Friday, October 27, 2006

litpick: Codex


Codex - Lev Grossman; Harcourt Books Publishers 2004
The Da Vinci Code sans Dan Brown and...everything in it, I guess. While Brown's book is the GoNuts-DoNuts (as Dodo would put it) of the literary scene, this one is far below the level of, even, Mister Donuts. The one that you'd consider as that sugar-sprinkled concoction found in glass partitions of local bakeries, wishing some famished carcass would liberate them with their few hard-earned currency. Simply put, it is not that would rocket up the list of a National Bookstore nor PowerBooks bestseller list. Nevertheless, I'll personally elevate it there. Lev Grossman, an unknown dude to the majority of the reading public--except for those who consider Time Magazine as part of their daily news intake---wrote this 'perfectly-okay' novel as his contribution to the growing number of rip-offs Dan Brown's book had amassed. However, the turnout is, in my opinion, a lot better. It tells of a yuppie banker Edward Wozny tasked by a uber-wealthy client to catalog their collection of old books and at the same time dig through the dirt-crusted chests of a codex that nobody believed existed. From thereon the plot weaves through the a fictional medeival history of the author, allusions to Chaucer and a subplot on a Myst-like PC game that Edward found himself addicted to. Yep, it's Da Vinci code minus the know-it-all attitude of Langdon (Wozny's failure to grasp history as well as his ephemerality is quite...um, realistic); sans the car-chases; and an antagonist that exists only if you would categorize him/her as one. It's an intelligent thriller. And it'll keep you stuck to your seat for a few hours a day, at least.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Kyoshi Kurosawa's KYUA (Cure)


KYUA (english title: CURE)
Directed by: Kiyoshi Kurosawa
Screenplay: Kiyoshi Kurosawa (based on novel)
Copyright 1997
Cast: Koji Yakusho, Anna Nakagawa, Masato Hagiwara

With the release of Hideo Nakata’s Ringu (Ring, 1998) and its succeeding sequel here in the Philippines, viewers immediately lunged to grasp the cinematic ingenuity of Japanese directors in their near-convincing manipulation of the horror genre. Ring created the ambience of pure terror into the hearts of the viewing public—and unintentionally junked its Hollywood remake. Evidently, the advent of Japanese cinema among the Filipinos manifested a clear meaning: we are not cinematic morons as many perceived us to be.

Clearly, this statement is also indebted to Kiyoshi Kurosawa as the feature director for the month-long annual Eiga Sai Film Festival held at the Shangri-La Cinema, the CCP and the UP Film Center. Although it would only run for the entire March, the festival’s feature film is the psychological suspense thriller, KYUA (CURE). With this, Kurosawa was typed as a horror-auteur, succeeding Kyua with two more films of the same genre: Korei (Séance) and Kairo (Pulse). His name might be similar to the great filmmaker Akira Kurosawa who lifted the prevarication of the Japanese cinematic proficiency by bringing The Seven Samurais, Ran, Rashomon, The Hidden Fortress to global audience. It is in this sense that I surmise that the name Kurosawa is, if not, indirectly associated to the word Cinema, though there exists no sanguinary relation between the two.

Anyway, KYUA is admittedly, an intellectual horror. What lack visually is compensated by the screenplay itself. The plot revolves around a series of gruesome murders—its methods tangibly connected (leaving an X mark on different parts of the body), those apprehended were either the victims’ loved ones, colleagues or friends and although they admit being the ones who perpetrated the deed, their recollection of why they did it seemed to have lost in their consciousness. Enter police detective Takabe Ken-ichi (Koji Yakusho) who from the start of the investigation deftly surmised that a hypnotic trance carried the perpetrators into the grotesque reality of murder. Apparently, it turned out to be the work of an eccentric wanderer (Makoto Hagiwara)—whose real identity we wouldn’t know of until the latter part of the film. The arrival of this mysterious character challenged (but didn’t contest) Takabe’s claim of a possible hypnosis scenario, but rather attempted to see what behind the detective’s persona. The anticlimactic yet frightening denouement that reminded me of the conclusion of Twin Peaks is somewhat delicately interpreted though one could sense and notice the similarity between the two. Also, if one would notice the style Kurosawa adopted, it would be that of the prosaic touch mastered and perfected by the suspense meister Alfred Hitchcock.

If one would be asked on his/her reaction towards the film, they would probably claim that there are plenty of unnecessary scenes that needed adequate and thorough exposition. Kurosawa leaves such questions to the audience—for them to search for the answers and the explanations. Perhaps it is in this light that the movie deserves a second serving—a means of a visual laxative for the mental quench aggregated by a subtle psychological distress brought forth by an intensive miscomprehension of the film’s plot. Complicated though, but with the success of Ringu and its succeeding sequels on the Philippine moviegoing society, Cure could simply be an abrupt dose to the effects brought by Sadako.

Technically, Cure is a cinematic near-perfection: a delivery of an appropriate soundtrack that I could associate a Bernard Herrmann or an Ennio Morricone; Kurosawa’s screen shots made me reminisce of a “Babad” shot as explained by Filipino movie director Lore Reyes—which involves a mere panning of camera on a certain setting without any cuts and editing whatsoever. Kurosawa’s filmic reality, meanwhile lies according to the prosaic grounds of basic filmmaking, exuding the common processes of editing yet stylish in numerous instances (the “Babad” shot for example)—which often reminds me of Sergei Eisenstein in Battleship Potemkin or Robert Altman’s The Player.

While CURE may have lacked the Sadako-esque horror that most viewers would have probably anticipated, it delves deeply into the realms of the human psyche—the characterization of what is terrifying is subtly represented. Koji Yakusho’s portrayal of Takabe is similar to Kyle MacLachlan’s detective in David Lynch’s Twin Peaks. And from this point, I could also notice the poignant traits and the Lynch-esque perspective that Kurosawa may have adopted and skillfully modified. Makoto Hagiwara’s portrayal of the eccentric wanderer niftily put the mystery into the person responsible for the brutal deeds—and his incessantly-reiterated question of “Who are you?” added to the weight of mystery and terror into the development of both the storyline and the characters being groomed. Basically, as the film progresses into the climax and its gradual denouement, we are also treated to the same question repeatedly uttered by one of the characters. It is a query of our capability to understand the film better or are we just the same beings before and after we viewed the film. It is also a question that challenged our mental capacities into believing that it is only a movie—nothing more, nothing less—but somehow the situations presented justified the reality of something unfathomable. Hence, our existence as rational human beings is fundamentally what Kurosawa is trying to explain.

In the large spectrum of things, CURE tells of the vast possibilities the human psyche could (in some way) attain—whether it could lead to something sinister or not. It is a film that many people considered horror, but it tackles reality with twisted portrayals and mild exaggerations. Technically, Kurosawa’s camera works and cinematography made it extremely horrifying, nevertheless.

As a parting word, CURE is a manifestation of Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s brilliant vision and pen—and perhaps what we could refer to as the laxative that treated the recurring spells brought forth by Hideo Nakata and Sadako.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

breaking news

from my post in pinoydvd:


Breaking News - Johnnie To

I'm not really fond of Hong Kong crime films until a friend introduced me to Johnnie To. I've seen a couple of his films in Star Mandarin back then (if i remember t'was Running Out of Time 2 and Fulltime Killer) but didn't paid much interest. Recently, I blind-bought Breaking News, which i heard from that same acquaintance that it was shown at Cannes. Tried it. Liked it. However found the plot as shallow as most Hollywood action flicks tend to be. The action sequences are heavy, right from the start and towards its predictable payoff. The cast are fine, except that he should have casted those that rotated on much of his previous crime dramas (Andy Lau, Tony Leung, Lau Ching-Wan) and give the film certain credibility on how its entirety should be played. Anyway, the gunbattles compensated for To's miscast but I think the ultimate lowdown of the film is its finale---something i believe is a total opposite of how a majority of crime/triad films are resolved. I'd rather see an ambiguous resolution than the usual 'crime does not pay' cliche. I wouldn't complain. To's the master of crime/triad entertainment and to that, he didn't fail on this one.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

feng shui


Feng Shui - Chito Rono

Finally saw this film last night, expecting nothing but a mental recap of mixed reviews I've read. So far, it's a nice film, I won't have to put a tiny synopsis here since almost everybody have already seen it. It's an effective thriller, nonetheless, but carries a plethora of both technical and creative flaws that are obvious enough to be noticed. First, I don't like the plot. Somehow, it brings an unusual negative effect on Feng Shui in general- - -which we normally turn to for us to get good fortune. The use of ba-gua as a malevolent ala-Friday-the-13-the-series-thingie (the catalyst for whatever ill-fortune that befell the characters in the movie) seems to be like a smear campaign to boycott the sales of that particular thing. I also don't like the idea of having those ghosts walk around the house as if they already reside in it- - -more like a retribution to Joy for putting pushing them to their early graves? Or does it have anything to do with the ba-gua itself? Third, yeah, Filipinos are suckers for spoiling the mystery by explaining them through a, let's say, a pseudo-expert on the matter. Joonee Gamboa's cameo is unnecessary, he's the spoon who is shoved inside the audience's mouths, feeding them anything that would kill the thinking. Fourth, there is no need for the overuse of sound score. I think it would be better if Rono partly relies on silence to contribute to the suspense. Feng Shui is, evidently, a spin-off of some Asian horror thing, and Ringu comes to mind since I don't usually fancy them much. Fifth, the acting: except for the supporting roles like Lotlot and Ilonah Jean, it just sagged. I don't know but it just hit me that this film would spawn a sequel or number of sequels primarily because it ended unresolved. Ambiguity is one of our weaknesses, so I'd be probably right. (yeah, Filipinos are also suckers to see what happened to Joy and the to family that inherited the ba-gua). Sixth, the ending: it would be more effective had they took out the make-up and merely utter that impeccable spoiler of a dialogue (ala-Sixth Sense ba?). Anyway, it is entertainment, nevertheless, but not a thinking man's movie. It may not be the perfect horror movie but it sure frightened the hell out of me.