History of Philippine Cinema

Ø  We were able to go back in time and have a sneak peak of what the Philippine Cinema had and has to offer from then and up to now. The documentary shown in our Cinema101 class started from whom invented kinetograph, Thomas Alba Edison and his invention’s development.

1893

            The world’s first studio and laboratory in New Jersey was established

1895

            In  Paris, France, Louis and August Lumiere invented cinematograph responsible for mass viewing of films.

1897

            First film using Lumiere cinematograph was shown.

Ø  Antonio Ramos, a Spanish military man filmed in the Philippines; Panorama de Manila, Fiesta de Quiapo, Puente de Espana and Ecsenas Callejeras. He is also the first motion picture producer in the Philippines.

1909

            Rose of the Philippines was the first story and full length film shown in the Philippines.

1912

            `Board of Censors for cinematographic films was established.

1920’s

            First Golden Age of Filipino Cinema

1929

            Board of censors for moving pictures was established.

Ø  Cine Walgrah owned by Walgrah was the first movie house.

Ø  Dalagang Bukid by Jose Nepomuceno was the first full length Filipino film.

1930’s

Ø  Julian Manansala was the father of Nationalistic films

1939

Ø  LVN Productions was established.

1940-1946

            More than 50 films per year was made during these years

1950’s

            Films became more artistic and economic in a sense that it made money and grew into big business via an institutionalized studio system.

Ø  BIG THREE in Philippine Cinema

LVN Productions

Sampaguita Pictures

Premier Productions

1960’s

Ø  5 Independent Movie Companies

RTG

Everlasting Pictures

Tamaraw Studios

Hollywood FarEast

Balatbat Productions

1970’s-1980

            The Hay Days of Philippine Cinema

Mid 80’s-90

            Local films gained profit more than foreign films

  Millennium new comers

Star Cinema of ABS-CBN 2

GMA Films of GMA7

1996-1999

            164 films a year

2000-2003

            82 films a year

2004

            Only 52 films were produced

           

           

Mowelfund Plaza Tour

As a part of the curriculum of our Cinema100 class, we were tasked to go on an educational tour at Mowelfund Plaza in Quezon City. MOWELFUND, according to its official website mowelfund.com stands for MOVIE WORKERS WELFARE FOUNDATION, INC., a non-stock, non-profit social welfare, educational, and industry development foundation organized and established in 1974. It was founded by then San Juan Mayor and President of the Philippine Motion Picture Producers Association (PMPPA) Joseph E. Estrada for the welfare of workers in the Philippine motion picture industry.

The tour went well and it was more than what we expected. Luckily, we even got the chance to see Mowelfund’s ambassadress Mrs. Boots Anson Roa who had a quick talk about the life behind films and how it evolved to what it is at present.  We were all enlightened with what she talked about because we all know for a fact that she is a very experienced and effective actress before and even until now, she still shares to the media industry what she has and has been known for.

After Mrs. Roa’s talk, we were allowed to enter the museum without any companion, we had and enjoyed the whole museum to ourselves. We read on the history of film and even played with some of the actual props used in the production years ago. Moreover, costume, gowns and tuxedos worn on special occasions and award nights were also in the museum all in good condition and good as new. Some equipments like old school video cameras of different sizes and capabilities were also preserved in the museum.

Having a tour at Mowelfund tour was like having a tour back in the golden days of Philippine cinema. Given the opportunity to visit such beautiful museum, also gave us the privilege to witness how pure, artistic and rich our country really is when it comes its history in films. Mowelfund obviously continues to provide every visitor an experience worth keeping and remembering.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrkGkkqcdX1tpKf3K95Zyg640vrH8pyWhyKV0T6oMc9TWo1PoiI5X6a1whDx6f0cGOAT004ojyMyP0AOjzLWKgaRj6BmGMdMYKnm5nVfP2AJBWsCSHZBjNFBToQxiYXAC3dVnx2jTrbdZp/s320/1375097_542473229155890_1394268460_n.jpg

Independent Filmmaking

             As a part of our lesson for midterm in our Cinema101 class, our professor let us watch a documentary about independent filmmaking and filmmakers in Hollywood whom were not just independent but made it huge in the field. From the word itself independent, these were directors who chose being self-reliant than engaging to mainstream film industry. 

The documentary featured some directors having a talk on why they chose to be independent. One of their common reasons was when you are an independent filmmaker, you are able to control all that you want your film to look like, feel like and sound like basing on your own choice, genre, style and ideas. In other words, independent filmmaking gave them the freedom to express their unique artistic style which mainstream filmmaking limits.

One of the major contributions of independent filmmaking was paving a way to African-American films. However, in mainstream filmmaking, African-American actors did not get the chance to play main roles which is obviously a form of racism in some way. Spike Lee, an African-American independent director, directed a movie with his fellow-citizens as cast.

Le Mepris (1963)

          Le Mempris (Contempt) is a film directed by Jean-Luc Godard based on the novel Il disprezzo (A Ghost at Noon) by Alberto Moravia.

The film is about a married couple, Paul Javal and Camille Javal, and their struggles and negotiation with an American film producer, Jeremy Prokosch who would like to produce a film adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey. He first hires respected Austrian director Fritz Lang but he was not satisfied with Lang’s interpretation of the film. So, Prokosch decided to hire Javal instead but he is having second thoughts on whether he should accept the deal because he was thinking about the money and expression which led his relationship with his wife, Camille to lie low.

As a part of our class last Wednesday, our professor let us watch this movie and it is undeiable that the whole class enjoyed it. Everyone was so into the film, so quiet and so engaged in following the flow of the married couple’s life and problems.

Cinematography and editing wise, I noticed that the scenes in the movie were all so long that it took 20 minutes or more per scene in just one location. Continuity in the camera shots and angle were also highly noticeable that sometimes, I got bored watching it. Specially the scene of Paul and Camille arguing then making up in their apartment. I think it composed almost half the running time of the film.

Our professor asked us if Camille Javal really love her husband, Paul Javal. In my own opinion, I think that she really did love him it’s just that she fell out of love right when Paul started being so busy and flirted with another girl. Camille is the kind of woman who is very beautiful and charismatic that he could get any man she wants. Guess I wasn’t so wrong because she even got away with the playboy millionaire Prokosch which led to the death of both of them. Camille is also a fame and money whore and for me, her sudden death is just her karma.

The Star (reflection paper)

         Our professor in Cinema101 let us watch American Cinema, a series exploring film history and American culture in films through the years. The second episode of the series was all about The Stars during the early years of Hollywood films and as discussed in the documentary, Hollywood cosidered that the talents of the stars could save film production from its financial problems. Critics, film scholars, and studio publicists see stars as marketing tools, cultural icons, and products of the industry.

           The Star episode talked about the life of the movie stars on and off the camera, how they controlled cinema for a while, and how did it all change over the decades. The documentary featured a lot of famous faces including Jack Lemmon, Julia Roberts, John Waters, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden, Arthur Wilde, Jane Russell and Joan Crawford. 

           Fans of Hollywood and its history might not learn anything they haven't heard before but this is still a very entertaining piece. You would learn a lot about the life of the stars then even the star system as they call it. The Star system was a method of creating, promoting and exploiting movie stars in Classical Hollywood Cinema. These stars weren’t expected to be the best in acting, singing or dancing. They mainly focused on the image of the stars, how they act out, dress, behave in public. 

The New Hollywood and Independent Filmmaking (summary)

            It was during the 1960’s when blockbuster movies The Sound of Music (1965) and Dr. Zhivago (1965) paved a way for a seemingly healthy Hollywood industry which yielded huge profits. However, after this short dominance in films, problems came in the way when television networks, who used to pay high prices to broadcast films, ceased the bidding for pictures therefore resulting to loss of millions in profit of Hollywood companies by 1969.

            To counter the million profit loss of the producers, they created deviant films targeting the young people. These include Dennis Hoper’s Easy Rider (1969) and Robert Altman's M*A*S*H (1970). Although these two films were successful, other films aimed at the young audience featuring campus revolution and uncoventional lifestyles lead to disappointment in the big screens. On the positive side, films catering to a much broader audience did help lift the industry and the most successful were Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather (1972), William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1913), Steven Spielberg's Jaws (1975) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), John Carpenter's Halloween (1918), and George Lucas's American Grffiti (1913), Star Wars (1977), and The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Brian De Palma’s Obsession 1(976) and Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver (1976) and  Raging Bull (1980).

            These directors were known as the film brats who attended various film schools unlike those earlier Hollywood directors who hadn’t had the chance to. Eventhough this is the case, the new breed of directors based their films on the ideas and styles of the previous directors. The only difference is that, given the knowledge they gained from the film schools, they were able to enhance or improve old ideas therefore making it look, sound and feel new for the audience to appreciate.

            Independent filmmaking from the word itself, requires a lot of budget that was why many directors switched into mainstream filmmaking. Yet other directors who managed to create big budgeted films on their own, conveyed an experimental attitude.

            Lastly, these film brats continued to help in the betterment of Hollywood cinema by creating innovations to cater for a much broader audience.

           

           

Un Chien Andalo 1929 (reaction paper)

           As we took up French Surrealism in films, we watched Un Chien Andalou directed by Luis Buñuel in 1929, a Surrealist short film for us to know or have an idea what surrealism is all about. The film was in black and white and it was a silent movie meaning characters were not delivering any dialogues so we based our understanding of the film just depending on how the characters act including their facial expressions, gestures and movements but there was a background music or instrumentals which added drama or effect to the film.

            Surrealism, being referred to as ‘dream-like,’ Un Chien Andalou on it’s part contained images which ranges from  erotic, frightening, funny, strange, and symbolic. The film for me was very confusing because of its abstractness specially when one scene could not be connected to the other and so on. It was artistic in a way but as I watch the film a couple of times, I could not see any sense that it made or gave to the audience. Maybe for those who critically thought about it and saw sense in the film. Maybe there was. But for me, the film was just created to play with the minds of the viewers by letting them see scenes such as cutting of eyeball, ants coming out of one’s hand, pulling two priests and two grand pianos with dead donkeys on top of it, and the closing scene wherein half of the bodies of two characters were already excavated from the soil. These scenes would rarely happen in real life that’s why it is dream-like.

            It takes a very artistic mind for one to appreciate surrealist films since it shows unusual, daring and subversive scenes.