james.soriano

PUBLISHED:
iThink
Students & Campuses
Manila Bulletin
August 12, 2009
Page E-4

Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that GMA has decided to confer the Order of National Artist to four individuals who were not even shortlisted by the award’s selection committee.

For an administration that has gone great lengths to entrench itself in power, it shouldn’t surprise us that it would tamper with the cultural distinctions that mark our legacy as Filipinos. In fact, it was unavoidable: a government which thrives on a culture of corruption was inevitably liable to the corruption of our culture. Surely, it is no big deal for such an administration to combat standards of quality or propriety when it has already proven itself able to defy a Constitution.

And who are we to argue with them? The National Artist Award is, after all, technically not awarded. Rather, it is proclaimed. In the end, one becomes a National Artist because the President proclaims it to be. One is a National Artist by law, not by distinction.

It is only a distinction in the sense that there is a committee in place to judge artists on the basis of merit. It is a committee composed of esteemed members of the arts community, appointed by the CCP and the NCCA, and it is doubtlessly the most well-suited group for the task. But it is important to point out that their opinion is simply an opinion. Their role is merely advisory, or consultatory. It is still the President that will have the final say.

Perhaps we could question: why would there be a National Artist Award Committee when the President can simply bypass the rules and appoint National Artists whenever she pleases?

The answer is that the President, too, realizes that she is not one who can decide on what constitutes exceptional art, and what doesn’t. She humbly acknowledges that there are other people who are better qualified to make decisions on matters of artistry and culture. She also recognizes that the title of a National Artist is an enormously significant one, and it is a decision which she cannot make lightly.

And who are we to say that she didn’t respect the opinions of the arts community? Did she not confer the award on three out of the four recommended by the committee? Besides, as her spokesman said, her choices were not limited to the recommendations of the CCP and NCCA; she also based them on the opinion of “other artists groups.” And who cares that she is not able to name these groups? Everyone, even artists, has a right to be anonymous.

But even when we look at her selections, who is to say that they are not worthy of note? To paraphrase the standards set by the awards committee, the Order of National Artists can be bestowed upon those who have contributed to building a sense of nation, pioneered a creative style, produced a substantial body of work, or have gained respect through critical acclaim or their peers. Don’t any of the President’s four extra choices fall in any of these categories?

Hasn’t Carlo J. Caparas contributed to creating a sense of Filipino identity through brilliant comic book stories such as Panday and Bakekang? (Never mind, of course, that he didn’t draw these works—apparently comic books are ‘visual art’ whether we talk about the drawings or the story.)

Didn’t he pioneer the art of the massacre film through works like The Lipa Massacre: God Save the Babies? (Consider the clever dramatic use of the colon, even.)

Isn’t the fact that he is the first National Artist to be conferred simultaneously for both Visual Art and Film a testament to his substantial body of work? Does he not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Lino Brocka?

The same can be asked for Cecilla Guidote-Alvarez. Has she not won awards from the Ramon Magsaysay Foundation and the CCP itself? Did she not forward the development of Philippine theater by establishing PETA in the sixties? In her own words, “Was I an idiot before I became a national artist?”

Does it even matter that she is automatically disqualified for nomination as the NCCA’s executive director, when it was the President who decided that she was worthy of the award? Does it violate delicadeza when she didn’t lobby for herself to begin with?

But there is one last objection that I can raise. It is the fact that she picked so many—and that they are composed of her most loyal supporters. Eddie Romero put it best when he used the words ‘wholesale declaration,’ because it cheapens the value of the award. But it is more than just debasing the award, it is also a politicization of the arts.

Then again, weren’t the arts politicized to begin with?

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 27 May 2009 Issue (Page F-3)

A couple of nights ago, on primetime news, a member of the NBI was asked about their possession of the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili sex tape. Here is what he had to say:

“Kailangan naming panoorin ng maigi ang video para malaman ang motibo ng nagkalat ng video.”

It was kind of the same situation with me, except that I don’t have to make a lame excuse about having to acquire it from the internet. It did serve a purpose though, looking back: if I was going to talk about what happened inside that room, it is only fair that I witness the entire thing to get my facts straight. That way I don’t get accusations of irresponsible reporting. Maybe NBI Guy had the same concern.

But the issue is so out in the open that it’s already been featured as a headline in some prominent broadsheets and news programs. What’s funny is that people from all walks of life, from curious pre-teen boys and affluent colegialas to yayas and semi-senile grandparents, still talk about the tape in small voices and hushed tones. Yet two minutes later everyone is glued to the computer screen watching a “SEZZ-LENG HAT!” dance to the beat of Beautiful Girls, complete with glowing rubber balls in each hand.

It’s doubly sad. What counts for news in this country, I mean. And the dancing.

What’s comforting, though, is that we can be more open about it at home. It’s been the subject of at least one dinner conversation. Even my little brother, who remains remarkably clean of heart even as he undergoes the deadlier throes of puberty, has seen the video. Or at least the first, non-nude part.

Actually, I did stop at the first part during my first viewing. In so many ways, it’s all you need to watch.

On the one hand—and I have been bothered by this all weekend—I simply cannot understand how anyone, even someone as handsome as Hayden, could get any action after that. Unless I’m looking at this all wrong, and apparently it turns women on when a man can’t dance or sing to save his life, but tries anyway. And even then he did hog the camera for some time, in what seemed to me was an attempt to outdo a sexy star at sexy dancing. It was…kooky.

After seeing that performance, I am of the opinion that Hayden Kho should never, ever dance again, indeed.

On the other hand, the damage will have been done by the dying seconds of the first part. By that time, we all would have laughed at someone else’s expense. Perhaps repeatedly.

I’m not so concerned here about the damage it’s done to Hayden Kho—if indeed it could be called ‘damage’, since he’s become something of an idol to many guys. I am of the minority opinion that his dancing is a deal-breaker, yet I guess getting someone like Katrina Halili in bed automatically overrides everything for most.

He had it coming, though. He was the one in a relationship at the time. And it’s not just her, it’s countless other hers. He has complained that he wasn’t the one who leaked the videos, but it really doesn’t matter anymore, especially since he is a medical practitioner and has a reputation to keep. Sadly, this might mean that the verdict has already been cast before his case even gets to the courtroom.

As a matter of principle, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with recording your bedroom activities—as long as your partner consents and the terms are clearly defined. If it’s your sort of thing as a couple, then that’s your business.

What’s rather depraved is when the girl doesn’t know, or her consent is manufactured. Because when the videos get publicized, it’s not just the right to privacy that’s violated. It’s bad enough that Katrina Halili is already the stuff of men’s fantasies—and now she has to deal with this humiliation. It’s tantamount to rape.

Then again, I guess if you sleep with a guy like Hayden Kho, someone who confesses to recording videos for his “personal collection”…well, that’s also your problem.

Still, let’s not be prudes and wash our hands clean of any crime. The fact is that we’ve committed it by taking part in this media circus.

Also, it’s not like we all don’t have secrets we would rather keep to ourselves. Things like these happen as a result of our being human and our ability, even willingness, to commit mistakes.

But if you really, really have to keep a video, be very, very careful in guarding your secrets.

In Hayden’s case, however, it’s not like there’s much to keep.

Or much to see.

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 18 March 2009 Issue

Lately, open parties have been the object of much criticism and disapproval. After some heightened coverage by certain media and news establishments, the issue has reached controversial, even scandalous proportions. I’m not sure the issue deserves this much publicity, and given the power of the media to set the agenda for society by defining what we will consider as important issues, I’m not sure I approve of it.

Still, I understand the fear that parents and other interested onlookers collectively feel about open parties, given the way it has been portrayed. The fact that the barkadas who organize them responded in a reckless manner has not helped. Instead, it seems to affirm the notion that parties are a den for the mass corruption of today’s youth, and a lair for a range of activities that are, in short, bad.

These fears do have some basis in fact. Alcohol is a staple in many open parties, like it seems to be anywhere else. Brawls are not. Sex and drugs occasionally happen in a few, though far from the extent that everyone has been led to believe. You could also make the argument that the groups put on the spotlight are not exactly paragons of virtue. But is the single incident being talked about representative of the whole so-called phenomenon?

Yes, these fears do have some basis in fact; unfortunately, there is more than a fair mix of fiction. Hence, there is a need to step back from the initial shock value that this sensational issue creates.

In other words, we should be a bit more level-headed before passing judgment, since it is always easier for us to damn something that we have not witnessed.

In the first place, there is a problem with the distinction that has been made between “open parties” and other parties in general. In reality, these parties are virtually no different from college parties, house parties, and even birthday parties featuring dancing and mobile bars, where people have just as much of a propensity to go out of control. It feels like people just arbitrarily lumped together the negative qualities present in different kinds of partying, added that this is now “the rage amongst private school teens,” and christened it “open party.”

What is perhaps alarming is the fact that teenagers are organizing this, and are succeeding. If considered entirely from the now-popular perspective, this points to a problem with the way kids are being allowed to run amok: either parents give their consent (parties are often held in village clubhouses), or some rules are not being followed. This does not speak well of establishments who may be skirting some laws for profit.

On the other hand, we have based our portrayal of these parties on a single incident, and they are hardly representative of what goes on inside them.

Here is another thing that is problematic: the treatment of the entire incident. I feel that the situation has been handled irresponsibly. Our perception of this issue is based almost entirely on a version of facts which cannot be corroborated. Besides this, too many words have been exchanged by the parties involved. In the end, the incident has become mangled beyond recognition.

Trying to distill this in terms of black and white has, I fear, only enlarged the problem and exaggerated our notion of what our youth has become.

And if we are to talk about the youth, are we to view them in light of those barkadas who have been featured? Are they representative of what our youth has become? If “open parties” have generally been without incident for the last decade despite the temptations that are sometimes present, I think that says something about how we, the youth, really are.

But say for the sake of argument that they are the face of today’s youth: Do they need to grow a spine and a sense of responsibility? Definitely. Do they have a distorted sense of values? Perhaps. But are they deserving of such unregulated public exposure and pressure at that age? I’m not sure. It is easy to get angry at them, but I’m afraid this is the sort of situation that strongly reaffirms their need for rebellion.

The more I think about it, the more I begin to feel that open parties are less of an issue than people believe they are.

Still, I won’t ask for parents to go back to when they were young and did stupid things.

They were probably told off by their parents, too.