JOLI-- nice , BELLE-- beautiful

It was really hard to write something and tell the whole world that what I am writing is the most beautiful piece in the world. Everybody for sure would beg to disagree with such conclusion. Although, by some miracle, I would be able to justify it to the very end, still my work will never be the best in the world. But somehow, this example may contribute to what is really beautiful. Thanks to COMA 110, I became familiar and had realized the beauty in ourselves with Burke, Kant, Hume, Hegel to name a few, it suddenly occurred to me I never give a time to stop and ponder on this.

The exciting and interesting months of reading and wondering how to deal with these lessons, was something I practically cannot explain. I was a bit hesitant (although I love discussing about beauty) to read all the required readings (Aminan na ito! he he he). But since I had to accomplish all these things to pass COMA 110, I was forced to do so. Yet, as time passed by, I was reading the pieces of these philosophers and found out better than spending time chatting on useless topics. I gained something which I should be proud of. Criticizing photographs of Pollock, taking a second look at Kublai’s sculpture—well, I am proud I have done all these things. I had realized how boring the world would be if it wasn’t for these extra special geniuses. If it was not for them, we would not be able to appreciate Pollocks works. If not for them, we would not be able to use their knowledge in order to appreciate one another. It is a domino effect. Do you realize that? By the time we try to appreciate their works (geniuses), we would be able to love others works too. Isn’t it amazing? It does make sense to value by studying the nature of art.

Sometimes, I wonder why I love things that are flashy. When I was in grade school I used to love purple. I buy things color with purple--from tops, to jeans, to mugs, accessories, my brush and even my undies. But then, I have come to realize that I did not like the color purple anymore. I shifted to shades of green. Then I finally landed in orange. Now, I have wondered what’s with orange anyways. Is it really something that makes me happy all the time? (Well, I guess it does, because orange is associated with liveliness) Or is it only in my mind that makes orange aesthetically pleasing for me? This is one question that aesthetics deals with, that is, if beauty is inherent in an object or does it lie only in the mind of the individual experiencing the object. This question I will try to search for an answer as I begin on finding my own concept of what is aesthetically pleasing. Before reaching to my own concept of beauty, let me first take a quick flash back to the road I had been through in which I dealt many thinkers that gave me a slap on my cheek and a bump to my head.

“Sublimity.” Nothing beats this first lesson—my first slap and my first bump on what I used to believe in. What he said is mentally or physically overpowering that mostly accompanied with fear. Then, there was mentioned an experience about an encounter of a snake that first brought fear then gradually notices the beauty of the thing of terror. I was puzzled. I do agree with what Burke said that fear is a very high degree of emotion that makes everything else fading away. Like watching a horror flick, you get so affected that you can’t even sleep because still you think of that terrifying scenes, yet still you want to watch horror. However, I still cannot find a thing of terror to be aesthetically pleasing. It might be sublime but it does not follow that it is beautiful. Having this uncertainty on the definition of sublimity I turn to Longinus who said that “the first and most important source of sublimity is the power of forming great conceptions.” The sublime is something beyond ordinary that brings exaltation to those who witness it. So it’s not like what Burke said, I said to myself, the sublime is a thing of great beauty not full of terror… But before I concluded that Burke has gone to another sphere, Longinus said that the sublime cannot identify itself only to what is simply beautiful, but also to what is so upsetting to cause “bewilderment” “surprise” and even “fear.” I had to stop and carefully absorbed these things which seemed to be simple yet I could not process it. Hmmm, so I need not to confuse myself if I chose to see an object without fear as sublime because Burke is not saying that sublimity is limited to things with terror rather Burke presented that sublimity is not only found on beautiful things but also with horrible things. I am gradually seeing what Burke said whenever I see antagonists in soap operas, they are terrifying yet for me they are more appealing than the angelic faces of lead actors.

Because COMA 110, I had already realized that astonishment does not necessarily mean admiration of wonderful things we see, I had considered unknown objects as aesthetically pleasing. People will always have this fear of the unknown. Of course! Who would not fear darkness, snakes, etc? For some, it doesn't give a feeling of aesthetic pleasure. Unknown objects are really obscure and certainly, they excite the passion for things. But as a contrary, for me, the more unclear the object is, the more it brings certain grandness. The more mysterious, the more exciting!!! ha ha ha!

Hume’s argument is that “there is a point in trying to discover rational standards of taste”. He started saying that no people no matter how alike their experiences are would have the same preferences. So based on this, beauty is then subjective. Yet people set standards because there is a need to reconcile their differences. What would happen if all of us will live accordingly on our own preferences? We should know that having no standards is like a world without laws. It does not mean that having standard will violate a person’s right to judge a thing. Me—what a great idea Hume !!! When standards are set, then came qualities of what makes an art beautiful, and for one to see this, he/she must have experience as what Hume said that a qualified critic should be free from bias, aided with practice, delicate sentiment and perfected with comparison. Perfected with comparison—I just love comparisons. For us to really see the best you must see the worst. Not only that, you must have experinced several of those to let you choose or sort out the best because how can you say this is the best when you only saw a few of all the existing entity of the same category. Before I didn’t understand why many like I’ve Fallen for You. The story is just another love story—a boring story. Well, in the contrary I like their theme song. But over-all the movie had same elements like those of the others. Film makers should try to produce quality movies.

The world of Immanuel Kant. Before, I KANT find anything about him. It was because I was just too tired. But now I see a different aura of Kant. So here comes Kant, will he helped me out in my quest of finding the answer to my question? At first Kant said that beauty is indeed subjective with his concept of Pure Intuition. It’s all about what is going on inside a person’s soul when he/she sees something an object, then it means that beauty is not in the object but in the person because the one who experience the feeling is the individual. What makes it even more appealing is how it implies that one need not know what really is in the object that makes you like it because it is prior to logic, trying to rationalize will taint the pureness of it. But what I can’t seem to grasp at first is his disinterestedness. He then says that it must be free from desire. Kant said that the thing called beauty is pleasing for itself and free from desire or approval. I was thinking over this and finding out an experience of something that I like but I didn’t want. And I found out there are things in this world that simply takes my breath away but because for me it’s too beautiful to behold I don’t desire to have it. Kant added that beauty is subjective but also universal. “The content of judgment refers to the form of the object.” So there is something in the object that makes you think of it this way. Slowly I process it in my mind, then a light came, okay that’s why I used to believe that beauty is not solely objective because actually you have this feelings towards an object because this object is in this form. Common sense. Kant also told the idea of Genius. Genius is born and not made. It is naturally endowed in an individual. (LIKE me! Ha ha ha).

Hegel deals with dialectics. Dialectical Method—thesis plus anti thesis equals synthesis. But I will jut take you all into another discussion, the spirit (espiritista… joke!), the self-conscience that I chose not to discuss because I don’t know how to relate it to the idea of aesthetically pleasing. I certainly love oppositions. Experiencing a game and losing it makes you think of winning the next time around you play that game. And that makes us come up with a better understanding of things. Oppositions and/ or negations are needed for us to see or to know the existence of things. It is also to know which one we should take into consideration. The thing is defined by what is, and what is not. I certainly like the idea. I have done that many times. Especially in one of my experiences in debates, I study the other side’s arguments and by that I would be able to come up with a solution to target their weak arguments. How is this related to beauty anyway? If there is the ugly duckling, there is also the beautiful swan (naks naman!). When someone dies, you feel the absence, and the sadness, and then you will realize its value in your life.

Plato is next in line. Plato said that an artist is a deceiver since what he makes is three times removed from the ideal. Regarding this point, I do not want to argue with Plato. We all know that because of rise of industrialization and increase of globalization, art has broadened its scope. Unlike Plato’s time when artists paints in such a way that it looked like what is real or what is present in this world. Honestly, I appreciate paintings because of its colors and figures. I am also a fan of super realism or magic realism. I want artists who can create something new, something unique and inherent of him. An artist is not a xerox copier of anything; an artist is creative and innovative. For me, aesthetically pleasing paintings are those that create uniqueness like that of Pollock. Somehow, I love paintings that resembles to real things.

Bell , Bell , Bell (ding dong!). “Work of art specifically visual art as valuable”. And he said that we experience “aesthetic emotion” because of the significant form which is made up by the lines and colors combined in a particular way. He also criticizes those who judge art with no artistic sensibility and clear thinking. Yeah, it is true. We associate colors to certain emotions. That is why Cory Aquino wears yellow. That is why red is a symbol of love. That is why I love orange because I feel happy and alive (I hope so…). That is why Vincent Van Gogh’s paintings belong to Expressionism.
I still have not come up with a concrete definition of art. Danto confused me. Danto said about how an ordinary object can be indistinguishable from the work of art. At first, I didn’t quite get it. Then, he showed me Lichtenstein’s works and I found myself nodding in agreement seeing a painting that looked like just another comic cartoons. What then is in a work of art that makes it art? Hmmm, it can be the medium, because the comic is printed with ink while painting used oil???? (Hai na lang!)

Gombrich said that there are “limits to objectivity on art” And that art is not a faithful resemblance of what is there but only a perspective of what is there.
Art can be directed to a certain audience that’s why it is subject to subjectivity again. The idea of art to one culture might be contradicting to another. Thus, there is certainly no universal concept of beauty just like we could not look for the most beautiful girl in the whole world and of the universe (alien!). People will always have a lot of ways of perceiving beauty.
“Style rules even where the artist wishes to reproduce nature faithfully.” I believe so. For example, no matter what I draw, I always have a touch of my style—be it a combination of various styles from stylists alike (he he he). This means that the subject matter of a work of art is filtered through the artist’s subjectivity. Artists have their own personalities, purposes, unique style and capabilities. In every artwork there is an artist you cannot separate him/her from his/her work. One can see certain similarities in an artist works especially on the time or period where it was produced.

Derrida’s truth in painting. A painting is the interpretation of truth, the trees we see in the painting is a different and separate entity from the trees in the real world. According to him, “painting is not necessarily a representation of what is in your reality because the truth of the painting is the painting itself not something in this world”.
Linda Nochlin--somehow for feminists, certainly for women. Why are there been no great women artist? Because they are incapable of greatness? The prevailing patriarchal society has been pushing women out of the picture of art. Right from the start, society was structured is such a way that men have more opportunities than women. Women have always been branded as the weakling and the dumb— one who is not capable of producing equally great art with men. Without undue biases (chaps!), go women go!
Camera here, camera there, camera everywhere. Voila! Camera was invented. With just a click you can have a picture so little time consumed compared to drawing or painting. Art before was accessible only for the elite. But because of this technological breakthrough, art opened doors for the poor. According to some of my readings photography redefined art. it raise the issue that why do we have to trouble ourselves painting for how many hours when you can do it within a second through taking a picture. Though it was presented that way, I still believe that painting is a different entity from photography. Each has its own uniqueness as a form of art that’s why you can’t compare the two. It is true enough that pictures are realistic than paintings. The invention of camera made us capture moments that will never be forgotten—moments and actions that will never be repeated in the same way. It’s not just the scene in the photograph that makes it beautiful but also the memories in it. Pictures like paintings also reflect the person behind it. The way we critic photos depends so many factors which is really hard to elaborate it further.
Power of Movies. Citizen Kane, and all those Sir Nino have shown us. There the best. Well, not my favorites but they are the best of COMA 110. It is the most influential nowadays. I need not say more of what makes movies powerful for I’ve talked about it for three thousand words in my previous post. Movies among all the works of art will always have the greater impact in my and I guess in our lives. Movies turn you into characters: Darna, Captain Barbell, Spiderman, Frodo, Harry Potter, Mrs. Smith, etc. Movies make you cry, laugh, sad, name all those emotions

Beauty is a mystery of how certain objects made you experience such. Beauty lies in the perception of an individual. Beauty is experience by us human beings who are capable of feeling. For this reason I cannot say that beauty and the object is completely separated. What is aesthetically pleasing for me.

During one of our photography sessions in AH5, I found it aesthetically pleasing when I saw Camigiun for the first time in 2006. Camiguin island was one getaway experience for me. It was a trip full of beauty and full of glamour. I had seen several splendid views from the window of the bus I was riding. Along the way, I was at the center. But then, that didn't hinder me to take a look at the beautiful houses, the stares of the people, etc. Right there and then, I was breathtakingly amazed by the beauty of what I saw around me. When I got off the bus, I was even more amazed. I was able to visit several landmarks and scenic sites and I can still remember now how I became stunned upon experiencing the presence of Camigiun Island . After travelling for 6 hours, we rode in a small ship (ngek!) Then, I started to take pictures on one of the little islands that greeted me. Aboard, I savored the unexplainable atmosphere of my life. Yes, it was home a way from home. I forgot for a while everything left in Davao . After an hour, we went down from the two-storey vessel (Am I right?). Then we rode to our place where we had to stay for a night. After packing all the necessary stuff, the adventure begun...

There was Katigbawasan Falls , the springs, the famous Sunken Garden , the rode to Taal Volcano, the ruined cemetery--all these have in common--- beautiful!

My experience in Camiguin alone is those that I considered aesthetically pleasing. I did not see Camigiun as a place ruined by natural calamities. I had an inner experience when I was there, seeing the scenic sites I only see in photographs before. It is of no doubt that my experience there is aesthetically pleasing, because until now, a year had already passed yet the memories of my internal experience in is still fresh in my mind. I am still amazed whenever I think of everything I had seen there

Kubrador here, Kubra there, Kubra everywhere...

Award-winning actress Gina Pareno portrayed one of the most critical characters in Philippine independent films. Critical in the sense that she had to be Amelita, a bet collector. She had to show the utmost reality in the film with her natural prowess in acting. Because of her wide and array experience of her craft, no wonder, she was given the honor to receive awards from respectable International Film Fest bodies like the recently concluded XXVVIII Moscow International Film Festival. It opened a new horizon for Filipino movie makers to venture into high-end movie making and to give an opportunity for these struggling Filipino movie enthusiasts to excel and be made known throughout the world. Pareno, Jeffrey Jeturian (director) and the rest of the group were a perfect combination that lead to the victory of their winning piece, Kubrador.

It was true that Kubrador was not able to hit the market of Philippine cinemas. But with the well-conceptualized story and well-written script, it became a hit for film critics and jurors.

Because Kubrador was an Indie film, surely, it had suffered doubly than the movies like I've Fallen For You, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Shaolin Soccer, etc. What else? For Indie films, finances were a headache. I guess for some miracle and with constant persistence of the staff, they were able to gather and/ or augment a meager budget for their production. Indie films continue to seriously suffer with having less helpers, less salary or talent fees, less promotions and less appreciations than those bountifully-produced movies. On the contrary, they give rise to exemplary qualitative movies like those of Lino Brocka and Ishmael Bernal.

I guess, due to this insufficiency, I can say that the shots taken were not fine. There was a lot of hand-held camera work. There were eye-level shots (Capili). But I cannot say that they were amateur shots.

Like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Kubrador also has a lot of interpretations. In one instance, Amelita lose track on the way out of a certain place. Then, her son, Eric, who was a military, somehow appeared subconsciously on that scene. But in reality, her son, was already dead.

The huge numbers of underclass employed to this kind of work (or is it really considered work?) believed in chances. The ratio of probability of winning was only one is to multi-millions. Thus, this kind of work remains unproductive. But they are not aware of such irrationality in them. I think that even if they know that what they are doing will not lead them anywhere, they still stick to that game of chance because somehow those were the only chances life offered to them. So why not cling to it?

These people are locked up in the cave. And so, they are considered (by Plato) as narrow and close-minded. A good example of this was when these poor masa were caught or raided by policemen during their several working sessions. Even though a lot of them knew jueteng as an illegal gambling game, they still resorted to it instead of looking for other legal means of surviving. For me, I refuse to say that these underclass were totally narrow-minded For some reasons, I believed that they know the reality but then they just refuse or simply don't mind at all.

Let us now relate Kubrador with Noel Carroll's The Power of Movies.

According to Carroll, both movies and standard theatrical productions share many devices in common. One thing about it is to direct the audience's attention. It is true that movies have “more effective devices for directing attention than theater”.

Variability of Focus in Film. I can distinctly remember the shot wherein the picture frame of Eric beside the Sto. Nino was focused longer than most of the shots. Vivid shots to blurry ones to all black-- it resembled that of the real eye movements. The camera was used in such a way that the shots speak for Amelita's eyes. Amelita who came from work was looking at the picture frame and Sto. Nino with sleepy eyes. It was an indication that she went home tired after a long day of collecting bets. This for example, according to Carroll, is “a more reliable means of making sure that the audience is looking where the spectator ought to be looking”. And does differentiates it from theatrical lighting.

On the first part, there was a close-up view of FPJ's portrait. Thus, it was a “ significant detail” rendered to the audience. This gave a “concrete sense of what was going on”. For me, it says that the movie was shot during the controversial peak of FPJ-GMA rivalry. And somehow, the close-up suggested that the following scenes wherein a woman asked a vendor where Erap's remain lies (which was somehow funny since Erap's not dead yet) was related to FPJ. We all know that FPJ and Erap were good friends. Putting Erap on that scene makes sense. It relates him with the whole story of Jueteng issues.

Variable Framing. “Camera's change of position is not included in the shot”. The cuts were made in such a way that the events occurred in the dimension of time (major cuts). This indicated the shifting of scenes. As for me, it was a shift of scene that happened on one morning, afternoon, or evening.

What really caught my attention was the camera's movements especially on the first part. The camera was like following the man who wore the FPJ shirt. The jueteng story of Kubrador begun by following that man. For quite a long time, the man's actions weren't cut. So in that case, his every action was important to the development of the story. The same was done to Amelita. It was clear that the camera also followed her during her ordinary days of collecting bets. The shot was trying to capture the specific actions on how Amelita collected the bets.

In the course of these camera movements, bracketing, indexing and scaling was shown. As told by Carroll, these three different ways of directing audience's attention can be seen all at once when a standard camera is positioned, “whether executed by cutting or camera movement”.

Pictorial Representation. Since Kubrador was about the phenomenal jueteng, jueteng paraphernalias were of course shown. We recognized those as objects that “serve as the models for that picture”. The jueteng paraphernalias and the people who busy with it serve as cues in which we are able to know that it was a jueteng scene. It somehow tells us that it doesn't take an educated person to appreciate a film.

Erotetic Narrative. It did answer several questions I had in mind. At first, I didn't understand the ending part wherein Amelita (half injured) and a bystander was shot during a traffic commotion. And then the last two phasing of the camera was directed stagnantly to Amelita, with minimal people behind but with Eric (still on a camouflaged suit). The last one, Amelita was half focused and behind her was an unclear vision of moving people as the background which represent commotion. Now, I know the answer. The shooting incident was another reminder only because in the earlier scenes before that was shot before Eric's grave in a public cemetery.

I'm not so interested to talk about pleasure and unpleasure with regard to this film. First, I don't find characters erotic except of course if they are portraying one. Well, I have to force myself to analyze on this matter. I'll just try to synthesize a work hopefully worth reading.

It has been said that film is a heterosexual medium in which it is always directed on the male view. It is because of the prevailing patriarchal order. When we watch a film, we usually take a look at the woman as a desire (for men) and as someone like or different from us (for women). In the film, if I'm not mistaken, there were two scenes wherein Amelita took off her clothes and exposed her voluptuous body. At that moment everybody (we as the audience) looked at her. So, I guess there was desire for men. But for me, I was awed. How did she manage to undress herself in front men? Didn't she hesitate to take off her clothes? Then, I said to myself, “siya na ged!”

I cannot exactly pinpoint sadism in the film. There was no force to change in another person. They remained as they were, I guess. There was no victory nor defeat. But hey, I guess there was a battle of will and strength. The will and strength to gain more through her collection of bets. The strength to face the world and ask a prayer from God so Amelita won't be caught off guard. Somehow, there wasn't fetishistic scopophilia (erotic instinct is focused on the look alone). To sum it up, I'm just too shallow to criticize the film.

As an audience, I can distract the actor in a theater. But in a movie, I can't.

As far as I know, Gina Pareno played motherly roles. I do not know of her past. Certainly, I don't know her personally. In Cavell's Audience, Actor and Star, he said that when you see Amelita in the movie, you do not actually see her as the character but you see her as Gina Pareno, the star. She is not the kind of character an author creates but the kind that certain real people are.

Let's take another example. Judy Anne Santos. We all know her as the chubby girl long ago who can easily drive people to cry with her. We often see her as the protagonist. The one that was always slapped and kicked by antagonists. And now, look at her, from being a chubby person, she had changed over the years. She was no longer the chubby one but we still remember her as it was. Before, in a teen movie, her role was sweetums. She was paired up then with Rico Yan. And now, Judy Anne takes the center stage again. In a span of years, we have known Judy Anne Santos. The point of all these things is that whenever we see her in movies, we don't actually see her as the Ysabella of Ysabella or Andrea in Kasal, Kasali, Kasalo. We see her as Judy Anne Santos herself. The chubby girl who turned sexy. To support my argument, here it is.. Try to think about the characters played by Judy Anne over the last years. Don't tell me you'll remember the personality of the character she played. What you will only recall is really Judy Anne, the lead role of that movie.

Another example is Camille Prats. The child who excelled in her exemplary performance in Sarah Ang Munting Prinsesa. We can't discard the fact that Camille was the cute, pretty and charming one in that movie. And so, whenever we see her play the mature or even sexy roles, we always see her as the child princess in that movie. Meaning we can still see her as Camille Prats, the star and not with the mature roles that she played. She may be the cover girl of FHM, she may be the love triangle between Richard Guttierez and Rhian Ramos in Captain Barbell—she's still Camille Prats, the younger sister of Ultimate Four dancer John Prats.

Ryan Agoncillo. He was the Y Speak host for quite a long time. And when acting for movies, teleseryes, etc. opened its doors for him, still he is Ryan Agoncillo. He may be Andrew or Albert in Ysabella. He is still Ryan Agoncillo, the star, the current boyfriend of Judy Anne Santos.

Space, Time and Motion. Alexander Sesonske tells of space, time, and motion in film. Space in a movie is three-dimensional. It is when you see actors moving within that frame. The action-space of a film is unusual with its discontinuity with the space of our world, as what was shown in the film. At first, we see a woman running because of fear. Then we also get nervous like her in the film. The fear and nervousness that we feel increases even more. She was crying and in agony because of the pain. And she also took us in the chase yet we remain fixed in our seat. Sesonske, said that we experience the events and have the feel of moving when we aren’t. This what makes me feel excited to watch a movie. Like Harry Potter, for example, I feel like traveling from the real world to Hogwarts. I feel like I'm also one of them. I go as far as my imagination can take me.

In Kubrador, the use of such is not dominant: “The action space in the film is discontinuous in itself.” The actors and the viewers can directly go from point in action-space to any other without passing through any intervening space. As far as I can remember the only parts this was used were the part when the chase is over then went to the scene when Amy first appeared and the part from the house to the cemetery. It was as if you’re only following her wherever she goes and scenes don’t shift from one place to another. This tells us of what events occurred in the life of Amy. This gave us a view of what happens in her days so it makes sense that this feature of a film is not that used in this film. The viewer travels along with Amy as she walks the streets. The film somehow appeared more real.

“The action space of a film is experienced as confined within a frame yet as unlimited.” We are only seeing this limited scene of Amy within a frame yet we can move through it as the characters go to somewhere else. It's never-ending.

Time. Like space, time in a film is not of the ordinary world. “Viewing time,” the time of our ordinary experience in which watching a film can make you feel time is shorter or longer. When I feel that time is longer while watching a movie, then I'm bored. Recently, Ma'am Dans Lee required us to watch Before Sunset and Moulin Rouge. Before Sunset, I'm sorry if I may say this is the most boring film I've ever seen. It was because the time of the movie was really the real time. The whole movie was purely dialogue! There was no change in time. The time scenes were done before the sun sets. Unlike Moulin Rouge, I didn't feel bored because aside from its cinematography and tremendous production, the time used was not real time. There was shifting. Luckily, with Kubrador, I didn't feel bored. I just didn't like the "bitin" ending. But somehow I've made my earlier realizations why it was done that way. The highlight when dealing with time in the movie Kubrador is how it managed to let the movie spectators feel that Amy’s day is over and another night has come. In Kubrador, what is seen in the day to day life of Amy were only those significant aspects, she wakes up, talk with his husband, sets out for another collection, talks with people convincing them to bet, goes to the “boss,” then went home yet it felt that we have seen it all. Sesonske said that a skillfully made film may convince us that nothing at all has been left out. In several instances, tiresome was all there. I even felt that way.

Motion. Sesonske talked about the familiar experience: what we have which is a moving panoramic view. As he said, “...the view of the lens of a camera transforms this familiar experience.” How a person sees things differ from that of a camera. But in the movie “Kubrador” I can say that the director played with the traditional use of camera in a film. The camera was like the vision of someone involved in that scene. Yes, it was more than hand-held camera works. For me the movement of the camera is shaky (too shaky someimes that it makes me feel dizzy and impatient as well). It somehow depicts of what an individual sees when he/she is walking. When you are walking, you’re vision is not as steady as the camera.

To end up this long discussion and thorough analysis of Kubrador (thorough man jud!), this what makes it different and outstanding.

“Kubrador,” Life is a gamble. The film says it so. It depicts the good and most especially the "bad" side of Filipinos. I quoted the "bad" since I don't really believe that such involvement in jueteng is bad after all. These are people who believe in hopes and of chances. The chance of earning more or simply living in this world without any financial problems at all. It was filmed in such a way that it did not looked like it wanted to preach something or proved anything. “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.”

Jeturian made use of quasi-documentary style that made the film more realistic. I based this conclusion from a blogger named Capili.

Well for some of you, you may not appreciate the somehow horror in the movie. But I just like it just the way it is. The ghost, Eric, Amelita's son, was the best part for me. Every time he appeared it made me realize that somehow outside this world, there is someone looking at us-- guarding and watching us over. And that my grandfather who passed away three years ago is still around here on earth (sounds creepy!).

I salute this film. It had proven itself to be worth watching not just here in the Philippines but to the international community. Kudos!

I would love to watch more Indie films. Yes, they are the savior of our dying movies. Directors, actors, script writers, etc. should be able to come up once again with a movie full of quality.