On The Job

image source

First of all, I enjoy watching this film. I saw it twice on theatres. The first time was on the second week it was shown in local cinemas and the second as last night, the third week it was shown. We were with our friends who NEVER watch art films. We were supposed to see it before but we went ahead and see it because we were fearful cinemas will cut the screenings short because of low turn out. Funny that on its third week, I think there were more people compared to the first time we watched it. It is because of reactions it got from people who saw it and blast it on social media.

It was first shown on Cannes. They say it was aiming to be an official entry for the Oscars which explains why despite low turnout, movie houses are still showing it to make the minimum requirement for theatrical run. The news say however that "Transit" gets to be nominated.

The movie was really good. Technically it was and the soundtracks used were good too. The material is really not something new but for the mainstream audience like the people who I was with last night, maybe it was. Someone suggested that it maybe because the crowd looks too bourgeoisie but no. I’ve been to screenings with conio kids before.

I am not writing on the movie alone, but on what the experience was on seeing the movie twice. If anyone wants a review that sucks big time on any levels, there’s one infamously titled frisson break I found on twitter where people keeps bashing the author’s stupid views and arrogance on the comments section. Hahahaha.

This movie has become something more to me. I see it as a litmus test on something deeper:

Mis-casting or typecasting?
People say that actors were mis-casted on their roles but I think not. They were there for a reason.
The actors on the movie were Channel 2 talents. Everyone knows that the pogi boys in the movie were groomed to be matinee idols and to headline on rom-com blockbusters but then we see them in this movie saying putangina and doing "acting" and stuff. Other actors on the film are known comics, they were only seen on sitcoms and comedy films. It was a shock for the audience to see them "act" for real. Take Joey Marquez for example. How he delivers his lines were funny to others because of course, we only associate him in comic roles. It is funny especially when he kinda mumble or stammer. The test is basically if people are ready to see them act for real.


Utterance of Putangina
The first time I heard "Putangina gawin mong manok" on Bata-bata Paano Ka Ginawa, I laugh. When I heard putangina again on a Toni Gonzaga-John Lloyd film it was funny too. So the formula was just one per movie. Hearing a lot of it in a Star Cinema movie was unheard of. People inside the theater were laughing on the excessive cursing. There is even a youtube montage for that. Putangina, of course is ordinary. Try watching Live Show by Joey Reyes.

Indie or not
They say this is indie. The material maybe but being backed by Star Cinema and seeing their known actors make it otherwise. Yes, the roles may have been given to other actors and would have given more reality to it, on how a convict is not as FilAm-looking as Gerard Anderson, or how the short guy Leo Martinez is not fit as a corrupt General(military guys has height requirement for crying out loud) 

I think the rise of people’s interest on indie films has finally make it to the minds of these profit thinking producers and want to test something new. I think it is a good idea. There’s a lot of indie film festivals these days and mainstream stars are on them too. I don’t like that before but if they are fit for the roles then why not. I like how the movies finally will not be limited only to John Lloyd Cruz releases. There are other genres out there.