Proof

It's been a long time since I've seen a movie like this, that is, a movie that can make me sit straight, listen a little too attentively, and unknowingly produce a smirk on my lips while I nod every so often in approval or agreement or sheer amazement at what is being said or shown.

I think Proof is brilliant because it works on so many levels. The story is basically about the quest for a formula, an elusive proof to a mathematical problem -- but throw in a genius/lunatic (a thin line, really) father + a possibly equally brilliant/loony daughter -- and you have the quest for several other "proofs" occuring within the story. Prove that Hopkins has healed, prove that Gwyneth solved the equation, prove that Glyenhall (spell that?) wants to sincerely help and not simply steal etc. But the truly great thing about this movie is that -- alongside the questions it asks and the uncertainty it creates, it also provides you with a simple, elegant answer: FAITH.

It was the daughter's faith in her father that provided him the support he needed while he clung on to sanity; and it will be the boyfriend's faith in his girlfriend that will allow her to cling on to hers. There is no guarantee, no "proof" that anyone will get better, but faith allows the journey to become more tolerable. I think that is a brilliant thesis for the movie, because (unlike the movie "Contact" that offered a similar thesis but suffered because it's religious undertones made the whole assertion preachy) it presents faith as a way to cope during difficult times, and not the solution itself.

The movie ends with Paltrow and Glyenhall going over / reviewing the proof to check if it is really correct. It is a brilliant ending because the burden of "proof" is now passed to the audience. In the end, the audience is engaged -- which I think is what a movie always aims for. It is now up to the audience to believe (or not) that the mathematical proof is correct, that Paltrow can heal from her mental instability, that Glyenhall will be there to see his girlfriend through. But there are no certainties. And in real life, there never is.

Lastly, I have to mention how delicious the script is. I love the conversations! Paraphrased:

Sister: "You'll like this new shampoo"

"Made of chemicals?"

"No it's organic"

"And so? Haven't you heard of Organic Chemistry?"

I love it. Period.

Sept 11 and Gay Bashing

Don't I just ever tire of introducing gay & lesbian politics into just about everything?

NO & NEVER!

I just finished watching the DVD of United Flight 93 (on Sept 11 nonetheless, but I did not intend that), and what struck me the most out of this movie* is how passengers and hijackers alike prayed to their respective Gods during their dark times. The former perhaps to justify their counter-attack on the hijackers who they intended to kill, and the latter to justify their suicidal and murderous desires to crash the plane and kill all the passengers (preferably somewhere symbolic of American life).

This only shows how faith/religion, is customizable. Think of any plot (i.e. discriminate gay people, justify sex with children, prohibit a woman's right to abortion etc), and you will surely find something in your religion to justify your convictions and the (hateful) actions that you will use to support them.

How could it be that god can be on both sides of the fence (passengers and hijackers) when the objectives of the competing parties were opposites of each other, negating each other actually?

It is easy to say that God was with the passengers, but this is downplaying the historic, cultural, and sociological aspects/factors/reasons that brought the 4 men into United Flight 73 to begin with. Everyone on board knew they were doing the right (i.e. god-approved) action. How do you explain this.

Perhaps god was with no one, except those who had love -- and only love -- in their hearts. Not hate. Not faith. Not prayers.

I look at straight people now, and regardless of how open-minded, liberal, gay-friendly they espouse themselves to be -- if they get God on their side to defend reservations or negative opinions (even if they are limited or mild) about gay life (marriage, structure, stability, rights etc), to me they are nothing but garden-variety customizable-religion junkies. And oh how I wish that I could've bought plane tickets for them all!

Same-Sex Relationships are Unstable: Fact or Fiction?

FICTION. Purely. In fact, it doesn't only belong on the Fiction Shelf, it belongs to the section where the cat in the hat carries a plate of green eggs. I wouldn't go as far to say that people (who think that Same Sex relationships are inherently unstable) are ignorant or bigoted, but I suppose they need some form of enlightenment. And that, my dear readers (if any), is the purpose of this next blog.

I just got back 2 days ago from New Orleans, where I met up with a very good (straight, or still straight ) friend (Nina) and attended the Gay Mardi Gras called Southern Decadence (more details about this if I have time to blog it).

Nina and I have not met for several years, and we reminisced a lot about our life in Manila. Amidst all the half naked men, the rainbow flags, the french Donuts, and the smell of liquor on the street -- Nina pulled me close to her to and said "I remember our time in Manila, I was the straight one with an unstable relationship, while the rest of you guys (see coronforever.com to see who they are) all had solid and stable ones." I'm paraphrasing of course, but the thought is nevertheless the same.

Fast forward to my arrival back in LA, where 2 straight male friends -- in separate conversations -- tell me that they think that same-sex relationships are inherently, unavoidably, UNSTABLE. They are gay-friendly, yes, but they think gay-relationships are somehow doomed to be short-term, or at least, with a definite end.

At this point allow us to profile these 3 friends, to understand my arguments better:

(1) Nina has always been around gay and lesbian couples.

(2) Dude-A, was one of the hottest guys in the Manila Gay scene, until he decided to get married to a girl.

(3) Dude-B, is married. Period.

Of course, I should not mention that these friends are all brilliant and openminded (hello? that's why they are my "friends" hehehe), so we should eliminate bigotry or ignorance as a source of their conclusions.

Let's deconstruct the Dude-A & B's opinions now.

(1) Gay relationships are unstable because they are unlikely to have children. A crucial element for the relationship/marriage to last after the passion dies.

- Yes this is true, ONLY IF you are willing to concede that Straight Couples who do not have children (by choice or circumstance) suffer the same fate. So the "instability" of a long term marriage, using this proposition, depends on having a child, and NOT the sexes of the couples.

- Shall we now pull out statistics and percentages of straight married couples/parents  that have ended in divorce? Compare that to same-sex unions. Do the math, and try to spell "INSTABILITY".

(2) Same-sex relationships are unstable because SEX (slash-infidelity) is more rampant.

While it takes a lot of schmoozing, dating, flowers, and other feudal devices and medieval courting practices to get a straight couple in bed together, gay men can simply unzip, bang, and leave. They are simply more prone to relationship disaster.

- Somehow true. But isn't one side of the straight-couple a "male" as well. And males, straight or gay, being testosterone-driven mammals, are always and everywhere likely to have sex without love/courting. How many straight married men have had mistresses, prostitutes, and casual encounters? 99% I think. 99% have done it, and 1% are lying.

Indeed it is easier for gay men, because both are men and can easily do it in restrooms, theaters, and wherever -- heck, you don't even have to ask his name. But in a world where women are increasingly becoming as sexually open as men, will the gay-sex-advantage even last?

And if same-sex couples are inherently prone to sex because of the testerone driven nature of their bodies, how about lesbian couples? They should be (and many times they are) the most stable of relationships.

Now, try arguing again.

----

I'm off to work, so I have to cut this short.

In short, then, the 3 people I have mentioned only go to show that no relationship, gay or straight, is not INHERENTLY UNSTABLE. It all depends on your point of view (Dude-B),  your experiences (as in Dude-A, who had very bad experiences with selfish lovers), and your environment/friends/family/exposure (like Nina).

Moreover, a society stressing "same-sex relationships are unstable" is self-fulfilling its own misinformed and cruel assertions, by depriving loving same-sex couples avenues in which to show, concretize, demonstrate, and celebrate their love (i.e. not enough positive gay experiences or personalities shown in media, no legal marriages for gay couples, restricted adoption policies, etc) . With all these negative influences on gay couples (which straight couples don't have to deal with), do you think it is fair that the spotlight focus on the gay relationships that fail and simply blame it on their INHERENT structure?

The Disadvantages of Male-Male Relationships

One of the usual lines of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, & Transgender activists in response to the demonization of same-sex relationships has been to claim that GLBT relationships are "just like straight ones". We laugh, we cry, we fight, we make love. The same challenges that straight relationships face, are faced by gay relationships too -- jealousy, money problems, infidelity, etc.

WRONG!

Several key disadvantages happen in same-sex relationships, and I shall enumerate those present in male-male relationships (allow my lesbian counterparts -- you'll find them at www.coronforever.com talk about the female-female side of this issue). We do not have the same relationships as straight couples because:

(1) We stain sheets more. One squirt vs Two. Do the Math.

(2) Male-male relationships are more expensive. Double the nice clothes. Double the cologne. Double the expensive body&bath collection. Plus, count the expenses in making the couple's living space designer-looking (which is a must!). Moreover, you double the male-appetite, and therefore double the food. And don't even think about the expenses incurred when dining out.

(3) Male-male relationships are more complicated. Even in the most liberal straight relationships, some default arrangments remain UNLESS they are consciously deliberated on. I mean, cooking goes to the wifey, plumbing the hubby -- for example. In gay-relationships, this is not the case.  Everything is a matter of skill. If you can cook better -- you be the one to cook. If you are better with interior design, then you design the place. This can be so intense that the division of labor in say, hanging pictures on the wall, becomes a matter of (1) who is better at math and can measure the distance of two nails, and (2) who is better with his hands to do all the hammering. And this might not always be the same person. The roles straight couples assume by default, the gay couple deliberates on. And that's not the tricky part yet. What about doing the laundry? Or throwing out the garbage? Certainly, that doesn't require specific skills right? WRONG. That requires the skill of negotiation. In lesbian relationships, even who gets pregnant is subject not to who has the vagina, but who has the power of persuasion.

(4) Writing stories about same-sex relationships is a lot more tricky and may be downright confusing. With both partners getting the "he" pronoun, you run into the difficulty of confusing the reader. Example "He stormed out of the house and left him there. So he cried and wanted him back. But he was prideful and did not want to give in to him. In the end, he succeeded".

Lastly, same-sex relationships have one KEY advantage. Sex is always and everywhere better.

Why?

The popular -- and mind you, FACTUAL --- argument goes --- because both of you are of the same sex, you would know how to please your partner. Simplistic, yes, but this is only if you are straight and haven't experienced same-sex sex. If you don't believe me, then refer to the age-old saying from the wisest of men which has guided same-sex intercourse for ages:

DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD WANT OTHERS TO DO UNTO YOU.

Yummy.

Dark H20, Cranks & Smith

Dark Water

Oh my god. What the fuck was that? The storyline has been done to death -- dead mother-daughter (choose your combination) haunts its mirror image (another mother-daughter, or whatever  combination).

But even if you forgive the fact that the story isn't new -- there is ABSOLUTELY nothing scary about this movie. It is terrifying to see that it ever got made.

It deserves a toast! With sewage water!

Christmas with the Cranks

Sometimes, like everyone I guess, I become a victim of good packaging. The DVD of Christmas with the Cranks shouted good reviews -- " A classic movie everyone should watch!" "Two thumbs up!"

Fuck you all! It was horrible! Scarier than Dark Water.

Movies are supposed to suspend your disbelief. This fails to do that. We can accept Keanu going back and forth between reality and cyber-reality in the Matrix, but somehow this movie fails to let us believe that neighbors invading you and threatening to put up your Frosty Snowman in your front lawn or else... is worth fretting over. This is downright fucked-up. It's ridiculous. I don't want to even laugh about it. 

It tries to redeem itself in the end with the sentimental-cancer-stricken-neighbor scene with Tim Allen. And although it is indeed heart-warming, the scene is too late (and contrived). You've wasted too much time to even care.

It's movies like these that sometimes make you hate the world.

Mr & Mrs Smith

Who cannot love Angelina Jolie. So what if she has done the Tombraider-chick role too many times. Nothing beats the simultaneous pouting of lips and boobs. She fits the role too well. The movie is ala-Bonnie and Clyde, and it does it very well. You feel for Pitt and Jolie. I like the movie. It's something you can just sit back, relax, and enjoy, but it isn't brain-dead.

Brokeback Mountain

To review this movie correctly is to begin with reviewing the crowd.

I waited for this movie since I saw the astonishing preview while watching another movie. When it premiered here in LA, there were only a few theaters -- think 2! -- that played it. Which was a surprise because the previews and posters were all over the place making one think it would debut in many theaters. But later on (read: 3 days ago) I saw the movie playing in one of the smaller theaters nearby and realized that the movie eventually made its way to all the other theaters. (This introduction is a good example of "derailment" in terms of making a narrative. It has nothing to do with the review and is unnecessary).

When we entered the hall, I was happy to see gay men (and some women) come in droves, and in all shapes and sizes, proving once again that there is not ONE homosexuality, but MANY homosexualities. There were twinks and leather daddies, butchboys, femmes and trannys, model-looking and father-looking, etc. The rainbow symbol in the flesh.

Brokeback mountain, I found too long. There is a point in a movie where one feels that it is supposed to end, but it doesnt. That point should have been felt by Ang Lee, but I guess it escaped him. I don't think anyone who sees this movie will think the length was "just right". It was too long. All the major points have already been expressed, and yet the story ran on nothing but cinematography. But then again, it was a rare movie about cowboys and cowboy-love. So though my head hurt a little, I didn't give a fuck.

The movie's message -- celebrate love (in whatever form it may take, but more acutely perhaps if it take the form of the ever-difficult-becaused-demonized gay love) because you may lose it one day and regret not embracing it fully --- is Old (2 soldiers, one out and one not, the "out" one dies -- that's Yossi and Jagger) . The cowboy plot is new though.  And it was nice to see Heath and Jake play the main lead.

The audience burst out laughing when Heath started ignoring his wife because of supposed "fishing trips". I didn't think that was funny. It was terrible. Can you imagine the pain of realizing that the person who you built your world around really does not "love you" fundamentally because the object of his sexual/emotional desires is the opposite of you? What is so funny about being ignored and cheated on? Nothing. Gay or straight.  Of course, this never happens to Filipinas with gay husbands because our culture is so in fucking denial. A gay man who marries a woman is straight -- that's what Filipino culture believes.

The biggest foul-up of the movie is this: You cannot lubricate yourself in 0 degree-weather by spitting on your hand. And Jake didn't even say Ouch??? MISTAKE!

So far I have criticized the movie to death. Did I like it? I LOVED IT.

Watch Brokeback Mountain.

Homosexuality in Animals

Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom.

The straight world has finally run out of logical reasons to sustain its discrimination of homosexuals. Increasingly, anyone who raises the usual religious, legal, or psychoanalytic arguments against why same-sex fucking is immoral, illegal, or abnormal will have to stress their hang-ups with a whisper. The intelligent literature that has emerged in the past 20 years have spun traditional anti-gay arguments on their heads, using the very same premises these arguments are based on to reveal their misleading, illogical, and ultimately bigoted assumptions.

National Geographic’s recent documentary on animal relationships, by summarizing old and new findings the scientific community would’ve preferred to keep in its closet, exposes yet another attack on heterosexuality,. The importance of a “scientific” discovery of homosexual relationships in animals cannot be undermined. From the moment we are born, whether we have dicks or pussies determines whether we will wear blue or pink, whether we will play with guns or dolls, whether we will be socialized to become aggressive men or passive women. Our (Christian) god is straight, and so were Adam and Eve. Anyone who thinks or does otherwise is doomed, really. The consequences of being different are profound and painful, for everywhere you turn you are reminded of society’s systematic rejection of your existence.

Indeed, the discovery of homosexual animals – taken together with the rich arguments for homosexuality -- threaten to revolutionize everything the straight world has held dear since as far back as we can remember. The way we have ordered and arranged the world is bound to change. It is the dawning of a new age.

Note that we call the animals “homosexuals” (having sex with the same sex) and not “gay” (which embodies cultural, emotional, and social aspects of the human species). But as we climb the animal-intelligence ladder (with humans on top), however, simple homosexuality evolves into some form of sensual ‘gayness”. Allow me to take you through interesting examples to illustrate this point.

Ducks

We begin with ducks. During mating season, guzzlings start to pair off, where we find some ducks doing the usual heterosexual pairing. However, scientists discovered some male guzzlings pairing off with each other. These homosexual pairs then choose a female for both of them to mate with. Scientists have hypothesized that the male-male pairing before mating is to create a stronger defense against male ducks (while mating) and against predators (while the female is pregnant). However, these arguments become shaky after mother-duck gives birth and her offspring start to grow, because she leaves and the male-male bond stays.

Birds

In the bird community, homosexual pairing is likewise evident. Female-female pairs form during mating season, before choosing a male. In this set-up the male is simply a sperm donor, and it is the female (taking turns) who hunts for food when the chicks hatch. Scientists point to distorted estrogen levels, but no evidence has been found to support this. Moreover, if the female-female pairing were defective in some way, then evolution would’ve killed off this behavior instead of making it rather rampant.

Deep-sea Octopus

Homosexual fucking takes a dramatic twist when we turn from sky to sea. National Geographic was first excited with the prospect of having filmed a rarely seen deep-sea octopus. And as a plus, this octopus was filmed in the process of mating. When the scientists were reviewing their prized footage, they found something more surprising -- the deep sea octopus was mating with another male octopus. Twist # 2 was that the other male octopus was NOT a deep-sea octopus but of another species. Twist # 3 was that the other male octopus was over 4 times the other’s size!

Scientists tentatively concluded that since the deep-sea octopus is rare, sex is also a rare encounter and when he finds the opportunity to fuck, he seldom chooses who it is. But they agree that this conclusion is rather shaky and even hints at an overly rigid (heterosexual) interpretation of the discovery. Fact is, octopi are proven to be intelligent creatures, and if one guy didn’t want to fuck another, the one of them should’ve just swum away.

Fruit Fly

This common fruitfly, may be disgusting to us, but among its peers it is a slutty, sought-after creature. Frenzied male-male sex has been widely observed among fruitflies, so much so that when a group of homosexual fruitfiles were put in a container together, they formed a “chain”, each fly penetrating the one in front of him , and being penetrated by the fly on his back. When scientists tried to alter this behavior by injecting DNA to the homosexual fly’s genome, the only thing that changed was the fly’s ability to differentiate male from female fly. Still unable to surrentder their male-male attraction, the homosexual flies became bisexual.

Bottle-nose and Spotted Dolphins

Dolphins are known to be very intelligent, sensual, and sexual. Unknown to many, Bottle-nose and Spotted dolphins form male-male pairings that last a lifetime. These sensual creatures caress and stimulate each other frequently by putting their mouths over each other’s genitals, which strengthen their companionship further. Female dolphins join the male couples only during mating, but the couples are the only ones who demonstrate bodily affection to each other. This companionship is so strong that when one male dies, the remaining male wanders off until it finds another friendly pair. It then joins the pair and forms an oceanic three-some.

Japanese Macaque

One of the most interesting cases of homosexual activity among higher animals belongs to the Japanese Macaque species. Scientists observe exclusive female-female coupling in a many macaque groups, and have attempted to push forward hypotheses to explain this phenomenon.

Scientists first believed that there were inadequate males in the group, but immediate observation does not support this.

Then follows the next hypotheses -- Despite many males, were the males not sexually motivated? The answer is No. Males are always sexual.

Do females couple with each other to share parenting? No. Females are aggressive to another female’s young.

Are females coupling to attract males? No. Homosexual female pairs become violent when males approach them.

Does homosexual sex serve a social stratification function? No. In a female couple, there are no dominant vs. subordinate roles. Both are versatile.

Does the homosexual pairing follow some form of natural selection? No. The female does not choose to bond with the strongest females (unlike “lesbian” baboons, who do).

The only hypothesis left is that homosexual sex happens between female macaques because it is sexually pleasurable. And this is indeed a revolutionary statement to make! This hypothesis shifts the discussion to the existence of “gay” rather than simply “homosexual” animals. Moreover, it brings “pleasure” into the realm of animal behavior which has often been seen as being driven by a “function” and never by mere “pleasure”.

The “pleasure” hypothesis, if supported by further scientific scrutiny, will change the way we view animal evolution and human behavior. Life is hedonistic, and the heterosexuals who look down or discriminate other sexual arrangements (homosexuality, bisexuality, etc) are not only bigoted, but --- in this new scientific model – also selfish. Since pleasure is also cultural – and therefore “learned” – the new age might usher, paradoxically, our ancient selves where we were free to explore our bodies (masturbation) and someone else’s without being demonized by the crappy morality that has made us straight and very, very narrow.

The Constant Gardener

This review says more about me than the movie.

A few years ago, I would've loved the Constant Gardener. But that's water under the bridge.

I think the movie would've been much more entertaining if the direction was more like "The Interpreter" -- without all those black-and-white, 16mm-looking, and Pulp-Fiction type shots. The plot itself is good, and I think the effort to make it "artsy" was counter-productive. Nevertheless, its the type of good-but-somehow-boring movie that will get an Oscar nod.

Easy on the ice...

Filipinos, by their very nature, are pretentious. This statement is obviously controversial but I would engage you in a discussion of it if I had the time or interest in doing so. So, accept that as fact for now because that is not the point of this entry.

Okay, so maybe an example then. Aarrgh!

Leah Salonga. Miss Saigon Days. Interview on Philippine National TV. There she is, beaming, radiant, successful, famous. Then she answers the question posed to her. And we ask ourselves, why oh why does she have a British accent all of a sudden? And we feel pride. And somehow embarrassed that she might "trip" and say a word without the British twang. Yikes.

Example 2: The scene: Ortigas, or Makati, or (what are the new pretention hotspots in Manila now?) the Fort, or Libis... Starbucks, or an establishment known to be "imported". You find kids. Flocks. Herds. Holding Starbucks cups. Cups empty for almost 2 hours now. But don't throw them away, oh no don't do that! The kids are shaky from ingesting all the caffeine they didn't need (they don't even drink coffee to begin with!!!). But fuck it. They have to be seen. With the cups. And that is the be all and end all.

Fast forward to the real example I wanted to make here. A filipino grows up in rural Philippines. Comes to the US. Is thirsty. He orders Arnold Palmer (which is nothing but Lemonade and Iced Tea mixed together), and completes the statement with "easy on the ice" (huwag masyadong ma-yelo). Repeat after me -- "Arnold Palmer, easy on the ice". Without all the pretensions, it should've been "Squid Balls, greasy on the lips" (paki-sawsaw muna sa suka, bago sa maanghang ha?). Bwahahaha.

Why can't we just get an Iced Tea or a Coke?

Oh my blog

The first entry into anything is always so pressuring. I don't know what the f* to write.

I reviewed some of your blogs before starting my own (and I blog, mind you, not because I want to document anything memorable, but because at 11:55PM tonight it is just so boring and I have no one to talk to so I might as well talk to my computer screen), and I thought that "what is blogged" is  not as interesting as "who it is blogged for". Wha-huh?? I mean, when we begin writing down stuff, who do we imagine (among our friendster lists, maybe) are we talking to? I think, the way we eventually write the blog (tone, point-of-view, style) depends on who this person is (in our minds).

In my case, I think I am talking to Kia or Burn.

Hmm. Now, after having said that, I don't know what the whole point was.

Oh okay. I know.

There are blogs that go "I am exploring my life, looking back, looking forward, finding myself, being comfortable with who i really am".. which I think really doesn't talk to anyone but  the blogger himself as he tries to make a brave yet tentative (and annoyingly dramatic and cliche'd) attempt to finally pursue his gay life. Just come out, dude, no need to stage it as if you were blooming like a flower.

And blogs that go "I finished college at UST, and love playing blah blah blah" which talk to everyone except himself (because if he did, he would know that no one f*ing cares about this boring stuff. And man, why blog your resume or your answers to your highschool friend's scented slumbook?")

And there are blogs that go "I love eating... sushi, fruit, and sometimes I eat my own words" (or something to that effect). Which, in my opinion, talks to his set of equally dramatic-poetic and pretentious writer-buddies from college -- but comes out way too contrived, and irritating.

I have managed to make enemies in my first entry. Oh my. And I only wanted to blog because I had no one to talk to tonight.

Powered by Friendster Blogs

December 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31