Sunday, December 30, 2007

Jazz piano legend Oscar Peterson just passed away at 82. Here's a gem of a quote from a news item reporting his death:

Accolades followed him everywhere, but Peterson always had to fend off some critics who believed his technical prowess outweighed his ability to express emotion on the keyboard.

"Technique is something you use to make your ideas listenable," he once told jazz writer Len Lyons. "You learn to play the instrument so you have a musical vocabulary, and you practice to get your technique to the point you need to express yourself, depending on how heavy your ideas are."

So long, and many thanks.


Above, with his trio. Below, with his quartet featuring guitarist Joe Pass.

“The general and the humanist are one”

A review of a book written by someone who teaches literature at West Point. (Boldface added for emphasis.) The difference between the soldier and the thinker may not be as great as we think. I wonder: do our own military officers undergo a similar program of literature and art while in the PMA?

The Write Stuff
The hunger for literature among student officers.
By Mark Bauerlein
The Weekly Standard, 12/24/2007, Volume 013, Issue 15

Soldier's Heart
Reading Literature Through Peace and War at West Point
by Elizabeth D. Samet
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 272 pp., $23

. . . In the midst of a major military action, Patton [in the George C. Scott film] still feels the presence of the past and resorts to poetry to express it. For him, the finer arts complement the martial arts, the general and the humanist are one.

In Soldier's Heart, Elizabeth Samet's memoir of 10 years teaching English at West Point, Patton is, she remarks, a favorite of the cadets, and the same combination happens over and over. She arrived in 1997 . . . . Straight off she saw that "a West Point class is not the gung-ho, red-state monolith an outsider might expect." . . . Most of all, belying the Rambo stereotype, they like novels and poems and plays. In class they read The Iliad, Beowulf, War and Peace, World War I poetry, and also Pope's Essay on Man, Dickens's Bleak House, Matthew Arnold's "Literature and Science," the curious lyrics of Wallace Stevens, Diderot's plan for the Encyclopédie. . . .

Samet attributes these young people's literary fervor precisely to their combat future. While freshmen down in Manhattan at Columbia and NYU think about jobs and paychecks they'll secure after graduation, and hook-ups they make before it, cadets have a rigorous regimented existence in class and out, and they know they will assume command of 30 men and women when it's over, probably in a hot zone. The prospect throws them into hard questions of life and death, duty and sacrifice, courage and leadership, and they probe great works to figure them out. . . .

All of them, Samet included, "feel a palpable pressure to consider every moment's practical and moral weight." The pressure magnifies the import of Macbeth contemplating the murder of Duncan, Penelope waiting for her husband, Stevens's "Oh! Blessed rage for order"--Samet doesn't have to convince them to respect Shakespeare, Homer, and the rest. The war has done that already. . . .

How far the literary virtues of West Pointers extend through the armed forces is an open question, but the institutional commitment to books runs deep. During World War II, for instance, the Army distributed more than 100 million volumes to the troops. Samet's father remembers the Armed Services Editions, pocket-sized paperbacks of classics and potboilers ranging from Zane Grey to Edna St. Vincent Millay. Today, the Army Library Program maintains kiosks in Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, along with more than 125 libraries on bases around the world.

The commitment goes back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who authorized the founding of the United States Military Academy in 1802. . . . Jefferson thought the officers of the time inclined to aristocracy, and he hoped the curriculum would instruct them in republican principles. Both of them would agree with the British general William Francis Butler, whose summary opinion about the education of soldiers Samet quotes approvingly:

The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards. . . .

Mark Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory, is the author, most recently, of Negrophobia: A Race Riot in Atlanta, 1906.

Excerpts of the book courtesy of the The New York Times.


Thursday, December 27, 2007

Hairdressing as an exercise in fostering hope

In Iraq, making women look beautiful has become a form of resistance. The full story is here. (Boldface added for emphasis.)

Iraqi hairdressers forced underground

By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer
Wed Dec 26, 1:21 PM ET

Umm Doha cuts hair and waxes eyebrows in secret from her living room because making women look pretty can get a person killed in her Sunni-dominated Baghdad neighborhood.

Hardline Muslim extremists who believe it is sinful for women to appear beautiful in public have forced many beauticians to move their trade underground.

Sunni and Shiite militants began blowing up salons roughly two years ago. They killed several stylists and bullied others into putting down their scissors and makeup brushes for good, all in an effort to stamp out what they view as the corrupting spread of Western culture. . . .

To those outside of Iraq, the prospect of being killed just for frequenting a hair salon might seem a convincing reason not to go. But despite being targeted by militants, stylists say women here still want to look good — and stylish. Refusing to get a haircut or having their makeup done would be giving in to the violence and despair surrounding them.

"See this salon?" said the stylist Kifah, as she deftly lopped off a woman's dark hair into smart layers in her east Baghdad establishment. "It's never been empty, not through the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war or this war. Women are women, they always want to look good." . . .

Umm Doha said hardline Muslims were offended by the sight of freshly made-up women leaving her salon, including brides heading to their weddings — even though they were conservatively veiled while outside.

Days after her small shop was destroyed, she converted a room in her home into an underground salon. She said she had no choice: Her husband's low-paying clerk's job does not pay enough to keep food on the table for their three children. . . .

But the woman said the strife made her want to look her best. She said she could not stop the war, but she could boost her morale by looking good.

"Here, we give women hope," Kifah said. "They feel like women, even during the worst tragedy." . . .

"If we give some hope here, it helps us carry on," she said, dusting off the salon chair to prepare for her next customer.



Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Thus spake the Grinch

For section ‘M’ of the Philippine Star, 26 December 2007.



Sometimes I feel that the Christmas season sprouts around me like so many weeds. They spring up where you don’t want them, they’re awful to look at, and no matter how hard you try to stop them, they just keep spreading. They’re weeds, after all.

This is what Christmas in this country, in this metropolis, has become: just another thing you don’t really want, can’t get rid of, and try to tolerate with all the patience that you can muster (and unless you have the patience of a Buddhist monk, you will fail). It is a season of obligation, pursued with supremely resentful perseverance. Among the obligations I have come to resent is the forced good cheer I must put on simply because the weather turns nippy. The voices of tone-deaf but earnest carolers at my gate are supposed to fill me with a warm, tingly, Christmasy feeling. They fill me with annoyance. “Isn’t this just another form of begging?” I ask myself, closing the jalousies then slinking away. The envelopes from the garbage collectors, the mailman, the men on their bikes who deliver the bills and can’t be bothered to say a half-polite greeting any other time, multiply on the kitchen counter like libidinous bacteria. (The thought that dousing them in Lysol might actually make them disappear crossed my mind the other day.)

I suppose this makes me sound like a Grinch, and I suppose I am. (My colleagues might be happy to inform you that my disposition this time of year isn’t very different from what it is the rest of it.) Heck, what’s the point of being cheerful? Don’t we already do, at all times in the year, a smashing job of insisting that everyone around us be happy, even in some superficial way? When we see a friend moping, don’t we ask, “Why the long face?” as if he didn’t have the right to be morose once in a while. It isn’t true that misery loves company. Misery is something you’re supposed to hide from others. You bear it alone. Happiness, now that’s something you must share, even if you don’t have it. Decorum dictates that it, or a suitably convincing facsimile, must be put on display. And decorum’s voice gets loud and strident during these holidays. Cheer is part of the season’s props, like the blinking lights and lanterns we adorn our houses with, gaudiness be damned.

How about those of us who aren’t thrilled to glutinous bits by the season? What happens to those of us who dread the “-ber” months because it means hearing those dreadful Chipmunk carols in restaurants everywhere? (Once, sitting in a restaurant early in November, I heard those familiar voices that sound like eunuchs being tortured, and I resolved: one day I will strangle Alvin and his fellow rodents.) I suspect there are more of us than I think. After all, what explains those long faces at the stores, the mirthless attendants who wear silly red Santa hats their supervisors ordered them to wear? And those shoppers madly careening down corridors and into and out of shops, fulfilling their Christmas-shopping duties with their lips set in a grim line?

Christmas bites when the cabdriver refuses to take you where you want to go unless you give him a little extra for his pains. Hey, you’re supposed to be generous — it’s Christmas! Office giveaways are nice, but really, I don’t need any more umbrellas. (Or mugs, for that matter.) I like a good party, but one right after another, sometimes on the very same day? And all those sweets? Cut me and I’ll bleed sugar.

And what words can describe the insanely heavy traffic the season spawns? Whoever said that Christmas is for children doesn’t drive around this city in December. At this time of year, push carts in groceries go faster than cars on our roads. Really, why can’t others just stay home when I need to get someplace? Christmas traffic makes sense only for a hardy kind of person, the kind the Robert Duvall character in Apocalypse Now might have been had he grown up in Manila (“I love the smell of gas fumes in the morning!” he might say, striding shirtless down the stairs.)

And then there’s the bank. My thirteenth month pay came on the fifteenth of December (Yes! I’m rich!), but I couldn’t touch it right away because my bank’s ATMs always go offline during paydays. If Santa really does exist, he would make me immensely happy if he gave the bank bosses who make these decisions a none-too-serious but truly painful disease, preferably of the gastrointestinal variety, this holiday season.

* * * * *

My wife has just been looking over my shoulder reading what I’ve just written. She makes unhappy noises behind me. “So what do you want me to say about Christmas, huh?” I mutter. “I suppose you want something happy.” No answer, just the sound of her steps as she walks away and goes back to the study to continue wrapping gifts. I’m used to this. When I’m grumpy, she simply ignores me. It’s part of her attempt to civilize me, a project she realizes will take longer than she probably first thought. (I have the sinking feeling that it will never reach a satisfactory conclusion.) Then from across the hall she says, in a gentle but firm voice, “Weeds can be pretty, you know. Some of them have flowers.” This is true, I admit, but I can’t write it here because it ruins the metaphor I opened this essay with.

I take a break from the computer and walk around the living room. The Christmas tree is up, decorated simply in green and gold. She buys lights for the tree that aren’t colored or flicker or play some insipid tune. Some years she adds touches of silver to the tree, or unfurls a spool of gold sinamay around to give it more texture. Not for us the massive trees bedecked with ostentatious finery.

The decorative bottles on a side table are gone, replaced with a manger scene with figurines that have been in her family for a long time. When we sit to dinner these days the placemats are green and red, the plates we use from the Christmas set her sister sent her once. The advent wreath is out, a red cloth underneath it. The banister is covered in the green of tree branches, a thread of gold running through it, icicles like crystal hanging from it. Soon the gifts to family and friends will be ready, wrapped artfully in the way only she does it. (She buys unique Christmas wrappers wherever she finds them and rarely settles for the thin and cheap kind you can get easily.) She asked me weeks before who I would be giving presents to among my friends and work mates. I haven’t had to lift a finger, and shopping bags with the nearly wrapped gifts inside them appear by the tree, ready for the Santa of the family (who else?) to deliver.

Every so often she will go to the mall early on a Sunday morning (a Sunday morning!) because, she says, she “needs gifts.” She buys gifts for family and friends, their birthdays in her datebook. She gives things away, something I ribbed her about before. Once early in our marriage we had friends over, and we happened to have some very good cake in the fridge. “Oh, we have some cake,” she said to them. “Want some?” I didn’t say anything, but when they had left, I asked, “Why did you offer them the cake? It’s ours!” She looked at me as if I’d been a bad boy in school. Coming from a family of six children I’ve lived with the feeling that there was never enough to go around. And here she was, offering it to others with the lightest touch. Reconciling her generosity of spirit with my lack of it hasn’t been easy. But it’s always been clear, I realize now, which side needs to give.

Without my noticing, another kind of Christmas has sprouted up around me like some wonderfully lush garden you hadn’t realized you lived in, one you didn’t deserve in any way for anything you did, yet you stand in it astonished at its completely superfluous and necessary beauty. It happens every year, but I’m too busy, cranky, or just plain dim to see it. I go over to her and ask, “Is there anything I can do to help?” She looks at me, puzzled. “No.” Then I say, before I turn to go back to the computer, “Thanks for taking care of everything.” She says, “You’re welcome, love,” and smiles, a smile that turns me into a child again.

I sit at my keyboard and turn this essay into what I didn’t think it would be: a small token of my gratitude.



Monday, December 24, 2007

Dogberry’s greetings

A Christmas Hymn
by Richard Wilbur

And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
—-St. Luke XIX, 39–40

A stable-lamp is lighted
Whose glow shall wake the sky;
The stars shall bend their voices,
And every stone shall cry.
And every stone shall cry,
And straw like gold shall shine;
A barn shall harbor heaven,
A stall become a shrine.

This child through David's city
Shall ride in triumph by;
The palm shall strew its branches,
And every stone shall cry.
And every stone shall cry,
Though heavy, dull, and dumb,
And lie within the roadway
To pave his kingdom come.

Yet he shall be forsaken,
And yielded up to die;
The sky shall groan and darken,
And every stone shall cry.
And every stone shall cry
For stony hearts of men:
God's blood upon the spearhead,
God's love refused again.

But now, as at the ending,
The low is lifted high;
The stars shall bend their voices,
And every stone shall cry.
And every stone shall cry
In praises of the child
By whose descent among us
The worlds are reconciled.

— from Advice to a Prophet and Other Poems



'Tis the season to harbor heaven, again, in our hearts. To family, friends, former and current students, colleagues, readers of my Philippine Star pieces and of my blog, and others whose paths have crossed with mine in big or small ways, a joyful and blessed Christmas!



Campus originals that unsettle and amuse

For the Arts & Culture section of the Philippine Star, 24 December 2007.



Theater companies that put on shows at year’s end often choose imported musicals, tried-and-tested crowd-pleasers to end the year with a bang and draw in the crowds. Traveling along my Katipunan, Quezon City, axis in late November and early December took me to two productions by campus-based theater companies that chose to buck this trend. Both productions, of The Death of Memory by Tanghalang Ateneo and The Silent Soprano by Dulaang UP, showcase the talents of playwrights (and in the case of Dulaang UP, composers) alongside those of actors. By coincidence, both productions were tantalizing in their promise but didn’t quite fulfill it, leaving a lingering sense of something unachieved.

* * * * *

Written by Glenn Mas, The Death of Memory won first prize in the 2006 Palanca Awards for the full-length play in English, and Tanghalang Ateneo, under the direction of Ricardo Abad and BJ Crisostomo, gives it its Philippine premiere. Death revolves around the struggle of a group of characters against their imprisonment in some nowhere land, a kind of purgatory. The bare, white stage with red barbed-wire fences reveals nothing (the minimalist design is the brainchild of National Artist Salvador Bernal). Only a signpost provides a clue. They themselves are effaced of individualizing detail. They don’t remember many of the particulars of their own lives and make do with placeholder names, not real ones: Itch, Vesper, Termino, and the newcomer Juan. A mysterious being they call the Keeper holds sway over their memories and torments them by making them relive painful moments in their lives.

Though Mas’s script is provocative, it has issues. Why are the memories of the characters indistinct? One could argue that memories plague us because of their particularity. Itch says a “rock song” triggers a harrowing episode, yet it’s odd that she never mentions the title. Juan is distressed when he remembers causing the death of his brother, yet he calls out “My brother!” instead of saying his name. And Vesper’s memory doesn’t seem distressing at all.

The production has its share of problems. TA plays have come to be marked a recurring weakness which hampers Death as well: a mistaking of shouting for intensity and for stomping around the stage as urgency. In Death the actors tramp around the stage, bark in each other’s faces, and push each other to the floor with numbing frequency.

Perhaps the production’s biggest flaw is its excess of conceptual baggage. So many ideas come pouring out of the play that some of them are drowned out. The dancing, for instance: when a character has a memory episode, the others enter a trance-like state. But why do they dance? The choreographer’s notes in the program identify these dances as coming from Noh, Butoh, and Igal. It isn’t clear what they contribute. Worse, they aggravate the play’s cultural indistinctness. Characters speak idiomatic American English yet in their trances perform two dances of Japanese origin (yet antithetical to each other) and one from Southern Philippines. One character is named Juan. The street sign says “Misericordia,” a Latin word and also an actual place, not to mention the name of the street in Lino Brocka’s Maynila: Sa Kuko ng Liwanag. It becomes a challenge buying into a story with such diffuse cultural indicators.

Working in the production’s favor was Reamur David’s haunting and evocative sound design (though the thunderclaps were a mite too loud and too frequent), but the use of video was not as successful. Conveying the traumatic memories too literally, the video images often distracted from the performances. Also, some over-the-top touches provoked amusement more than shock (the Keeper bringing in a cross with a red bra dangling from it, Itch stabbing the Keeper with a limp dildo).

Thankfully, these bits of excess didn’t overshadow the good work of the performers. The student cast, though fine, seemed a bit imbalanced, partly because of Brian Sy’s intense Juan; everyone else seemed to be playing catch-up. The faculty cast was led by Diana Laserna, who smoldered as the sex-obsessed Itch. She gave the character a viscous yet wounded sensuality and turned her crucial scene, in which she relives being raped as a young girl, wrenching. Notable too was Rachel Quong’s turn as the scary-doll Keeper.

On the whole Tanghalang Ateneo’s Death of Memory succeeds modestly in its attempt to disturb, but it could have sharpened its bite had it not bitten off too much to chew.

* * * * *

If Tanghalang Ateneo wanted to shock, Dulaang UP wanted to amuse. The Silent Soprano, a musical by Ricardo Saludo (yes, that’s Secretary to the Cabinet Saludo to you) and directed by Alexander Cortes, follows the story of Margie, a Filipina domestic with the voice of an angel slaving away in Hong Kong. Her employer, Ricky, a struggling Cantopop songwriter, discovers her talent and gets his record producer, George, to acknowledge it too. George insists, though, that the audience won’t accept her unless she can be passed off as ethnic Chinese. And how to do that? Well, plastic surgery. She agrees reluctantly, and once she transforms into Meimei (the name George chooses), fame and fortune arrive, but at a steep price.

On the material: the play seems a tad too wholesome and predictable, and it gets most interesting when it offers up surprises: the dance of the appliances (complete with furry costumes resembling a washing machine, a refrigerator, and such); the number in which Selina (a vivacious Judith Javier), Ricky’s former girlfriend, vamps up and down the stage in fishnets with fawning bare-shouldered men in tow; the bizarre and hilarious plastic-surgery dance, easily the highlight of the show.

We expect Margie (Laura Cabochan) and Ricky (Joel Molina) to fall in love, yet when it happens it isn’t entirely convincing. The conflict is laid out in too-convenient terms: talented but poor singer with a heart of gold versus money-grubbing record producer. The story isn’t new, after all, only that the singer is a Filipina domestic in Hong Kong. Plus, the play commits the storytelling sin of resolving the conflict offstage.

Also, few technical problems attended the show when I watched it (the second performance in a 22-show run). The sound was sometimes muddy and indistinct, and at times the musical accompaniment overwhelmed the singing, both of which made it hard to consistently make out the words.

As for the music: Cantopop is the play’s musical idiom, but the songs are unremarkable even for pop. (Curiously, the poster identifies only Vince de Jesus as composer, yet the program tabs him and Arnel de Pano.). It might have helped to have certain motifs repeat at key moments, threading through the story to provide a musical echoing and deepening of ideas and themes. Plus there are too many songs, especially in the overlong second half.

As for the performances: the maid Chika (played by a spunky Lucky de Mesa) was the most lively character, but she recedes into the background quickly. As Margie, Cabochan is winsome and charming, and so too is her singing, yet she slides too easily from Filipino into crisp English. In fact, the accents of most performers get in the way of the story’s credibility. Those playing Chinese characters try to speak with a Chinese accent but lose it when they sing.

Still, the performances (mostly by students and recent graduates) made up for the shows flaws. Most commendable were the three leads: Cabochan, Molina as Ricky, and Adrian Reyes as the slick George. Notable too were the chorus whose members adroitly played a variety of small roles (the hokey country crooner and over-amped hiphop singer were the most fun). Noteworthy too was the clever stage design (by Faust Peneyra).

Director Cortes says in his notes that the play may be taken to Hong Kong where it is set. No doubt that, trimmed to a shorter length and with catchier and more coherent music, the show will go over well in that overseas market with a sizeable OFW presence.

Here’s hoping it gets the opportunity.

* * * * *

In his notes to Soprano Director Cortes writes something that’s worth quoting here: “I have remained faithful to my promise that I will only direct original Filipino musicals. While tested musicals are easier to mount, I vowed to do only original Filipino musicals not only to enrich the collection of heartwarming and meaningful Filipino musicals but also to be able to reflect on themes with Filipino sensibilities.”

A laudable sentiment, that. Ours is a time in which theater companies gush over Filipino talent yet stage one foreign play after another, as if our gifts lay only in acting and singing and didn’t extend to writing and composing music. Kudos to Alexander Cortes and Dulaang UP, and also to Ricardo Abad and Tanghalang Ateneo, for continuing to stage original Filipino plays and enriching the nation’s store of theatrical works, as well as showing faith in Filipino artists — all of them.



Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The nostalgia machine

For section ‘M’ of the Philippine Star, 12 December 2007.



In 2001 I came up with what I thought was a great idea for a Christmas gift: I would put together a compilation of Eighties music, burn the songs onto CDs, and give them to my friends. I had some CDs of music from that decade, the span of time in which I went to high school and college, and over the years I had been able to supplement my small collection of discs through occasional visits to music shops in malls and the odd tiangge stall. I had enough music for two CDs of 16 songs each, and I was sure my friends in my age group would appreciate the gesture.

The process turned out to be more tedious than I had thought it would be. After the excitement of choosing the songs came the drudgery. Because the songs came from different sources, they differed in quality and loudness. So I ripped them onto my hard drive, played them in my iTunes music player, and adjusted the sound level of each so that they matched. I ended up listening to each song several times. And as often happens when you listen to a song you like too often, the magic wears out. I no longer felt any thrill listening to Duran Duran’s “Save a Prayer” or the Psychedelic Furs’ “Ghost in You” or David Bowie’s “Let’s Dance.” The nostalgic pleasure I had found in finding the songs and then listening to them had dissipated. The irony of it: Nothing robs an object of its mysterious power like its presence. If something is always there we take it for granted. Familiarity breeds domestication.

The years since then have done nothing to bring the feel-good nostalgia back. And, oh, how delicious nostalgia can be! Advances in Internet and computer technology have only made it easier to find the songs of one’s youth, and with them retrieve the memories of fonder days. With its immense capacity to store to store information and media (pictures, videos, music), the Internet is turning out to be, among other things, one massive nostalgia machine.

Students sometimes try to amuse me by sending me links to Eighties music videos on YouTube, and sure enough, seeing men in spandex and hair extenders or women with big hairdo’s and padded shoulders makes me chuckle. (Look, say, for Journey’s “Separate Ways” on YouTube and knock yourself out.)

The past now seems more accessible than ever before. Going to sites like Google and Wikipedia is only the start of a journey through a seemingly boundless supply of information on the past. For instance, after watching the movie 300 early this year, I went over to Wikipedia to find out what exactly happened during the Battle of Thermopylae and how the movie deviated from the historical record. Google pointed me to sites with photos, illustrations, maps, and essays on that particular period in time. In the classroom, it’s the same thing. When I assign group reports to my students, their source of first and only resort is the Internet. Biographies of authors and their literary reputations, photos of them and their mistresses, covers of their important books, synopses of particular works, analyses of plot, character, theme, symbol — it’s all there on the Web. John Donne’s Holy Sonnets, for instance, are cut apart and analyzed, their “meaning” made easy to see. (And there is no need to wade through all that off-putting meter and rhyme and figure out odd metaphors. No need to be perplexed over strange words and phrases like “sublunary love.”)

More and more sites on the Philippines too, such as WikiPilipinas, are coming onstream to plug the information gap on the country in foreign sites. Hobby sites abound as well. The popular site Nostalgia Manila is awash in links to videos of old TV shows such as Knight Rider (with a pre-Baywatch David Hasselhoff), cartoons such as Scooby Doo, Daimos and Voltes V, photos of Bruce Lee memorabilia, pictures of Filipino movie stars of yore in all their sepia glory. And there’s music. Listen to an audio stream of Nostalgia Manila Radio so you can, as the blurb says, “Relive the hits of yesterday!”

As a storage device of wonders, the Internet has one advantage over a physical bodega: the goods in its store won’t be ruined by too much moisture or dust or the gnawing teeth of rats. They remain in the same pristine state in which they were first put there.

So we have become adept at remembering. And this ability to remember feeds our nostalgia for and curiosity in the past. The past seems more accessible, nearer to us, than ever.

* * * * *
But for all the good the Internet is doing in allowing us to preserve the past and make it available to all, problems have cropped up.

One is that we have come to depend more and more on technological tools to remember things for us. Human memory is frail, after all, and we need to help it all we can to cope with our age’s deluge of data. Yet one result of this is complacency. We often don’t bother to store things in our brains. Why, when you can key it into your cellphone or laptop? (I tell my students I went to school in a simpler time when I only had to remember one landline number for each classmate; now everyone has a landline, a mobile phone number, an email address or three, as well as virtual identities on chat and social-networking sites. No wonder they don’t even try to remember it all.)

That makes sense, except that our brains are getting less and less practice in the work of remembering. Memory is like a muscle, and the less exercise it gets, the more it atrophies. Often my firstyear college students, who in their late teens are in the flush of youth, can’t remember things like the titles of books they’ve read (the names of authors are even tougher to recall). They have trouble remembering what plays they watched when they were in high school, which surprises me because their high school days are their recent past. They groan when I make them memorize poems — I’m old school that way — because they find it difficult to do. It is difficult, and the less you rely on your memory the harder it becomes to begin to use it again. And using it again becomes all the more urgent. Knowledge, after all, begins with memory.

The second, perhaps more serious, problem is that our increased familiarity with the past domesticates it. Since it is so near to us, the past seems less mysterious, less able to fill us with awe. We think we have shrunk the distance between the past and us, and the journey of going back to it seems much less daunting.

This leads to the third problem: our easy grip on the past may make us believe that we understand it. How easy it is to delude ourselves into thinking that we have it in our grasp! In the movie The History Boys, the young hotshot teacher takes his wards on a field trip looking at monuments celebrating important events in English history. He explains to them that the conventional understanding of these events belies reality, yet celebrating these events only helps to propagate the widely accepted untruths. Then he says, “The best way to forget the past is to commemorate it.” The past is essentially strange, remote, obscure, and perhaps the surest sign that we don’t understand it is that we think we do.

* * * * *
Often we are nostalgic not for the past but for some version of it that gives us comfort. A friend summed up the Eighties on his blog thus: “bad clothes, bad hair, great music.” Perhaps he had tired of all the bland hiphop and diva R&B he kept hearing on the radio or on MTV and found the music of the Eighties refreshingly different.

As a survivor and relic of that era, I find all the attention on that decade amusing. Was the music as good they say it was? Well, yes, but I also remember so much of it that was bad. And I wish I could forget it. But I can’t, and the culture I am immersed in won’t let me. The 1998 movie The Wedding Singer (starring Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore) begins with opening titles accompanied by “You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)” by Dead Or Alive, a truly forgettable song whose only appeal is camp. When I watched it I thought, how clever: the movie kicks things off with a song you’re embarrassed to admit you know. The movie knows you’d rather have forgotten the song, and it shoves it in your face and teases you for remembering. In a world that does an increasingly better job recording and preserving and remembering, in which forgetting becomes more and more difficult, there will more and more to be ashamed of.

Nostalgia, like memory, can be a trap (and a lovely one, too). I’ve been on nostalgia trips myself, and I think I’ve just about tripped out. I’ve got loads of songs from long ago, but I find that I’m not interested in listening to them these days. I look for things I haven’t been listening to. I go out seeking bands like the Johnny Alegre Affinity or the Brass Munkeys or Pinikpikan. I have no interest in retro bands.

I’d rather the past stay in my mind. As time goes by it becomes less distinct, the images getting fuzzy around the edges. Details lose their sharpness, the lens slowly gets foggy. Strange, but I’m fine with it. It’s the past, after all, and if you keep turning your head to look back at it, you turn away from the present, and certainly from the future.



Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Wag the dogeater

For section ‘M’ of the Philippine Star, December 5, 2007.



The Last Samurai was one of the most entertaining movies of 2003. Set in 19th century Japan, it told the story of an American military officer who fights alongside Japanese rebels engaged in a noble but ultimately futile struggle to preserve the ways of the samurai. The small band of scrappy warriors is defeated by a Japanese army employing the latest technology and tactics in modern warfare.

The movie was a box-office smash, but some critics were less than kind. The problem was how the movie treated the historical record. There was indeed such a rebellion in Japan at that time, but they weren’t sword-wielding samurai. They fought the same way the military did: with pistols, rifles, and howitzers. The way of the samurai had long been dead, critics pointed out, and anyway the samurai weren’t all that noble. The Japanese were particularly concerned by the way the American producers (including the film’s star, Tom Cruise) romanticized their past. Outsiders dared to tell their story, and they didn’t like what they heard.

Me, I didn’t much care. I thought it was a terrifically entertaining movie, simplistic though it may have been.

The movie came to mind as I sat in the RCBC Plaza’s Carlos P. Romulo Auditorium one Saturday afternoon watching Atlantis Productions’ staging of Dogeaters, a play by Jessica Hagedorn based on her novel. The book is a kind of alternate history of the Philippines that closely mirrors the real one, and it is told as a dreamlike pastiche that employs shifting points of view and flits back and forth in time.

Alas, the novel doesn’t translate well to the stage. The novel has the advantage of unfolding in one’s imagination, and for the most part it works even while it feels strangely unreal and distant. Drama is a medium of embodiment, and when flesh-and-blood actors give life to the story, its lack of depth is exposed. The characters prove to be uncomfortably improbable, mouthing dialogue that is conveniently schematic (“Do I choose lipstick, a rosary, or a gun?”) if not painfully wooden (“Do you love this place?” “It’s okay, I guess.” “No, I mean our country. Do you love our country?”)

One example of the difference between print and stage: the novel relates the encounter between Daisy, the senator’s daughter-turned-communist-rebel, and the junkie hustler Joey in three concise paragraphs at the end of a chapter because there is nothing else to say about their relationship. But the play gives us an entire scene with them together, and it is perhaps the play’s most tedious. (The two scenes involving a small band of rebels are unbelievable, not least because the rebels, clad in the requisite red bandannas and arm bands, drop crisp f-bombs as if they all went to the best private schools money can buy.)

It may indeed be “a play about the Philippines” — the cover of the program claims as much — but only in a superficial sense. The play, and the novel too, is fascinated with surfaces. The Philippines is presented as a radio melodrama — “The soap opera continues,” Rio says at play’s end — which is why Hagedorn adds the narrative frame to the play (the novel uses no such device and is harder to follow). Nestor Noralez and Barbara Villanueva, played as slick and soulless by Leo Rialp and Ana Abad Santos, direct our attention to the shifting scenes as if they were reading a script from their program Love Letters. And the scenes shift quickly and seamlessly, thanks to smart production design that marks off portions of the stage as different locales. When the action traverses these boundaries — such as the live-sex sequence or the torture of a captured Daisy — the play sparkles.

But mostly it is content to present the nation as a collection of types: beauty queen, righteous senator, greedy magnate, smarmy talk show host, swaggering actor, bomba star, hothead army officer, nasty general, pious grandmother, flippant socialite, gay manicurist, grim and determined rebels. The panoply of characters becomes little more than an exhibit of Pinoy exotica, none more exotic than Imelda herself. As the Iron Butterfly, Andoy Ranay is a hoot, yet the shtick feels old. Imelda jokes just aren’t that funny anymore. (I thought Richard Cunanan’s politely shocked journalist was actually funnier.)

And that’s another problem: the material feels old, as if the past twenty years didn’t go by. In transferring the novel to the stage, the writer hardly updates the material though almost two decades have gone by. And so the story unfolds as if it’s inside a bubble. It’s too clean and distant, its roots failing to plunge into the damp and smelly earth of reality.

A comparison may be instructive. In turning his screenplay for Insiang (the Seventies masterpiece of social realist film directed by Lino Brocka) into a playscript, Mario O’Hara made enough changes that turned the story into a substantially different one. Adding a new character who is narrator as well as participant, widening the story’s canvas by creating a backstory for several characters, leavening the sordid material with ironic humor — O’Hara successfully remolded his tale to fit a time and sensibility three decades removed from the film. Hagedorn doesn’t do anything similar beyond retooling the book for the stage, and the material, which might have seemed urgent in the first decade post-dictatorship, feels worn and tired, its insights hackneyed and stale. And because the story is caught in a time warp, the effort of a fine ensemble cast goes largely to waste.

Chari Arespacochaga’s turn as both shy probinsyana Trini Gamboa and flighty maldita Pucha Gonzaga (most of the performers play multiple roles) stood out in a topnotch cast of established stage and film actors that include Joel Torre, Michael de Mesa, Rez Cortez, Gina Alajar, and Jenny Jamora. Jon Santos, as proprietor of the gay night club and distant relation of magnate Severo Alacran (the coolly patrician De Mesa), throws himself with gleeful abandon into not one but two set pieces set to Donna Summer tunes, bringing the house down each time. The numbers are fun and wild, but they are also empty spectacle.

In the end, is it a question of audience? For whom is this play intended? The positive notices from American critics (such as Bruce Weber of The New York Times whose review is excerpted in the program) are understandable. The novel already raised the same question. Someone like Oliver Stone has called Hagedorn’s novel “the definitive novel of the encounter between the Philippines and America and their history of mutual illusion, antagonism, and ambiguous affection.” Yet I have still to hear of anyone based here in the Philippines who holds it in such high esteem. As a Filipino who has spent all his life here, I found the novel fascinating but alienating, as if a funhouse mirror image of you were presented as your real self. The play provoked the same feelings, only stronger.

A little ironic distance might have saved the play. But it is earnest and wants to be taken seriously as political and cultural commentary, and because it never questions the validity of its own perspective, it overreaches and arrogates to itself an authority it never earns. At one point Pucha (what mother gives her daughter that name?) tells Rio, the Fil-Am who also functions as the author’s stand-in, “After all, you’re just a visitor here.” Rio retorts sharply, “I’m not!” It was probably the least convincing line of the show. In the end watching the play feels as if a balikbayan relative insists on proving to you that she knows the Philippines well, and as she speaks you feel both amused and irritated because the country she is talking about isn’t yours.

As I watched the play I remembered that Tom Cruise movie and its fanciful version of Japanese history from an outsider’s point of view, and I liked it a little less than I did before.



Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Dulaang UP presents ‘The Silent Soprano’

Ricardo “Batch” Saludo’s musical The Silent Soprano, under the direction of Alexander Cortez, is presented as part of Dulaang UP’s Two-Year Celebration of the UP Centennial from 2007–2009. This new musical centers on a domestic helper Margie, whose golden voice captivates Hong Kong songwriter Ricky. Mesmerized though he may be by Margie’s singing, big-time record producer George thumbs-down the idea of a Filipino maid singing Cantopop — until he comes up with a daring scheme to sell her to the fans. The audacious plan catapults Margie to stardom, but she must follow George’s draconian rules to keep her place at the top of the charts. The musical sweeps across the themes of identity, music, race, love and freedom in a world driven by money, media and manipulation.

It runs from November 28 until December 12, 2007 at the Wilfrido Ma. Guerrero Theater, 2nd Flr. Palma Hall, UP Diliman, Quezon City.



What I should be when I grow up (assuming I haven’t)

Found this quiz courtesy of a friend and took it. Looks like I missed my calling.

* * * * * * * * * *

You Should Be in the Military
You are driven, focused, and an extremely hard worker. And while you can be ruthless in getting what you want, you also have a compassionate side. You are able to balance your own desires with the needs of others. You'll do almost anything to get the job done, but you're not willing to step on anyone's toes. You do best when you:- Are working with others- Are in a fast paced environmentYou would also be a good CEO or school principal.

* * * * * * * * * *
What a dumb quiz. It's just so not me, right?



When is a review not a review?

When it is, but it isn’t.

This is my cryptic way of saying that the reviews I’ve been writing for the Philippine Star will change. I’ve realized that I have the time and energy to write only one piece a week, and my editors seem to want and need me in ‘M’ (Wednesdays) more than in Arts & Culture (Mondays). There are no regular contributors to ‘M,’ which makes it easy for them to put me there whenever I have something (and I notice that they tend to put me on the first page). In A&C I have to compete with Butch Dalisay and Krip Yuson, a whole bunch of press releases (ballets, concerts, exhibits, book launchings), and occasional contributors; that’s why at least three of my reviews have been bumped back by a week or more. (Oh, and I’m not complaining about Butch and Krip. They deserve the space.)

This past Wednesday my review of Fiddler on the Roof and Into the Woods was published in ‘M’ — odd, since it’s a straight-up review and not lifestyle-ish. So I guess that’s where I belong, and that’s the section I will write for.

This means that the reviews I’ll be writing won’t be the conventional kind (at least in form) that I’ve been writing. I’ll try to make them more like my piece on Perfume the movie, my attempt at a more casual lifestyle-ish piece of criticism.

There will be benefits to this. It should be easier for me to keep up a steady stream of articles. My output has been erratic since I started writing for the Star in August. Knowing I’m only writing for one section should make things easier to focus, something I have a hard time doing. Also, my devoted readers (all three of them) won’t pester me with questions like, “So how come you didn’t write this week?” (To which I reply sheepishly: I did. It came out Monday.) Hopefully they’ll now have their regular Wednesday Dogberry fix. (Same great flavor, less calories.)

This won’t stop me from writing more straightforward reviews. When I have time, I’ll still write them and have them considered for Arts & Culture. Or I’ll post them in my blogs (Multiply and Blogger). For the blogs I’ll also try a more loosey-goosey approach. It’s just that from now on I’ll be spending a lot more time writing pieces for ‘M.’

That’s it. Back to regular programming, and thanks for reading.