Rico Blanco Soars

a version of this essay was published in The Philippine Daily Inquirer on May 4 2009.

It took a while to get used to the sounds of Rico Blanco’s solo album Your Universe (Warner Music, 1998).  It didn’t help that the first song “Say Forever” begins with a distinct electronica sound, made even more disconcerting by Blanco employing what sounds like a British accent (I’m at the central stay-shun/Without a des-ti-nay-shan). It has everything that would make a non-fan move on to the next CD on their shelf.

And yet, this just might the biggest mistake one can make. As soon as the strains of the title song “Your Universe” begins, it’s easy to see why Blanco became the soul of Rivermaya in his last years with the band. He has the writing chops that can melt anyone’s heart, without being mushy or corny about it. In this title track, as with many of the love songs in this debut, Blanco employs a distinct kind of songwriting that’s reinvents the formula with a different vocabulary and perspective altogether. (more…)

Fuschia fades

It was easy to fall for watching the movie Fuschia, directed by Joel Lamangan co-written by him and Ricky Lee. There was veteran actress Gloria Romero in the lead role, a really interesting title, and an even more interesting synopsis. More importantly, it is part of the Sine Direk project of the Director’s Guild of the Philippines, Inc. (DGPI), sold as a showcase of films created with unbridled freedom – no capitalist producers to consider.

But there’s more to good films than just a director’s freedom. In the case of Fuschia, it is about knowing when to stop. Unless of course the point is to befuddle the audience into confusion. (more…)

a version of this was published in The Philippine Daily Inquirer on 13 April 2009.

Over lunch, the foursome more famous as the AngFourgettables talks about their nickname, Charice Pempengco, Arnel Pineda, the all-OPM concert month, and everything else in between.

They haven’t disbanded, if that’s what you’re thinking. In fact they insist on two things here: one, that all they’ve done is lie low as a group which allowed their individual careers to flourish, and two, that they’d really rather be called Ang4. Please drop the “gettables” and use the number four, if only to make them sound younger. (more…)

sugod mga kafatid!

I can’t help but delight in the ManoloQuezonIII-ChipTsao debacle. First came ChipTsao and his satirical take on the Philippines versus China on the Spratlys. Second was the expected general public sentiment that this was racist, unacceptable, and off with ChipTsao’s head! Third, Manolo writes this status on his Twitter and Facebook via Ping.fm: “All the crap …” Fourth, hindi na kinaya ng powers ng bloggers na sina Dona Victorina at Reyna Elena, hindi lang si ChipTsao, kungdi pati na rin si Manolo. (more…)

in defense of Nicole

This is a translation of the transcript of Joms Salvador’s comments on the unthinking and insensitive soundbites that have come out of Nicole’s last sworn statement.  Click here for the original Filipino version.

I could not help but respond to the views this note on Nicole’s “retraction” has elicited.

First, on the basis of what’s preferable or not, it is true that it would’ve been better had Nicole and her family not “backed out”, if they didn’t get tired and just pushed through with the fight. From any given perspective — as a woman, as a Filipino, even as a victim — no one can say that in the eyes of the public, it was better that Nicole had executed her last affidavit.

But on the point of what is right and what is wrong — a moralistic enterprise that has as its by-products the notions of whether Nicole is scared or brave, selfish or selfless, shameful or decent — this should not be an issue here.

The reason is simple: we are not Nicole, we are not the woman who has had to face the distaste and ambivalence of the public, we are not the Filipina victim who is fighting a rapist, protected by both the US and Philippine governments.

Also, given thatNicole has conceded, has backed out at this point, does this mean that she wasn’t raped at all? If we analyze her affidavit well, she did not say that she wasn’t raped. What she said was this: she wasn’t sure if a rape happened. She said that maybe it was her fault, maybe she did or said something that allowed for her and Smith to become intimate.

Nowhere in the affidavit did Nicole say that she was taking back all the circumstances that surrounded the rape in Subic on November 1 2005: Smith carried a practically unconscious Nicole from the Nepture Bar as if she were a pig; Smith raped Nicole inside a moving Starex van; after which, Smith left Nicole on the sidewalk of Alava Pier, with her pants down and a used condom sticking to her skin. No one has said or proven these to be untrue, no one has said that none of these instances didn’t happen.

The Filipina Nicole was raped on November 1 2005 in Subic Philippines.

American soldier Daniel Smith raped her.

The law and the decision of the Makati Regional Trial Court are clear about Smith’s verdict: Smith took advantage of Nicole’s drunken state. Physical and circumstantial evidence proved that Smith raped Nicole.

Or have people conveniently forgotten this so that they can continue to view and judge Nicole based on the stereotype they so wish her to be?

Lastly, in order to understand Nicole and this last decision she has made, it is important to understand what rape is, and what happens to women victimized by it, especially for the ones like Nicole, who was raped by a soldier of the most powerful imperialist country in the world, who holds the most puppet-government in Asia by the neck.

This is the thing to do, instead of brandishing moralistic rhetoric to blame the victim of rape.

between the Philippine Daily Inquirer, among other major newspapers, posting images of her for all the world to see and calling the affidavit a “retraction” which IT IS NOT; between the conservative old men who fight among themselves (wow, namecalling! how macho!) and who think they are more intelligent than the rest of us because they (1) love to quote from the law (as if this has excused the Americans from trampling on this country time and again) and (2) blame everything on activism (as if they know what it means, when all they prove is that it has now become fashionable to be America-loving anti-activist fascists), and the women and men across generations who have said that Nicole is a disappointment, a waste of our time, a loser. what has become clear is this: we do not understand. and like the American soldier Daniel Smith, we would much rather work on the presumption that Nicole was a woman who deserved what she got (oh, pray tell, which kind of woman is this?), instead of seeing November 1 2005 for what it is: the night that a Filipina named Nicole was raped by American soldier Daniel Smith, period.

rape has nothing to do with the social class, the career, the life of a woman — much less how much she drank — at that point of becoming victim. rape has everything to do with a man eaten up by hubris, and imagining that he can get away with violence.