Marley & Me

Marriage Movie Marathon 3

The third marriage movie on our marathon list is “Marley & Me” (2009) starring Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson. Yes, in case you don’t know, this movie is about marriage. Before anything else, I’d like to commend the chemistry between Jen & Owen. It felt real. But what was even more realistic was the movie’s story. To those who expected that this would just be another Romantic Comedy because of the stereotypical Hollywood stars on top bill, or probably a run-of-the-mill Disney-esque Family film because there’s a canine involved, you might have been disappointed. This movie is actually a memoir in motion. Based on an autobiography by John Grogan, "Marley & Me" is a simple straight-to-the-point chronicle of his family life and how their pet Labrador Marley figured out in the entire story.

“Marley & Me” first of all isn’t just about Marley, the dog. This is not like one of those Shaggy, Lassie or Beethoven movies. Marley didn’t save the day. Marley was not kidnapped for his fur. Marley was not made into a lab rat. Marley just happens to be the pet dog of the Grogans, and on many levels a representation of the responsibilities that come along with family and married life. Marley, as a very unruly dog, is symbolical of marriage itself – some days it’s charming but most days it’s such a chore. Just like Marley, marriage is not something you can return if it’s not behaving right. Just like Marley, marriage can sometimes be messy but hey you’ve just hafta pick up the poop and clean up.

The movie resonates a lot to Joseph and me because being dog lovers ourselves and childless to boot, we feel the pain of having to fill those gaps in our fledgling marriage; facing the social pressure to conceive by smiling up front and shedding tears inside our hearts; and living out our daily domestic humdrums and ironing out our various individual differences.

There’s also the issue of careers – giving up our “ambitions” to settle down. Some unmarried people are quick to say that marriage is not supposed to stop you from becoming what you’ve always wanted to be. And I know married people would agree with me that priorities do change. Although we used to have those BIG dreams of climbing our ideal career ladder, our families naturally become more important. When we were single, it would have been much easier to just call it quits when things start becoming unbearable in the office. When we were single, we had more freedom to open the doors of working and studying abroad. We can’t afford to be jobless now but it’s not about being slaves to our obligations and losing ourselves in the process. Marriage is all about becoming unselfish.

We see that in “Marley & Me”. Jen Groger (Jen Aniston) leaves a high-paying newspaper job to take care of the new baby because she doesn’t want to be one of those parents who just see their kids awake for an hour a day. John (Owen Wilson) on the other hand, gives up his dream of being an international reporter in exchange for a more laid-back, closer-to-home job as a columnist. It’s not exactly the hardcore journalism career that he had hoped for but he’s not complaining.

Warning to single people, domesticity can be dull. But personally, I think marriage becomes mundane only when the husband and wife living out that married life are boring people themselves. Good thing, Joseph and I stir each other. To quote my husband, “How will I ever get bored with you? You’re crazy!” Hahaha! Speaking of perking up the partnership, I guess Marley also provided the sugar & spice in their family. Marley kept them running, "literally" and figuratively. So I think it's apt to say that married couples should determine what's the "Marley" in their marriage. It doesn't have to be literally a pet... the Marleys in marriages differ and that all depends on the kind of couple/family that you are or want to be.

Two for the Road

Marriage Movie Marathon 2

As a follow-up to our marriage movie marathon, I told my husband that we should watch another one of my all-time favorites: “Two for the Road” (1967) starring Albert Finney (the dying dad in Big Fish and that lawyer in Erin Brockovich) and the delightful Audrey Hepburn. I’m a real big fan. And yet again, this is another movie with a top-notch soundtrack. Henry Mancini (Moon River from “Breakfast at Tiffany’s) did the musical score. I first saw this film when I was in High School and it definitely gave me the aspiration and inspiration for my own future married life.

Tagged as a classic film on marriage, Two for the Road’s title alone clearly depicts married life as a journey. The metaphor is just perfect! Just like any road trip, it is bound to hit bumps, steep hills, highways, flat tires and even engine fires! That’s what Mark and Jo Wallace went through as the story of their 12-year old marriage was told in a non-linear manner, volleying the viewer back and forth in the relationship and cleverly using the passing of cars as transitions, and of course using Audrey’s upgrading fashion sense as visual cues to mark the couple’s evolution.

We see them first as a well-heeled husband and wife, bored and bickering at each other, and on their way to the south of France. While they muse about the prospect of divorce, they unintentionally get down into memory lane, remembering the good and the bad, as they traveled the same road where most of their marital breakthroughs happened. The story is actually a summary of five road trips, all of which the couple have taken in different eras of their married life. This was the road where they accidentally wounded up hitchhiking together and falling in love along the way. From finding out they’re pregnant to finally bringing along little Caroline; from tagging along with snobbish family friends to traveling on their own in jet setting style.

Mark and Jo’s marital journey as symbolized by these road trips, if I may say, is an eye-opener for married couples like me and Joseph. We are presented with paradoxes such as the couple being more happy and carefree when they were practically penniless during the early years of marriage, and then ironically becoming hostile and cold when they finally could afford anything they want. They were better-off when they had the cheap car. The ride became worse when their automobiles got more expensive.

There’s a lovely point in the movie which becomes the thesis of the story. One time during their honeymoon days, Joanna sees a silent couple in a restaurant and asks Mark, “What kind of people can eat an entire meal together and not talk?” He then quips, “Married people!” A decade later, they ironically find themselves becoming THAT couple.

We definitely learn a lot from this picture especially at this point in my marriage now with Joseph when we are beginning to have those classic white picket fence dreams – a house with a lawn, a car, our own enterprise, time to travel, a dog, a baby… We are reminded though that a higher class of lifestyle doesn’t guarantee bliss… a luxury car doesn’t exactly make the ride smoother. It’s the road that determines the journey. And unfortunately no matter what type of vehicle we use, it doesn’t change the terrain of the path. Marriage is like a long stretch of cemented highways and bumpy dirt roads combined. No map in any store can tell you where the potholes and humps would be. You’ll just see it when it’s there. Or worse, you hit it first and then know that it was there. The road of marriage may present a lot of surprises along the way that make the trip more interesting, and maybe frustrating most of the time. But one thing’s for sure, marriage is never a one-way thoroughfare. It is always a two-way street.

Same Time Next Year

Our most favorite bonding time at home is to watch DVDs. This week my husband and I did a viewing marathon on movies that are all about marriage. Let me share with you our insight on the first one…

Marriage Movie Marathon 1

Uncanny but I admit that although this movie’s subject is infidelity, “Same Time Next Year” (1978) still remains to be one of my all-time favorite films simply because of its theme song (Johnny Mathis’s “The Last Time I Felt Like This”) and the way that the story was written. That’s crediting the fact that it was originally a successful 2-character Broadway Play by Bernard Slade. The film doesn’t deviate much from the play’s structure. Everything is still seen and felt through the points of view of the two main characters – George and Doris, two cheating spouses played by Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn.

In gist, the story begins in 1951 when the two of them accidentally meet each other in a quaint little inn out of town (think Sonya’s Garden in Tagaytay). And by some unexplainable magic (blame the ambiance), they hit it off and one thing lead to another and soon we find them carrying on an adulterous affair for 26 years. But unlike most affairs, they agreed to consummate this alternate reality only once a year, hence the title. And then the movie takes us through the years, in a 5-year interval, as we see them age and evolve physically and emotionally ironically like any typical married couple. The only difference is that THEY’RE NOT MARRIED to each other.

I have to warn people before viewing this film. Watch it with care. It would be quite easy to romanticize and glorify “adultery” after falling in love with the charming characters of George and Doris. Hopefully, none of you would get any bad idea. I wanted my husband to see this film because I wanted to remind him (okay, myself too) that the temptation to cheat can indeed happen even in the absence of unhappiness in the marriage. It was good timing actually because he confided in me recently that some girl in his office actually professed a "crush" on him.

It is important to note in the movie that throughout the quarter of a century that George and Doris were together, they each had satisfying and relatively “happy” marriages with their respective spouses. Most studies reveal that the most popular reason why spouses cheat is discontent, and mostly it’s the need for sexual satiety. We realize that even though George and Doris were happily married, their perfect suburban lifestyles lacked the adventure of romance. Their annual rendezvous provided exactly that.

People say that romance leaves the marriage as soon as kids come in and even as early as a year after... three max. As much as comfort in marriage is a welcomed feeling after having volatile emotions during the dating years, it can also be the culprit for cheating. That’s why, even though it’s a good answer, I get worried when my husband (lovingly) answers me with the phrase “I’m content” when I ask him if he’s happy. He tells me that happiness is overrated. Contentment is more his thing. And so with this movie, I pointed out that cheating can still worm its way inside a very content heart. That’s why I told him, we should not stop being crazy over each other. Let’s be comfortable and curious at the same time. We may be married but we can be George and Doris to each other too.

Cooking... Blogging... and Meryll Streep

I’m really excited about this upcoming film starring my all-time favorite Hollywood actress Meryll Streep and newcomer funny gal Amy Adams. The movie’s title is “Julie & Julia” and is directed by Rom-Com Genius of the ‘90s Nora Ephron. Remember “Sleepless in Seattle” “You’ve Got Mail”… okay, you get the picture. I love it because it’s about three things that I absolutely adore: Cooking… Blogging… and Meryll Streep. Here’s the basic plot:

Frustrated temp secretary Julie Powell (Amy Adams) embarks on a year-long culinary quest to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Child's “Mastering the Art of French Cooking.” She chronicles her trials and tribulations in a blog that catches on with the food crowd.

The film by the way is based on a real life story of Julie Powell herself who really blogged about her cooking attempts. The blog became such a hit that she eventually published it into a book entitled "Julie & Julia". Hmmm, now there's a great idea. Do you think "Memoirs of a New Missus" would fly off the shelves? (thought bubbles hover me now)

Anyway, Julia Child is played by Meryll of course, and in case you don’t know who Julia Child is… before there was a Martha, Giada, Rachael and the Barefoot Contessa, Julia Child was the TV Chef that all housewives in the ‘50s emulated.


(left) Meryll as Julia Child and the real Julia Child (right)

In the film, we would be seeing two eras in juxtapose as present day Julie struggles with gourmet cooking in a tiny New York apartment while Julia begins to build her culinary brand in the ’50s. Cooking then becomes the metaphor for their life and love issues. That’s just my literary analysis. (Me and my penchant for metaphors!)



I was kind of inspired with the story and made me think about putting up blog posts of my own kitchen adventures. I usually just post resto finds & recipes that I have tried and tweaked but I have never written about my experience in making them, and the whole drama that went behind it (if there were any). I actually have 2 new beautiful cookbooks (Martha Stewart's Cooking School and Classic Recipes book set by Hershey’s, Campbells and Eagle Brand) sent to me as presents by my secret “sweet” kitchen fairy. I call her my kitchen fairy because she has been so generous in sending me trivets, kitchenware and cookbooks every time she does some spring cleaning in her home. This famous lady loves to spread the love on homemaking. Thanks to her, I’ve been able to make cupcakes with my favorite gadget – a yellow Kitchenaid Mixer – which I named after her. I’ve told her that she should put up her own brand of home ware like Martha. She’s already got the name. Anyway, that’s enough about her. You might already guess who she is. Hehe. :-)


(left) My yellow Kitchenaid Mixer, a gift 2 yrs ago... (right) and cooking for hubby's bday

Anyway, I really can’t wait for this new film. I love Meryll Streep’s movies. Be it drama, comedy, and even theater… she’s done it all. I love her best in comedies. Here are my FAVE FIVE MERYLL STREEP COMEDY MOVIES: “Postcards from the Edge” (I love the mother-daughter issues of this story)… “She-Devil” (Her character seriously made me think about wanting to become a romance novelist when I was a kid)… “Death Becomes Her” (two words: Goldie Hawn)… “The Devil Wears Prada” (She was so deliciously evil!)… “Mamma Mia” (Again, this really reminded me of my mom and I during my own wedding. Mama drama galore! And her character Donna, is so like my mom. She’s funny like that. Haha!)



Of course, she ain’t Meryll Streep if not for the tear-jerking Oscar worthy roles. HERE ARE MY FAVE FIVE MERYLL STREEP DRAMATIC FILMS: “Kramer vs Kramer” (Again, she reminded me of mom when she left my dad and our family)… “The Bridges of Madison County” (I’ve really always wondered about falling in love in that age)… “Adaptation” (with director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman, need I say more?)… “The Hours” (There was a time back in my melancholic years that I loved Virginia Woolf’s works)… “Angels in America” (An HBO mini-series that had her playing 4 roles. Wow talk about versatility)



But more than her craft, I am more delighted about the fact that she’s been married with 4 children for 30 years to the same man. Now, that’s a rarity in Hollywood. She’s really proof that fame and fortune don’t always destroy families.

A Sweet Life Gone Sour

I’m supposed to feast on another RomCom (romantic comedy) for my February Mush Marathon but I could not resist watching REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. My sister-in-law had a “dibidi” at her apartment. When I found it, my immediate reaction was “Ooh! Can I borrow it?” and she said, “Sige… di ko type yan… boring. Mas maganda pa yung Titanic nila!” I chuckled. Obviously, my sister-in-law isn’t exactly a film connoisseur. She’s just your average movie-goer. It’s not her fault.

But personally, I think comparing Titanic & Revolutionary Road is probably the LAST (and silliest) thing you could do. The only thing I liked about Titanic was James Cameron’s obsession with the authenticity of the tragic voyage – from the hull down to its china. The love story was practically like a sinking ship. It was mushy right. So mushy that it felt like a soggy banana mash was being shoved into my mouth. It was “cute” and “nice” the first time but after seeing it again for the nth time (a ‘90s thing to do) you get to realize more and more that there aren’t really any subtexts to be read and there aren’t even metaphors at play to make this film even remotely “deep”. The only depth one could encounter is the bed of the Atlantic Ocean.

And this where the irony begins… While my sister-in-law thinks that Revolutionary Road was just a “boring” husband and wife story compared to the seemingly exciting romance of Titanic, the reality is (as always) what looks spectacular on the exterior is nothing but fluff (Titanic) while the one that has a mundane premise actually has more “depth” (Revolutionary Road).
Unlike Titanic whose love story plot came from the mind of a director who was famous for nothing more than his Terminator movies (go figure) Revolutionary Road was an adaptation of a 1961 novel by Richard Yates. The story is set in the mid-50s – the rise of suburbia – and it’s about a young couple Frank & April Wheeler: About 30 yrs old; Married with 2 kids… and in typical 50s dynamics, the husband goes to work in an office while the wife stays home to bake pies. The problem begins when the wife in the middle of her dishwashing chore gets an epiphany – THERE MUST BE MORE TO THIS DOMESTIC LIFE!

I have always been intrigued with stories/movies set in the 50s. Hollywood has depicted the era many times but the ones that always leave a mark on me are those that center on the paradox that is the 50s Homemaker. The one that I loved best before Revolutionary Road was one of Julianne Moore’s films – The Hours, where she plays housewife Laura Brown who secretly despises her mundane daily life which includes baking a birthday cake for her husband. She lives vicariously through her favorite novel Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway” and then one day goes “Sylvia Plath” – leaves her son and goes suicidal in a motel room. She decides against it though and instead goes home, serves the perfectly pretty home-baked cake to the family, and just when you think everything’s okay; that she has come to her “senses”, she eventually takes the bus and disappears… forever. She quit, just like that.

Frank and April shared the same suburban prison. In Revolutionary Road, the Wheelers, most especially the missus had this restlessness – a desire to be part of the world and not just let it go by, which she translates to Paris. Mrs. Wheeler thinks that Paris would be the best place for them. It’s a place they think where they can exhaust their “potential”. In April’s words that would be “For Frank to be able to think about what he really wants to do while she would work and maybe pursue her acting.” When they told this to fellow suburban neighbors, they couldn’t quite understand what the Wheelers were talking about but nevertheless they took it all politely. So what’s in Paris that’s not in the US? The Wheelers argued that the cost of living there was far cheaper… and most especially it’s where they feel that they can be ALIVE. It really sounded very whimsical but given that they were two idealistic people, it was easy to romanticize everything. Let’s leave suburbia for bohemia! Paris just seems to be only way out of this mundane existence. So at first it was a pretty good plan until came Frank’s big promotion and April’s unexpected pregnancy. Suddenly Paris becomes a question at least for Frank while it becomes an obsession for April which later on causes the demise of their marriage and a couple of precious lives.

When watching the film, one could easily fall into the trap of taking sides – Frank’s or April’s. Whose fault was it? Who really caused the tragedy? As I have told you earlier, I am always curious about the walking time bomb called “the 50s Housewife.” It’s pretty clear that this generation of wives wanted to wear the pants but were the given the apron instead. They wanted to be in the boardroom and not in the kitchen. Remember this was the generation of mothers who smoked, drank beer and took cough syrup even when they’re pregnant. Well of course there was the limited medical information at that time but seriously was “good health” that really unheard of? What I’m saying is these women were clearly very ahead of their time. Abortion was not even THAT big of an issue. So if you think your grandparents are conservative – think again!

It’s just so ironic because while the 50s housewife wanted to be anywhere else but the kitchen, don’t you notice that more and more wives and mothers nowadays would rather stay home? While Frank & April abhorred their manicured neighborhood, more and more couples and families nowadays are buying into the landscaped promises of the Grass Residences of SM and all those Real Estate developments in the outskirts of the city. My husband and I asked ourselves recently “What are we working hard for anyway?” The answer: to buy a house & a car, be able to travel, afford our cable & internet, pay for our insurances, and eventually send our kids to good schools (if we ever have one). In short, we also admit to have our own version of the white picket fence dream. On the flipside, we might be able to fit in the Wheelers’ world more than they could.

You know what I really find problematic about Frank and April’s marriage? I don’t even blame the times. It’s really more about the lack of God in their marriage. Because the truth is, if April & Frank were Christians, and if they were obedient to the biblical portrait of marriage, then the 50s would have been a perfect era for them to play those roles. Submission would have been “natural”. Back then, there was no necessity for a double income household. The husband’s earnings could take care of everything. Aah! How I wish it would be the same today. These days both spouses would really have to work. And interestingly, there are really a lot of women now who are earning more than their husbands. April would have liked to be 30 in 2009 and not in 1955.

I tried to imagine myself in April’s shoes. And while I admit that I’d rather be home and be the “perfect” homemaker, I agree that doing the dishes over and over again could sometimes spark that tiny nerve of dread in my mind. Like April, I also get a lot of my epiphanies while I’m in front of the sink. My kitchen has this large window and a lot of times I’d find myself drifting away in my thoughts (which you all get to read here on my blog site, hehe) while staring blankly at the parking building that’s standing next to our loft.

And maybe that’s why most wives nowadays prefer to stay at home. We all have easy access to the world through the Internet. Who needs to go to an actual office when you can be productive in your pajamas? So maybe if only April had some internet connection at that time, I really think she would not have gone ballistic about doing the dishes every day… because she would probably have a blog where she could just vent out all her rants and raves. Haha. And you know what’s more ironic about it? Frank’s big promotion that made him bail out of the Paris project was actually about selling a very new type of business machine called “the computer”. I really find that funny. If only April knew what that thing could do in the future.

There are times when domestic life especially when it’s new really does feel like “playing house.” And although I still feel giddy in calling myself a Honeymoon Homemaker, life at home can’t be all that sweet. Sometimes after you’ve practically turned the house over for every speck of dust, it’s tempting to wonder if I’m missing out on something out there. Have I really given up my dreams? My ambition? Could I be April? Maybe if I didn’t have Christ in me that would be possible. Frank and April’s problem was just really about the oblivion to THE REAL PURPOSE of their life… Their restlessness was just really about being lost in this world, like any other person out there who has not found the Truth.

The movie was really a reminder for me to stay in the right path. I used to agree that it’s not the destination but the journey that counts. Although Frank and April set their eyes on Paris, it wasn’t really a DESTINATION. It was just part of their prescription for “living.” They didn’t really have solid goals. They just want to LIVE… and FEEL IT. For them it was all about the journey too. But now things have changed for me. When I received Christ, I learned about my ultimate destination – HEAVEN. And I’m happy that my husband, being a Christian himself, shares the same destination too. Of course we do have earthly plans, and we try to enjoy what this life has to offer us as much as we can but we are not going to kill ourselves if we don’t get to do everything. The sweet life doesn’t have to turn sour. God’s word is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.

Mush Marathon 1: A Very Special Love

Love is in our living room air! This February, I told myself that I would catch up on all the romantic comedies (local & Hollywood) that I missed in the past year. The mush marathon began last Thursday night. My husband finally got a copy of… hold your breath… “A Very Special Love” starring John Lloyd Cruz and Sarah Geronimo! Hahaha. To be honest, you would rarely find me lining up for a local movie. Bad noh? As someone who is basically part of the Pinoy showbiz industry, I should be supporting it, right? Well yeah… Unfortunately, even if I had wanted to watch this film when it came out last August, my husband and I were in a deep frenzy for the “Dark Knight” which came out a couple of weeks earlier than the Star Cinema film. So given that we have agreed on spending our weekend entertainment budget wisely, when made to choose between splurging on our much-awaited “Dark Night” and betting our curiosity on “A Very Special Love”, hands down the Bat won over Lloydy.

We didn’t watch DK on its first opening week because we wanted to avoid the huge crowd. So when we finally trooped to Gateway Cineplex a week or so after I was surprised to see a very long line going to one of its cinemas. We thought it was still for DK but a few more paces into the area and we got our answer. The poster for “A Very Special Love” loomed before us. I surveyed the crowd and mind you, most if not all didn’t look like your typical jologs crowd at all. Forgive my prejudice. It was a queue of relatively well-heeled people. I was surprised because all this time I always thought Sarah’s appeal was only for the masa telenovela audience. This was certainly interesting. In fairness, diba? My curiosity even grew more when I started to hear raving reviews about it.

I only get to catch John Lloyd’s acting whenever his movies play on Cinema One and on rare occasions when there’s nothing else to watch on TV so I have no choice but to endure those primetime telenovelas. No doubt this guy knows how to act. And I’ve been used to seeing him with Bea so the idea of pairing him up with Sarah was really offbeat. Although, I learned that this was not exactly their very first pair-up and that they’ve had sort of a road test on “Maalaala Mo Kaya,” and despite claims that they clicked on the small screen, I still believe that taking their love team to the big screen doesn’t spell any box office guarantees. It was certainly a risk that Star Cinema was willing to take. And of course we all know by now that they hit jackpot on this one.

I know it’s a bit too late for a movie review but let me share my 2 cents worth on this. Over all the movie was “cute” – it’s a story of a boss and his secretary falling in love. The concept’s not THAT new, but then again, nothing is ever new in Philippine Cinema, which is not entirely wrong IF and only IF the film manages to outdo the previous depictions. The most memorable stiff boss and kooky secretary love story I love referring to is Carmi Martin and Edu Manzano on “Working Girls” Hahaha sorry but I grew up watching and loving these ‘80s classics. For me nothing can beat that scene when Carmi’s character declared “Sabel! This must be love!” Carmi & Edu’s love story in Working Girls was but a fraction of the entire plot so there was really not much space to explore about their characters’ backgrounds. This was the opportunity that “A Very Special Love” offered for us.

The story opens in the point of view of Sarah whose character’s name is Laida. From the very beginning the film sets her up as a very ordinary girl (coming from a lower middle class family) who is head over heels in love with Miggy Montenegro (John Lloyd) who is obviously a member of the Alta de Sociedad. In the real world, he would have been a son of the Ayalas, Lopezes, Gokongweis, and all those rich families who practically own all of Metro Manila and most parts of the country. The story progresses with quirky Laida, a naïve fresh grad off to apply for a job (her first) in the magazine being run by her all-time crush and “fantasy” Miggy Montenegro. She joins the company “accidentally” in the most inopportune of time. Their magazine “Bachelor” is on fire with its mother company as it suffers being Number 2 next to their rival publication. Miggy the owner goes ballistic due to pressure; ends up losing his editor in chief (who happens to be his friend) and some good employees; leaving him with an under-manned staff to revamp the whole magazine in only 3 weeks.

The messiah comes in the form of Laida. Her naïve infatuation with the boss proved to be “useful” as she naturally becomes the eager-beaver worker, unfazed with the pressure, helping with all the aspects of the production, acting as the team’s cheerleader and sometimes being the mascot. She does all these things unflinchingly because there’s nothing else in her mind and heart but to please her boss slash love of her life Miggy. Soon, her cute “save the day” antics finally get Miggy’s attention. The day that she accidentally became his nurse when he came down with a bad flu sealed the deal for him. As the story progresses, we learn that Miggy is actually a love child; a spawn of his father’s relationship outside his marriage. His mother is dead and although he’s acknowledged by his siblings in the legit Montenegro brood, we are informed in the story that he feels left out; and that he needs to earn his siblings’ and father’s approval and ultimately their love by being successful in the family enterprise. Miggy’s struggle with his magazine being Number 2 parallels the stigma of his mom’s “number 2” title in his father’s life.

Laida softens the heart of this bachelor which is translated symbolically through the transformation of their men's magazine. From being just all about alpha male sex to growing a sensitive soul. Soon Miggy falls in love with Laida but of course there must be some sort of a conflict to make way for a grand ending, right? So after Miggy comes out of his Scrooge persona and becomes loved by his staff; and after feeling triumphant with the new face of the magazine, everything falls apart for him when the launch party was ruined by the onslaught of a typhoon. He goes back to feeling sorry for himself, and as expected pushing away Laida for he feels that there’s not enough love in his heart for him to give her back. Then of course, as expected, in the end after some family drama moments he patches up with his family; realizes that he loves Laida so off he goes to make a grand declaration of love – conspiring with his staff to set up a huge “I’m sorry” billboard in some park as he sings their theme song “Kailan”. It rains again by the way (the 3rd time in the movie) and so the love birds have this whole fighting and making up in the rain, typical romantic comedy I-love-you-you-love-me-let’s be-together kind of ending.

Okay, here’s where I will start to nitpick. To be honest, albeit some über-mushy moments here and there that just sent shivers down my spine, I think the movie was a very good romantic comedy UNTIL the ending came. When did you ever see a romantic comedy which didn’t have a single kissing scene at all?!? The story SHOULD have ended with at least a conservative close mouth kiss. Instead, they just HUGGED and awkwardly at that. It was so disappointing!!! Why oh why???


I really believed that in the original screenplay, that scene ended in a lip-lock. It just doesn’t make sense not to have one. No one in her right scriptwriter’s mind would write off a kiss out of a romantic comedy of all genres!!! It didn’t need to be a torrid kiss. Geez, he could have just given her a soft smack and the camera could have zoomed out to give the viewers the illusion that they’re now in a passionate lip-lock moment. Let me argue why the missing kiss was so unacceptable. First of all, Miggy is the owner and editor in chief of a Men’s Magazine that’s all about SEX. He had a sexy Brazilian girlfriend in the story. I know for sure that this guy’s first instinct is to kiss a girl that he likes. C’mon! I would have accepted the “conservative” ending if they didn’t write Miggy in that character. Laida’s character was definitely a virgin. For sure, she has never been kissed by any boy and by the way she was written as someone who almost had a stalker-like infatuation on Miggy, I’m sure that in her mind she would have wanted to be kissed by her ultimate crush. Otherwise, what’s the point of the sexual tension in the story? What’s the point of all those syrupy stares and those romantic gazes between the two of them? And I really believe that once you write a character like Laida, there should be some sort of transformation in the end – a coming of age. We were all rooting for her. I wanted Laida to grow up in the story. I wanted her to bloom into the woman that Miggy fell in love with. Again, if they were both depicted as high school sweethearts, the hug was alright but puh-leez, they’re adults working in a men’s magazine! Agh! I just couldn’t accept it.



And I know that this was not entirely the director’s fault. I’m guessing maybe Sarah Geronimo’s mom, who happens to be her manager too, didn’t allow the kiss to happen. I don’t blame her for being overprotective but somebody should have explained to her what filmmaking is all about. Again, it’s always my pet peeve when people don’t understand the art. The hug certainly ruined it for me. I’m sorry but it was so corny and awkward and in a way cheated the viewers. I felt cheated. If the story said that they were conservative Christians then I would understand why a hug would suffice but then again, hello I don’t think there’s anything Christian about making the prince charming an editor of a men’s magazine that sells sex.

But overall the movie was good. The kilig moments worked for me because the actors did it naturally. John Lloyd was just sooo cute in this film. It’s typical for romantic comedies to have mushy quotable quotes but in this movie the non-verbal dialogues worked better and were acted more realistically. The supporting casts’ adlibs also fit in perfectly especially Al Tantay (Laida’s lovable father), Matet (the typical pranka and practical-minded officemate) and Rowell Santiago (Miggy's older half-brother and President of the mother company). Sarah was definitely a revelation in this film. The character was tailor-made for her which made her lovable, even though there were some parts in the movie when she was just annoyingly “too perky.”

This made think though, is this story ever possible in real life? Can a Lopez spawn fall in love with a middle-class lass within only 3 weeks? The story qualifies Miggy’s down-to-earth girlfriend choice by making him a royal Halfling himself. And there’s also the factor of him missing his mommy so the “desperate” and immediate attraction must have stemmed from that. Proximity and vulnerability when mixed together concocts a love tonic. Hmm… Oh well, fairy tales always had the prince marrying the maid. But then again, even fairy tales end in a kiss. Ugh, I just can’t over it. And for that I'm only giving this movie 4 out of 5 HEARTS on the Mush Meter.

The Curious Case of turning a Dark Comedy into a Romantic Flick

I finally saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button this weekend. I’m no film critic but here’s what I could say about it, if you’re interested, hehehe…

The first time I encountered Benjamin Button was during my American Lit class in UP Diliman more than 10 years ago. We were required to read The Great Gatsby and some of his short stories but we unfortunately skipped Button. I don’t know why. I knew the central plot but that’s as far as I know about the short story. However, I’ve read enough material by F. Scott Fitzgerald to know fairly well about his writing style and subjects.

He certainly wrote pieces that were ahead of his time. Ernest Hemingway even “idolized” him. Short stories written that time were kind of dark, not dramatic, but really dark. I don’t even think his stories were trying to be funny. The outrageousness of the plots would just easily squeeze out a hesitant laugh out of you. You would laugh because it was far-out weird. It was that kind of jaw-dropping prose that naturally suspends your disbelief. I liked these short stories (that of Fitzgerald’s, Hemingway’s and the like) because sarcastic, exaggerated and shocking as they were, they always provided a picture of the social milieu of that era, some even still relevant to our present time.

Anyway, so I went to watch the movie without any expectations regarding any book-film disparity or faithfulness. However movie trailers do sometimes spoil things for you. Even without reading the story in its entirety, I already knew that Benjamin in the short story version was born as an adult-sized old man. So seeing from the trailer that Benjamin in the movie was born as an infant with octogenarian features already signaled the film’s departure from the original prose.

After the movie, I thought this was one good example that it was fortunate that most people have not read the book. But personally, I think even if one has read the short story prior to watching the film, it wouldn’t stir up a revolt. This isn't the type of story that will have that many devoted fans railing against the "mangled" story. In fact, in this case I think the film’s extensive departure from the prose was obviously done for cinematic purposes, and it worked.

Every time I go see a movie that’s based on a short story or a novel, I always try to look beyond what’s presented to me on screen and study the inner details… Questions like why the director used, changed, and totally erased some elements of the prose. There’s a lot to learn about screenwriting with this exercise. Probing into these details give me a better picture on the benefits and limitations of the medium of film.

First of all, I like it that David Fincher (the director) and Eric Roth (the screenwriter) depicted Benjamin’s birth in the most realistic way possible. The fact that a baby was born with an ailing octogenarian’s features was already a big stretch. They had to make the premise at least “acceptable.” The short story version, where Benjamin was born as a full-sized adult, was just too preposterous to portray on screen. It worked perfectly in the short story but I guess that’s where we learn that our mind is more capable of handling deplorable, outrageous and über-fantastic imagination than the silver screen could.

But of course let us not forget that F. Scott Fitzgerald had a different intention with his short story. He didn’t write it for box office success. Fincher and Roth on the other hand were eyeing that and of course maybe a couple of Globes and a handful of Oscars. They had to turn the story “lovable”. Fitzgerald’s Benjamin was far from being a romance novel. It was kinda like a satire. Fitzgerald didn’t write it thinking that 80 years later some guys from Hollywood would turn it into a movie, with Brad Pitt in the starring role! ‘Cos let me tell you this, the Benjamin Button in the short story had zero romance in him. Certainly, Brad would be the last person you would imagine playing the role if you read the original prose.

I read the short story immediately after watching the film just to make a checklist of the things that were altered for cinematic realism. First of all, the film and the story really have nothing at all in common other than their titles and the central premise – both are about men who age backwards. But while the short story is an ironic tale about human foolishness (we value youth and not the wisdom that comes from living), the film is a morose tragedy about a very normal (and even ordinary) man trapped in a body that ages backwards. The short story was clearly a Dark Comedy not meant for public consumption and only readable and understandable in Literature classes; while the movie was a Romantic Flick all set to make audiences leave the theater teary-eyed and swooning over Brad/Benjamin.

And now I personally think that’s where the movie version hit a tripwire. While the plot, the scenarios, and even the other characters were so colorful, Benjamin’s personality seemed a bit deadpan. Brad’s Benjamin reminded me so much of his Joe Black character in “Meet Joe Black.” There were times, especially during the sequences where Benjamin has “youthen” into a 60 year-old trapped in a 20-30 something hunk of a body, when I could not see Benjamin anymore and all I could see was BRAD. Darn, Brad was so (beautifully) distracting. And I know the producers knew that so everything was intentional. After all, they wanted to make a sappy love story (specific target market: women and gay)

And that was indeed the huge and definitive departure from the short story. It was so surprising to read that the short story Benjamin wasn’t eternally in love with his wife, Hildegard. In fact he was annoyed that while he was growing younger and younger, his wife turned more wrinkly and flabby. Where was the beautiful young woman he fell in love with? He constantly asked. Interestingly, even if Benjamin didn’t have that curious case; if he was just an ordinary man that line was actually very realistic and could even transcend time. In any era, husbands have been complaining about their ageing wives, right?

Now the movie producers were smart enough to know that this kind of story development would not fit well in a Hollywood love story, especially one which has Brad Pitt in it. They had to turn the protagonist Benjamin into a great lover – sweet, loyal, and just head over heels in love with Daisy (Hildegard) played by Cate Blanchett.

The short story version focused more on Benjamin’s relationship with his father and later on with his son, and even much later on with his grandson. We clearly see now that the movie has become a new and different story altogether. In the film, the complete opposite happened. Benjamin’s father Mr. Button abandoned him, and later on in the film, Benjamin abandoned his own child; a daughter and not a son. There was no African-American caregiver named Queenie in the story. The short story was set in Baltimore and not in New Orleans. And there was no backward-turning clock in the prose version.

And that’s exactly where the line between film and literature is drawn. In movies, you have to put in visual cues to set up a circumstance, either to make it acceptable (albeit far-fetched) or set up a big plot twist in the end. Short stories don’t need to convince you that it’s real. That’s beside the point. Movies, especially in this day and age have to be rational, even if the premise is way beyond logic. In this case, the clock’s metaphorical existence was placed there to put reason behind Benjamin’s reverse ageing. How? Don’t even ask. That’s what you call “suspension of disbelief.” Case in point is, the producers, director and writer would be able defend that at least they were responsible enough to give viewers a tangible (albeit fairy tale like) reason behind the phenomenon.

Most blogs have said the screenplay is so reminiscent of Forrest Gump. In case you still don’t know, Roth also wrote the award-winning Gump. Okay, as a writer myself and a former student of Literature, I know that writers have their signature styles and favorite subjects. In this case, it was just too manufactured. It was like Roth had taken out his template and just filled in the blanks; replacing the key elements of the story. Voila… what used to be Forrest Gump is now Benjamin Button.

If I had to applaud the movie it would be for its successful attempt to make Benjamin’s curious case “realistic” enough in this medical science-obsessed world. In the movie, Benjamin was born with an infant mind, in an infant physiological size but with octogenarian features and ailments. It was fair enough. That depiction could be easily explained by saying his case was probably an unknown hormonal disease or syndrome. So basically, while he was growing in height and mentally/emotionally like any normal person, the only problem was his features were that of an old man’s.

In the short story, Benjamin was already a full-sized adult when he was born and had the manners of any grouchy old man. As he was “youthening”, his mental state also reversed. While Movie Benjamin was a playful kid at heart when he looked 70, Short Story Benjamin was purely 70 inside and out. In fact when he was born he didn’t want milk and even demanded a walking cane from his father. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s what you call Dark Comedy. If you even started to ask how it happened, then clearly you have not understood the genre. The plot’s impossibility does not make for the pitfall of the short story. Its impossibility was THE story.

Honestly despite the poignant storytelling, there are quite a number of things to nitpick about the movie, especially the fact that the memoir reading had to be set during the eve of Hurricane Katrina. Okay, Brad we get it that you are paying homage to your so-called second home. But I really think it was unnecessary. It was plainly buying into the emotions of its American viewers. I admit New Orleans was a good choice for the story’s setting but then again it kind of failed to give a more overt effect to its characters. The story could have happened elsewhere and it wouldn’t affect their lives at all. The essence of New Orleans didn’t rub off on Benjamin’s character and the story as much as it should, if they intentionally wrote it that way.

But over-all, the movie version was adorable. I’m a sucker for love stories and the movie version basically toyed with the age-old idea of two star-crossed lovers who are against all odds. Simply put, Benjamin & Daisy could very well sing Barry Manilow’s “We had the right love at the wrong time…” Hahaha. I loved the idea that their curious case was a metaphor and simile for many things in a relationship. First Love never dies... It’s all about meeting in the middle… We are all strangers coming from opposite poles, traveling halfway towards LOVE. *sigh*


To choose which one suit me better: the prose or the film, would be like comparing apples to oranges. The movie’s story stood well on its own. In fact, I think they could have gotten away with changing the title altogether. I don’t think they had to make it known that it was an adaptation of the short story, especially when they changed 98% of it, leaving only the title and basic premise. That alone wasn’t even really precise. So let me change that to 99%.