Bat to Basics: A review of “Batman Begins”

After the much-maligned “Batman and Robin” a masterpiece such as “Batman Begins” finally comes along and solidifies director Joel Schumacher’s great contribution to Batman’s filmic representations. It has also made me greatly appreciative of his film version of the comicbook icon.

I know the words “Joel Schumacher,” “film,” “great” and “Batman” are not usually found in the same sentence, or at least not together with expressions unsafe to use in polite conversation. However, we have to give credit where credit is due; Schumacher may have been responsible for the disaster of a movie so lit with candy colors and replete with outlandish costumes and personalities it could have been easily mistaken as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” at best, or a psychedelic softcore porn movie at worst, but perhaps Warner would still have continued milking the franchise with similar endeavors until it dies a slow, painful death, with no hope of resuscitation if he had not come along. Simply put, Schumacher’s take was so epic in its badness that it took the studio eleven long years before releasing a new movie, and a reboot at that.

As a film designed to wipe the slate clean, “Batman Begins” is an enthralling reinvigoration of the moribund film franchise. David Goyer and Christopher Nolan clothe Gotham City with the darkness that spawns the types of beings such as Batman, as well as his nemeses. Gone are the neon lights, the flashy fight scenes with goofy-looking characters, the colorful costumes; it’s all b(l)ack to basics, a perfect depiction of the Batman’s original milieu.

“Batman Begins” also explores an important facet of the Bat mythology (aside from the pivotal night Bruce Wayne “dies” with his parents in Crime Alley, thus giving birth to the Dark Knight) overlooked in previous interpretations: Bruce Wayne’s (Christian Bale) training to hone mind, body and spirit for his crusade to rid Gotham of criminality. For the first time on the silver screen, viewers got to see the rigorous preparations he had to undertake in his pursuit of justice, learning under the tutelage of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Together with Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine), Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), they play pivotal role in Bruce’s life as surrogate fathers who offer sagely advice (Ducard, Gordon and Alfred) and the means with which he can effectively fight the criminal elements (Gordon, Ducard and Fox) both within and without the law’s boundaries.

It is in this respect that the movie once again stands out from its predecessors. In “Begins,” Bruce may have strived to become “more than just a man,” an indestructible, elemental symbol to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful, but it is in this movie that he became more human. Nolan’s take on the mythos is so rooted in reality that his Batman seems the most plausible in recent memory. It is no wonder then that in Batman’s one man war on crime he would utilize materials originally designed for military purposes. As a matter of fact, his armor (Kevlar-based Nomex survivor suit) and his Batmobile (the Tumbler, an imposing Hummer-like vehicle with speed and maneuverability that rival the sleekest of race cars) are not only realistic or attainable; they seem to have come straight out of an episode of Discovery Channel’s “Future Weapons.” Nolan and company even reinvent three of the most recognizable features of Batman’s arsenal. His forearm spikes (called “scallops” in the movie) have defensive and offensive purposes. His cape (“memory fabric” that forms a rigid shape) does not assume the shape of bat wings by wind alone, but through currents of electricity from his gloves. And his utility belt, which in the comics is replete with pockets from which Batman magically pulls out all sorts of gadgets, is a metallic contraption (not to mention futuristic- and better-looking than the comicbook signature) on which his gadgets are magnetically attached.

It is said that a hero is only as good as his enemies. In Batman’s case, his villains indeed merit all of his preparations. Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy; uses a fear toxin to paralyze his victims), Ra’s al Ghul and Ducard (set on implementing justice, even at the cost of human life and social order) are reflections of Batman’s own desires and drive to accomplish these desires, sans his discipline and moral code. Their continued conflicts with Batman highlight the very thin line that separates his desires from their delusion, his mission from their madness, his pursuit of justice from their pursuit of vengeance.

Hard as it may to accept, but a masterpiece such as “Batman Begins” is not without some flaws no matter how negligible. For one, the fight scenes are to close (quarter) for comfort. Batman’s training in ninjutsu gets lost in a sea of black, courtesy of his tussles with the villains, especially the similarly-garbed-in-black, disposable henchmen of Ducard. I also find faulty the gross miscasting of Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Granted that Dawes may be considered an inessential addition to Batman lore and thus, expendable (she was created for this film), the casting crew could have done something more to get a seasoned actress who commands viewer respect. Holmes might have done her best (though I’m unsure of it), but she does not fit the role. Whenever she appeared on screen it’s as if she was ready to lock lips with the nearest young male co-star in sight, as “I Don’t Wanna Wait” wafts in the air. She should have stayed in Dawson’s Creek instead of relocating to Gotham.

Notwithstanding the previously mentioned, “Batman Begins” is indeed a masterpiece. Fans have every reason to rejoice and look forward to a sequel (the enormous task of rounding up the loosed Arkham Asylum inmates merits it, including the chilling last scene involving Gordon, Batman and a “certain playing card”), or sequels at that. This time around, I am quite sure that with Nolan and his crew onboard, everything would still turn out well if this movie is any indication. The Bat is indeed back. Gotham's lawless elements better pray the police get them before he does.

REVIEW: Panunuring Pampanitikan, Teorya at Pagsasanay, Patrocinio Villafuerte
Valenzuela City: Mutya Publishing House, 2000

The problems of the state of Philippine education are as tenacious as an overstaying student who is determined to graduate no matter how long it takes, and as annoying as a failing one badgering the teacher for some consideration. Equally obstinate AND annoying are government officials mandated by law, and equipped with competence (allegedly) and resources to address said issues but lack the will to actually do something save for the obligatory carpentry work or book donation for press releases and photo ops. These continue to provide fodder for the media, as well as Anthony Calipjo Go, the indefatigable quixotic crusader against flawed textbooks approved by the Department of Education (or is that miseducation?) for school use.

What is overlooked by all the attention on public, primary schooling is the state of tertiary education. Notwithstanding the existence of regulating bodies like the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd), little has been done to monitor the quality of instruction in colleges and universities, as well as the reading materials prescribed for students’ use. True, the number of grade schoolers who do not finish their schooling and the quality of instruction at the lower levels are abysmal, yet it must also be pointed out (and addressed) that the latter is greatly influenced by mentors reared on substandard instruction and materials at the tertiary level. It is by virtue of this fact that I focus on a widely used reference for literary criticism that deals with very little of both “literature” and “criticism” and more about its “author” (and I use the term here very loosely), Patrocinio “Pat” Villafuerte’s Panunuring Pampanitikan: Teorya at Pagsasanay (Valenzuela City: Mutya Publishing House, 2000).

The nondescript and ill-conceived cover (a book supposedly about literature with a poorly-drawn hand holding a quill pen on a dominantly green cover is a sure sign of failure, at least for me) is an unambiguous indication of what to expect from the book. It does not belie, but rather complement, what is inside its pages.

The author need not be introduced in this review; the book itself has no shortage of information as regards Villafuerte’s life (more on this later). The inside front cover contains his accomplishments as a multi-awarded poet, essayist, speaker, editor, and actor/director. He has authored 126 books on language, literature, reading, etc. If Panunuring Pampanitikan is any indication, the other titles to his credit are as erudite and profound as the best coloring and connect the dot books available in the market today.

His “vainsanity” (vanity and insanity combined) does not end there. Of great esteem is this man when it comes to literary studies that an 11-page curriculum vitae ends the book on a high note, and even spills to the inside back cover!

In Chapters 1 and 2 Villafuerte provides his definitions of literature, and the meaning and relevance of literary criticism. For someone who wrote a book about literary criticism, it is apparent and appalling that he knows so little about the subject. His definition of “literature” as the universal, timeless, and artistic representation of significant human experiences is problematic, to say the least, and has come under scrutiny by the very practice of literary criticism that he supposedly knows well enough for him to write this book. He even includes a list of what he considers the qualities of a good literary critic (only he knows the purpose of this) when clearly he possesses none.

Questions are found at the end of every chapter. As with the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo textbooks used in most high schools that feature activities on definition of terms and the content of the chapters, the very answers are found in the preceding chapter! One need not think about or apply what he learned, or at least read, but merely scan the preceding part and copy the needed answers.

Chapter 3 deals with Villafuerte’s concept of literary theories. He is so adept in the field of literary studies (and expects the readers to be on par with him) that he no longer sees the need to provide definition(s) for “theory” IN A FRIGGIN’ BOOK THAT CONCERNS THEORY AND CRITICISM. He then condensed his so-called “theories” (Romatisismo [sic]? Realismo? Classicism? Humanism? Eksistensiyalismo?), ALL OF IT, into 13 pages, with each “theory” summarized vaguely, with examples to boot, in as little as 3 paragraphs! Would you trust a guy that simply enumerates the titles of SOME of Freud’s works to explain the rise of psychoanalysis (page 13), and provides a definition of Oedipus complex as “pakikipag-agawan ng bata sa kanyang ama sa atensiyon, pagmamahal o pangangalaga ng ina (the child’s competition with the father for the mother’s attention, love, and care)?” How…concise!

How about formalism? The Russian formalists have nothing against this guy. Why spend years expounding on textuality, defamiliarization, and the like when you can come up with a simple explanation for this theory: hindi binibigyang diin sa teoryang ito ang buhay ng may-akda, hindi nakapaloob sa kasaysayan at lalong walang mabanaag na implikasyong sosyolohikal, politikal, sikolohikal, at ekonomikal (this theory does not concern the biography of the author; neither is history, or sociological, political, psychological or economic implications focused on, page 22). For him, formalism is simply looking at the content and the form without explaining HOW a formalistic reading is actually done.

Villafuerte’s logic is as circuitous as the most thrilling rollercoaster ride in world famous amusement parks. Take for example his explanation for romatisismo [sic]: “romantiko ang itinawag sa pamaraan ng pagsulat ng mga akdang pampanitikan sa Panahon ng Romantisismo dahil ang mga sanaysay, tula, at maikling kuwento na naisulat nang panahong iyon ay may pagka-romantiko ang paksa, tema, at istilo. (Texts such as poems, essays, and short stories during the Romantic period are described as “romantic” because of the romantic qualities of the topics, themes, and styles, page 20). That statement alone can provide a day or two of intense discussion among academicians that concern not the said theory, but Villafuerte’s gall to even come up with this book.

Structuralism is defined by negation: hindi pinahahalagahan ng estrukturalismo ang may-akda at ang akda bilang daloy ng katotohanan. Hindi rin nito pinahahalagahan ang kritisismong kumikilala sa tao bilang pinagkunan ng kahulugan ng isang teksto (structuralism does not value the author, and his work as something truthful. Neither does it recognize criticism that acknowledges man as the source of textual meaning). Such scholarly observation can only yield this equally-profound conclusion: Dahil dito, maraming nagpapalagay na ang teoryang ito ay di-makatao. (as a result, many have considered this theory as anti-humanistic, page24). Suck THAT, Saussure! To hell with langue and parole!

Villafuerte is at his best at namedropping (Easthope, Belsey, Saussure, Freud, etc.) foreign theorists and critics without even explaining the context or the need for citing them. I guess it comes as no surprise that a guy who can summarize complex theories in as short as four circuitous sentences in a 288-page book (minus the ones devoted to his illustrious career, of course) is equally adept at further explaining these with the mere mention of theorists’ (sur)names. A true literary scholar, this guy indeed is.

With his aforementioned technique, one can be misled into thinking that Villafuerte is responsible for nanotechnology. Or for the abstracting services a lot of corporations need nowadays. He is benevolent enough to provide readers with capsulized, no pulverized, versions of theories that the founders and proponents of such have spent years, even their lifetimes, developing. He is kind enough to digest all of these and vomit on the reading public how he (mis)understood these concepts (maybe he himself got nauseous with his own circuitous logic!).

Chapter 3’s questions get tougher courtesy of the second activity, where a reader is asked to choose a literary theory and then explain it in 1/3 of a page. Activity III occupies a whole page, and the reader is instructed to APPLY a theory on a particular work he has read. Talk about accelerated learning!

From pages 35-37, the reader is instructed on how to do formal literary research (how to study a poem, fiction, or play is contained in two-three paragraphs each). That’s how great this guy is, what is normally covered in a semester for a three-unit credit is summarized in three (actually, 2 and ½) pages of pure awesomeness! Take advice number 3 on how to study fiction: suriin kung paano ipinakita ng tauhan ang kagandahang asal: ang kanyang mabuting ugali, atbp. (study how a character exhibited his values). In other words, what counts as literature or fiction for this great scholar is something that ALWAYS has a moral lesson! Furthermore, the third advice on how to study a novel takes the cake as the most profound idea in this book: Pumili ng teoryang gagamitin sa pagsusuri (choose a theory to be used in studying the text).

Chapter 6 concerns those whom Villafuerte regards as Filipino literary critics. I am compelled to write about this section even if the names here do not measure up to him. For example, What do Alejandro Abadilla, Ponciano BP Pineda, Isagani Cruz, Virgilio Almario, or Teodoro Agoncillo, to name a few, whose accomplishments are best summed up in one to three paragraphs, have against him, whose credentials, as I’ve stated earlier, merit mention in 11 pages, excluding the inside front and back covers of course? Noted critic Bienvenido Lumbera is so insignificant that Villafuerte deliberately overlooked his minute contribution to Filipino literary criticism and excluded him from this epic tome.

The next chapter is where it gets better. Two pages contain the insignificant contributions of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and T.S. Eliot to literary theory and criticism. Fuck off, Foucault and Freud! Step aside, Saussure! Said, de Beauvoir, Ostriker, and your ilk, you are not even worthy to be in these pages!

Chapter 8 contains examples of literary criticism by the man of the hour (or the book, whatever floats your boat or flies your kite) himself. Come on, it was but practical for the guy to use his own essays (after all, he won awards for said pieces) than include other less notable works from nobodies such as Soledad Reyes, or Virgilio Almario, or Bienvenido Lumbera, and be compelled to pay royalties when they are clearly outclassed by Villafuerte himself.

All in all, Panunuring Pampanitikan is the best example of what is wrong in the country’s tertiary education. If I had the liberty, I will change the title to something more appropriate, something more in line with what the book actually does, and that is "Paninirang Pampanitikan" or "Paninira ng Panunuring Pampanitikan." Notwithstanding this masterpiece, Villafuerte continues to enjoy support and admiration from teachers and school officials that he frequently gets invited as speaker in national conferences. If he is capable of coming up with this much garbage in limited number of pages, one can just imagine and cringe at the things he imposes, given minutes on the mic, on an uninformed public. Comprised of educators. Who regard Villafuerte’s teaching as Gospel truth, his books, Holy. And then disseminate what they have learned from him. The process is repeated. Over and over again. Circuitously. And is bound to be felt. At the upper echelon of the academe. To the lowest, earliest level of education…

Gagawin kahit ano, kahit Magmistulang Aso

Hulaan mo kung para kanino ang awiting ito:

I Will Follow Him (mula sa, duh, "I Will Follow Him")

I will follow him
Susundan magpunta man saan
And near him, I will have to be
Para may baon pag-uwi
Sayang ang photo op.

I will follow him,
Bayan ma’y nawasak ng bagyo,
There isn't a schedule too packed,
A city so far it can keep,
Keep me away, away from Barack.

I need him, I need him, I need him,
And where he goes,
I'll follow, I'll follow, I'll follow.
And when he wins he’ll be my ally
from now until 2010, or even forever.

I will follow him,
Susundan magpunta man saan
There isn't a schedule too packed
A storm so strong it can keep,
Keep me away, away from Barack.

I will follow him,
Susundan magpunta man saan,
There isn't a schedule too packed
A storm so strong it can keep,
Keep me away, away from Barack.

I need him
(Oh yes I need him)
I'll follow
(I'm gonna follow)
Ally
(He will be my ally, ally)
Forever
(Now until forever)
I need him, I need him, I need him,
And where he goes,
I'll follow, I'll follow, I'll follow,
He'll be my next ally,
My ally, my ally,
From now until forever,
Forever, forever...

There isn't a schedule too packed
A storm so strong it can keep,
Keep me away, away from Barack.

Most stupid statements in recent memory:

"Fight Prejudism," Insekta, Queso (what's up with these bands like the aforementioned, Hale, Slapshock, and their ilk that combine random English words or event invent some and call these "songs"?!?)

"Technically, first movie niya ito ulit," Richard Gutierrez, commenting on his mom Annabelle Rama's well, technically FIRST movie AGAIN

"So nag-'That's' [Entertainment, sikat na panghapong palabas noon na pinagbibidahan ng mga bagong tuklas na alaga ni German "Kuya Germs" Moreno] ka pala?," John Nite, kausap si Miggy Moreno na nag-guest sa REUNION EPISODE ng "THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT" ALUMNI sa "Master Showman Presents"

John Nite, kuwari enthusiastic: "So Miggy, after mong mag-'That's' I believe nagkaroon ka ng boy band? Ano nga uli iyon?"
Miggy Moreno, nahihiya: "Idolzone po..."
John Nite, looking uninterested AND suddenly changing the topic: "So ikaw naman, Shirley [Fuentes, another "That's" talent. I know, just had to point it out to save John Nite from further humiliation], ano ang pinagkaabalahan mo..."

"Alam mo Kuya Germs, ikaw lang talaga nakakaisip ng ganito," John Nite (na naman!), commenting on the almost-monthly reunion ng "That's" alumni sa "Master Showman Presents"

"No more lands in Quezon City," Sonny Belmonte, commenting on why the QC government cannot build more public schools as condominiums, malls, and other business establishments and places of recreation continue to rise ALL OVER THE CITY

"Alam ko namang matagal niyo nang hinihiling ito eh, kaya oo, bati na kami ni Ate," Cristine Reyes, sa pagbabati nila (duh!) ng ate niyang si Ara Mina

Heart Evangelista: "Mahirap lang ako, noh!"
Richard Gutierrez: "Hindi naman halata sa ganda mo..." Codename: Asero

"Mas lalo akong naging down to Earth dahil sa paggawa ng pelikulang ito...", Jolina Magdangal commenting on how the movie "Italy" made her greatly appreciative of OFW's sacrifice for their families

"Lahing Aswang," actual name of a taxi (If you can just imagine that you're working the graveyard shift, waiting for your ride to the office. You flag down the first cab you see on a quiet street and it has this friggin' name written proudly on it. Would you take the risk in spite of its name, at this ungodly hour, driven by a man you barely know? Would you?)

"Lilipad na ako, Sabayan niyo ako. Ang sarap dito, sa pupuntahan ko," Ang Sarap Dito, Project 1 (So papunta PA LANG ako DITO? Talk about chronal and spatial anomaly!)

at ang pinaka sa lahat...







"Ramdam ang Kaunlaran," GMA, commenting on the supposed economic gains dulot ng kanyang mga programa (talaga lang...), kabilang na ang pamumudmod ng P500 electric bill subsidy at sa patuloy na pagpapalugi sa NFA sa pagbili ng mahal na bigas at pagbebenta nito sa ubod ng babang halaga sa mahihirap