Macarthur on Drug Addiction

“I came through and I shall return” were the noted words of Gen. Douglas Macarthur that were among the very few things which were retained in the memories of people like me who has selective amnesia especially towards History 101.

Filipino Author Bob Ong made a notable return with his 6^th book, Macarthur. First printed in April 2007, I found it in the local bookstore only a few weeks ago and immediately bought a copy. I’ve never even heard about Ong’s latest book before neither did I anticipate it because if I recall it right, he wrote in Stainless Longanisa, his 5^th book, something similar to having fulfilled his purpose in enlightening the Filipino people about our socio-political situation and even discontinued his website bobongpinoy which derives from his name (or is it the other way around?) but when concatenated translates to “stupid Filipino”. Thus, I construed that Longanisa will be his last work.

Since I’d read a Bob Ong, I’ve always admired his writing style. Foremost, he’s able to tackle significant social issues in an amusing manner. He employs humor from daily life scenes to disguise his criticisms of something or someone as a light but lasting blow hence make readers ponder again on his stories and nod in agreement to his point. Second, Ong’s books are always full of surprises and intriguing not only the text itself, but also its titles and cover designs. His first book, ABNKKBSNPLAKo?!?, derived from the old native alphabet which when read syllabically imply the statement “Aha! I can read now?!?” is written on a chalkboard as cover art while Bakit Baliktad Magbasa ng Libro ang Mga Pilipino? (Why do Filipinos read books upside-down?) has its cover literally upside-down. On the other hand, Stainless Longanisa features different pens on its front when longanisa is a kind of local sausage. Macarthur’s front gives us a silhouette of what seems to be a top view of a toilet.

While ABNKKBSNPLAko?!? tackled issues with our education system, Bakit Baliktad Magbasa on the common forms of our negligence as Filipino citizens, and Alamat ng Gubat (Legend of the Jungle) on greed of power especially in politics, Macarthur gives us the vivid picture of the lives of youth hooked on illegal drugs. More than a stereotype story of chase, police corruption, and effects of drugging, this book is a story of struggle for self-worth, dreams, friendship, family and reformation. Ong’s talking in native tongue reaches to more readers and assures that his message is clearly conveyed to his intended audience. His casual but tactful style creates the impression that he’s just chatting over a cup of coffee and even invited us to the different homes of the characters in the slums and to their pot sessions. Macarthur compares its characters to its slang meaning: stools that cannot be flushed at once hence the lives of these youth are but a waste. More inspiringly however is its implication that some of them are given a chance to return to a loving family abundant of concern and acceptance.

Macarthur is a triumphant return of an epic author too interesting to be flushed down the toilet.

Prada Movie Spot-the-Difference

I have seen it in the big screen long ago but had finished reading the novel only recently (although it’s been months too since I purchased the book)

For novels-turned-motion picture, I’d usually prefer to read the book first before watching the film. Aside from Harry Potter (which didn’t win my interest to get me read it), The Devil Wears Prada is an exemption. I rented its VCD for P16 while patiently saving for the 350-peso book.

I have to disagree with the one who posted a review saying that the movie is “faithful to the book”

The similarities were enough to portray maybe at least the exhausting routine of Andrea Sachs as Junior Assistant in Runway. Indeed there was the daily run to fetch the lattes, the “job a million girls would die for” cliché and Miranda’s monotonous “That’s all” remark but these did not suffice to consider the movie “faithful” to the original story.

I’ve noted some of the deviations:

The Movie: Andy’s boyfriend is Nate (Adrian Grenier) who works in the culinary.

The Novel: Alex is her boyfriend and he is a teacher for special kids.

The Movie: Miranda Priestly’s husband is Steven – the man she’s arguing with upstairs when Andy delivered the book in her home.

The Novel: Miranda lives with her third husband, Mr. Tomlinson a.k.a. B-DAD. He’s a cheerful old man.

The Movie: Andy started working at Runway right after she was interviewed by Miranda. Emily had to run after her to say she’s been accepted.

The Novel: An HR staff had to call her to announce that she got the job. She started working while Miranda was away for vacation hence she has been working for a month already before Miranda came back.

The Movie: Miranda ordered Andrea to have 15 Calvin Klein skirts be brought in her office.

The Novel: Miranda was in Oscar de la Renta’s estate when she phoned Emily to have a skirt flown to Dominican Republic. She just needed one skirt (not specifically CK); Emily has had various designer skirts brought in to choose what to send to Miranda.

The Movie: Andy was having dinner with her dad when Miranda called her to charter a flight back to New York on a stormy night so she could see her twins’ stage play.

The Novel: It was Emily whom Miranda demanded to charter a flight that particular night. Miranda was with B-DAD and just wanted to fly back home; the twins don’t have a play.

The Movie: The party where Andy first met Christian is hosted by James Holt who’s a designer himself

The Novel: James (surname not mentioned) is an Associate Beauty Editor for Runway and he was the one who invited Andrea to that party which was actually a party of Marshall Maden, a renowned hair colorist.

The Movie: Miranda asked Andy to get the unpublished Harry Potter as a punishment for bringing the Book upstairs the previous night. Christian helped Andy with the task.

The Novel: Miranda and the twins were in Paris when the fourth HP book is to be released that’s why she phoned the office to have the books flown there. Christian has no contribution to its accomplishment.

The Movie: Miranda held a benefit show at the Metropolitan Museum where she brings her assistants to greet the guests.

The Novel: The event at the Met was an engagement party for Miranda’s brother-in-law.

The Movie: Emily met an accident that’s why she wasn’t able to go with Miranda for Paris Fashion Week.

The Novel: Emily wasn’t able to go because she got seriously sick of a type of flu.

The Movie: Andy and Nigel went with Miranda to Paris.

The Novel: Nigel didn’t come with them and Miranda flew to Paris alone. Andrea followed few days after.

The Movie: French Runway’s Jacqueline Foyer seems to be an antagonist who attempted to replace Miranda.

The Novel: Briget Jardin is Editor-In-Chief of French Runway. She has no conflict with Miranda.

The Movie: Andy quitted her job because she doesn’t want to be like Miranda.

The Novel: Andy quitted because she got fed-up with Miranda when the latter demanded her to find a way to have the twins’ passports renewed so the kids could join them in Paris that same night.

Aside from these, some characters were “under portrayed”. Nigel for instance is really loud in his style whereas actor Stanley Tucci who played the role was quite conservative with his suits and jackets. The real Emily and Allison would actually wear midriffs to work although their stylish dresses in the movie aren’t bad either. And I was looking for at least one scene where Meryl Streep was wearing Miranda’s trademark white Herme’s scarf.

The book describes Miranda as the meaner devil boss that she is and the Runway workplace in its more hellish state but at least the movie still succeeded in giving the non-readers adequate visual of fashion obsession.

Lessons from the Ark

“When people pray for patience, does God give them patience or the opportunity to be patient?If one asks for courage, does God give him courage, or the opportunity to be courageous? If one asks for a family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?”

Really exhausted from work recently, I treated myself to the movies.

I rushed my socio-anthropology exam to catch my preferred viewing time which I only refer to as “the one before the last show” but which I wrongly estimated hence I still came half-an-hour late.

Bruce’s sequel is the story of congressman-elect Evan Baxter (Steve Carrel) known for his campaign slogan “Save the World” and “God” just knew how he could do that. After giving the congressman some signs and delivering tools to his home, God orders him to build an ark for a forthcoming flood. Baxter of course finds this ridiculous at first and refuses to obey until God lays down some reinforcement on him. It’s amusing how Baxter turned to the modern-day Noah quite literally with his beard and hair persistently growing, with a robe and staff complementing the look.

The story simply flowed sequentially without much surprise but for someone who used to regularly attend Sunday schools as a child, I appreciate how faithful the writers adopted things from the original story including the number of Noah’s sons (although Evan’s kids are adolescents and don’t have wives), direct quotes from the Bible, the pairs of animals, the people who refused to believe, the rainbow, and even the dove sent out to survey for dry land (although in the movie, it has no role as significant but at least it was there).

Since I became a student of Digital Movie Design, I became interested with production facts of films that I watch. I researched and was impressed to learn about when and how the ark was assembled, how the pairs of animals were rendered in computer graphics, and the production’s proactive effort advocating carbon-offsetting. [Know more]

Evan Almighty would not incite a standing ovation but at least not disappointing.

I’ll not tell how the flood happened but flood or no flood, to save the world we must make “one Act of Random Kindness at a time”.