This document discusses several questions about director Lino Brocka and his films. It notes that Brocka often sets his films in slums, and while some criticize this as limiting, the director's choices are ultimately up to him. It also discusses Brocka's film "Bona" and how it portrays the tragedy of fanaticism but may not necessarily teach audiences to be less obsessive. The document concludes by acknowledging that while slums are a reality in the Philippines, not all of the country is a slum, and directors can choose to portray different aspects of society.
This document discusses several questions about director Lino Brocka and his films. It notes that Brocka often sets his films in slums, and while some criticize this as limiting, the director's choices are ultimately up to him. It also discusses Brocka's film "Bona" and how it portrays the tragedy of fanaticism but may not necessarily teach audiences to be less obsessive. The document concludes by acknowledging that while slums are a reality in the Philippines, not all of the country is a slum, and directors can choose to portray different aspects of society.
This document discusses several questions about director Lino Brocka and his films. It notes that Brocka often sets his films in slums, and while some criticize this as limiting, the director's choices are ultimately up to him. It also discusses Brocka's film "Bona" and how it portrays the tragedy of fanaticism but may not necessarily teach audiences to be less obsessive. The document concludes by acknowledging that while slums are a reality in the Philippines, not all of the country is a slum, and directors can choose to portray different aspects of society.
Some people want to know: Why are the majority of Brocka's films set in slums? These people obviously have mud and proletarian bonhomie coming out of their ears. To each his own consciousness, I suppose. Who is to say which is "better" for each director, other than the director involved? Brocka makes films about slums; Fritz Ynfante makes "Forbes"—-who is to say which is "better" for each director, other than the director involved?
Second question: Isn't Brocka's preference
for slum stories limiting him as a director, making his work repetitive and, as a result, ultimately predictable and boring? Yes. But tell Brocka that and he won't wish you a Happy New Year. What's the big deal? As a result, nothing. Subjectivity is everything in directing. You'd like Brocka to broaden his horizons as a director? Before anything can happen, he must want it. And that will happen in his own time.
Final question: "Will "Bona's" tragic story
open our moviegoers' eyes and teach them to be less obsessive? " It doesn't appear to be so. When I saw the film, the fans around me were suffering in the same way that Nora was, but they were "ecstatically" seeing it as their apotheosis, not as an indictment. Susan Roces has nothing to be concerned about, nor does Nora Aunor. SUMMARIZE YOUR MAIN IDEAS "Bona" is a story of obsession, the tragedy of the fan turned fanatic. It delves into what causes an otherwise sensible girl to throw discretion and self-respect to the wind to serve her beloved. For most fans, this delusion is just a lark, a temporary psychic vacation from the hard facts of living. But for a few, the delusion becomes their new reality, and their lives are wrecked by it. CALL TO ACTION Fact: The Philippines has a large number of slums. Fact: Not all of the Philippines is a slum. As the spirit moves them, directors react to those two facts.
We see uncomfortable reminders of
ourselves in the film, exploring and exploiting, seducing and betraying, adoring and abusing. We realize as we watch the film that we are our own martyrs and monsters.
Lights Camera Booze: Drinking Games for Your Favorite Movies including Anchorman, Big Lebowski, Clueless, Dirty Dancing, Fight Club, Goonies, Home Alone, Karate Kid and Many, Many More