My favorite scene in Godard’s Tout va Bien (1972)
In January 2019, the struggle continues. I don’t think there has ever been a peaceful month in this regime since it started. To fight the repressive apparatus, we must continue to renew our commitment for the struggle for a genuine national democracy by constituting a bigger collective and a broader, wider alliance with dissenting voices.
Peasants are killed; activists are attacked, harassed, ridiculed, incarcerated and demonized by the state apparatus and threatened online by less discerning people. The black propaganda of the government is in full swing but we must persist and continue to fight for a just and lasting peace. We cannot give up. The month may be over; but the struggle continues on.
WE HAVE A STRUGGLE TO WIN!
Contractualization is still a problem. In the government sector where I work, all contractual workers still face the possibility of losing their jobs within or after the six month contract. For example, in the recent transition of Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), around 6,000 government employees, most of which are contractuals, have lost their jobs. The sad truth is that no matter how important your function is, your contract does not assure you a job all year round. You are still dispensable.
It is therefore imperative for contractual government workers to unite and fight for their right to tenureship and just treatment from the government. Around 700,000 contractual employees of the Philippine government must unite in ensuring a just and rightful treatment of government workers. The fight of contractual government workers is also the fight of countless of contractual workers in the private sector. Some companies still practice labor-only contracting like Nutriasia, Jollibee Food Corporations, SUMIFRU, Dole Philippines, PLDT, Philsaga Mining Corporation, among others. This has to stop. Contractualization is a symptom of the worsening divide between the working class and the ruling class in the Philippines. Why do we still continue to allow it?
Manila Bay Rehabilitation for the Ruling Class. In the latter part of the month, there has been a large scale inter-agency effort to clean-up Manila Bay. Although there has been countless of staging of a Manila Bay clean-up in the past, especially when the Writ of Continuing Mandamus issued by the Supreme Court was enforced, this event has been highly disseminated in various media outlets to make it appear as if something has changed and that this event is a milestone.
In fact, it is a band-aid solution. Law enforcement officers are on the move, apprehending establishments along Roxas Boulevard that violates environmental laws. There was too much attention on the greater Metro Manila area in general. I was actually expecting that this rehabilitation will also involved the full extent of Manila Bay which involves provinces of Bataan, Pampanga, Bulacan, and Cavite.
Aside from the myopic geographical area of such a rehabilitation, there was no acknowledgement of the impact of past and future reclamation projects in Manila Bay. The City of Manila as well as other local government units (LGUs) that sit along the coastlines of Manila bay has already approved several reclamation projects. The Palace said they are beneficial to the economy and the people, but it appears that it only serves a few – the ruling class.
The issue is outstandingly contradictory. Here we have a Philippine government concerned with the environment, who is so quick to judge that the urban poor residing beside Manila Bay as the prime suspect of the decay of the bay. Yet, they allow reclamation projects that will destroy fish habitats and potential mangrove areas that can protect Manila Bay settlers from potentially hazardous storm surges during supertyphoons.
This issue only shows that Manila Bay will not be cleaner any time sooner. While the economy grows via the expansion of capitalist interest over its vicinity, the Bay continues to deteriorate and sooner succumb to its own death.
Push for a Genuine, Pro-People Rehabilitation of Manila Bay!
Stop All Reclamation Activities in Manila Bay!
Resist Crackdown on Activists!
Hands off Venezuela!
Uphold Press Freedom!
Kontraktwal Gawing Regular!
Thesis Proposal Writing Update
Theoretical Framework in Progress
This month was a critical period for my thesis. I have been reading some of the core references for my theoretical framework namely the following:
- Karl Marx’s Capital Volume 1
- Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit
- Hegel’s Encyclopaedia Logic (Shorter Logic)
- Hegel’s Science of Logic (Greater Logic)
- Derrida’s Of Grammatology
Marx-Hegel-Derrida – my thesis will run across this theoretical matrix to constitute a dialectical materialist framework to understand and demystify long duration presupposed metaphysics. As with Karl Marx’s Capital Volume 1, I have already read up to Chapter 22 of the book, and will almost finish it this month.
I tried to read the three books of Hegel section by section, chapter by chapter, side-by-side, but its seems harder and confusing to synthesize ideas in-between readings. I managed to finish the Preface and Introduction of Hegel’s Encyclopaedia Logic (Shorter Logic) which gave me an overview of Hegel’s project in general. I will upload my notes on them later this month. As with Hegel’s book Science of Logic, otherwise known as the Greater Logic, I only managed to finish the two prefaces of Hegel. Both of which gives general introduction of his project, his objectives, his ‘enemies’ (Kant and other German Idealists), his method. Considering the complexities of each book, I found it practical and logical to read Phenomenology of Spirit first because it gives a brief introduction to Hegel’s approach on what scientific cognition is.
After watching the video (see above), I figure that Hegel’s method in Phenomenology of Spirit will greatly help me in also coming up with my own method of studying the phenomena of long cinematic duration in the most scientific way. The stage-by-stage approach of Hegel, from the most basic (sense-certainty) to the most complex (ethical order/the absolute), can greatly help me in fleshing out the structure of long duration from the most basic (the shot, perhaps?) to its teleological existence in Philippine cinema and world cinema in general.
Indeed, reading Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (I’m now in its first chapter on Sense-Certainty) has offered a lot of theoretical resources to me. Capital Volume 1‘s structure has now become clearer. The shadow of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit hovers above Marx’s stage-wise approach to unraveling Capital’s gigantic appearance. From the most basic (commodities in Chapter 1 of Volume 1) to the most complex (the system of capitalism in Volume 3), Marx dialectically engage the idea of capital in a stage-wise approach, synthesizing from the most basic to the most complex. His systematic approach is a scientific one while also maintaining a revolutionary core – the subjectivity of workers subjected to varying degrees of exploitation.
Similarly, Derrida’s idea of trace is quite similar to Derrida’s idea of dialectic, which erases finality as it undoes the metaphysics of presence.
January 2019 | Favorite Films of the Month
Cinema and the Materialist Dialectic
Cinema is an phenomenon of contradictions. The dialectical nature of cinema lies in its essence, its objectivity which effaces the Truth by its own temporality at work. It is a medium of signification ‘sous rature’ or under erasure, that is, at once there but always already erased. Only the memory of the image survives, inscribed in the sensory machine of the viewer. Hence, Derrida once said that it is an artform of phantoms, entities that actually caught up in the mystical time of cinema that neither past-present nor future-present. Cinema is in the order of the untimely, yet we cannot discount that its phenomenological untimeliness only arises from its objectivity.
The task of a scientific inquiry on cinema must aim to bridge the object and the subject, the reality and the mind. To make such a scientific inquiry a revolutionary one, we have to place the generic subject in the realm of the proletarian revolution. Hence, the dialectical materialist approach to a study of cinema must, first of all, study cinema in a scientific way, as applied by both Hegel and Marx in their respective texts (Phenomenology of Spirit, Science of Logic; Capital), in order to account for the Wholeness of the cinematic phenomenon. And second, it must aspire for a revolutionary call-to-arms to change the world by sustaining the proletariat as the subject of cinema. The dialectics of theory and practice must aim for the return of the Cinematic Absolute to its material and social base.
An Account of Images in (Non)Transgression
For cinema to be transformative, it must contain images of transgression, images that dialectically engage with the world. Only a dialectically conscious cinema returns to reality for the sole purpose of changing it, by constituting new relations, new modes of thinking, new Negatives, new ways of seeing the world. Ultimately, a dialetically conscious and revolutionary cinema must abolish cinema-in-itself and begins anew.
Images of Jean-Luc Godard’s Tout va Bien (France / 1972) reflect a dialetically conscious cinema for its disquieting realism and self-consciousness that we rarely see in political films today. A piercing self-awareness is mutually divisive for also being a polemical piece on the contradictions of French society during post-1968 era.
The film builds on the contradictions of labor and capital, while double-playing as both a romantic and political film, consciously situating the privatization of gender roles in the milieu of post-1968 France. The romantic couple – the Man and Woman – encounters a striking group of workers in a meat processing company. The workers held a strike against the management of the company for unfair labor practices. They represent the contradiction, the Negative, which dispels the fetishistic mysticism of the romantic couple; while the couple represents the bourgeois French intelligentsia. Godard shows the non-commensurable relation between cinema as a bourgeois pastime and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Tout va Bien does not end with a resolution but a krisis. It heightens the non-commensurability of such a relation maintaining that reality will always be dialetical and incommensurate.
Happy End (2016)
This month, I was able to watch some very good films. One is the latest Michael Haneke – Happy End (2016), a no-gimmick-film, which is one way of saying endings are “best served cold”. In Happy End, Haneke argues that European society’s elephant in the room – the migration problem – cannot be resolved by mere hospitality; and that the contradictions of such a big problem are already festering in European society long ago. The problem of migrant Jews, for example, during the World War II (WWII) gave rise to fascism that exterminated more than ten million people. While there is an illusion that fascism was already symbolically defeated after WWII, Hanake is clearly showing that it has not left the European subjectivity. Fascism is here and always embedded in each individuality, each bourgeois household and self-deprecating character. Hanake’s characters are testament to Europe’s internalized fascism and xenophobia.
Sinofuturism (1839 – 2046 AD) (2017)
The two experimental films I have watched this month, Lawrence Lek’s Sinofuturism (1839 – 2046 AD) (2017) and Scott Barley’s Closer (2016), are both admirable for their sharpness and polemical intent. Closer is more challenging to read because it is sensorial. But it teaches us a thing or two about the homology of looking, of perceiving things, especially the world itself, which is always already a conglomerate. It justifies the Hegelian notion of being, that being is impossible to isolate in-itself and therefore it must be viewed as a whole. Lek’s Sinofuturism is divisive polemic on the Chinese question. It tries to imagine China not from its national identity but from a China of the future. Using various method of imaging, Sinofuturism uses the essay style to distill the complexity of China’s society, notably without the question of the border.
Hu Bo’s four-hour film, An Elephant Sitting Still (2018), is his first and last film and also, arguably, offers one of the sharpest critiques on the contemporary Chinese imperialist project. Alongside Wang Bing and Jia Zhangke’s films that continue to unravel layers of contradictions in the post-1989 China, Hu Bo’s film offers an approximation of the degree of alienation in contemporary China. Obsolescence, mundanity, obscurity threaten the lives of four dispassionate spirits Yu Cheng (Yu Zhang), Wei Bu (Yuchang Peng), Huang Ling (Uvin Wang) and Wang Jin (Congxi Li) as they all try to converge on meeting point – the elephant sitting still in Manzhouli, China – which the film refused to show. The absence of the Elephant in the ending opens the film to a hopeful end – a radical hope.
The film arguably is not existential, nor nihilist; but teleological. It advocates for a certain achievement of a purpose. Although life in China is hopeless to some, Hu Bo argues that there is still hope if there will be break from the old ideas via the dialectical engagement with the impossible – the Elephant sitting still in Manzhouli. The film argues for a way out. Yet, the road towards such hope, as shown in the film, is not easy. One has to work out one’s life to get there, resolving conflicts, redeeming one’s sense of purpose. Hu bo is hopeful of China’s future. It is sad that he has to go.
Oda sa Wala (2018) & Meta-Hegemoniya, Meta-Industriya (2018)
Ronaldo Vivo, Jr.’s Meta-Hegemoniya, Meta-Industriya (2018) confronts several demons, but it particularly gives shape to the type of violence Philippine society is experiencing today – a violence that is bodily penetrative, contradictory and self-cancelling. Dwein Baltazar’s Oda sa Wala (2018) strength can be drawn from its good compositional style and a crucial attention to the shot’s durational length to elicit a blend of the uncanny, the ironic and the comedic. While timing is its greatest strength as film, it lacks a wider moral compass that would have brought the narrative towards a greater abstraction and purpose.
Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a highly entertaining film about deviancy because it tries to articulate the contradictions of the economy of appearances that runs within elite circles.
I have also rewatched Sherad Anthony Sanchez’s Jungle Love (2012) after almost 7 years of my first watch during its premiere only to find it okay rather than how I saw it before. Other than this, it still sustains its offbeat vibe that doubles as a comedic flare.
Perci Intalan’s Born Beautiful (2019) is also entertaining but to some extent, has a barreled down comedic tone that lacks timing and originality. Viewers can expect a different lighter take from its source material Die Beautiful (2017).
Ralitza Petrova’s Godless (2016) has a promise amidst its impenetrable vagueness. It seems that I need to rewatch it. But on its surface, there is no decipherable conflict that propels the story into a larger than life drama. Instead, what we can listen to and intuit are monotonous sounds of daily lives of geriatrics in Bulgaria. It is about human nature, the aging body, but I cannot distinguish its purpose as whole: to whom and from whom?
I have also seen a handful of short films: a short film that comes as a joke [Bambi Meets Godzilla (Marv Newland / US / 1969)]; a short film on irrational affect of split screens [Theory of Relativity(Catherine Grant / UK / 3m30s / 2015)]; a short film that applies a cinematographic experiment that works alongside Michael Snow’s claustrophobic Wavelength (1967) [Downside Up (Tony Hill / UK / 17 mins / 1984)]; a short film about the oppositional relationship of celluloid filmmaking and digital filmmaking in the Philippines [33 mm Man (Rox Lee / Philippines / 20 m 31 s / 2008)].
I have also seen some bad films: Nasaan ka man (Cholo Laurel / Philippines / 2005), Bird Box (Susanne Brier / USA / 2018), Skyscraper (Rawson Marshall Thurber / US / 2018), and Fantastica (Barry Gonzales / Philippines / 2018). Two films are made by Filipino filmmakers. Nasaan ka Man, a Star Cinema-produced thriller film about a fucked-up incestuous family drama set in Baguio and, of course, the much abhorred Vice Ganda film of MMFF 2018, Fantastica, whose only merit is that it is a better film than Gandarrapido (2017). Bird Box is obviously the downer because I had high hopes at first being hyped up as a film with similarities to A Quiet Place. It had an interesting source material (I heard it is based on a book), but it fails to bring us closer to its world. It is an apocalypse horrendously executed that it looked like as if everyone was just playing dead in the presence of a ridiculous ‘phantom-like’ that-which-cannot-be-seen entity. Same goes with Skyscraper, which felt like a typical product of a cottage industry of Hollywood: basic plot, bombastic actions scenes, a conflict that requires extrahuman strength. Nothing is more deceiving than another white man’s trash.
I promised to watch more anime this year. I’m still new to the field but I’m interested. The only anime I have only truly loved was Neon Genesis Evangelion. It reminds me of a fragment of my affective memory from childhood being so engrossed and confused by the idea of mecha. I was nine years old when I watched Neon Genesis Evangelion from our local channel. Promised Neverland is a start. I hope it gets me somewhere.
The January 2019 Film List
Transformative and Transgressive (5/5)
Tout va Bien(Jean Luc Godard / France / 1972)
Best of the Best (4.5/5)
An Elephant Sitting Still (Hu Bo / China / 2018)
Very Good (4/5)
Happy End (Michael Haneke / Germany-France / 2016)
Closer (Scott Barley / UK / 2016)
Sinofuturism (1839 – 2046 AD) (Lawrence Lek / UK / 2017)
Meta-Hegemoniya, Meta-Industriya (Ronaldo Vivo, Jr. / Philippines / 2018)
Oda sa Wala (Dwein Baltazar / Philippines / 2018)
Can You Ever Forgive Me? (Marielle Heller / US / 2018)
Fair (2.5 – 3.0/5)
Jungle Love (Sherad Sanchez / Philippines / 2012) – rewatch
Bambi Meets Godzilla (Marv Newland / US / 1969)
Theory of Relativity (Catherine Grant / UK / 3m30s / 2015)
Downside Up (Tony Hill / UK / 17 mins / 1984)
33 mm Man (Rox Lee / Philippines / 20 m 31 s / 2008)
Born Beautiful (Perci Intalan / Philippines / 2019)
Godless (Ralitza Petrova / Belgium / 2016)
Nasaan ka man (Cholo Laurel / Philippines / 2005)
Bird Box (Susanne Brier / USA / 2018)
Skyscraper (Rawson Marshall Thurber / US / 2018)
Fantastica (Barry Gonzales / Philippines / 2018)
The Promised Neverland E01 (Mamoru Kanbe / CloverWorks / 2019)
JANUARY 2019 | Anomalous Materials
Anomalous Materials: digital encounters in the web, evental sites of ruptures, exclusionary digipoiesis. Some anomalous materials for this month:
- Complete the System of German Idealism by Alison Bailey [link]
- +18 Gore of Ultraman [link]
- ‘Ang Himig Natin’ on Chapman Stick by Abby Clutario – A Tribute to Pepe Smith [link]
- Taking Names by Ruby Ibarra feat. Bambu and Nump [link]
- ‘Socialism or Barbarism?’: 100 Years After – Rosa Luxemburg by Redfish [link]
- Remembering Liebknecht and Luxemburg by teleSUR English [link]
- Gynompedie Budots [link]
- Cat on the Back Ridding a Motorcyle by P’Billy Salika [link]
- Airport security workers on strike in Frankfurt – Bella Ciao by Mark Bergfeld [link]
- Yellow Vest Protest Jan 5 by teleSUR English [link]
- Act 9, 12 January 2019 in Toulouse by NFCA Media [link]
- Gilet Jaunes Flash Ball Collapse by Europe Says OXI [link]
- Roller Kingdom by Papi Meme [link]
This month, I promise to do an upkeep of the blog. New pages, new posts.
- World Poll Submissions. There is a page compiling all my Senses of Cinema World Poll Submissions from 2012 to present here.
- Film Log 2019. I now re-instated my daily log sheet for the films I’ve watched this year here.
- Spectres of Marx Blog Series: I figure that I’ll just make my interpretation of Derrida’s Spectres of Marx as a serial piece. [here]
- Mixtapes. I will start a regular mixtape. Series of shorts films you can watch online. [here]
That’d be all for now!