The Philippine Online Chronicles

The POC
Friday
May 25
Home Features Metakritiko Features Clash of the Titans

Clash of the Titans

There are some things, that to my mind, once constituted a seal of awesomeness. If a movie had these things, then I was bound to enjoy them. Among this list are ninjas, pirates, dudes dual-wielding pistols shooting them in mid-air, massive battles with hordes charging each other, dwarves with axes, a guy with a whip and a fedora, fast-paced sword battles, slow-mo spinning roundhouse kicks, and a Star Wars reference. Of course, in recent years many of these things have been removed from the list because of a lot of bad movies’ misappropriation of them. And it only took one bad ninja movie to put the once always awesome ninjas into question.

Being a fan of mythology (as all geeks are in some way or other) I also thoroughly enjoyed Greek mythology and for a time included them on the list. And though Troy was dismal in its interpretation of the story of the Iliad, I had hopes that somewhere along the way Hollywood could get it right. It did, after all, come up with the fun to watch and memorable in its own way original of Clash of the Titans. And with the great trailers for this movie which promised an action-packed feature and a kraken (another thing that falls in the list of awesomeness; its awesomeness was already in question though, as it appeared in the Pirates of the Caribbean, a film series that put a number of things on the list into question, Keira Knightley in a corset being one of the few things that retains its place on the list despite her appearance in the films) I was hopeful that the revamped, CG-driven Clash of the Titans would be an action-packed and enjoyable ride.

If an action-packed enjoyable ride is cruising down the highway with the top-down in a Maserati, Clash of the Titans is bumping along EDSA, falling in and out of potholes while lurching through the traffic of pre-election road reconstruction in an Owner-type jeepney.

The movie begins promising, with a beautifully executed prologue. We are told the story of the fall of the Titans (don’t let the title fool you there are no titans clashing here) and the rise of the gods, through mesmerizing visuals outlined in constellations. We move smoothly from one constellation to the next as if we were being told through a picture book a massive story. It’s a good way to introduce an audience that the movie assumes to be (and is probably right in that assumption) ignorant of Greek mythology. The movie makes the assumption because it is geared not towards people who know anything of the Greek myths, but rather to people who just want to see a massive spectacle. It seems clear also that after this bit of exposition, the movie is ready to chuck all the rest of Greek myth out the window, taking only what it feels might be interesting to a viewer more interested in bloodshed.

It’s a wonder then, that with a film so concerned with hitting the beats of violence and spectacle, that Clash of the Titans doesn’t do its action any better. If you were awed by the action scenes in the trailer, well, that’s pretty much it. In following the journey of Perseus, as he tries to save Argos from the wrath of the gods, we are given some minor but rather unimpressive hand-to-hand set-pieces with a deformed Jason Flemyng, which are followed by some massive but unimpressive spectacle action scenes with giant scorpions. And so it goes.

What bothered me most was the writing. The lines were terrible. After a great opening exposition on myth, it doesn’t bother any other visual tricks to make later explanations any more interesting. What’s worse is that so many scenes feel like they were borrowed from other films, and there is a rather disturbing undercurrent of homo-eroticism here that probably wasn’t intended, considering that the attempt is to draw the action-testosterone crowd.

Further problematic is the movie’s logic. Now I know that this film is fantastic, that it is based on myths and thus doesn’t operate on the level of realism. Ready to give the film all that, I still ask that the film adhere to its own internal logic. Even if it doesn’t work within the logic of our world, it has to adhere to the logic of its own. In this sense, the thinking viewer cannot accept most of the things that happen.

Its gods are petty and childish and want to be loved. And thus humanity declares war against the gods. How humans are to fight, on a literal level, beings that can hurl lightning bolts at them, as well as all other kind of calamities, I don’t know. But the humans are at war with the gods.

Humans, warring with the gods, with swords and spears and shields, don’t really do too much damage. One has to consider the military strategy involved when waging war on an enemy. According to the film, the gods feed on human worship. So, Greek military leader dudes, a direct siege on Olympus, or going out and fighting them doesn’t really work, especially if Hades can just materialize from out of nowhere in your big banquet room when you’re having a party after you earned a “victory” by toppling a statue of Zeus. How losing a troop of men so that you could down a statue doesn’t really make sense to me, and within the logic of the film it doesn’t make much sense either.

But this is how the movie progresses. Things don’t make sense, but we chug from one point to another, because we know that’s where we’re supposed to go. We are supposed to, at a certain point, watch Perseus chop off Medusa’s head, ride a pegasus, and take out the kraken. And the movie seems more interested in bombarding us with spectacle than actually telling an interesting story of how these things are done.

It decides to throw in some comic relief, a rather ill-advised love story sub-plot, and a lot of hammy acting. I was thinking that this might have a seal of quality because of heavy-hitters Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes (come on, last movie these two were in together was Schindler’s List!) and great character actor Pete Postlethwaite. No go there as most of the acting (or lack thereof) is taken by Sam Worthington scowling and saying that he is a man (and more of that homoerotic subtext can be found in those little exchanges).

Clash of the Titans asks that you don’t really think too much. And this is a shame, as its source material is great. It only keeps that from the source material that might be corrupted to work as flashy action sequence and then makes the rest up along the way without much thought. The movie might have been redeemable if its action was impressive, but even there it fails. Lacking logic or the pizzazz to make us overlook it, Clash of the TItans is just, sadly, a disappointment.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Newsvine! TwitThis
 
Comments
Add New RSS

Disclaimer: Comments posted here reflect our readers’ views and not the opinion of The Philippine Online Chronicles.

Lauren 05 April 10, 03:20 PM
I get the impression that you walked into the cinema already hating the movie becase you don't bother explaining yourself when you make statements. For instance, you just brushed the scorpion scene off with an "it wasn't impressive enough" without telling the reader what counts as a good action scene with giant monsters. You don't explain what you mean by "homoerotic subtext" (of all the Hollywood movies about ancient Greece, I find this the *least* homoerotic). You don't go into detail when you claim that this movie ripped off action scenes from other movies. This review doesn't even address the glaringly obvious fact that Clash of the Titans is a remake. I'm sure people who have seen the original would have wanted to know what changed in this version.

Regarding your comment about the flaws in the movie's internal logic, I see nothing wrong with the fact that men were stupid enough to fight the gods. It's a myth. You yourself acknowledge that it's a myth yet you still view it from the prism of realism and expect rational choices and motives out of the characters. And while the movie was indeed written for us ordinary folk who are "ignorant of Greek mythology", you should have gone into that cinema already expecting it to be unfaithful to the original story of Perseus. It's a blockbuster flick, not a history class. People saw the movie to see giant monsters being slain by a hero, and of course it's going to be santized and cut up for easier digestion. But this flaw in the internal logic is a problem of the original film, not this one.

Overall, I find this review extremely unhelpful.
carl javier 06 April 10, 12:14 AM
hi lauren thanks for taking the time to comment. contrary to your belief that i went in hating it, i do make an attempt to come into movies with an open mind and then make my assessments based on how they affect me. I was, as with all movies, ready to like this one. In fact I was pretty hopeful, being of those those people that enjoys watching giant monsters.

to address some of your points: I question the internal logic in the sense that I am asking what kind of military strategy one would mount against such an opponent. According to the film, the gods feed on prayers and worship. If that is the case, then wouldn't ceasing to pray and worship the gods be the best military strategy against them? Rather than sending out your people and toppling statues at the cost of a company of men? Or mounting a siege? Just stop all prayer and the battle is won. I believe this point is pretty sound, not working within the "prism of realism" but still demanding that there be cause and effect, one thing lead to another in a sensible way, as all good plots should. Within the logic established, characters should act rationally, be it myth, fantasy, scifi, action, or whatever.

Bearing in mind the criticism you have where you say that I should have expected them to be unfaithful to the text, I did generally accept that. It is, after all a film, an adaptation, and must give way to the form in which it is being adapted. This doesn't mean that we don't demand a good, smart story anymore. And that's what I expected. I wasn't expecting something that would win a screenwriting prize, but was at least hoping that the story would be intriguing enough that I would be excited.

You say that it is a "glaringly obvious fact" that this is a remake. Hence my decision to not bother with it. People already know that. It was a stylistic choice for me to only concern myself with this film and not bother to make comparisons to the original.

You also defend this film by blaming its flawed logic on the original film and not this one. But I have to disagree with you on this point because seeing as to this is a remake, and a rather different one from the original, the makers are free to adapt the story as they see fit. So it's not a flaw of the original, but of this one that the story is not compelling (and if you did enjoy it, or feel like I am beating this movie down too much then you can take heart in the fact that this, like all criticism, is subjective, so when I say it isn't compelling, I say it isn't compelling to me, as a critic, with my own personal standards, which I will readily acknowledge are different from everyone else's standards).

Oh, and if you want a flick with some nice big monster combat, King Kong's always fun.
kss 06 April 10, 12:49 AM
i take issue with lauren's last statement, where she says that the review is extremely unhelpful. in what sense, to begin with, do we want reviews to help is the question.

would this review be considered helpful had it liked the movie? and in which case would lauren still take issue with it? would this review be considered as simply unhelpful (versus extremely) had it mentioned that this was a remake and that it's based on greek myth? would it just be unhelpful (versus simply and extremely) had it said that it didn't like the movie, but that the movie is not at fault?

what, pray tell, is a helpful review? and who is it suppose to help?

to demand that a review be helpful is to see and demand something beyond its self.
Lauren 06 April 10, 01:50 AM
A helpful review, in my opinion, would state what makes the movie good, and what makes it bad. It supports those statements with factual evidence, and takes into consideration the entire film - history, execution, and everything in between.

The review becomes helpful when it presents these points without making the readers' decision whether to view the film or not for them. The reader makes the decision based on what the review says. A review that is 80% (a random figure made up exclusively for argument's sake) whining about the material is in no way helpful, because it influences the decision too heavily.

To answer your questions:

would this review be considered helpful had it liked the movie? - No, and I explained why earlier.

and in which case would lauren still take issue with it? - Yes, because it is still unhelpful, albeit under opposite circumstances.

would this review be considered as simply unhelpful (versus extremely) had it mentioned that this was a remake and that it's based on greek myth? - The review makes it clear that it's based on Greek myth. Addressing the original would have been helpful for those who viewed the original, and for the readers to understand better the source material on which the film is based.

would this review be considered as simply unhelpful (versus extremely) had it mentioned that this was a remake and that it's based on greek myth? - No, because for a review to be helpful, it has to support its own arguments.

what, pray tell, is a helpful review? - Explained earlier.

and who is it suppose to help? - The reader, who either A) Wants a deeper understanding of the film; or B) Wants something to help her decide if she wants to see the film or not.

"to demand that a review be helpful is to see and demand something beyond its self." - This is contradictory to the nature of reviews, as it is their sole purpose to help the reader understand and decide.

I hope this was helpful.
Lauren 06 April 10, 01:35 AM
It is normal for a reader to question the author's disapproval of the film's lack of adherence to canon myth. After all, the way the introduction was written, it certainly seemed like the writer was expecting a faithful interpretation of the original tale. A great deal was spent discussing your preferences rather than the film, and set the stage for the reader's interpretation of the review. Perhaps this is an unfortunate occurrence of the writer's inability to convey his thoughts in the manner he hoped to. It happens.

The argument against the film's logic also seems to assume a lot about the film's conceit. Who are the mortals to assume that merely stopping their worship would kill the gods? The closest the film said regarding the end of worship was stated by Zeus, who said something akin to "Their worship fuels our immortality".

Let's assume that the movie would take on a different course, that the mortals DID simply end their worship. Would not the gods have acted? Would they not respond with acts of violence and awe? Examine human nature, and ask yourself - when you are at your most fearful, do you not turn to prayer?

Anger, on the other hand, creates a singularity of focus - to cease the actions/existence of your enemy. No room for worship there. In waging war against the gods, they would have decreased the amount of worship much more significantly. And who would disagree that, after being overwhelmed by fear of the gods they refuse to worship, the mortals would eventually rise up and revolt?

Of course, this is all speculative, but it is an exercise in logic, and if the film played out in the way you would have wanted, war would have been inevitable, and subsequently more effective.

I disagree with the idea of disregarding the original when critiquing a remake. After all, one must understand the circumstance behind a work before attempting to critique it. If the source material itself was shoddy enough for the remake to introduce changes to it, so be it. But if the changes made it barely recognizable from the original, then it is not considered a remake at all; rather, it is a reboot. One need only look at the two Hulk movies of the decade to realize this.

In that regard, despite the (many) liberties that the film took with the source material, it does stay faithful in terms of the sequencing of major plot points. "Homages" to the original abound, and the story was, stripped to its very essence, faithful to the original film. And it is because of that that the author finds a great deal of faults.

Someone who watched the original would have known from the very get-go that this wasn't merely a "giant monster movie", but a drama between gods and men. The gods, though playing a "stern parent" figure for majority of the film, are unwaveringly sympathetic of one of their own (Perseus) and of humanity itself. The Kraken and the stop-motion beasts were second to that, something that the remake gave up in exchange for ticket sales.

The writing of this review shares the same underlying theme of the film - hubris. In as much as it was Perseus' own pride that caused a lot of turmoil (why didn't he just use the sword?), and as it was the mortals' hubris that caused them to war against the oppressive gods, and as it was Hades' hubris that ultimately sent him back to the underworld weaker than ever before, it is also the writer's hubris that causes him to disregard the original film and the milieu of the movie.

I still fail to see the homo-erotic subtext that you found significant enough to mention twice.

And as for the King Kong recommendation - that was a horrible giant monster movie.
juncruznaligas 06 April 10, 12:59 PM
as someone who hasn't seen the remake yet and absolutely loves the original - been watching it every year since i was six (22 years na!) in beta, VHS, laserdisc, and DVD forms - ang concern ko lang naman sa remake ay: tinanggal ba nila si bubo? at mas gusto ko si perseus na long hair, mas classical lang ang dating sa'kin.

and ms lauren, way to go with the ad hominem, ha.
Lauren 06 April 10, 02:00 PM
Fans of Bubo will probably miss him because he got was replaced by another plot device (there is a self-referential moment where you get a short glimpse of the owl).

What ad hominem remarks are you referring to?
juncruznaligas 06 April 10, 03:41 PM
the ad hominem bits implied throughout the comments, but primarily the bit about hubris. your very pointed and well-argued points would have been better kung natiis mo yung gigil mo dun. i know it's the internet, but still. you had me na kasi, tas biglang nagwawaver pag humihirit na seemingly for hirit's sake. unless me purpose pala yun na di ko lang nakikita pa?

that said, ang dream review ko ng pelikulang ito ay mix ng review ni carl at ng comments mo, AKA this comments thread. salamat!

about bubo: another plot device? hmm.
Lauren 06 April 10, 04:49 PM
Oh I see. Yes, I admit may konting gigil ang remarks, but I did make sure that they were worded to support my arguments. For example, the opening of my longer comment (in which I reply to the author) was pointed at the writing of the introduction, and that it could've been worded better so as to convey the idea that the review didn't possess the voice that I interpreted. My last statement, "It happens", applies to all writers - myself included. We write hits, and we write misses. It happens.

The comment about the writer's hubris, which you identify as the strongest ad hominem remark, is based on the writer's own assertions:

"You say that it is a "glaringly obvious fact" that this is a remake. Hence my decision to not bother with it. People already know that. It was a stylistic choice for me to only concern myself with this film and not bother to make comparisons to the original. "

In my interpretation of the words chosen (again, this is subjective relative to the writer's intent), this displayed a bit of disregard for the readers' needs and wants. Is it not even a little bit conceited to ignore the foundation upon which the film is built? The original laid the plans for the remake; it dictates what its successor is, and it is thus necessary to relate one's criticism of the film to the source. Choosing to disregard the original is indeed an act of hubris. This hubris reduces the helpfulness of the review because it assumes far too much about what the reader wants (or in this case doesn't want) to read. After all, you wanted to know what happened to Bubo, didn't you?

To be fair, however, I will acknowledge that I could have made it clearer that the hubris was in the writer in this specific review, and not necessarily in general. I do hope, however, that my opinions were clear, and that I stand by my evaluation of the above review as unhelpful.
Gelo 06 April 10, 07:06 PM
May comments na about how you two are commenting! Self-referential!

My twenty-five centavos worth tho, regarding hubris: But all writing comes from an amount of hubris, & the more one masks it, the more hubris there's likely to be. I think it's actually the right move to finally stop concealing the writer's subjectivity & stop pretending s/he knows what the needs/wants of the reader is: after all, there's so much more hubris in a writer for him/her to presume to know what the reader wants/needs, unless the venue s/he writes in/for is intended for a very particular niche market/readership.

If I understand the purpose of Metakritiko, it really is supposed to be a venue for voicing out opinion, & in that sense, it would be senseless to downplay one's subjectivity. & if foregrounding the writer's subjectivity for the purpose for furthering commentary comes in the form of hubris, then let's welcome hubris! The very voicing of one's opinion after all, right at the onset, already precludes the assumption that the writer's opinion is pertinent: "Even if I don't call attention to the fact that I am writing from my point of view, the very decision to write this means I know my writing to be of substance."

In reply to your last paragraph then, Lauren, I wouldn't mind if you said that hubris is generally present in Metakritiko.
Lauren 06 April 10, 09:31 PM
"In reply to your last paragraph then, Lauren, I wouldn't mind if you said that hubris is generally present in Metakritiko."

This is precisely why I despise most of the reviews in this channel. Puro hubris, walang substance. I refuse to encourage a hubris that disallows a review to be helpful.

Gelo 06 April 10, 09:51 PM
Lauren, if you understood anything at all about what I said in my reply to you, it's that ALL writing -- all substance out of writing, all substance in writing -- is borne out of hubris, including your comments, & mine as well. Feel free, tho, to disagree w/ me.

Hubris is fine. Unproductivity is another matter. If you're saying the articles on Metakritiko are not being productive, I'd be bothered. Incredibly. But if it's just hubris, then nothing's wrong, really, at least to my mind.
Lauren 06 April 10, 11:02 PM
I understand perfectly, and I do agree that hubris exists, to a certain degree, in all writing.

You cannot expect me, however, to encourage the hubris in this review. Let me state explicitly (although I assumed this was clear in all that I said) that my issue is not with hubris in general, but how the hubris in this particular review (and in a great deal of reviews in Metakritiko) actually reduces the critiques' ability to help the reader understand, appreciate, and get intrigued about the film.

For emphasis - my issue with the hubris was in regard to the helpfulness of the review, and not to hubris in general. That should be painfully clear. I did, after all, state that the reason why I despised most of the reviews on Metakritiko was "Puro hubris, walang substance". Isn't it just right for someone to demand substance out of a review?

If by the productivity of the articles you mean their usefulness to the reader, then you should be incredibly bothered indeed.
Mahar 07 April 10, 09:52 PM
I am simply writing to respond to this line:

"...there is a rather disturbing undercurrent of homo-eroticism here that probably wasn’t intended, considering that the attempt is to draw the action-testosterone crowd."

Even if it wasn't intended, I fail to see what is disturbing about homo-eroticism.

I also fail to see the homo-eroticism in the movie; Sam Worthington was clothed the whole movie and his relationships with the men of his party wasn't particularly intimate.

Homo-eroticism doesn't kill an action movie. A few examples:

"Troy" had a naked, sweaty and bronzed Brad Pitt whose character had an closer and more intimate relationship to his protege, Patroclus.

"300" was full of half-naked men with impressively defined bodies, sweating it out for hours at an end.

Both movies' undercurrents, such as they were, did nothing to dampen their success.

The reviewer's line borders on the offensive. To be disturbed by even an undercurrent of homo-eroticism implies a negative view of gay people---and this greatly prejudices me against the rest of his review.
Gelo 08 April 10, 01:09 PM
Not hat I'm the writer's attorney ha, but if I read him right, what made the homo-erotic undercurrent disturbing is the notion that the movie is a commercial attempt to, as he says in the article, "draw the action-testosterone crowd." In a highly macho consumer society of the spectacle w/ very strong anti-queer prejudices, it truly is disturbing for this movie to have such undercurrents -- not because homo-eroticism is disturbing in itself, but because it appears uncalled for (possibly detrimental) if the movie truly was targeted at such a macho demographic.

If I may go even further, the disturbance here is fact perverse: it's possible that for the presentation of an action-testosterone flick, one must necessarily conjure aspects of the homo-erotic, dispelling any illusion that a movie can truly be purely for the action-testosterone crowd, for this same crowd inherently shifts its position constantly w/in the homosexual-homosocial spectrum. Such that the "disturbing homo-erotic undercurrent" is nothing more than an analog to what it is only a symptom of: the even more disturbing compartmentalization Hollywood does (this is action-testosterone, this is drama-etc.) & inflicts even on our 3rd World conditions. Blah blah blah. We can keep going and going.
Mahar 08 April 10, 10:33 PM
First, let's assume that the feeling of disturbance mentioned is a legitimate criticism of a movie. (And I'm saying it's NOT.)

Where was the homo-eroticism of the movie? Seriously. I want a concrete example. I've watched the movie twice, and I could detect nothing homo-erotic about it. If anything, the undercurrent is mostly imagined since so far the writer hasn't even noted a single scene where this undercurrent is felt or most palpable. It is an unsubstantiated claim at best. (Apparently, Sam Worthington declaring his mortality as a man rather than as a god was "homo-erotic." Really? HOW?)

Now to react to this:

"The disturbance here is fact perverse: it's possible that for the presentation of an action-testosterone flick, one must necessarily conjure aspects of the homo-erotic, dispelling any illusion that a movie can truly be purely for the action-testosterone crowd, for this same crowd inherently shifts its position constantly w/in the homosexual-homosocial spectrum"

This is reaching. I think this disturbance is just plain ol' "I am disturbed by the notion of gay eros in a movie."

I would celebrate if a movie was such that it can be enjoyed by everyone, be he gay or straight. But the review panned the movie as poor; the disturbance was a factor in why the movie was poor. In short: homo-eroticism is disturbing, it was present in Clash of the Titians, it was one of the reasons that made Clash of the Titans a bad movie.

This is intolerable.

"Not that I'm the writer's attorney ha, but if I read him right, what made the homo-erotic undercurrent disturbing is the notion that the movie is a commercial attempt to, as he says in the article, "draw the action-testosterone crowd."

So what? That it's a commercial attempt to draw the action-testosterone crowd doesn't mean any homo-eroticism (assuming there was any) would be misplaced. As mentioned before, homo-eroticism can exist in an action movie without alienating the movie's main demographic.

There were 300 more shirtless, nubile hunky men in "300" than in "Clash of the Titans." I got to see Brad Pitt's ass in "Troy." I suppose any straight man should have been disturbed by all that male flesh.

But wait. They weren't. They went back and WATCHED THE MOVIE AGAIN.

Lauren 09 April 10, 02:33 PM
This whole argument is so illogical and unfounded, I won't even bother dignifying this with a proper reply. The macho audience thinks within the "homosexual-homoscial spectrum"? Really? You're saying that there's no way an action flick can be purely heterosexual. So does that mean that the slightest male interaction in an action movie necessarily has homoerotic undercurrents? And what does the third world have to do with any of this? Where did that come from? Why am I even trying to make sense out of your arguments when your assumptions are clearly imagined and without basis?
Kit 09 April 10, 04:01 PM
If I may go even further, the disturbance here is fact perverse: it's possible that for the presentation of an action-testosterone flick, one must necessarily conjure aspects of the homo-erotic, dispelling any illusion that a movie can truly be purely for the action-testosterone crowd, for this same crowd inherently shifts its position constantly w/in the homosexual-homosocial spectrum.

There should be a line where lol edgy posturing becomes something patently offensive and I think this statement has crossed that line. Magbackground reading naman kayo about Homophobia 101.

Watch out, dudebros, homoeroticism is infiltrating your entertainment! Lock up your sons, etc.
Gelo 10 April 10, 01:49 AM
Kit, Mahar, Lauren, I'm sorry, but you really do sound like raging paranoiacs who are out for blood. Lauren, yes, nothing is indeed 'purely heterosexual,' gender being constantly & fluidly performed along the lines of that spectrum. Sorry to burst your heterosexist bubble, but heterosexuality & homosexuality are nothing more than provisional social constructs that mislead us toward a static understanding of the operations of sexuality. Not that they are invalid categories; what I am saying is that as categories they are provisional precisely because they are static when gender, being fluid, is anything but static.

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how the entire movie is awash w/ homo-eroticism: Carl hasn't even talked here about the audience's (male) gaze aimed at the muscular male bodies in homosocial play w/ other muscular male bodies, how the viewer transforms into a voyeur in the context of the darkened cinema, etc. Homo-eroticism isn't simply having naked dudes onscreen or men sharing 'intimate' scenes. True, perhaps it would've been more productive for us readers had Carljoe more thoroughly unpacked his opinion of this homo-erotic undercurrent as being disturbing (I stick to my own explanation tho, given that he juxtaposed his disturbed reaction against what he not inappropriately presumed to be the target market of such a movie), altho I find no reason why his opinion of it as disturbing must be so hastily judged as you have done, the hastiness of your judgement of his review as homophobic being, to my mind, more disturbing. How disturbing it is, really, to witness a number of people nowadays so quickly shout "Look! Oppression ongoing!" when they themselves fail to notice the possibility not only of their own paranoia, but their own tendency to sustain this system of oppression they think they are against by simple gesture of speaking for such 'oppressed' parties.

There are more civil, more productive ways of engaging Carljoe's article, even in disagreement.

& if I may say so, Clash of the Titans sucked. & so did Troy, w/c for me was even worse. 300 was so-so, but good grief, 300 must have been the most implicitly oppressive of these 3 movies to have been mentioned, what w/ its harsh depictions of race.
Marco 10 April 10, 02:21 PM
I've been following this whole excruciating discourse for quite some time now, and it's gotten to the point where I simply cannot remain silent on the matter.

My own issue is with this specific reply. Mr. Gelo, I mean no offense to you as a person, but these defenses of the review so far have, from an objective standpoint, been sub-par in comparison to the critiques about it. This latest reply of yours has me quite livid with the quality of its arguments.

You may very well argue about the fluidity of sexuality and the presence of homo-erotic undertones as a necessity, but you have failed to convincingly defend why the homo-erotic undertones are so disturbing. You say that they are ever-present, especially to a "macho audience that thinks within the homo-erotic/homo-social spectrum", yet at the same time, you are arguing FOR the point that they aren't supposed to be there!

Of course, we can always say that this is all subjective. By your example, a male fan who watches the film and gazes at the muscular bodies may experience a bit of homo-eroticism, to which many would no doubt argue against. After all, I am certain that for every male who marvels at the physiques, there are those who are simply unaffected by them. Surely those unaffected experience no homo-eroticism, do they? The only logical conclusion to this is that the perception of homo-eroticism, in presence or in absence, offensive or not, is completely dependent on the viewer's perception, as the discussion in these comments has pointed out. The very fact that there are such animated arguments for and against the presence of homo-eroticism in this particular film supports this.

If, by all regards, the offensiveness of the perceived homo-eroticism is subjective in relation to the viewer (as you very well may argue), then you bring attention to Carl's own perspective on the matter - what started this whole debate in the first place!

Why then, should Carl, the channel's editor and author of the review, find homo-eroticism so disturbing? If we argue that it simply shouldn't be in an action movie, we display a form of bigotry against homo-eroticism. If we argue that it is omnipresent in action films, and that they are a necessity to present, then why should Carl be disturbed in the first place? Your arguments have led to a veritable checkmate (unless, of course, by some brilliance of logic, you can disprove this conclusion - I encourage you to at least try).

Even if Carl isn't the bigot that the review makes him APPEAR to be, why then, hasn't he come to his own defense? I am still of the mindset that he may not be a bigot, but the lack of activity on his end disturbs me. Countless speculations about his character and his ability can be put to rest if he simply explains his perspective regarding the matters that Lauren, Kit, and Mahar have requested. This is not a game of "who is smarter", but outrage that just asks for reason. Where is Carl's reason?

In terms of other arguments, I have yet to see a convincing defense for the actual presence of homo-eroticism itself, which Ms. Lauren and Mr. Mahar have consistently asked for. The example you gave (how the viewer may perceive the muscular male forms) is completely subjective. I believe Ms. Lauren and Mr. Mahar have been asking for CONCRETE examples, not something that may very well have been a product of the viewer's imagination, or a projection of the viewer's personal thoughts.

As for there being more "civil and productive" ways of engaging the article, is not a written debate one of the most civil ways of going about it? It is an intellectual exercise, which I personally find to be productive. I assume there are more who think this way as well.

Again, I encourage you to defend these claims to the best of your ability. I must inform you, however, that in terms of logic, the past responses haven't been all too sound.
Gelo 10 April 10, 01:49 AM
Kit, Mahar, Lauren, I'm sorry, but you really do sound like raging paranoiacs who are out for blood. Lauren, yes, nothing is indeed 'purely heterosexual,' gender being constantly & fluidly performed along the lines of that spectrum. Sorry to burst your heterosexist bubble, but heterosexuality & homosexuality are nothing more than provisional social constructs that mislead us toward a static understanding of the operations of sexuality. Not that they are invalid categories; what I am saying is that as categories they are provisional precisely because they are static when gender, being fluid, is anything but static.

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how the entire movie is awash w/ homo-eroticism: Carl hasn't even talked here about the audience's (male) gaze aimed at the muscular male bodies in homosocial play w/ other muscular male bodies, how the viewer transforms into a voyeur in the context of the darkened cinema, etc. Homo-eroticism isn't simply having naked dudes onscreen or men sharing 'intimate' scenes. True, perhaps it would've been more productive for us readers had Carljoe more thoroughly unpacked his opinion of this homo-erotic undercurrent as being disturbing (I stick to my own explanation tho, given that he juxtaposed his disturbed reaction against what he not inappropriately presumed to be the target market of such a movie), altho I find no reason why his opinion of it as disturbing must be so hastily judged as you have done, the hastiness of your judgement of his review as homophobic being, to my mind, more disturbing. How disturbing it is, really, to witness a number of people nowadays so quickly shout "Look! Oppression ongoing!" when they themselves fail to notice the possibility not only of their own paranoia, but their own tendency to sustain this system of oppression they think they are against by simple gesture of speaking for such 'oppressed' parties.

There are more civil, more productive ways of engaging Carljoe's article, even in disagreement.

& if I may say so, Clash of the Titans sucked. & so did Troy, w/c for me was even worse. 300 was so-so, but good grief, 300 must have been the most implicitly oppressive of these 3 movies to have been mentioned, what w/ its harsh depictions of race.
Mahar 10 April 10, 02:55 AM
This is the last time I'm engaging this discussion. I haven't really read anything cogent in the replies and have yet to hear a reply from Carl himself---which is odd, seeing that this is supposed to be "Metakritiko" and I would assume that even the critics' reviews, not just their objects of criticism, are meant to be critically examined themselves. Otherwise, what meta-criticism and dialogue is going on?

I will be blunt: I find the review extremely close to being, if not already, bigoted.

Here's why.

I haven't heard ANY discussion at ALL from Carl as to what his definition of disturbing is. The fact is there are no qualifiers to his statement of disturbance, other than the fact that the homo-eroticism might be misplaced.

The first statement assumes that homo-eroticism has a proper place, a place it should be confined to. If sexuality and gender and so forth are fluid and not static, as Gelo argues, then why is it that a negative feeling is attached to homo-eroticism when it's not where it's supposed to be? Is it even supposed to be limited in the first place?

Carl's argument then could only have basis in his own prejudices. If he is not a bigot, then he is guilty of not thinking about what he is writing because it definitely sends a message of bigotry, unintended or not.

I have been very clear in asking for a CONCRETE EXAMPLE of when homo-eroticism occurs in the movie. It's quite simple to give one: one simply has to narrate a scene in the movie and point out the indicators. Gelo says that t's not hard to imagine it in "Clash." Very well, please tell me where exactly. And keep in mind that Carl was speaking of the movie itself, not of the setting of the movie's consumption. Would the movie be homo-erotic were it watched on DVD-format by a gaggle of 6-year olds? The fact remains he was speaking definitively of the material. So let's keep the discussion to the material, since that's what Carl chose to review.

I personally did not see any homo-eroticism in the movie. Carl and Gelo saw it. All right, perhaps it's subjective. But if such is the case, why should Carl's and Gelo's subjectivity trump mine? Why is there no discussion about it? Maybe Carl and Gelo have sharper eyes than mine, and see homo-eroticism in the mundane. I would love that ability, to be honest. But EVEN IF homo-eroticism were to be detected, why shouldn't it be there?

That's precisely why I think the review is bigoted. Reviewing a movie and explaining its poor points is understandable. But this sentence is objectionable:

"...there is a rather disturbing undercurrent of homo-eroticism here that probably wasn’t intended, considering that the attempt is to draw the action-testosterone crowd."

Why? Because it makes homo-eroticism a negative, with no explanation why it is other than its placement might not sit well with a given kind of people, the action-testosterone crowd.

It is arguing against the presence of gay eros, even a mere undercurrent, and this is bigotry. It assumes that gay eros shouldn't be seen or felt and that we should cater to the wishes of a stereotype. Apparently, movie-goers should only see homo-eroticism in specific genres or avenues, where it could be expected and possibly avoided by a key demographic. It betrays an isolationist mindset, and this is especially unwanted in a critical review. Critical reviews assume an openness of character from the critic---and I'm not seeing it in this review.

Even if Gelo didn't like Troy, or 300, one can clearly to point to the homo-eroticism there and point out that despite its presence, the films were accepted by the very demographic Carl says wouldn't be drawn. Clearly, not everyone shares his values---so why say this is disturbing when perhaps it is not? Maybe it's disturbing only to HIM.

Granted, Carl has a right to an opinion, but this isn't an op-ed piece. This is a critical review. I am presuming this is the case simply by how the site labels its content: Metakritiko News. Metakritiko Features. Metakritiko Opinion. It doesn't fall under Opinion, so most readers would assume at this point that this is an expert or at least skilled reviewer here who looks at material under the lenses of his specialization. A review demands a lot more objectivity than what Carl's shown here.

I am sorry if I sound like a "raving paranoiac" to Gelo and I am sorry if he thinks I am sustaining a system of oppression because I am speaking up for an oppressed party---which really is quite odd, since I'm speaking from the position of someone who has been oppressed by similar discrimination. But never mind my personal life.

Perhaps Gelo assumes that I sound like a paranoiac because I'm making a big deal out of nothing. Well, it's not just nothing. Bigotry has many forms. Since he's fond of theory, let me paraphrase Hannah Arendt: evil is banal. It doesn't have to be overt. It usually is innocuous, which is why we need to be more alert and vigilant about what we do and how we speak.

I am speaking up as someone who was truly offended by what he read. Perhaps a better response might be expected from the editor-in-chief, to whom I've already written.



spider 10 April 10, 05:42 AM
i dont want to but in. but for the greeks and romans, homosexuality was commonplace. to say that it doesn't belong to their mythology is therefore somewhat blind. obviously, their mythology would be colored by their gay lives, one way or another. to say that that aspect doesnt belong to their mythology is ignorance of history.
anne 10 April 10, 04:27 PM
My own 25 cents.

The kindest thing that can be said about the article is that it's carelessly written. Perhaps Mr. Javier's homophobia (and I believe his remarks on homoeroticism are indeed homophobic) was just as unintended as the supposed homoeroticism in "Clash of the Titans" (which I failed to detect after two viewings). It's unfortunate that his remarks appear in an online publication, and a section of that publication, that has lofty aspirations for Philippine critical discourse (see the feature entitled "Hello from Metakritiko"). While Gelo's speculations on Mr. Javier's intentions are valid, they don't seem founded on what is written in the review and sound, as Lauren said, like "reaching."

I don't expect objectivity in a movie review, but I do expect the reviewer to consider each opinion and argument he or she publishes, and to lay out each argument carefully, especially if these are published under the mantle of a publication that hopes to raise the level of discourse in the Philippines, and to encourage critical discourse among a broader group of people.

I've followed Metakritiko since I heard of it, eager to see where critical discourse could be taken, and find that its content is little better than some of the cultural blogs that are already out there. This is certainly no crime, and I do have recourse to a viable option on the Internet: to (sadly) tune out.
juncruznaligas 10 April 10, 04:03 PM
Just to build on Anne's comment - hi, Anne, thanks for your very lucid assessment of the discussion - I'm at the belief that all this healthily rabid debate about Carl's seemingly blatant bigotry against homosexuals is founded on a couple of really utterly bad jokes misfiring, in reviews that were, as Anne called them, "carelessly written."

Even when I do agree with Anne that Carl's remarks on homo-eroticism are indeed homophobic, I would not hastily categorise Carl the person as a bigot based on these two reviews. I would like to think people as educated as us would hold our tongues (or fingers) on using such a vile word to describe a person, especially when we've (presumably) only read these two carelessly written reviews of his entire oeuvre that I know for a fact is in the mid- to late-hundreds, from his own fiction to essays to NGO work stuff to this book he co-ghostwrote about the history of Marikina to these two reviews. I would like to think that the labelling of the word "bigot" requires an assessment that goes beyond mere ad hominem speculations on Carl's nonreaction to our comments.

And even when I do agree that we need to be more alert and vigilant about what we do and how we speak, I wouldn't dare use Arendt to justify that, or any of my arguments for anything: aside from the fact that Arendt originally used it to discuss the Holocaust - an utterly hideous event that grossly overshadows the scope of this debate - it is also one of the most inappropriately-used modern aphorisms employed to justify such things as the drudgery of 9-to-5 jobs to the many senseless crimes that take too many lives day in and day out.

To use Arendt to cement an argument founded on uninformed speculations stemming from bad bad bad jokes embedded in carelessly written texts is just too much. I suggest that, like Anne, we should all dial it down to its appropriate level of discussion.

The scope of Carl's responsibility here is confined within the texts in question, and in the questions raised specific to the texts. Everything else outside of that is inconsequential.

I, like most of you, do hope that Carl would reply to these questions soon. We are trying to raise the level of discourse in the Philippines, even if only under the scope of popular entertainment and culture. These aspirations are works in progress, will always be works in progress, and this is only the beginning of our second month as a whole team under Carl. We're all still really just stabbing in the dark here, seeing which technique would hit the target best (if at all), etc etc. This has been a major miss, and we are learning lots and lots from it. I do hope most of you - if not all - do stick around to see the lessons, and the application of these lessons, that this particular issue beget.
Gelo 11 April 10, 02:12 PM
Pardon my d***ed-down reply to this comment pero, grabe, Adam (a.k.a. juncruznaligas), HOTNESS ka sa comment na 'to ha.

Also, YES to Anne's comment. But at the same time, I also really have nothing much against discourse that 'reaches,' given that -- if one is also to look at my own work (pardon to the segue to me, ha; I hope you don't mind, I'm self-centered that way) -- my method generally is that of the conceit, that is, of stretching arguments almost to the point of ignoring their breaking points. All for the sake of discourse, of course. SIyempre sana walang pikunan dito, no matter how ugly or dirty the discussion gets.
Mahar 10 April 10, 09:03 PM
On too much, Arendt, reactions, etc:

Some people may not consider themselves bigoted, but unfortunately some of their frameworks are.

Is this just a bad joke? I hope Carl comes here and says it was. But I will not back down from the fact that the statement, whether or not it was a bad joke or not, was a bigoted one.

Let's say it was a bad joke. OK then, am I supposed to react like it was just a LITTLE bit bigoted---because Arendt, I suppose, should only be called for BIG bigotry.

That's the problem: small incidents balloon, in time, to bigger ones. Telling one that "the reaction is too much" is quite off-putting. Perhaps Arendt was misused in other cases. Maybe I am jumping the gun too quickly. But I think it's equally off-putting to argue that bigotry is negotiable.

Apparently Carl's supposed to be the editor of this channel. Maybe he was careless. Maybe he didn't detect the bigotry in his statement. Well, that raises this issue: If he is this careless with his own work, what more the work of others?

I'll concede that maybe Carl himself isn't a bigot. But more and more it looks like he's guilty of the crime of incompetence.

juncruznaligas 11 April 10, 06:04 AM
"But I think it's equally off-putting to argue that bigotry is negotiable."

Please understand that you used an aphorism meant to analyse the Holocaust to cement your argument about your accusation of bigotry based on what everyone here has already agreed upon as carelessly-written texts on two popcorn-and-softdrinks movies. You did not even consider that maybe - just maybe - this was all about a bad joke misfiring and that maybe - just maybe - Carl is just too busy doing something else to reply to your questions within hours of you posting them, ie, managing a week-long writing workshop way down in Parañaque. You just went ahead and started accusing the writer of being a bigot, and then quite quickly started requesting for drastic EIC interventions. How is that not too much of a reaction?

And I agree, bigotry should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. It is one of the most abhorrent things in the world. All the more reason it should be regarded with more acutely critical discussions than the one going on in this comments thread.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."

Share on facebook

Metakritiko Videos


Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Disclaimer