>Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:40:13 -0000
>From Cinemanila:
>
>From: "filmchronicler"
>Subject: Who killed the Tagalog movie?
>
>Who killed the Tagalog movie?
>By Isah V. Red, MANILA STANDARD TODAY (undated)
>
>Joel Lamangan and his colleagues at Directors Guild of the
>Philippines were probably gnawing their tongues while watching
>movie
>fans streaming into cinemas showing Batman Begins last week.
>
>They could be doing the same now that War of the Worlds and
>Fantastic 4 are in theaters. Meanwhile, the two Tagalog movies —
>Nasaan Ka Man and Happily Ever After—showing in some cineplexes
>(not
>all plexes want to show Filipino movies for obvious reasons—theater
>operators don't make money on local movies) are pressed hard to
>draw
>decent crowds.
>
>This kind of scenario peeves Lamangan et al. If you've been
>watching
>the recent awards night in which this director had the opportunity
>to take on the microphone for his "thank you speech" you would know
>how he detests Hollywood, even blaming it for the demise of
>Philippine cinema. Also, invoking freedom of speech, he would
>lambaste the present administration, citing specifically President
>Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the
>woes besetting the local movie industry.
>
>If I were a movie director, which fortunately, I am not, I'd
>probably feel the same, especially if directing a movie were my
>bread and butter.
>
>Lamangan's anger basically stems from the fact that very few movie
>producers are willing to take risks at the box office these days.
>Star Cinema, the movie production affiliate of ABS-CBN, and Regal
>Entertainment Group of Lily Y. Monteverde are the only outfits
>producing movies, although their output has diminished as well.
>
>Yet, the director likes to blame Hollywood for the demise of
>Philippine cinema. Lamangan probably has forgotten that Hollywood
>has always been in the consciousness of Filipinos since cinema
>became the newest invention of the 20th century. Doesn't he
>remember
>that even before he was born Tagalog movies (as they were referred
>to at that time) were merely produced to cater to a specific class
>in Philippine society? And the model of the films produced by
>Sampaguita and LVN studios was film noir, then le genre du jour of
>Hollywood.
>
>And even during the period considered by contemporary Filipino film
>historians as the second golden age of Philippine cinema, which was
>the period in the mid-'70s to the early '80s when young directors
>Lino Brocka and Ysmael Bernal, Hollywood films were the dominant
>entertainment fare.
>
>Giving in to the protestations of this group of directors,
>President
>Ferdinand E. Marcos, during his dictatorship, tried to limit the
>entry of Hollywood movies in the country. As a result, fly-by-night
>movie producers surfaced and came up with soft-porn stuff (and
>sometimes hardcore. Thanks to the strict censorship laws at that
>time, all the actual sex scenes were excised from the theatrical
>versions shown in theaters. (However, some unscrupulous producers,
>in collusion with theater operators and bookers successfully
>reinstated the scenes when shown in rundown theaters in Manila and
>the provinces).
>
>Serious directors like Brocka and Bernal struggled to win audiences
>to their movies. But it seemed that most of them had already been
>seduced by the sex kittens willing to be ravished by their male
>partners in the slew of trash produced by individuals who were not
>concerned about movies as art but whose motivation was mainly to
>make a fast buck from movies shot in less than 10 days and whose
>actors did no more than bare their bodies and engage in some
>crudely
>choreographed sex acts.
>
>The deluge of soft porn flicks also threatened Hollywood movies in
>the Philippines for a while. Joel Lamangan may not have been aware
>of this because as he claims he was in detention for being a
>political activist.
>
>Now, who killed the Tagalog movie? Not Hollywood, for sure. The
>Filipino producers who kept on turning out mediocre movies should
>be
>held liable for the death of the industry.

*****

Interesting article, and Mr. Red has a point: Hollywood has been
around, and we are producing poor product.

But that isn't the complete picture. During the '50s and '70s a
vibrant world cinema existed, one that doesn't exist today, or isn't
as vibrant.

During the '80s and '90s Hollywood discovered that the foreign
market is at least as important if not more important that the
domestic market. Big-budget flops like The Last Action Hero and
Waterworld could actually make their money back if they sold their
movie in large territories like Japan and Europe. In fact, the world-
wide premiere was invented during this time, partly to discourage
piracy, partly to take advantage of the popularity of brand names
like Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, and the like.

This development had several consequences. First, big Hollywood
movies could not flop--they made their money back overseas, meaning
Hollywood had incentive to produce more of them. Second, this meant
more aggressive marketing and distribution aimed at overseas
markets, something they had not paid as much attention to before.

This trend helped kill Hong Kong cinema, which at present is a
shadow of what it once was in the '80s and early '90s. The trend has
also further depressed filmmaking in most of Europe (except most
notably France), and the non-anime feature production in Japan.

Two of the strongest non-Hollywood film industries today, France and
India, are characterized by protectionist policies that limit
Hollywood films, or tax them to finance feature film production.

Definitely, as Mr. Red says, on the question of who killed Filipino
film, there is blood on our producers' hand, who have made much
mediocre work. But there is also blood on Hollywood's, and the
sooner we recognize this fact, the better.