be informative beyond making immediate emotional impact and that brutality is perhaps a sure way to make that impact, if it is done skillfully. To become punch-drunk means taking alot of punches which begs the question what is one doing in the ring so much.

Apparently, these things occur not without infrequency in the Filipines. And elsewhere. I read an article in a recent Harper`s where a writer interviewed a hired killer who worked for a drug cartel in Mexico. Bloody tales of kidnapping, torture and murder. Presented by someone (the killer - male, as if I had to clarify) who primarily seem to see it as a livelihood. It made me think of No Country for Old Men. Some think that part of the world, with its history from previous civilizations that involved orgies of ritualistic violence carries down through the generations and centuries to current civilizations and generations. It goes underground and resurfaces. It seems to be the same in other parts of the world. Signs and wonders. The dawning of a new age containing a new breed of violence actually is perhaps the continuation of worlds long gone. If, as some people claim, we are all one nation, perhaps we are all one civilization.

But it seems that we do not believe these people that are able to commit enormous and dismaying brutality and yet live relatively normal lives. Perhaps the director failed at explaining his subject, as if one is necessary. Ebert has confirmed that if the lighting and soundtrack were more accommodating his reaction would not likley have been as strong.

TO MR JASON REYES: I'M NOT EQUATING KINATAY TO OUR HISTORY AND CULTURE. I'M INVITING MR EBERT TO EXPERIENCE OUR HISTORY AND CULTURE SO THAT HE'LL DISCOVER THAT THE " THEMATIC PURPOSE" OF KINATAY IS REAL AND RELEVANT.

ARE YOU BASED IN THE PHILIPPINES? IF YOU ARE, THEN YOU'RE THE WORST ASS EVER. IF NOT, WHY NOT REVISIT AND REDISCOVER YOUR ROOTS? FOR SOME MORAL GUIDANCE, PERHAPS?

Wow. Pinoys versus Pinoys... riigghhtt.

Anyhow, I'm sticking to the topic...

I love movies whether they're good or bad. I painstakingly watched Caligula and Cannibal Holocaust. And I enjoyed other movies too, too many to mention. Duh.

Here's what I usually do whenever I watch a film. I watch it objectively regardless of the director, actor, or even the nationality of that film. And I find Roger's criticism helpful despite its negative tone.

Though, I'd still want to check the film out. I want to know what the "fuzz" is all about. Then I decide if it is really a bad film or not.

i don't have to be african to appreciate hotel rwanda and i don't see why you think kinatay should be reviewed any differently just because it depicts a real issue

nice going John Roque - thatz the whole point! very well said!
And by the way - WHO SAID THIS FILM WILL NOT BE OR CANT BE ALLOWED TO BE SHOWN HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES? That is preposterous. It must be just another unfair opinion of some sort. The only film that wasn't allowed for public exhibition here, I guess, is Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ...and others, were allowed after some works with the scissors. I believe it will have some sort of leeways since this film has given a lot of attentions - and "having competed in Cannes" is enough a reason to get distributed. Of course, Mall cinemas here who don't allow R-18 films have their rules - but in most cases, this will be relegated to downtown cinemas and other venues that are beyond the government's jurisdiction (like University Of The Philippines Film Center. Of course, this film may not be fit for everyone - but definitely, people will see it - people will respond to it - and some countries may allow it, not that they care about has this film been demolished by some critics who can't distinguish FORM OVER SUBSTANCE (sometimes, it really happens, yah know - not every film maker can be a Jane Campion all the time)
I remember too well, when a critic said, "howz that possible for a mother to recreate her whole crying over her son's dead body in a morgue for the TV crew?" - itz the same thought - whatever you think is not possible in your country, may be possible here - and it's for you to present that value in your review. SOME CRITICS ARE JUST SOME BUNCH OF ARMCHAIR PHILOSOPHERS...they have grown too old not realizing that the world has evolved...and some film makers like BRILLANTE MENDOZA, don't care much WHETHER YOU HATE HIM OR LOVE HIM....
Am I the MOST ONION-SKINNED DUDE IN THE WORLD? Perhaps, because you told me I was a bad kid and the other bad kid is better than me...and that my mom is a prostitute, and that our house is made of rags and scraps ---I am so gonna cry again just thinking about that.

Scott wrote on May 21, 2009 10:40 AM - "David Cronenberg was once asked how he could make such disturbing movies that contain often bizarre and violent themes and images. Was he acting out inner demons? He replied that, to the contrary, his movies are in direct contrast to who he is within and what he identifies with. He also felt that that enabled him to approach such themes on surer footing, more objectively, as theme and not self-representation."

I love David Cronenberg! But then, I "get" David Cronenberg; chuckle! I get what he's doing because it's there to be found in his work. It's not style over substance. That includes "Naked Lunch"...

"Burroughs came across as a man who walks around with something wounded inside, something that hurts so much that his spirit simply shut down. That aspect of Burroughs is celebrated at feature length in "Naked Lunch," the new David Cronenberg film in which Peter Weller gives a performance as evocative as it is depressing, as a fictional character obviously meant to be taken as the author." - Roger Ebert

Do men feel emotion pain? Yup! Do they find it easier or harder to express it, and when they express it, how do they more often than not choose to?

Maybe it comes down to this; women are quicker to cry. Something or someone hurts our feelings, we suck it up for so long and then we have a nice cry; eat some chocolate or ice cream (smile) and then the balance of the universe within ourselves is restored. :)

Men often appear to take a different route which manifests itself in a variety of ways, mediums and forms. And it's the collective weight of it all, that I'm invariably reacting to but for seeing beyond the surface to how everything's connecting to other stuff too; the bigger picture and all that.

"I cannot critique your opinion on brutality itself. I have my opinion that there is something more complex at work, that movies are primarly entertainment, are too shallow to be informative beyond making immediate emotional impact and that brutality is perhaps a sure way to make that impact, if it is done skillfully. To become punch-drunk means taking alot of punches which begs the question what is one doing in the ring so much." - Scott

True, a movie is just a movie. But it doesn't exist somewhere else and in a vacuum, eh? There's a ripple effect. Again; because everything's connected under the surface. Whoever coined the phrase "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" was probably a guy trying to tell someone else to suck it up, after he'd behaved quite badly. :)

And while one can indeed step out of the ring, it's a little hard to if the ring is actually the planet and everything on it. For starters, space is cold, you can't breathe, and as we all know, it's full of alien monsters just waiting to grab us and destroy the entire human race!

I've seen it - I watch TV. TV never lies. :)

Marie Hays,

One can only appreciate your concern. However, the seed for violence springs forth with other fruits also. Freud suggested that civilization was essentially a cover to enable human societies to cope. I would say violence is not simply manifest in destroying life, but also bringing to life. In light of that, I would say that the vast majority of violent tendencies are channeled into non-destructive activity.

Women dont have testosterone. And when women are affected by hormonal imbalances their better judgement and character tends to suffer. Imagine if such a creature also had testosterone?

THis is of course not to in any way condone violence. I recall visiting the Tokyo National Museum recently and wandering into the modern pavilion, with the WW2 displays depicting the sub-life act of dropping bombs on people. I was seized, immediately engulfed, with a fury, a rage that was unutterable, that simply paralyzed me, fueled by pure disgust. As the Cockburn song goes `if I had a rocket launcher...!`

im a filipino and a fan of ebert's reviews. i agree with some not agree with some.
annyways, we dont have to apologize for this film because we are pilipino. i still havent seen it yet though.
so, is this film more disturbing than irreversible? i kinda liked irriversible though.

to some pinoys: we should stop getting angry whenever someone made a bad comments of our films, etc.

Scott wrote on May 23, 2009 8:47 AM - "One can only appreciate your concern. However, the seed for violence springs forth with other fruits also. Freud suggested that civilization was essentially a cover to enable human societies to cope. I would say violence is not simply manifest in destroying life, but also bringing to life. In light of that, I would say that the vast majority of violent tendencies are channeled into non-destructive activity."

Freud was also a man who believed that the female sexual identity results from a "castration complex".

According to Freud, when a girl realizes that she lacks a *peni-s, the emotions which result from her lack of and desire for a one, will lead her to submit to the social patriarchy. *Note: the spam filter and I are currently at war! And until we sign a truce, I'm having to navigate around its fascist-minded sensibilities - and it might not like "that word". :)

Many, myself included, take issue with Freud and his method of defining women in terms of what we lack; of "nothing" being down there. The argument is that by way of inference, it amounts to having "no" thing, no being, and no truth. And it's NOT some imagined complex which determines a woman's role in the world, but rather, the definition of a woman as nothing - which is reinforced by the roles and portrayals of women in society.

Freud was born in 1856! Yet his outdated theories about women, and the ultimate inferiority of the feminine mind (many views no longer accepted) continue to color society's view of what HALF the planet wants or is capable of.

So Freud can go "beep" himself, Scott. I like Carl Jung MUCH better. Carl doesn't suck. :)

"Women don't have testosterone. And when women are affected by hormonal imbalances their better judgement and character tends to suffer. Imagine if such a creature also had testosterone?"

OH. MY. GOD.

Marie very carefully reaches out and places a comforting hand on Scott's shoulder...

Men and women produce exactly the same hormones, only in different amounts. Yes, this means men make estrogen too. Note: I've always had an advantage when it comes to knowing about this stuff - my mom was a nurse, I grew-up with medical books in the house etc. So don't feel bad - most women don't know we produce it, either.

And don't take my word for it - I could be lying!

http://www.enotes.com/male-female-article

http://people.howstuffworks.com/women.htm

Still there, Scott? :)

So it's a very beneficial hormone. You just shouldn't use "too much" of it to do your thinking, and here's why; copy and paste:

http://www.youtube.com/ (then add) watch?v=NoCPDvQBG5Y

See? Only in men's brains; a difference visible to the naked eye. It's not the testosterone per say - but what it's "talking to" inside your brain. That yellow thingy in the video clip. That said, nature is all about construct and deconstruct - flash of lighting hits a patch of forest and the trees catch fire and burn. But come spring time, and for having cleared away some of the clutter, more sunlight can reach down into the forest bed, and new baby plants and trees can grow and it's all Zen. What sucks, is when "you" are the clutter the universe is getting rid of.

I agree though, a lot of violent energy gets channeled; it's called English Premier League Football. I used to like Chelsea FC but then they crossed over to the dark side with the help of a Russian manager, and now I like Liverpool FC - but only for knowing it totally ticks-off Man United fans. :)

"This is of course not to in any way condone violence. I recall visiting the Tokyo National Museum recently and wandering into the modern pavilion, with the WW2 displays depicting the sub-life act of dropping bombs on people. I was seized, immediately engulfed, with a fury, a rage that was unutterable, that simply paralyzed me, fueled by pure disgust. As the *Co-ckburn song goes "if I had a rocket launcher...!" - Scott

I love that song and not just because Bruce *Co-ckburn is a Canadian. As I can relate, too! In fact, I've got this big red button inside my head and whenever I push it, people suddenly explode and body parts go flying everywhere, splattering the walls of my imagination red...

Craig's list killer? - SPLAT!
Rapists in Darfur? - SPLAT!
The Spam Filter for the Chicago Sun-Times? - SPLAT!

So you see, guys may have a reputation for being more violent, but women can "think those thoughts" too. :)

Marie Haws,

I will not adopt the role of Freud-apologist. I will say that clearly he was a genius, clearly some theories were wrong. And I referred to his theory concerning the role of civilization, not `penis-envy`.

Well, I sure didnt grow up with medical books etc but yes, have since educated myself concerning testosterone (and estrogen). Yes, I am quite aware both men and women have both (where did I suggest otherwise?) To say we (male, female) merely have `different amounts` is misleading. And I was referring not to composition per se but changes within. Ah! I see. My remark about `imagine if....` Ok, I admit you have reason for your assumption. My mistake. Yes, obviously men and women have both. Yes, I am quite ok with that. :) What I should have said was imagine if women had the same amount of test as men. Despite where in the brain the message goes etc test does other things -- it creates masculinity - strength, aggression. Yes, the amount is certainly an issue.

(Its interesting. I have not heard too many people describe their violent fantasies for people that annoy them or disgust them - but both times they were (sane, professional, pleasant) women, who described (quite unsolicited), the most grotesque scenarios reserved for their persons of interest with the most calm and even demenour. They made you consider backing away slowly.) :)

But in Tokyo I was not describing thoughts, just feelings. And the rocket launcher - just the simple fact that in that time and place if I had weapons I would use them until either the enemy or myself were dead. I would not hesitate. And, true to the spirit of the song which is what I was referring to, I do not believe in these things. Of course, soldiers in combat who are driven by such emotion are likely the easiest to kill, so I realize I am not describing a likely scenario.

Sure, PL. Artists must have a pretty healthy kill switch within, to be able to say to a potential project (child) of theirs - youre not working out, time to end you. Ive known some who just could not seem to bring themselves to kill whatever they were working on, and others who knew when to quit. This is not likely explained by test comp (that was more a red herring) but as Altman suggested in his commentary I watched last night on 3 Women, you can kill a person different ways.. you may stop talking to them and thus render them non-existent. It is not violence per se, but is there a difference? Is not psychic scarring as much (if not more) painful and brutal than physical? Women are specialists in that field, likely because that is how they can compete. Is that `violence` any less meaningful and destructive? A quick survey of social history, perhaps particularly aboriginal histories, would convey otherwise. There are many ways to kill, to inflict violence.

Somewhere out there, Vincent Gallo is high-fiving Francis Ford Coppola.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Congratulations Brillante Mendoza of THE PHILIPPINES for WINNING BEST DIRECTOR for Kinatay at Cannes 2009...

Thanks, Roger...you're the best film critic in the world!

and brilliante mendoza won the best director award in cannes. what now? let's all stop this crazy war.

NEWS FLASH ROGER ! ! !

The film you consider the worst ever at the Cannes Film Festival won...

B E S T D I R E C T O R ! ! !

BWAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !

MR. EBERT

WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON KINATAY'S WIN FOR BEST DIRECTION FOR DANTE MENDOZA?

Congratulations to Director Brillante Mendoza for winning Best Director at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival !!! And, to the cast and crew of 'Kinatay,' congratulations ! Indeed, a proud moment for Philippine Cinema !!!

Mr. Ebert, if Mendoza's movie is indeed the worst film in the history of Cannes, why then did he just win BEST DIRECTOR?

To the Filipinos who posted an apology:
Why should you apologize for a film that represented us? Weren't you even glad that OUR movie was a finalist in the first place?

Marie Haws and Scott,

Sorry to jump in but I wanted to mention something about "penis envy" and Freud.

Freud was brilliant because he discovered the mechanisms at work in our mind, but the problem was that, to him, everything was all about sex, which is what he got wrong while getting the "how" right, but not the "why."

Penis envy is a rather real perplexity, but it is merely an anxiety about mere physical size and not a tragedy of inferior and superior. The parents views and the role society cuts out for the little girl will far outweigh whatever mere physical "cheating" she may have felt from her brother when the parents told him that, when he would "get bigger", he would have greater rights and priveleges or something like that.

Dear Mr. Ebert

I'm an avid fan of yours (i'm filipino by the way) even if you don't like "kinatay" I still like you.

congratulations!!!
Brillante Mendoza for winning the best director award at Cannes for the movie "Kinatay" well deserved.

An award is an award. But the reality is we will all still have to see the film and judge it ourselves

You know, I didn't take it personally when critics bashed Fernando Meirelles and his film Blindness last year in Cannes (I'm Brazilian). I mean, why bother? Some people liked it, some people didn't. Let's move on.

Yes, Mendoza won the award, but instead of feeling happy for him, I'm concerned about the angry reaction it may unleash upon Mr. Ebert's blog. It's sad to see a bunch of thin-skinned people condemning such a fine movie critic for doing his job.

All this spite only proves how rabidly my fellow Filipinos hate people with differing/negative opinions about Filipino products. I really think that is something I have to apologize for, because they certainly won't. The sheer number of people trying to defend the film on the basis of its country of origin says way more about the country than Mendoza's film ever could.

By MK on May 24, 2009 3:56 PM

Mr. Ebert, if Mendoza's movie is indeed the worst film in the history of Cannes, why then did he just win BEST DIRECTOR?
-----

Stop asking silly questions like this, of course Mr. Ebert doesn't know the answer, nobody does except the jury. Winning the award doesn't change the film that it is. The challenge still stands, and all we can do is to finally watch the film to judge for ourselves. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

Ebert: One of the questions at the press conference mentioned the incredulity and booing on the past of the press corps, and is responded to by Ceylon.

Roger

Even though I haven't seen the movie Kinatay, I can understand where Mendoza's film is coming from. Mendoza is a realist, a brilliant nonconformist who will not sugar coat his movie to please "the press" or his "suppressors". Instead Mendoza is about one thing, and that is to tell the truth. There is a reason why his movies are "censored" in the Philippines, not because of its violence, but because the Philippine government (his suppressors)does not want the outside world to know the truth. The Philippine government knows the potency of Mendoza's craft and his willingness to spread the truth about the current situation in the Philippines. The truth is, Philippines is ruled by corruption, it's people live beyond poverty, the government kills of hundreds of whistle blowers, the Philippines largest export is people (mostly women domestic helpers and Yes! Legally) and every Filipino is exposed to and or lives in that violence EVERY SINGLE DAY.

If you watch Mendoza's films, you will notice that he will put on on the driver seat as if you are the character in the film. He wants you to feel his pain and every scene is his movie is a cry, not for help, but for you to understand what its like to walk in the shoes of an everyday Pilipino and experience his or her struggle and pain.

Unfortuantely Mendoza's "reality pill" is hard for any "foriegner" swallow (I say foreigner because most people who live outside of the Philippines and is not Filipino do not see the underlying poverty, corruption, and violence. Instead, most foreigners see the Beautiful Manila Bay Sunset, The Beautiful Boracay Beach, The Beautiful Filipina women.) I don't blame you either Roger. You have never experienced that kind of environment that Mendoza's film shows to the world, thus your dismissal of his film as an "idea".

With that said, thank you Dante Mendoza for not being afraid to show the world the corruption that you see.

And With all due respect Roger,

ALL OF THE OTHER MOVIES IN CANNES = IDEA
ALL OF MENDOZA'S MOVIES = REALITY

you just dont see it, yet....

P.S.

To all the Filipinos in here, You do not need to apologize, "the truth will set you free"

Congratulations Dante Mendoza, Hopefully people will watch your films with open minds and remind themselves that the things they see are really happening.

And to Roger, I am a big fan and I wish I write as good as you!!!

Thank you

Just curious... for those Filipinos who kept on apologizing on behalf of their country for this film Brillante Mendoza made, the ones who (after reading Mr. Ebert's review) were convinced that it 'has to be the worst film in the history of Cannes Festival'... how do you feel now that Mendoza won Best Director? The first Filipino director who have done so in the history of Cannes? How do you feel? Don't you feel a little pride (even just a little)? Just curious...

Best Director is different from Best Film in my opinion. ;-D

I agree with hardcore pinoy. Mr. Ebert's opinion regarding Kinatay will not change even if Kinatay wins the best picture. The jury has their own minds.

Scott wrote on May 24, 2009 9:40 AM - "I will not adopt the role of Freud-apologist. I will say that clearly he was a genius, clearly some theories were wrong. And I referred to his theory concerning the role of civilization, not *pe-nis-envy`."

Note: *working around the Spam Filter while plotting its demise. :)

I get what you're saying and respect your position while being unable to share that view, for it running too contrary to my own.

The first to do anything is always considered a genius, moreover (ex: in truth, the drawings of children beat Picasso to the punch) and in the case of Freud imo, amounts to a man seeing something that women have always known (ie: not all wounds are external) but because it was a man noticing that, other men finally paid some significant attention to it. :)

Nothing's black & white of course, nobody's perfect. But Freud's issues (for me) are such that I can only ever agree to disagree with another, should they hold him in higher regard.

In all fairness, I'm biased. Freud *pi-ssed me off the minute I started to investigate the nature of his work, which coincided with exploring an early pioneer of Psychoanalysis named Sabina Spielrein; whom to this day, is only awarded a footnote in history despite her contribution to the field. That said, one German-born documentary filmmaker (a woman) thought she was worth something:

"Ich hiess Sabina Spielrein" - My Name Was Sabina Spielrein.

http://www.sabinaspielrein.com/

"The way these women manage to charm us with every conceivable psychic perfection until they have attained their purpose is one of nature’s greatest spectacles." – Sigmund Freud

"In a letter to Carl Gustav Jung. The history of psychoanalysis is littered with the discarded psyches of the women whose diagnoses were key to the fame of the great masters. One such woman was Sabina Spielrein. Unlike the rest, she didn’t vanish forever from history. Elisabeth Márton´s film relates, re-stages and remembers the tragic story of Spielrein’s life as gleaned from a box of her papers discovered in 1977 in the cellar of Geneva’s former Institute of Psychology.
Spielrein was a young Russian-Jewish woman of 18 when she arrived in August 1904 at the Burghölzli clinic in Zurich where Carl Gustav Jung had set up shop. She was his first patient. He was 29 and married. Her cathexis was rapid and she formed an intense attachment to her young doctor, who seems to have reciprocated. But after Sigmund Freud’s note (above) on the nefarious nature of females, the doctors hatched the theory of counter-transference to explain their feelings. Luckily, this wouldn’t be Sabina’s final contribution to psychoanalysis. Pronounced cured, she became a psychoanalyst herself and, within eight years, was practicing alongside the founding fathers.
The correspondence between Spielrein, Freud and Jung discovered that day in the Geneva basement has become essential to understanding the evolution of psychoanalysis – and the virtually insurmountable challenges facing woman who sought to contribute in any role other than that of patient. Márton’s deft re-enactments and the actors’ dramatic readings of Spielrein’s own words tell a chilling story, bringing to light both the work of this pioneer and the dark side of psychoanalysis. Documentary and drama carry Spielrein’s life into the crosshairs of warring ideologies (Communism, National Socialism). With a rare gift for melding subjectivity with biographical facts, Márton brings Sabina Spielrein back to life, body and soul. - B. Ruby Rich, Toronto International Film Festival 2002

As noted, I prefer Carl Jung, but even he had his faults; ie: I don't expect perfection from people as I can't offer in return - just that they're decent, kind human beings. And I care enough about Sabina Spielrein to share her story "unsolicited" because men aren't the only ones who read posts inside Roger's Journal. :)

"What I should have said was imagine if women had the same amount of test as men." - Scott

You'd see the person under the surface for the behavior now more resembling your own gender's. Definitely more mixed bar fights. :)

"It's interesting. I have not heard too many people describe their violent fantasies for people that annoy them or disgust them - but both times they were (sane, professional, pleasant) women, who described (quite unsolicited), the most grotesque scenarios reserved for their persons of interest with the most calm and even demeanor. They made you consider backing away slowly". :) - Scott

Well, I wasn't there, so I can only speculate as to prompted it, but - what were you wearing?

Forgive me, I've worked in Animation where many a bad example is set and followed; chuckle!

"Artists must have a pretty healthy kill switch within, to be able to say to a potential project (child) of theirs - you're not working out, time to end you." - Scott

It's more like gardening actually, at least for me. Planting and pruning, etc. Or you just put an idea away and use it later because it's not done baking yet; ie: cookie dough. I've worked in Film and Television however, where Art is a team sport and you need to work really fast but even then, it's not a kill switch so much as a more efficient self-editing process. You train yourself as best you can not to make mistakes in the first place for knowing they'll keep you there fixing them, until 11:00 pm. :)

"Is not psychic scarring as much (if not more) painful and brutal than physical? Women are specialists in that field, likely because that is how they can compete. Is that `violence` any less meaningful and destructive? A quick survey of social history, perhaps particularly aboriginal histories, would convey otherwise. There are many ways to kill, to inflict violence." - Scott

You use the tools you have, eh? If historically speaking, a woman, like man, had been able to force an issue via sheer brute strength, then she wouldn't have developed a different set of skills - using words instead of fists etc. That said... physical violence leaves a mark on the psyche when it's icky stuff like rape, eh?

I guess you'd have to talk to a man who'd been raped, and ask him which hurt more? The beating he took or the memory of it? And then to compare it to having his feelings wounded years earlier, when for example, he'd proposed to his sweetheart and she said no; confessing then, she'd been having an affair with his best friend!

Maybe he'd be reaching for the big red button too and going "SPLAT!"

Note: I pressed the red button the last time I went to the movies - teenagers on a cell phone. "SPLAT!"

Otherwise I'm totally harmless and it's safe to be around me. :)

By Miguel on May 24, 2009 11:37 PM

... The sheer number of people trying to defend the film on the basis of its country of origin says way more about the country than Mendoza's film ever could.
-----
You hit it right on the spot, most if not all the people (with the exception of Mr. Ebert himself) commenting here haven't even seen the film! good god

I'M SO HUMBLED AND PROUD THAT BRILLANTE MENDOZA WON THE BEST DIRECTOR IN CANNES.

THIS CALLS FOR A CELEBRATION! :-)

Kinatay as the worst ever film on Cannes?

I haven't watch "Kinatay" yet but i know it is a good movie because it simply shows the REALITY.

Mendoza is not afraid to tell the world the real Filipino stories. You guys cannot tell whether these things happen because you guys DO NOT live here in the Philippines. But i tell you, these things EXIST.

And for the Filipinos out there apologizing for Mendoza's effort to show the world the real thing. How pathetic of you, guys. You should be the one supporting this film because you know what is the real story behind this film. You know how dirty the Philippine government is, you know how most Filipinos live, you know how gruesome this country had been to us... then why be ashamed if a movie like this serves as an eye-opener not only for us Filipinos but for foreigners as well?

And for you Mr. Ebert. Think again. If this movie is as bad as you think, then why do you think Brillante Mendoza won an award for this - even beating directors like Quentin Tarantino and Ang Lee?

It's funny. We Filipinos who apologized for this film are being blasted. Who are we to apologize for a film that we weren't responsible for.

But now that the film has won, those same accusers feel so much pride. Why? Were you responsible for the film's success?

The film was the Philippines's submissions to the festival. I'm sure those of us who love film wanted it to do well, as we do not receive our fair share of acclaim on the international stage. So when it was not well received by my favorite critic, could I not show a little regret?

If I don't have that right to feel sorry for a film that we feel represents our best efforts, when it fails, then those here who are happy for its win don't have the right to celebrate its success. When SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won the Best Film Oscar, didn't Indians have the right to feel pride/shame for whatever their reasons are?

Of course they do, as we do for whatever we feel for KINATAY and its director. If you're happy it won, then I'm happy for you too, but I don't feel good for the film since I trust Roger more than any critic out there. And take note that he isn't the only one who is saying that this film was booed by audiences and critics.

Maybe my perspective will change once I've seen the film. But when so many sources confirm that this film was loathed (e.g. Variety, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and numerous other internet sites), it's not encouraging. Hard to be proud of something like that.

Yikes; it's been a few days since I looked in on the comments for this piece. Lots of strange goings-on. As I read, I started thinking of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer--and there it is:

By Chris Kent on May 21, 2009 10:36 AM: "Perhaps we should also ask, could this film serve as stimulation to a deviant mind? 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' was a fine film, but it too crossed the line, specifically the home invasion and murder of the family."

That scene with the family being killed is not horrifying only because it's in the movie; it's horrifying because Henry and his pal tape it and watch it at home--just like us. It's Rear Window, as always: an indictment of, not the filmmaker, but the audience who wants to see, all of us voyeurs who "gaze" in an effort to "own" the image. In that sense--gee, thanks, Hitch--we're all "deviant minds" simply because we go to the movies, from Death at a Funeral to Coffin Joe, from The Straight Story to Inland Empire.

Of course, I haven't seen Kinatay, but maybe its grating, all-but-unendurable style serves to punish us for the First Cinephiliac's Sin: "I like to watch."

so, is briliante mendoza the first filipino to win a best director award at cannes film festival? thats awesome you know. awards dont mean sh!t though. just look at the academy awards for example. anyways, i hope briliante can make an american produce movies in US just like ang lee and john woo.

the negative review of ebert is still a positive review because it will make other people more curious about the movie and might check it out. (like me, it made want to watch it)

Oh everybody take a chill pill. Ebert is doing his job as a critic. Why this has to be taken as an insult to the nation, I don't understand. In fact, it is beginning to sound like you are all taking this review as a personal insult.

A good film does not only need to show reality, I'm afraid. I think that's a job for documentaries and the news.

It's quite disheartening to see all the bickering amongst my fellow Filipinos in this forum. It clearly shows we Filipinos have huge chips on our shoulders and a misplaced sense of national pride.

Even more disturbing are the apologies from Filipinos for this apparent crap movie.

But anyhow, on to the film and this review.

I have not seen the film, but if I get the chance to, I will. I am well chuffed at the news that Brillante won the Best Director award, the first Filipino ever in Cannes History, so if only for that reason, I will watch it. Never mind if I don't really like graphically violent films, and much prefer suggestive, if not symbolic violence! I personally think violence and brutality in films is cheap gimmickry and a stab at grabbing attention by being controversial.

I will be quite interested to see the intrinsic technical merits this film has that led to the Best Director award.

Roger, what's your take on how the characters were acted out? Not to worry, I will not declare you persona non grata if you lambast the actors too! LOL

You are mostly right, we should stop apologizing for this film. It does not represent the whole of the philippines. It represents one film and one director. It is Mendoza who should apologize, and not to the world, but to us pinoys.

Ebert: What is important is not whether it protrays reality in the Philippines, but how it does so. My comments were more about the style than the content.

my take on the film, kinatay, which i haven't seen...

maribel lopez, the prostitute, is THE philippines being raped (environmentally castrated and more) and hacked into 7000 parts (islands) by its powerful but corrupt citizens under a picture of christ (its religion).

film criticism is all about perceptions. would the review have been more positive if the critic lived the surreality of philippine life?

too many filipino trolls in here

cheng wrote on May 25, 2009 11:40 AM - "Mendoza is not afraid to tell the world the real Filipino stories. You guys cannot tell whether these things happen because you guys DO NOT live here in the Philippines. But i tell you, these things EXIST."

I live on the Westcoast, near Vancouver Canada. Like the United States, we're also part of the Pacific Rim but because we're located higher-up geographically speaking, the mix is less "South American" in nature and more Asian, South-East Asia - in addition to British and Native Canadian etc.

My mom was French Canadian and my Dad's roots stem from Scotland. My friend Cheryl is Scottish-Japanese; which is as interesting as it sounds, Chuckle! My classmates at school were Japanese, Chinese, Philippine, British, French, Irish, Dutch, Native Canadian; a nice assortment.

All of which is to say, I'm aware of the history & culture of the Philippines; the good and the bad of it. Note: American chef Anthony Bourdain raves about Filipino pork cuisine - best ever!

But I digress...

I'm sure a lot of people don't know anything about your country, and are totally clueless as to what's happened in the past and what's currently going on; decades of institutionalized patriarchal violence, the legacy of internal colonialism, it's impact upon culture, class and gender, bad examples like Imelda Marcos, all the seemingly never-ending corruption scandals, etc, etc.

The city of Manila is a perfect example of what political corruption and mismanagement can do. The rich live protected inside gated communities while the poor too often live in squalid surroundings, the city now in a sad state of disrepair; it's definitely not an easy part of the world to live in.

But that's only one side of the story. The other, the people themselves, the ones who persevere every day and just want to be able to go to work and pay their bills and raise their children and live a reasonably normal life; just like anyone else. And I think THEY deserve to have their story told in such a way that millions of people around the world will "want" to sit inside a theater and listen to it.

And so speaking for myself, it's not because "Kinatay" fails to accurately portray a level of violence to found in your country, it's not because it misrepresents corruption or fails to show the underlying patriarchal nature of it - but rather, that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

You can use a hammer to drive a point home, or you can use a heart.

One of my all-time favorite movies and one I've been able to watch several times, is "The Killing Fields". And gee, look at the stuff they showed in that one, eh?! Holy crap!

I always bawl my eyes out whenever I see it - even more now, in the wake of the murder of actor Haing S. Ngor who played Dith Pran, owing to what he personally endured under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Imagine it: you go through all that - survive, end up making a movie about it while playing a guy just like you, win the Oscar for best supporting actor, and then one day roughly 10 years later, you're shot to death outside your home in Los Angeles by thieves. WHOA.

Had "The Killing Fields" been too difficult for me to watch, I'd never have seen Ngor's performance. It wouldn't have been able to touch me, let alone leave a lasting impression to this day.

I'll never see "Kinatay" because by all trusted accounts the director is using a hammer - and I simply chose not to be struck by one. But that isn't the same thing as not caring about my neighbours. I do. I'll just continue instead to read newspaper articles and stuff online about that part of the world, and chat with the sales girl at my local bookstore (she's originally from Manila) about her life and mine while debating which Jane Austen film adaptation was better: "Pride & Prejudice" or "Persuasion". :)

I guess the lesson from this whole corny "mess" is that Mr. Ebert doesn't have the influence to sway critical mass of people to his side. I wonder if his "wise" opinions will ever be taken seriously after this one- remeber, he downgraded it as the "worst" in film history & the film director won? Really.

Hi Mr. Ebert, I'm a Filipino and an avid reader of your reviews.
I just would like to say that whatever the result was in Cannes (Mendoza winning Best Director) did not change the fact that most of the critics did not like KINATAY.

Yes, I have been tracking the reviews and mostly are very bad. So, it's not only Mr. Ebert who has something bad to say about this movie.

Although I am happy to learn that finally a Filipino has won in Cannes, I am also deeply saddened it might not be worth it. A historic win for a hum-drum movie? It's not more on the win itself but the fact that the Philippines was represented and was able to show that there are worthwhile stories to tell, interesting people to meet, and amazing filmmakers to showcase. But I doubt it was really achieved.

What's more alarming is the fact that we might not be able to corroborate or dispute the reviews ourselves since Kinatay is in danger of not being released in our country.

I saw Serbis last year and while there were really great moments and interesting nuances, the overall film, I thought, was bad. There were a lot of things going on that only muddled the whole point and some introduced subplots that were mindlessly dropped out. On the technical side, I didn't like the camera work and the audio was pretty poor.

And if Kinatay is supposed to be worse than Serbis, then we can only say we hope to do better in the next Filipino entry. I do sincerely hope this win will only spawn better-made Filipino movies and will eventually showcase the great artistry the Philippine movie industry has in store.

Yes, truly, never before in the history of cinema has a bad film won an award. Therefore the award means it is good.

Marie Haws,

Im sure you are perfectly safe and pleasant to be around (bazooka and all) :). Often I am too. And I am sure that you are not an example of a female `assassin`, just as I am not one of those violent males.

Concerning rape -- you see, I have to call `foul` here, because it seems to me to be one of those ploys (the reference to rape) that seeks to end a discussion, not enhance it. Im sure we all recognize that rape is a terrible thing (male on female, male on male, female on female, and yes, female on male (I recall an episode of Oz wherein the sadistic female guard threatened a prisoner if he didnt `perform` for her)... is it necessary to qualify the act with the genders involved?) but I believe you are playing it as a trump card (most anecdotes are). So, as perhaps obvious your example is - to broaden it we could compare the fire bombing of Tokyo to being laughed at during recess - it just leaves more questions begging. In other words - whats your point? Rape is bad? War is evil? Yes, by all means, those are very important points to make, and make as often as possible. But, it doesnt do much for discussion. Which, whenever it happens, strikes me as an act of fundamentalism, iow, there is something else at work, something that has reduced the discussion that does, and could, exist, to the need to impose a world-view that is quite reductionist. And I think this could have connections with the notion I responded to originally concerning the remark that seemed to identify violence as something intrinsic to being male. I admit, this does sound like an accusation so I did make sure to smile. :) I could be way off in this case though, and perhaps you have simply grown weary of discussion. Or, perhaps, you are fundamentalist?

The main focus should be on: Roger Ebert's word is not validated by a group of true-blue cinema insiders/experts/professionals. In fact Ebert's main gripe on Kinatay's jarring 'style' was demolished with ruthless irony, ie, Kinatay won the 'Best Director' award for its maker.

Folks, accept it. We destroy the gods we worship in the first place. Mr. Ebert, painful it may seem, your middle-of-the-road taste is out-of-kilter when faced with the instruments of art.

The fact that you built your arguments against Kinatay on idée fixe betrays your lack of knowledge on Philippine reality. What is only an idea to you, is a reality in the Philippines.

Art reviewers are expected to display judicious knowledge on the context of an art work, and comment on the possible motivations of the artist.

Simply dismissing an art work because it has a jarring soundtrack or low-light effects is like dismissing Picasso because her female forms/faces are squared or condemning Van Gogh because his starry, starry night skies looks like an exercise in color wheel combinations.

First of all, I respect everyone's opinion regarding the film; we have our personal preferences, and we perceive things differently, hence the difference in opinions. This is why I do not find this review (or all reviews) offensive; Mr. Ebert is a film critic, and if the movie does not meet his standards, then so be it. It is not within anyone's right to dictate how you should or should not perceive a certain thing. A movie review does not equal to insults against the Philippines, so there's no need to be hostile towards anyone.

However, I do have an issue with Filipinos leaving comments apologizing for the movie. If you are ashamed about the movie because a lot of people, including your favorite critic, hated it, you are entitled to feel that way; like I said, we have personal preferences. However, even if you're so ashamed about it that you feel the need to apologize that the movie ever came into creation, then do so on your own. DO NOT apologize on behalf of the Filipinos, or our local film makers or whatever, because you do not speak for all of us.

This forum is about Mr. Ebert's take on Kinatay, and other people's opinions on the movie as well, whether they agree or disagree with his review, and their own comments about it. This is not the proper site to discuss your peeves about how our fellow Filipinos are so sensitive to criticism that we feel the need to react or cry foul at every negative statement aimed at us. Granted, I do agree that a lot of our countrymen are like that, but again, they do not speak for all of us. We are being lumped into this kind of stereotype and sweeping generalizations, and you are not helping matters by a.)cowering and lowering your head in apology because you are oh-so-ashamed about a movie and b.)trying to pick fights because people happen to have a different opinion from yours and declaring who and who is not welcome in our country.

I am also absolutely proud that Brilliante won the Best Director Award; however, I do not agree either with the argument that "oh if the movie is so bad then why did he win" or "he won so the movie is good no matte what anyone says". To put it quite simply, some people liked the movie, some didn't; there is no absolute or single conclusion about it because again we have different opinions and perceptions, so arguing about whether it is bad or good is useless. All we have are our opinions, and all we can do is defend them because we believe in them, and through intellectual debate and discussion, we can also learn from other people.

I know for a fact that Kinatay is being lambasted left and right; am I still proud of the movie and of Brilliante's award? Damn right I am; some people hate it, some people love it, but in the end, enough people believed in it for Brilliante to be named as the Best Director in one of the most respected film festivals in the world. Why should the fact that some people do not like the movie stop you from being proud that a Filipino's talent, though subjected to mixed reviews, has been recognized at this level?

Bottom line is, watch the movie if you want to, have your own opinion about it, and engage in intelligent discussions about it that do not include shaming your own people or displaying all sorts of misplaced bravado when someone tells you that he hates Kinatay. We are talking about the movie, not the entire Philippines. It should not even be an issue of how you feel as a Filipino when you read the negative criticism. This is about the movie, and if you don't like it, then side with the critics by all means, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't do this 'I apologize for the movie' crap which belittles not just the film but yourself and your countrymen as well. Stick to telling us why you don't like the movie. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to agree with your favorite critic with your pride and dignity intact.

:)

sadly, the movers in the philippine indie scene are mostly uninterested in cultivating a local audience and instead aspire to gain the approval of filmic power-brokers in the west.

an interesting review of an acclaimed local indie film raises issues that prove germane, in my view, to the present case: http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20081003-164329/On-Jay-and-indie-films

the most salient paragraphs:

Rarely do we sense in these recent cinematic endeavors the desire on their makers’ part to gesture towards a solution or to proffer an answer to the complex and multifarious questions raised by their own troubled and troubling visions of our country’s worsening dilemmas.

Because it is a sad fact that many of our writers and filmmakers nowadays look abroad for affirmation, none of the films they consequently produce may be said to truly communicate with and to matter to the great majority of our people, who remain ignorant, unaided, and luckless in their all-too-real misery.

More often than not, these cinematic artists do not even grant our poor their inherent dignity, for the economic deprivation that we see in many of their recent offerings is, quite often, simply a one-dimensional spectacle: for instance, rather than a painful but finally incidental givenness, most of the time it is their crushing poverty that fundamentally defines these filmic characters and defeats them most definitively by movie’s end.

For these filmmakers, then, it isn’t the sympathetic and artful “narrativizing” of the lives of the poor but rather the spectacular rendition of poverty that is invariably the be-all and the end-all of their projects. Indeed, it is entirely the case that many of them do not even make an attempt to philosophically reach out to and understand the admittedly urgent realities they have chosen to depict...

Perhaps the problem is that [these films] ... are not even interested in... conceptual complication and painstaking cultural self-examination anymore. Indeed, given the “exoticizing” trend of so many recent indie films, we are almost tempted to suggest that what in fact motivates all this anxious image-making is nothing if not the neocolonialist desire to become affirmed internationally and get picked up by the global film festival circuits, invariably housed in the cosmopolitan and “capital-endowed” centers of the First World.

It’s a truly troubling thought, but perhaps the time has come to blow the whistle on this seemingly unstoppable “horrorfest” of unremitting Third World squalor and its gratuitous baring of exotically anguished nut-brown flesh — all the for the sake of pandering to the peculiarly Euro-American sense of fancied horripilation at all things desperate, depraved, and deprived.

While there can certainly be exceptions, the rule would seem to be that since the local crowds can no longer be relied upon to show up in our movie houses, one makes independent films these days in order to receive notice and possibly praise from the First World audience of “discerning” film critics — an audience that precisely craves such outlandish and horrifying simulacra, if only to remind themselves that they can still experience shock and revulsion and rage and thus possibly sympathize and feel fellowship for the immiserated multitudes who manage to endure in the immiserated corners of our increasingly immiserated world.

None of this willful and frantic self-exoticism on the part of our cinematic artists would be a problem, really, if only it were not perpetrated at the expense of our own people and their brutally lived and endured realities, and if only it could truly transform the unequal power-relations between the global North and the global South. Of course, the painful irony is that, among other things, it is the former’s art-film-loving and independent-movie-going lifestyle itself — as propelled by a leisurely and fetishistic fascination with all things filthy, luridly violent, and disturbing in the latter’s seediest hovels, crannies, and nooks — that will, alas, continue to pauper the already paupered wretched of this earth.

In the end, we can only hope that this enchantment with the vainglories and vagaries of international acclaim will spend itself soon, and that in the proximate rather than the remote future, Filipino independent films will be truly sovereign and confident in their own innate value and worth — which is to say, they will be truly valuable and worthy in the eyes of the Filipino masses, whose lives they will no longer simply filmically capture and objectify but also, ultimately come to illuminate, understand, and serve.

the film of brillante mendoza may not be for the unprepared. just like documentary films that tend to send the messages of what reality is. global conflicts, authorities in corruption, the never ending poverty of the third world etc. etc. of which have been my choice of films to see ever since i immigrated from the philippines in 2002. some may either find it too serious to explain as to how and why such subject matters are put into the media of film or they may be in denial of what is happening that most of people do not know such circumstances exist. kinatay is based on facts and as i recall was a subject of the news when i was still in manila 10 yrs ago. from this disturbing headline brought to the screen makes it as a warning for the viewer. now that it had won as best director, (finally i would ask myself this question as i grew up in a place surrounded by movie theaters flooded by box office hollywood films that i got tired of), when will a filipino film be given an award?) this is an achievement and congratulations, mr brilliante mendoza. i will soon see this film in new york, not in amc or loews but probably in the lower east side...because this where films are shown, again not for unprepared.

By Evan Waters on May 26, 2009 3:10 AM

Yes, truly, never before in the history of cinema has a bad film won an award. Therefore the award means it is good.

Well there is always a first time for everything. That's an additional achievement

Mr. Ebert, thank you for finally saying what needed to be said for these exploitative films, people using other people's sufferings to make a name for themselves. I still don't know how this guy got the best director award.

And to all those who think that bashing a film (that asked for it anyway) is bashing a country, it isn't. Grow up.

By Marie Haws on May 25, 2009 7:30 PM

`You can use a hammer to drive a point home, or you can use a heart.`

I cannot always tell the difference. I tend to be affected by movies - I got quite teary in the theatre at the end of The Wrestler. Madadayo, no matter how many times I see it, always affects me the same way.

But recently I saw Grave of the Fireflies. I am familiar with Japanese history, particularly WW2, have been to the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, which was very difficult. But nothing has caused me to weep like that movie. This movie is clearly pitiless to the viewer, withholding nothing. It is the most painful, exhausting movie Ive seen.

the best director award for mr. mendoza is an anomaly. the jury may have just been so full of disagreements on so many great directors to choose from that they chose someone they did not have any prejudice towards. filipinos should be proud of the likes of pacquiao for exhibiting true excellence. take mendoza's win as tongue-in-cheek. brocka, bernal, gerry de leon, etc. are the best pinoy filmmakers ever. all non-cannes winners. mendoza doesn't even come close.

Maybe watch first the film then decide if Brillante Mendoza deserves the best director trophy, well a critics comment also don't always command viewers to watch or dont watch a movei, it is in his own consent, even its bad or good, ill still watch it then ill check again reviews from the critics if they are right

yeah i still want to know what kind of style does Mendoza do in Kinatay, as some said the film is so dim to dark that some scenes cant be viewed

its sad because it will not be viewed in cinemas or will not be put in direct to video here in the philippines because of entertainment politics

Scott wrote on May 26, 2009 8:16 AM - "...just as I am not one of those violent males."

I never thought you were. It’s possible for your gender to guilty of something without that making YOU personally guilty of it. In the same way it’s possible to point a finger at the Russian Mafia without pointing a finger at every Russian. Chuckle!

"Concerning rape -- you see, I have to call `foul` here, because it seems to me to be one of those ploys (the reference to rape) that seeks to end a discussion, not enhance it. I'm sure we all recognize that rape is a terrible thing (male on female, male on male, female on female, and yes, female on male (I recall an episode of Oz wherein the sadistic female guard threatened a prisoner if he didn't `perform` for her)... is it necessary to qualify the act with the genders involved?) but I believe you are playing it as a trump card (most anecdotes are)."

You wrote this question -

"Is not psychic scarring as much (if not more) painful and brutal than physical? Women are specialists in that field, likely because that is how they can compete. Is that `violence` any less meaningful and destructive? A quick survey of social history, perhaps particularly aboriginal histories, would convey otherwise. There are many ways to kill, to inflict violence."

…inside the Kinatay thread; a film about the brutal torture, rape and dismemberment of a woman.

So which is more painful and brutal? Psychic or physical violence? Well, I guess that depends on what you consider "brutal" while contemplating the answer. And you didn't ask a man the question, you asked a woman. Rape isn't a card Scott, just because your gender can't refer to it more often as being part of their reality. You said brutal, so I thought of rape because it never occurred to me not to, given where we are. Moreover, I didn’t give you an example of a woman being raped but rather, a man. And all in an effort to underscore it can happen to either. And so having factored rape into my calculations, I then came up with an answer and because I tend to think in terms of pictures, illustrated it. So let me try again…

There are indeed many ways to kill and inflict violence upon another. But what hurts a woman might not hurt a man as much and vice versa - as how someone reacts to violence, whatever form it takes, is the measure of its lasting impact. So what leaves the deepest scars? What’s more brutal? Ie: Rape and the memory of it - or getting your heart ripped out by someone you’d loved? See what I mean? I guess you’d have to ask the person in the best position to know for being able to compare the two, eh?

That’s what I was getting at.

So I wasn’t trying to stop a conversation.

Basically, if you make a statement and I honestly disagree with it, I’m going to say so. But I’ll also explain why, as best I can, for the sake of context. And if that steers the conversation “this or that way” as a result, it’s just the organic nature of it. I’ve just been responding to what you’ve been posting – that’s all. As for being a fundamentalist, I hold certain things to be self-evident, but others are a total subjective call.

If I sound like a broken record at times, that’s because I’m responding to essentially the same stuff. Erroneous assumptions, projections, opinions presented as facts not expected to be contested, the gander taking exception to the goose; all the little things in between the lines. :)

Reading all these posts made me laugh like a loon at some of my compatriots' woefully misplaced sense of national pride. Jeesh.

Here's a newsflash for you: Roger Ebert is not "Out to Take Our Country Down" (--one scathing review at a time). Roger Ebert is what you call a "Professional Film Critic." This means, he watches these things called "Movies" and writes about them. For a living. That is to say, it is his "Job." So maybe we should all just step back and let the guy do his "Job" without dragging an entire frakking nation (with its 90 million inhabitants) into this jingoistic muck. Let's all do that, shall we?

@ Evan Waters (May 26th post): Uh, no, not really, a film winning an award (even if it IS from Cannes) does not necessarily make it a great one, or even a good one. It only means the jury adjudged it as such--who knows what their real motives were, or where their tastes really lie? *shrugs*

Marie Haws,

Youre doing it again. You are trying to end the discussion this time by playing the reasonable and rational argument card. :)

Just some points: Russian mafia may be used as a merely descriptive term or with bias. Same with `male violence`.

I have to admit I had forgotten the context of the review, so perhaps brutal was a little strong. Of course, such things are not meant to be quantified, even if they could (though this does not save us from the task of doing so, in personal and in legal judgments).

And it appears that I did not understand the original point re comparing rape to heartbreak. Hence the ref to a `card`. If I understand you correctly this time you are suggesting it is subjective. I originally thought you were using rape as an example of male violence.

However, I am left with the impression that your response to my suggestion that females are `assassins`, due perhaps to the fact they, generally, cannot impose will by brute force, as somewhat ambiguous. If you believe that the weight of physical or emotional/psychological beating is subjective for each individual, then why the special emphasis on identifying such as male? Do you truly believe that a man experiences violence much differently from a woman? To broaden the example, is it useful to qualify violence in other ways - say, `racial`, religious, ethnic? (a historical example is the language used by the American executive office during WW2. The German military was referred to as Nazis (and still are), so as to make careful distinction between the `good` and `evil` Germans. However, the Japanese were referred to as `the Japs`, making no distinction between military and civilian. Simple language? American commanders in Europe, while receiving heat from above and below, refused to participate in the savagery and criminality of firebombing German cities for much of the war; Japan`s treatment was different.) Of course, I am in no way attempting to link this discussion with that. :)

To refer back to your mafia metaphor - used as a descriptive term, Russian mafia is used to specify from numerous types of `mafias` and criminal organizations. Iow, its necessary. But why, since there are only two genders, is it necessary to specify human nature as gender-specific? Feminists have been campaigning for generations to change language to gender-neutral so as to remove the male bias. Why does this not go both ways? Why does violence remain gender-specific? I would say that, just by coincidence of demographics (size of population), most crime in New Orleans or Washington DC is perpetrated by black males. Is it then necessary to identify crime in those areas as mostly `black` violence? What if an African American commits a crime in a largely caucasian area?

TO ALL FILIPINOS attacking Mr. Ebert on his opinions, I think you guys should consider carefully how such an esteemed critic could have decided to come up with such a review, knowing fully well that he is going to go against a work acclaimed as "masterfully directed". I laud his courage in giving us an honest appraisal of this film based on his taste and experience.

I am very proud of having a Filipino win the directorial award, but am not really so excited now to see the movie, after reading much of the discussion here.

Mr. Ebert, a lot of the Filipinos have challenged you to learn more about the culture. I think that would prove to you an exhilarating experience. If you will look at our past film industry you will also love many of our talented directors like Lino Brocka or Mike De Leon. As to looking at our "CONTEMPORARY" film industry however, I would hope you would stay away. If you do, you will be dismayed at what garbage many come up with, labeling it as art. A good lot of the films being branded as art films in the country today are all using common themes. Poverty, Crime and Homosexuality. You would be surprised at the number of films using the third, passing soft porn as something worthy of being called a film. There are Gems every now and then like "Magnifico" or "Ploning" which are really great pieces, but the rest are just crappy.

I hope you will continue in being brave in saying what you believe in. That's a trait that separates you from the rest.

For those who thinks this is an attack to the country or to its people, wisen up. Look into the filth that makes up most of the films coming from the Philippines. This is a wake up call to everybody. I just pray that Kinatay do not inspire other Filipino wannabes into making more gory ones. Knowing the trend in the industry however, I fear this will not be the last.

If Roger considered this film (Kinatay) the best in Cannes history , would that automatically mean Roger likes the Philippines and Filipinos? Why do we (Filipinos) have to be so defensive and personal? Why can't a dissenting opinion on a certain matter be considered as such - a dissenting opinion? Imagine what the dinner table is like with everyone agreeing to what the others have to say. With the absurdly farfetched conclusions (and accusations here, I might add), we must look inwardly first where we stand as a nation (since this film review is being equated as a review of our nation). Do you really think this is the making of a nation who wants to be taken seriously in film and arts when we can't even stomach one piece of film review. Yes, Roger could have been more subtle with his criticisms. Yes, he could have been NICE about what he felt. But have you ever had something on your face and someone telling you otherwise? Let's stop being so angry and expectant of praises.

Come to think of it (Your comment needs to be approved before it will appear. Thanks for waiting.) If there wasn't room for a dissenting opinion against this piece from Roger, I don't think the Leave a comment box will be of any relevance at all!

Ebert: I appreciate the discussion here, which is essentially among Filipinos.

By Eyes Wide Shut on May 27, 2009 10:00 AM
I laud his courage in giving us an honest appraisal of this film based on his taste and experience.

You're serious? Ebert went with the overwhelming consensus re this film. He was as shocked as everyone else.

Ebert: I believe I wrote it before the consensus was in, but I can't say I was surprised by it.

Regarding my first post: Apparently sarcasm does not translate well. I was trying to undermine the silliness of simply using "It won an award!" in the film's defense, or as proof that Ebert "got it wrong" or is too "middle of the road".

CandidCamera and Pettysmileplenty: You're both indulging in the "Oh, if you don't like it it's because it's too REAL" fallacy, which overlooks the possibility that a gritty and realistic film may yet be possessed of flaws.

good god archie del mundo shut up! you sound like an idiot.

this was a film review plain and simple. mendoza won as best director...kudos to him then. but, his win does not mean a vindication for your twisted interpretation of what ebert has written.

I dont know if this is denial or what. But in my opinion, Kinatay wouldn't win if its not deserving. The movie filled up the satisfaction of judges/jury.

Scott wrote on May 27, 2009 9:47 AM - "You're doing it again. You are trying to end the discussion this time by playing the reasonable and rational argument card." :)

And here I thought I was just using my BRAIN. ;)

At this point, I think the following needs to be said...

I believe men and women are equal but different. We’re equal, because we're both human beings. We're different, because we're not the same gender. Because we're both human beings, both sexes are capable of all kinds of behavior; good and bad and/or a combination thereof.

I believe that most men agree with that.

I also know that some men don't.

To the extent some don't has always been a global problem for everyone on the planet, but in particular for women because they're on the receiving end of those men; ie: sexism, misogyny, sexual violence aimed specifically at women, etc. It's a problem for men indirectly, as it has to go through their mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, girl friends etc, in order to touch them.

Feminism: a movement for the social, cultural, political & economic equality of men and women. And one which ONLY exists because "some" men don't believe that women are their equals - it creates countless problems. And as with Racism, Feminism is akin to the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King and all that. And because I'm a woman, why I'm also a Feminist - but based on the above beliefs and according to my definition of Feminism.

And so yes, I believe men & women are equal Scott, but that doesn't negate the fact that "some men" are still clueless and causing problems. Feminism isn't about ignoring those problems just because it supports both sexes as being equally human. It's not about you, dude - unless there's a reason for it to be, you follow me? Martin Luther King didn't think Everyone white was an ignorant racist. Imo, that's how men need to look at Feminism. The way whites needed to look at the Civil Rights Movement so as to "get it" back in the day, and clue in.

Compared to Pixar's "Up" there have been a lot a really dark, sexually violent & uber icky films by male writer/directors this year at Cannes. And I started talking about those films because of the bigger picture they seemed to make when taken as a whole - namely, the increasing popularity of extreme violence, who it's aimed at and why. And I regarded it with a Feminist sensibility (men and women are equal; icky stuff done by "some men" doesn't change that) but "Feminism" (what it hopes to achieve) was the whole POINT of bothering to even talk about it inside Roger's blog. I wasn’t look to score a point, I was hoping to make a contribution to the cause. Drop a pebble in or two, see where the ripples go.

So exactly what is the discussion you keep talking about – what did you think I was doing?

That said, from where I'm standing what you seem to want to have, isn't a discussion, so much as the need to "score one" for the home team. Which amounts to ironically defending those qualified as the driving force behind some of the more disruptive problems we ALL face socially, economically, and politically. I arrived at that conclusion based on your replies to date; I think you couldn’t make the distinction between “some men” and all men which meant you by default for being male, and that’s what this is really all about – you reacting to that. And around and round, we’ve gone.

And I want to stop. I’m tired. Mind you, it’s been a long day - I accidentally dropped $20 after taking cash out of an ATM today; major suckage.

Note: I'm not black, but if someone who is, were to recount an instance of racism, my personal reaction wouldn’t be to then "remind them" that not all whites are racists. If we were talking about trying to hail a cab in New York and I shared how scary it can be for a woman late a night looking for taxi, and they replied "well, at least the driver's gonna pick YOU up once you get one" - I wouldn't think they were playing "the race card" and trying to trump me with it. Whereas when met with Feminism – you do.

Instead, I’d give them a hug and tell them about a red button I have inside my head. And ask them if they’d like to press it?

The director of Kinatay got you and numerous other critics to write volumes about his work. You wrote ten paragraphs about the movie you hated, and one on the movie you loved.

That's a big reason why movies like this will continue to be made.

filipinos against filipinos. hah. typical.

Marie Haws,

I am truly sorry to hear about your bad day. :)
(and so I dont have to litter the following with smiley emoticons, lets just assume I am writing with a smile, as I have all throughout our discussion).

And I appreciate you taking the time to indicate you would like to end this discussion, rather than hiding behind the anonymity of the medium and simply `walking away` which would have been rude. Since this is likely to be the last installment I shall try to avoid last-word-ism and simply respond to some of your last points.

First, your concern as to what the whole point of this has been.. Well, obviously, it has concerned an interesting (for me) choice of words. I have asked simple, direct questions - one really: why must language, when used to indicate violence, be gender-specific? I have suggested the choice of words as problematic, for reasons I believe I have clearly demonstrated.

Would it not be unusually naive to ignore that the pejorative in this case could be applied to `male` as well as to `violence`, that the two together is implicit, even if that were not the intent? In my use of historical and other examples and overall argument I think I have made that point obvious. Allow me to assure you I have no interest in scoring `points`. I have a tendency to pick a thread that interests me and see where its logic leads. I did not anticipate or expect there to be a discussion. I am sorry you have lost your enthusiasm.

I see no `irony` to `defending` perpetrators of violence, though you seem to be implying that separating `male` from `violence` somehow protects violent males.

::::
Equality. That is a very loaded concept. First, it is solely a concept and can only be applied to things that themselves are concepts - that is, things that do not exist in the natural world. Like race, gender and so on. People, as in individuals, are of course not equal. We are always viewed in terms of anothers subjectivity, preference, bias. Artificially, we may seek to organize the natural world according to a framework of concepts, and thus seek to identify people according to race, gender and so on. By doing this, by organizing and identifying people not according to subjectivity but to some artificial model, by covering all with specific garments designed to form their `real` identity we then may declare all `garments` equal.

But we see the dilemma(s). First, one can argue that all social `subjectivities`, biases, preferences are artificial. But, since humans nature is social, such biases will always exist. There is no other ontological state, no abstraction of human nature. And how does one separate the social more from individual morality? As Nietzsche suggested (and this, for me, is the real value of Freud) this is very difficult. Not to mention the obvious fact that artificial concepts have been used to do great harm. This is all I will say on the concept of equality. It is not so simple, and though perhaps it is the best we as a society can do at this point, it is hardly unproblematic.
::::

Your final analogy is interesting (as some are. unfortunately, analogies and parables, while posing as objective `pictures` of reality and, by association, supposedly `prove` the justice of ones position in a discussion are actually, like all pictures, subjective, created by a non-false logic system, and so are circular and thus do not further discussion but are used to end it.)

Which is clearly your desire. Again, thank you for the discussion.

"I dont know if this is denial or what. But in my opinion, Kinatay wouldn't win if its not deserving. "

There's a thing called subjectivity. It's possible for intelligent people to disagree entirely on the merits of a film and for neither of them to be wrong.

Mr. Ebert,

I'd like to address a comment you make early on in your review:

"the most tortured theorist (one of those careerists who thinks movies are about arcane academic debates and not people."

Though my studies have been, and will continue to be well after my PhD is finished, in the field of literary criticism, I'd like to respectfully disagree with your use of the word "arcane." I think there's plenty of room for theory and hermeneutics in the study of film, even outside of academia (provided some background is given to familiarize any neophyte with the theories used). Obviously in this instance you simply refer to the fact that the film, as a whole, is void of ANY value aside from what a well-versed theorist might pain himself to come up with, but it should be acknowledged that if a theorist has to pain himself to come up with theoretical excuses for a movie that ultimately fails to communicate its Idea, he or she is a very bad theorist.

Theory is about the elucidation of different approaches to analysis and appreciation, and I think it does have a great deal of value in well-rounded discussion, providing a more fair appraisal of a work. It is not, and I say this in direct response to any "tortured theorist," about the tail wagging the dog. Any movie that cannot be seen without a theoretical background is more than likely no good (accepting what would have to be an absolutely BRILLIANT commentary on criticism and narrative/linguistic construction itself, a la Samuel Beckett's great novels, which still rely strongly on human elements of hopelessness and fear), but I honestly believe that a knowledge of theoretical concepts can make the experience of viewing/reading any work a fuller one.

Too often the theoretical academic criticisms are given short shrift and accused of inaccessability and general ivory-tower uselessness. To be honest, Mr. Ebert, I actually have always found your reviews capable of balancing both elements of intellectual exegesis and cultural currency extremely well, and I'm a bit disappointed with the implicit (of course it would never be explicit) derision of theoretical discussions. I assure you that, if this film is indeed as bad as you say, it will be the rare theorist who bothers defending it (the award aside). My love of theory knows its boundaries, and no matter how earth-shattering a work's commentary on the human condition, a shitty text is a shitty text. A great text never forces the theorist's hand.

To stop my expounding and draw a conclusion: I'd really love to see your reviews include a bit more of that crusty old academia, though of course it should never overwhelm your duty as a critic to communicate to everyone. You've been doing this long enough to know never to take advice from someone who hasn't even had his own criticism published (in fairness T.S. Eliot hasn't released any new work this year), but I've always liked that your articles don't simply educate me about a particular film; they enhance my understanding of film istelf. I hope you'll continue to do that to an even greater extent in the future.

Ebert: I have nothing against film theory if it is written in comprehensible English. If literate, educated readers with a background in film cannot understand an article about the field, there is something wrong with the article. This isn't string theory, after all. The work of David Bordwell is an example of theory expressed in clear, elegant language.

Frankly speaking criticism isn't particularly a popular thing in the Philippines, there is a lack of critical discourse in the country and it has been an issue for a long time (there are very few Filipino film critics so to speak but even fewer continue to remain in the country.) In any case I would say that part of the violent, almost allergic reaction, to this blog would be partially put to this site:
http://www.spot.ph/2009/06/03/kinatay-the-worst-film-in-the-history-of-cannes/
Not particularly the most appealing title and moreover, it doesn't even try to respond to the piece you wrote. In any case I do think that many of the violent responses are quite misplaced, considering that the movie itself has not been shown in the Philippines (though interestingly so much has been written about a Filipino director making it to Cannes note its the director rather than his film that's being written by some newspaper articles and rant pages rather than a discourse about the film itself, again there is a lack of critcism with regards to this film.) While this entry certainly will raise eyebrows with the many who feel insulted about the title bestowed upon Kinatay I do have to point out this is one of the few, for me the first, real piece written about this film. And for that I am grateful and do hope to reply something substantial and informed after I do view the film, rather than jumping the bandwagon of 'pride' over the director's win at Cannes.

But he won the festival Best director? what can you say now?

And for michael mirasol baket ka mag aapologize dyan kay ebert?
asan ang suporta mo? That is the reality of life we can never deny.. Mendoza is doing his thing and I thnk he is a kind of director that doesn't really care about traditional critics....

May be you are reacting like that because it is new and you are just disgusted by the scenes... How about the film Irreversible?

Ebert: Here is what I thought about "Irréversible." I strongly disliked Gaspar Noé's latest film, "Enter the Void." It was also an official selection.

I was not objecting to the subject of "Kinatay." I was objecting to the visual strategy.

A critic does not write for directors. He writes for his readers.

Hi Roger,

I'm a regular reader but rare commenter. Had to jump in on this one, though. I fully respect your dislike of the film, and even your outright disgust at it. We all have those reactions from time to time, and you certainly defended why you had the reaction you did.

But I think it's a bit unprofessional to cast aspersions on potential defenders of the film even before those defenders have the chance to speak their mind. If I've learned anything from listening to film critics - even the theoriticians that you diss for no apparent reason - it's that people can absorb film experiences in very different ways, and sometimes I can learn to respect something I don't enjoy at all.

Maybe Kinatay is beyond salvation, but if someone feels passionately about it and can make a solid, well-reasoned argument, why insult that person simply for seeing the film differently? I felt like Inland Empire was the most painful 3 hours of my life, but I don't feel any differently about the usually excellent Jim Emerson for writing so passionately about his love for it. I won't rewatch the film, but I won't dismiss him for liking it, either.

Evan made a similar point in a much more sophisticated way above, and I appreciate your response to him, but I was a little chafed by the anti-intellectual strain of your comments.

Ebert: I diss them for "no apparent reason" other than when they write so that no other human being, even another academic, can other understand what they're so tortuously saying. The English language is a splendid tool for making yourself clear.

Mr. Ebert,

The fuss about Brillante's "Kinatay" is undeserved. Yes, absolutely I agree with your review.

But can you at least comment on my personal observations? Brillante is a neophyte director who was made to "fast track" his career and "programmed" to enter Cannes. The late Filipino National Artist for Film and a friend Director Lino Brocka almost spent a lifetime to get to Cannes filmfest in the 70s, while Brillante made it in a flick of a finger complemented by heavy-handed media blitz from local spin doctors masquerading as regular feature writers and film reviewers even for top and esteemed broadsheets. Note that some if not all of Brillante's digital as well as film projects were co-produced by French nationals who if I am not mistaken are in the Cannes filmfest organization themselves. If so, this makes them suspect as lobbyists, brokers for the fair-haired boy from the Philippines to serve their vested interest, i.e.,"Orientalist" fetish, and somesuch as co-producers or worst as direct participants in an evil act of " insider trading" like what happened in the last controversial Berlin filmfest. I would like to think that to "soften up" the anomalous idea, lest Brillante's winning would call attention to himself and to the film world who would want a fair game , Cannes filmfest got two or three more Asian directors in the festival, right? This makes me wonder yet. Is Cannes filmfest not going in the direction of the last Berlin filmfest which suffered from anomolous "insider trading" as reported in the festival papers worldwide? Is Cannes filmfest not going to the dogs yet of "inside traders" masquerading as filmfest organizers?

So there, I have posed these questions to you Mr. Ebert about the worldwide malady of "insider trading" which has become a jargon for the word "scam." What do you think?_George Vail Kabristante

Ebert: I won't speak to the question of why the film was selected, although your comments are suggestive. I do believe, however, that the jury choices were not controlled, which makes their award all the more mystifying. How this was the best-directed film at Cannes is beyond all comprehension. Consider that even the French critics, polled by Le Film Francaise, gave it their lowest rating.

Hi Roger,

I appreciate your response, but I have to disagree, respectfully. The issue of academic language appears nowhere in your review itself: as you point out, these is a group who "thinks movies are about arcane academic debates and not people". That's what I'm responding to in my comment above.

Why can't some movies be about arcane academic debates, and why can't a certain group of people take pleasure in that? There's plenty of room for plenty of different types of art. And on that, there's nothing particularly human in Buñuel's Chien andalou, and in your excellent review of it you certainly comment on the theoretical ideas rather than the human element involved. Certainly any defense of Mendoza's film might have to be more arcane than anything in Buñuel, but what I don't understand is the preemptive dismissal of people who approach these films from a different angle.

So sure, maybe a few critics will enjoy Mendoza's film for purely intellectual reasons, and maybe they'll mount a defense of it, and maybe that defense will criticize people like you for not "getting" it. But these are the kinds of discussions that sustain criticism and propel art in new directions, which is a good thing.

(By the way, you might find it interesting that some of Solondz's critics have said similar things, preemptively cutting down the director's supporters by saying his films are indefensible. I've always appreciated your thoughtful defense of Solondz, who's one of my favorite directors.)

Ebert: A movie can be about an arcane academic debate, but it need not be an arcane academic debate

to archie del mundo:

grow up! as a filipino, you embarrass me.

Hey there Mr Ebert my name is Dominic and I'm one of your avid followers in your Suntimes movie review and just to tell you honestly that your movie reviews helped me to pick what movies to watch and what not anyway with regard to your review of Kinatay and Serbis I never saw the two films but I think it's not about criticizing the country but the movie and it's concept because for me I also criticize some films here if it's no good.

I don't want to think that Filipino movies are easy target in your eyes because even your local films are also having favorable reviews so I just want to say to keep up doing your job and continue giving us good reviews so we can pick what good movies to watch.

P.S:

I'm also reviewing some films from your Great Movies selection and some films there I've watched it and it's really great no doubt,by the way is there any Filipino film that might be included on the list?

Well, I am not Filipino, but I have been living in the Philippines for almost a year now. I have had the (mis)fortune of seeing a number of independent Filipino movies, and the reactions I have observed are most astonishing - in private everybody is lambasting the crap that the movies of Mendoza, Martin and Alix are full of, but nobody would put their name under a negative review (presently - me including!) for fear of being accused of "crab mentality". No, I haven't made any movies that have made it to Cannes, but that does not mean that I should not give my opinion or that I should not speak up when I see pseudo-art on the big screen. If the local critics can't do it (they are all bosom buddies with the above-mentioned "elitist" artists), then luckily the overseas ones and the common people in the audience can - we are not all deaf and blind...

I have not seen Kinatay and I am not going to - it has only one invitations-only screening at the University of the Philippines this week. Most certainly because of fear that the local "dumb" audiences won't give it automatically all the praise "deserved" due to the prize won in Cannes. Based on Roger's review, I can easily imagine it is yet another exploitative movie, full of exoticised poverty, having a dodgy script (with no climax or proper ending - open or not), and overall being simply an in-your-face act of pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Shot, no doubt, by someone born into an "artist" family with a silver spoon in his mouth, and taking advantage of the taste for "brave new films" at festivals overseas.

Ah, let's not forget that Raya's extremely boring and pretentious Independencia was also shown at Cannes, and it was largely produced with French funding...

Yawn, nothing new under the Filipino sun.

I'm also intrigued by this movie called Salo and I have no idea where to get a copy of Pasolini's controversial film. Is this film have a semblance to the 2 girls 1 cup or something?

Ebert: "Salo" is available in the Criterion Collection.

INSIDE LOOKING OUT: Brillante Mendoza's "Kinatay"

To look at a crime and all its angles, should you be outside looking in, or inside looking out?

So says the criminology professor (Mark Meily), to the student, Peping (Coco Martin), during the lighter side, with more lighting, haha, of "Kinatay," the Daytime Part.

In this journey, we are placed too much in it, we hope we can get out of it.

It begins with a promise of new life, as Peping and his wife goes about the day, to end up in a judge's court, to get married. In fact, these scenes were very cute and poignant in spite of the squalor around.

Less the grainy feel of "Serbis," and more polished and composed, Odyssey Flores, the cinematographer, starts the film with us looking at how innocent and dreamy urban squalor can appear, while the sun is still up, before darkness creeps in.

By dark, it will really get dark.

Only to stall the shock, and like a long relaxing exhale, before a gruesome inhale, as the Night Sequences slowly assault us for the harrowing trip Peping is about to witness.

We will be experiencing it with him, as a participant with no choice but to be as surprised and as shocked as he will be, with no way out. We will react the way Peping reacts.

The whole theater will be filled with Pepings, all-unwilling passengers to a crime.

Suddenly, the images play with darkness and blur, as we take a trip inside a van, not knowing what will happen next, or how gruesome this tale will turn.

We want to see what's happening but sometimes we can't. Or as a witness, like Peping, we hope we can't see, but curious and afraid of what we might see!

Therefore, like Peping, we are holding on to the edge of the van's seat, to our theater seat, to make way for what will turn out to be a suspense thriller!

Yes, for a change, it's not "Serbis" or "Foster Child" that seem like social documentary or essays on film. This perhaps, is the more palatable Mendoza film, that you might actually enjoy.

The seemingly unseen and seen soon-to-be-murdered target, right beside the innocent protagonist, combined with music as though our heart will pound loudly and stop beating, and mixed with conversations to aid the non-visible violence in alternately nonchalant and filthy dialogue, make "Kinatay" an effective thriller, in realistic, but darkly visualized manner.

The trip to the destination can be a blur, visually. Because we also wanted to blur it, and we aren't clear why we took the ride, or why we subject ourselves to such a ride, again, like Peping.

As we hardly see Madonna (Isabel Lopez), but if we do so, we see her bloodied and beaten, she is ever present in her wailing and pleading, until she suddenly becomes quiet. The silence chills, as we here the vehicle's motor running. Outside the van, the police car's siren cry loudly, taking over her wails and moans. And the police won't notice, which makes it chilling. And inside our van, are cops, too, gone berserk. Cops to cops.

Realism and suspense make a more heart-pounding combination. Add to that the dirty alpha-male cop psyche provides an excruciating trip. Like Peping, we would like to find the first moment we can escape, but we have no choice.

We have become a part of the crime, and will lose our decency, our innocence, and our sanities as well.

Like Peping seeing a bus during a stopover, we have a chance to get out, and simply walk out of the theater, but we can't. We've been glued!

So suspenseful can realism be, my seatmate can hear my deep breathing!

Until we get to the death trap, an abandoned house with a basement. We know the worst is yet to come, we have been prepared.

As Peping goes in and out of the "death chamber", we squirm and relax at the same time.Masterful technique, I must say, to add to the fear,yet, continuously providing the drama the character undergoes.

It still has a human core in spite of its animalism.

Not to pre-empt the next series of events, which is why the film is titled "Butchering", we go deeper into the possibilities of cruelty, and loss of human soul.

In the end, we are so relieved the long, harrowing night is over. But our innocence has been damaged.Yes, like Peping not knowing if he'd go back to the cab whose tire burst, we don't know what to do next.

We been crippled, like Madonna, the victim.

We've been paralyzed.

We died slowly.

We walk out of the crime still alive,

as if everything around us is normal.

But after this, it will never be.

The disturbing thing about this film actually, is,it seemed so real, and we just watched, and watched, without becoming angry, or reversing the heinous act, and use Peping's gun to stop it. Yes, he had a gun. It's a gift. It's a bribe and an offering of power.

Are we also looking for more, the way the beastly cops wanted more? Are we also unleashing the darkest side of our personas, we actually wanted to see it happen?

Only violence can stop this violent act. But we choose to simply witness it happen, sitting down. Like Peping, we were not prepared to see this.Therefore, we can't move, and got no choice but to complete the ride. That's how thrilling however assaulting this experience was.

Thank you so much I'll be looking forward to get a copy of this film oh by the way Mr. Ebert I am looking forward to read in your column the review of this controversial film I wish the wait won't be that long. :)

More power to you.

I've seen the film.

Half-way through it, I developed a bad headache
courtesy of the visuals (handheld shots, very dark). I became nauseous. At one point, the visuals were too much for me to take so I closed my eyes and tried to listen to the dialogue with hopes of catching the story.

It dawned on me, there was no "story" to catch...the whole point of the movie was what i was going through - the torture, the harrowing experience of being an unwilling witness to this crime. I was being taken on a ride from which i couldn't get off. I wanted to make it stop but couldn't. The film was pervading my senses, forcing its way to my brain. Then I thought, "Is that the point then? Okay, I've gotten it." So i went to the toilet and threw up - literally.

Was it a brave film? Yes. Did it succeed in getting its "idea" across? Probably. Did i like it? No.

I've seen the film.

Half-way through it, I developed a bad headache
courtesy of the visuals (handheld shots, very dark). I became nauseous. At one point, I closed my eyes and tried to listen to the dialogue with hopes of catching the story. It dawned on me, there was no "story" to catch...the whole point of the movie was what i was going through - the torture, the harrowing experience of being an unwilling witness to this horrible crime. I was being taken on a ride from which i couldn't get off. I wanted to make it stop but couldn't. The film was pervading my senses, forcing its way to my brain. Then I thought, "Is that the point then? Okay, I've gotten it." So i went to the toilet and threw up - literally.

Was it a brave film? Yes. Did i like it? No.

As roger ebert put it, "I am a human being with relatively reasonable tastes."

I find this... intriguing.

The postings had its share of good and bad publicity about the movie, so guess who wins from that publicity?

Just a reminder on how you perceive what you see... You are what you eat.

Wow! I just read Lilit Reyes' description on how the experience goes with this movie. Like, if the movie aims to elicit emotions from its audience, it got the job done. If you were wondering why there were no scenes that gave explanation nor justified the cause of the film, it does not really need one, that was not the aim of that movie - it was not made to spoon feed its viewers, it aims to elicit its uninhibited and primal response from what it has witnessed, then provokes you to think in the recesses of your mind how this affected you. It made you uncomfortable? Good, it was supposed to do that. Did you had erotic response from viewing Kinatay? Then you should see a psychiatrist cause that makes you sick and pervy! ;)

I had my fair share of viewing gory and real stuff (like the beheading of a foreigner in the internet). It can actually damage your psyche, yet there is the human nature - we are cursed to find out what it looks like, how it feels like, how it tastes like, when we hear or discover of something we don't see and experience everyday (Tested and proven by ADAM and EVE no less).

If this movie had provoked you, then its intention was done successfully. It does not expect you to be jubilant about what you saw, for the theme of the movie touches the dark side of human nature. The film was not intended to please all audiences, if it aims to do that, then it should've been a feel-good movie. Were you annoyed of the cacophony of sounds and visuals coming from the movie? It should since it depicts chaos in reality.

If I say, I'm so happy that this movie was done to make people aware that these things happen, that will be whack! But if I say I was curious to see the movie, when I did I got pinned to view the movie until the end, and after wards was remorseful about it, then.... (this is the part that will make you think, you need not be explained about this, it just evoked you to ponder on it. That was what the movie is aiming for in its audience).

This is beyond nationality, this is psyche and will instill on anybody.

- From a guy who liked watching Hostel 1&2, Silence of the Lambs, American Psycho, Dexter the series and other psyche numbing movies and series :D LOL

Still reading the posts to kill time, boy! Mr. Ebert, for a non-Filipino, you sure are good in creating a civil war among Filipinos hehehe...

Now that's crab mentality!

I have nothing much to say about Mr. Elbert's critique, except that I disagree with it, because I found the film (how the story was told) effective without the typical spoonfeeding Hollywood and other European directors would offer.

The funniest thing about this critique are the COMMENTS OF THE READERS, especially those who have much negative things to say about the film WITHOUT WATCHING THE FILM. Mr. Elbert's ass must taste so well, they want to kiss it passionately.

Now this "the director/film is good coz it won an award" argument is BS. Coz prior to that, I've been seeing "the director/film is bad coz Elbert said it sucks" messages here earlier.