Cloverfield

Enjoyment of Cloverfield is completely dependent on the willingness of its audience to embrace the format in which it is presented. Actually, "embrace" might be too lofty a goal, perhaps "accept" is the more appropriate word. Or no, "forgive" would be an even more realistic expectation. If you can forgive the inconveniences and limitations of Cloverfield's format-- that is, being shot from the point of view of a handheld camera-- and if you can appreciate the unique dimension it adds, then you can enjoy the movie.

That said, it's completely possible (and even understandable) that a large portion of the audience will just be unwilling to accept the movie. The person in front of me at the ticket counter line was a middle aged woman who was asked by the cashier if she was familiar with the Blair Witch Project (a movie I have not seen, by the way), because Cloverfield is that kind of movie, and a lot of others had been complaining about it.

The camera is as unsteady as you would expect from a cheap camera held by an amateur while New York City is attacked by a monster. At one point, following a helicopter crash, the camera lays idle in the wreckage focusing on nothing in particular. And it stays idle for quite a while. By this point the audience has so completely resigned to the reality that the viewpoint can not and will not focus on what you want it to, that you will start to consider the possibility that the camera will be laying idle for several minutes.

One one hand I'm tempted to give a high score for the innovation and sheer audacity of presenting a monster movie this way. On the other hand I'd have to take away points for the natural annoyances that the format imposes. Overall, thumbs up.

The movie ends in an explosion that makes it unmistakable that the last two surviving characters have died. Keeping as true as possible to the style of the movie, the low key end credits are displayed on a backdrop of blackness, over complete silence. At that point the audience starts looking around awkwardly, wondering in silence if the movie is done. What followed was an extremely disconcerting walk out of the movie theater. Though it would have broken the consistency of style, I really would have preferred to hear music over the end credits. That would have taken a big step towards convincing people that what they just saw was a movie, not merely an exercise in patience.

A politics of hope

You know how, when you love a song and try to play it back in your mind, sometimes the lyrics escape recollection and you find yourself merely humming the melody? But then the song comes up on the radio and suddenly it all comes rushing back to you, and you recall every word of every verse with such sincerity and honesty that it's as though you wrote the song yourself.

That is what reading Barack Obama's book is like.

The Audacity of Hope is a blend of autobiography, political policy, and general thoughts on things like family and faith. Obama puts into words the truths that we all know deep inside, but truths we've forgotten how to listen to because attacks from one extreme push us into the other. He speaks from an American viewpoint but his reasoning is anchored on a common sense that is so transcendent that it resonates with every country.

As much as I tell myself not to get too engrossed, I will be disappointed if he doesn't become America's next president.

Entitled to your own facts

Former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was in an argument with one of his senate colleagues over an issue. The other senator, probably sensing that he was losing the debate, said "You may disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my own opinion". Moynihan brilliantly quipped in reply: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts".

This story is insightful because you can tell it to anyone and they'd likely give out a chuckle and nod in hearty agreement, but in practice the statement "you are not entitled to your own facts" is not as reliable a truth as you'd expect. Politicians and journalists have come to take such liberties with the facts that their spin on the issues is given as equal a weight as the reality itself. Depending on your viewing preferences, inflation is either at a record low or a record high; the national debt is either shrinking or spiraling out of control; poverty is either going down or going up.

The absence of even a rough agreement on the facts means there are no reference points for accountability, and every opinion is given equal footing-- no matter how uninformed.

Which brings me to the catalyst of this entry. Last Sunday was the seventh anniversary of Joseph Estrada's fall from power. The Philippine government, understandably eager to reach out to Estrada's many scorned supporters, decided not to mark the anniversary with any special commemorative activities. (Perhaps they also realized in hindsight that the Supreme Court declaring the presidency vacant doesn't make as much sense today as it did in January 2001). The Inquirer, never one to pass up a chance to stoke the flames, made their front page headline for Sunday: "Palace: Forget EDSA II". They even had the gall to make their lead sentence "Read Malacañang's lips: Everyone should forget EDSA II".

This is the country's most widely circulated paper, seen by millions in newsstands and sidewalks all over the archipelago. All blaring to even casual observers that Malacañang wants you to "forget" EDSA II-- which is just not true. It's a destructive bias for negativity. I don't expect them to report on all the airplanes that arrive safely, but I do wish they would aspire for a standard of responsible journalism. For better or for worse, The Inquirer is considered the country's newspaper of record. Even if their editors do not agree on an issue, it is always possible to present it in honest and fair-minded terms. But what's done is done, and in the end what actually came out of the mouth of the Malacañang spokesperson matters less than the interpretation blazed on the front page.

Naturally, the following day the militants and bloggers are up in arms, denouncing President Arroyo's supposed amnesia and comparing her to a Holocaust denier. It's hard to blame people for not reading past the misleading headlines to dig out the hard facts, especially in an article as muddled as that one (you'd have to read several paragraphs into it before getting to the beef). Not everyone has the time to pick apart the news articles to segregate truth from innuendo.

There is no great reward in store for those who dare to articulate the truth, especially when the truth can't be painted in black and white. The reward goes to those who can make their arguments most loudly, most frequently, and in big bold letters.