Therefore, tonight's big win in Florida - one of the most diverse states - for Romney is an impressive one. And for that I think Romney deserves a small Samoan celebration. LOL!
Kaimi o le pa'umu!! ...Chususuuuuuuuu!
1/31/12
Romney Wins Florida
I had just watched the Florida Republican Primary tonight, and Romney, as predicted, won handily, beating Newt Gingrich who stole South Carolina from him a week ago. I think I'm with most of the pundits who say that this GOP Primary is going to be more like the speed of a turtle than a hare. One of the reasons for the former, is that Gingrich - who is Romney's main rival now - is a stubborn fat dude. He seems defiant and arrogant and will stay in the race. He feels like a big bully whose candy has been snatched from him by a timid lanky kid. Gingrich is angry and the race may very well be a long duel until June - or it may not. With enough money, Gingrich can continue to throw punches at Romney even at the expense of party unity. Gingrich is also equally if not more angry with Santorum for splitting the so-called conservative vote, although, their combined votes (Gingrich's and Santorum's) tonight still do not equal Romney's numbers.
Therefore, tonight's big win in Florida - one of the most diverse states - for Romney is an impressive one. And for that I think Romney deserves a small Samoan celebration. LOL!
Therefore, tonight's big win in Florida - one of the most diverse states - for Romney is an impressive one. And for that I think Romney deserves a small Samoan celebration. LOL!
1/27/12
To Respond or Not To Respond ...
...that is the question. Well, already, the answer is “Yes, LV, respond!” Heheee!
Note: This particular response is to one of the bloggers - a fellow Samoan - who has besmirched my three-part critical review of the movie The Orator (Tulafale).
Although I anticipated and saw the “hurled [cyberspace] rocks” coming (re: introduction to Part I), I did not quite expect them to come from particular individuals, but I guess I was wrong. It’s always a person’s prerogative to disagree, and express it in a clear, well written rebuttal/response, but to stoop to the level of name calling and ad hominem ranting, is a reflection of narrow mindedness and other vile tendencies.
Let me shed some light on the subject of critical movie reviews for my attackers (oh, attacker) and for those who may share the same/similar malicious sentiments.
Technically, a review is different from a critical review. The former is mostly a rehash of a movie, novel, play, etc., with some personal aggrandizement. A critical review on the other hand - as my titles state - is an exercise “involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation" (Merriam-Webster).
Here are some excerpts from an article on critical movie reviews (emphases mine):
Again, let’s agree to disagree and be scholarly and academic - if possible - about issues. And if not, then at least be civil and matured about things.
Lastly, please see the movie first before ranting, and I mean see it, don’t just watch it.
Ma le faaaloalo lava
Note: This particular response is to one of the bloggers - a fellow Samoan - who has besmirched my three-part critical review of the movie The Orator (Tulafale).
Although I anticipated and saw the “hurled [cyberspace] rocks” coming (re: introduction to Part I), I did not quite expect them to come from particular individuals, but I guess I was wrong. It’s always a person’s prerogative to disagree, and express it in a clear, well written rebuttal/response, but to stoop to the level of name calling and ad hominem ranting, is a reflection of narrow mindedness and other vile tendencies.
Let me shed some light on the subject of critical movie reviews for my attackers (oh, attacker) and for those who may share the same/similar malicious sentiments.
Technically, a review is different from a critical review. The former is mostly a rehash of a movie, novel, play, etc., with some personal aggrandizement. A critical review on the other hand - as my titles state - is an exercise “involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation" (Merriam-Webster).
Here are some excerpts from an article on critical movie reviews (emphases mine):
[A] strong review shouldn't simply state whether you like or dislike a movie. A strong review weighs different aspects of the movie, and draws a fair conclusion about its merits and flaws.
Keep these points in mind if you want to write a fair and thoughtful review:
Be specific. Be objective. Do your research.
Be specific
Being specific and giving examples makes it more meaningful for the reader. It doesn't mean that you should rehash the entire movie; it means that you should speak of precise, not general, things. Instead of saying "The dialogue is poor," say, "Real teenagers don't really talk this way." Rather than "the stunts are awesome," say, "The action sequences are stylish, but realistic." Instead of noting how "the movie has plot holes big enough for a space ship to go through," say, "The movie doesn't explain how the crew made it back to the solar system in time."
Be objective
It's not always easy, but strive to be as objective as possible. Don't let your feelings--positive or negative--about an actor, director, or genre dictate the content of your review.
Beyond the movie's surface, look at its meaning: what is it trying to say? Look at the big picture (pun not intended), and remember, the best movies are often those that move or disturb you.
One last thing about objectivity: being objective doesn't mean that you can't say how you feel about a movie. You can still say that a movie is well done, but too dark for your liking.
Do your research
You might not think it, but research--which might amount to just a quick Google search--is important for a balanced and accurate movie review. For example, I once edited a movie review that cited a movie's cinematography. The review then gave examples of things that had nothing to do with cinematography (which is camerawork and things related to the technical aspects of the camera).
Don't be afraid to go against the grain. If everyone's raving about a movie, and you thought it terrible, review it honestly. An honest, well-explained review is a good one, no matter what the rest of the world thinks about the movie.Also, part of the jargon used in my reviews includes film terminology, therefore I don’t just use "big words for kicks" as ineptly claimed. And words like “convoluted” and “sophistication” are used in higher levels of the academia. If you don’t like them, then maybe I have a different audience in mind, aye? By the way “sophistication” is favorable and complimentary, and so is "ambitiousness".
Again, let’s agree to disagree and be scholarly and academic - if possible - about issues. And if not, then at least be civil and matured about things.
Lastly, please see the movie first before ranting, and I mean see it, don’t just watch it.
Ma le faaaloalo lava
1/24/12
The Tulafale (The Orator): A Critical Review - Part III
III. DID NOT DELIVER in the END (Ua le o gatasi le futia ma le umele.)
To use a movie-based idiom, let me "cut to the chase." The lauga (oration/speech) in the end by Saili (Leopa’o) is a dud.
The title of a movie - or any other product of artistic expression for that matter - is its first disclosure and giveaway. In the case of Tulafale, it is unambiguous. The main subtext in Tulafale is traditional oratory, which is an integral and relatively unique part of Samoan society. Therefore the movie cannot be about an orator but without his craft being showcased and demonstrated, even in maybe a supplemental and supportive role. Moreover, the Tulafale’s character arc is driven by traditional oratory and the success of Saili’s goal of getting his loved ones buried near his home rests mainly, if not entirely, on it.
Unfortunately, the speech lacks style, depth, wit and/or other memorable verbiage and elements. It is dull and monotonous - not that all great speeches should be lively unpretentious and incitive. But for Tulafale, there are certain expectations of the speech that are fostered and advanced by the storyline, plot and characterization (re: Saili’s reticence) which the average viewer feels are not met or well delivered.
The speech should be more profound and memorable. It should have a “wow” factor, at least a catchphrase or a deep philosophical quote to make the speech - hence the movie - a lingering treat. Some great movies are remembered and favored because of memorable phrases, and I was looking for that in the speech, something that transcends race, culture and ethnic demographics. For example, Saili could have said something like: “Poto, e laititi lo’u tino, ae tele lo’u fatu.” (“I have a small body but a much bigger heart,”) or other variants such as "Oute pu'upu'u ae umi lo'u fatu, e umi atu nai lo le to'oto'o," ("I may be short, but my heart is tall, taller than this staff"); "E tele atu lo'u fatu nai lo lo'u tino." ("My heart is bigger than my body"). And then find similar memorable expressions for death like "Tatou te ola ina ia tatou oti, tatou te oti foi ina ia tatou toe ola," ("We live to die, but we also die to live again")
Samoan oratory is replete with flowery expressions and Tulafale should take advantage of such a resource for speech embellishment. Saili does flirt with this notion especially in the treatise of his conversance with death, including birds and worms, but a lot of it is banal and forgettable. It does not quite capture the degree of what I would personally call “indelibility through profundity.” Saili's metaphorical request for Vaaiga to be buried between his heart and lungs is too cliched, denying and negating his own mortality.
Death is a universal subject and Samoan oratory contains idioms, expressions, metaphors, etc. which, though local in origin, context and/or source, can still render and delineate universal nuances. As someone who understands the pragmatic role of traditional oratory in Samoan life, I was looking forward to a powerful and silver-tongued lauga as the protagonist’s main weapon in achieving his objective; however, for me, it did not deliver nor impress.
Moreover, I think the character arc should have been actualized and enhanced by some noticeable or even dramatic changes in the protagonist, besides his new chiefly title. He has been mostly reticent - not passively quiet as claimed - throughout the movie, but the climactic events should endow him with aggressiveness, passion, eloquence and wisdom. Saili should also avoid acknowledging his own insecurities - at least to advance the change and growth in the character arc - notably when he said he is ashamed of himself. Instead of being apologetic and rueful, he should be more aggressive, determined, firm and articulate in the latter parts of the movie.
The speech (delivery, intonation, etc.,) should also reflect the change of inner strength and vigor. Even a changed, compelling, persuasive and deeper voice certainly helps. In fact a dramatic transformation in oratorical skills is not farfetched in Samoa where the continuing tofa and moe (dialog and tutoring by the dead, especially past orators) are intrinsic in Samoan beliefs, lore and myths.
All these should serve as the standard and template for the speech unless Saili is cast as a different and rare type of tulafale - soft spoken and softhearted. But that however presents another irony especially when Saili cries during the oration. According to the movie, women do not become orators because they don’t want their breasts exposed; conversely then, men should not be tulafales either if they are crybabies.
So, figuratively speaking, does the umele (back end of the bonito fishing pole) connect well with the futia (receiver /pouch made of sennit) in Tulafale? I’ve made my call; you make yours.
Again the lauga, perhaps the main and critical component and event in Tulafale, falls short of being the fitting complement to the ambitiousness and convoluted sophistication of the movie.
All in all, I still tip my hat off to Mr. Tamasese. He has raised Samoan filmmaking to a whole new level! Malo le taumafai! Malo le tauataa’i! Malo fo’i le fai o le faiva! Keep up the great work!
****************************************
PS: I hope Sundance does not indulge in its more liberal leanings and squelch Tulafale because of its religious/Christian images and overtones.1/18/12
The Tulafale (The Orator): A Critical Review - Part II
II. CONVOLUTED SOPHISTICATION (O Samoa o le fue lavelave.)
Tulafale’s storyline is simple but the plot is somewhat convoluted albeit in a sophisticated way, at least to the initiated viewer.
Some versions of the synopsis claim that Saili's main quest is to get his dead wife back from her family and buried near his home. Structurally, it is not, it's to get his parents bodies disinterred and buried near his home and not in the bushes. He is successful in both efforts, however. Vaaiga's story is therefore a subplot, and yet it dominates and drives the movie. In the end the first becomes the last and last becomes the first - Vaaiga is buried closer to the house than Saili’s parents.
The backstory of Saili’s parents, told mostly through dialog and other allusions, has its share in the convolution. Incidentally, with the parents' disinterment as the main pursuit of the protagonist, the opening would have been more effective and contributive to the overall storyline had the shots and scenes been of the implied turmoil and controversy surrounding the parents' deaths and burial, instead of the more abstract natural landscape shots.
The ifoga (traditional apology) is equivocal, if not ambiguous and agonizingly convoluted. The apology on the surface is instigated by the rugby players' rock/stone attack on Saili who is left to die from his wounds. But on another level the ifoga is for Litia, who is impregnated by Sio the leader of Saili’s attackers.
Ultimately however, the “buck” stops with Vaaiga who, in all likelihood, feels responsible for the course of events leading up to the ifoga. Her illegitimate child, Litia, has an affair with a married man, Sio. Saili, in Litia’s defense, harasses Sio at the rugby field, which leads to the rock fight where Saili is seriously injured.
The above premise is supported by the events at the time of Vaaiga’s death. More than mere coincidence, Vaaiga is dying while the ifoga is in progress, but just before she dies, she tells Litia - not Saili - to go and accept the ifoga, pardoning Sio on his double - make that triple - offense, on all three, Saili, Litia and Vaaiga. Although Litia ostensibly declines her mother’s request, she seems to believe in her own role and culpability in the whole predicament. With Vaaiga issuing the permission to accept the ifoga, it also suggests the plausibility that the ifoga is, and can be, for her own death and demise. Though she seems bothered and preoccupied with her scandalous past during the course of the movie, Vaaiga is still physically strong and healthy. Her poignant condition, however, takes a dramatic turn for the worst after Litia admits to being pregnant, thus making Sio partly responsible for Vaaiga’s untimely death too.
To Vaaiga, Litia’s confession is deja vu and perhaps her (Vaaiga’s) moment of truth. She is again reminded of her own life and past mistakes through Litia, and therefore sees her (Vaaiga’s) misery as further punishment. In this whole convolution, Sio remains the principal perpetrator who is also the main penitent in the ifoga which, untraditionally, is prompted by a rock fight. Real traditional ifoga, especially as depicted in the movie, are made only in extreme cases involving death and adultery and rarely, if ever, in rock fights and other trivial conflicts, let alone in cases where a commoner/untitled man or outcast is the victim. Therefore, based on the character of the ifoga, I would argue that it is not necessarily for Saili’s mishaps, as portrayed, but more for Litia’s pregnancy and Vaaiga’s death. All of this makes the ifoga multifaceted and intricately convoluted.
Ironically, Vaaiga receives her own pardon and absolution during her final moments through deathbed repentance, and validated by the symbolic embedded shot of Christ’s passion.
And then there’s the incestuous insinuation and convolution. (Huh? What incest?) Moreover, the reason(s) for Vaaiga’s banishment is(are) still hidden and/or vague. Are the two linked? You’ll be the judge.
Yes, the proverbial fue lavelave (matted swisher) gets more coiled and tangled the deeper you dig into the movie. Notwithstanding, convolution should lead to absolution, not confusion.
...cont'd
Tulafale’s storyline is simple but the plot is somewhat convoluted albeit in a sophisticated way, at least to the initiated viewer.
Some versions of the synopsis claim that Saili's main quest is to get his dead wife back from her family and buried near his home. Structurally, it is not, it's to get his parents bodies disinterred and buried near his home and not in the bushes. He is successful in both efforts, however. Vaaiga's story is therefore a subplot, and yet it dominates and drives the movie. In the end the first becomes the last and last becomes the first - Vaaiga is buried closer to the house than Saili’s parents. The backstory of Saili’s parents, told mostly through dialog and other allusions, has its share in the convolution. Incidentally, with the parents' disinterment as the main pursuit of the protagonist, the opening would have been more effective and contributive to the overall storyline had the shots and scenes been of the implied turmoil and controversy surrounding the parents' deaths and burial, instead of the more abstract natural landscape shots.
The ifoga (traditional apology) is equivocal, if not ambiguous and agonizingly convoluted. The apology on the surface is instigated by the rugby players' rock/stone attack on Saili who is left to die from his wounds. But on another level the ifoga is for Litia, who is impregnated by Sio the leader of Saili’s attackers.
Ultimately however, the “buck” stops with Vaaiga who, in all likelihood, feels responsible for the course of events leading up to the ifoga. Her illegitimate child, Litia, has an affair with a married man, Sio. Saili, in Litia’s defense, harasses Sio at the rugby field, which leads to the rock fight where Saili is seriously injured.
The above premise is supported by the events at the time of Vaaiga’s death. More than mere coincidence, Vaaiga is dying while the ifoga is in progress, but just before she dies, she tells Litia - not Saili - to go and accept the ifoga, pardoning Sio on his double - make that triple - offense, on all three, Saili, Litia and Vaaiga. Although Litia ostensibly declines her mother’s request, she seems to believe in her own role and culpability in the whole predicament. With Vaaiga issuing the permission to accept the ifoga, it also suggests the plausibility that the ifoga is, and can be, for her own death and demise. Though she seems bothered and preoccupied with her scandalous past during the course of the movie, Vaaiga is still physically strong and healthy. Her poignant condition, however, takes a dramatic turn for the worst after Litia admits to being pregnant, thus making Sio partly responsible for Vaaiga’s untimely death too.
To Vaaiga, Litia’s confession is deja vu and perhaps her (Vaaiga’s) moment of truth. She is again reminded of her own life and past mistakes through Litia, and therefore sees her (Vaaiga’s) misery as further punishment. In this whole convolution, Sio remains the principal perpetrator who is also the main penitent in the ifoga which, untraditionally, is prompted by a rock fight. Real traditional ifoga, especially as depicted in the movie, are made only in extreme cases involving death and adultery and rarely, if ever, in rock fights and other trivial conflicts, let alone in cases where a commoner/untitled man or outcast is the victim. Therefore, based on the character of the ifoga, I would argue that it is not necessarily for Saili’s mishaps, as portrayed, but more for Litia’s pregnancy and Vaaiga’s death. All of this makes the ifoga multifaceted and intricately convoluted.
Ironically, Vaaiga receives her own pardon and absolution during her final moments through deathbed repentance, and validated by the symbolic embedded shot of Christ’s passion.
And then there’s the incestuous insinuation and convolution. (Huh? What incest?) Moreover, the reason(s) for Vaaiga’s banishment is(are) still hidden and/or vague. Are the two linked? You’ll be the judge.
Yes, the proverbial fue lavelave (matted swisher) gets more coiled and tangled the deeper you dig into the movie. Notwithstanding, convolution should lead to absolution, not confusion.
...cont'd
1/16/12
The Tulafale (The Orator): A Critical Review - Part I
"It's a very ambitious effort with convoluted sophistication which unfortunately did not deliver - literally and figuratively - in the end."
Now, before some of you do what is done in the movie, namely hurling “rocks” my way, or tell me "to go put on some panties" (a metaphor for masculine incompetence and maladroitness used in the movie ...lol!), let me suggest tofa loloto/manino (erudition) and tofa mamao (broad mindedness) in your reading and perusing this review.
The truth is that most Samoans, understandably, like the movie. I do too. And why not? We all enjoy watching Samoa - its culture, the inland village setting, traditional oratory, native actors and language - on the big screen. Simply, it's an accomplishment worthy of celebration and admiration. But there's more to a movie - and movie making - than being able to identify oneself culturally and ethnically with it. And esteeming such appetites over the more pervasive fundamentals of movie-making, will likely encourage insular - if not ethnocentric -attitudes.
I know I'm playing the role of a semi-devil's advocate (ioe, e le o se advocate akoa, ae o le 'afa advocate, ia poo se ‘afa avocado fo'i) but we sometimes need to get out of our comfort zones - mostly as Samoans watching a Samoan-made movie - in order to see things a bit clearer and from a different and informed perspective.
My trilogical review is based on the emphasized parts of the premise (at the top).
I. AMBITIOUS EFFORT (Ua sausau fia lele le manu nai Utufiu.)
The Tulafale (The Orator), hereafter referred to as "Tulafale", is an ambitious - if not overambitious - effort. Now that's as neutral - though slightly more complimentary - as any critic will say. Tulafale, after all, is the first exclusively Samoan movie (language, actors, setting, storyline, etc.) to garner international repute and accolades.
Considering that Samoa's movie making venture is still in incubation stage, Tulafale is ambitious in the sense that it dives into this incognito status, and still comes up relatively meritorious. Could its packaging and promotion as a New Zealand film be the reason - or one of the reasons - for Tulafale's success? Maybe, but the movie definitely has its own merits and credits (pun intended).
Tulafale is also ambitious through its audaciousness. Generally, the movie's audacity is reflected in its socio-cultural correctness, especially from its native audience standpoint. For example, one of the movie's main characters, Tagaloa, represents someone close to a social madcap. His dictatorial and derisive disposition is an aberration within a matai (chief) and family relationship, and Tagaloa's public disrobement is ultra daring within the Samoan cultural context of faaaloalo (respect) and mamalu (honor/dignity). Tagaloa however represents an atypical matai who displays a fiaulavale (foolhardy) attitude though bordering on dementia whose early symptoms are evident in his overall demeanor.
Suspension of disbelief is a normal antidote to audacity in movies. Ironically, in Tulafale, it's the native audience (Samoans) that needs it more than outsiders/foreigners, especially relative to familiarity with social and cultural correctness issues. Some of these are exploited in the movie, whether it's time period conflicts, treatment of the dead (corpse) or detours and deviations in standard cultural traditions and protocols. I believe, however, that the excitement among the Samoans in the accomplishments of Tulafale may help sustain the suspension of disbelief and/or acquiescence. For foreigners, acceptance is more from apathy - viewing cultural depictions and seeming oddities as societal norms - than from willing suspension of disbelief.
Other utilized movie conventions also make Tulafale effectively ambitious. With a cast of local amateur actors, the movie has made some baby steps and infant strides. Moreover, the use of the local vernacular in and of itself is ambitious. The English translations and subtitles therefore present some challenges for the movie in getting its message across to a more cosmopolitan audience. The essence and meaning in the original language are sometimes lost and/or distorted. I’ve noticed some inconsistencies with respect to some translation issues. For example, Leopao, the correct spelling of Saili’s title, is sometimes rendered as Leapao in the subtitles which effectively undermines and robs the correct name of its symbolic meaning of “noisy voice” which has direct significance to the movie’s oratorical subtext.
Overall, however, Tulafale has prevailed in the minimum threshold of ambitiousness through its intrepid venture into uncharted waters of film-making. In other words, the bird at Utufiu is not only eager to soar, it is already flying, albeit low, so far.
...cont'd
Now, before some of you do what is done in the movie, namely hurling “rocks” my way, or tell me "to go put on some panties" (a metaphor for masculine incompetence and maladroitness used in the movie ...lol!), let me suggest tofa loloto/manino (erudition) and tofa mamao (broad mindedness) in your reading and perusing this review.The truth is that most Samoans, understandably, like the movie. I do too. And why not? We all enjoy watching Samoa - its culture, the inland village setting, traditional oratory, native actors and language - on the big screen. Simply, it's an accomplishment worthy of celebration and admiration. But there's more to a movie - and movie making - than being able to identify oneself culturally and ethnically with it. And esteeming such appetites over the more pervasive fundamentals of movie-making, will likely encourage insular - if not ethnocentric -attitudes.
I know I'm playing the role of a semi-devil's advocate (ioe, e le o se advocate akoa, ae o le 'afa advocate, ia poo se ‘afa avocado fo'i) but we sometimes need to get out of our comfort zones - mostly as Samoans watching a Samoan-made movie - in order to see things a bit clearer and from a different and informed perspective.
My trilogical review is based on the emphasized parts of the premise (at the top).
I. AMBITIOUS EFFORT (Ua sausau fia lele le manu nai Utufiu.)
The Tulafale (The Orator), hereafter referred to as "Tulafale", is an ambitious - if not overambitious - effort. Now that's as neutral - though slightly more complimentary - as any critic will say. Tulafale, after all, is the first exclusively Samoan movie (language, actors, setting, storyline, etc.) to garner international repute and accolades.
Considering that Samoa's movie making venture is still in incubation stage, Tulafale is ambitious in the sense that it dives into this incognito status, and still comes up relatively meritorious. Could its packaging and promotion as a New Zealand film be the reason - or one of the reasons - for Tulafale's success? Maybe, but the movie definitely has its own merits and credits (pun intended).
Tulafale is also ambitious through its audaciousness. Generally, the movie's audacity is reflected in its socio-cultural correctness, especially from its native audience standpoint. For example, one of the movie's main characters, Tagaloa, represents someone close to a social madcap. His dictatorial and derisive disposition is an aberration within a matai (chief) and family relationship, and Tagaloa's public disrobement is ultra daring within the Samoan cultural context of faaaloalo (respect) and mamalu (honor/dignity). Tagaloa however represents an atypical matai who displays a fiaulavale (foolhardy) attitude though bordering on dementia whose early symptoms are evident in his overall demeanor.
Suspension of disbelief is a normal antidote to audacity in movies. Ironically, in Tulafale, it's the native audience (Samoans) that needs it more than outsiders/foreigners, especially relative to familiarity with social and cultural correctness issues. Some of these are exploited in the movie, whether it's time period conflicts, treatment of the dead (corpse) or detours and deviations in standard cultural traditions and protocols. I believe, however, that the excitement among the Samoans in the accomplishments of Tulafale may help sustain the suspension of disbelief and/or acquiescence. For foreigners, acceptance is more from apathy - viewing cultural depictions and seeming oddities as societal norms - than from willing suspension of disbelief.
Other utilized movie conventions also make Tulafale effectively ambitious. With a cast of local amateur actors, the movie has made some baby steps and infant strides. Moreover, the use of the local vernacular in and of itself is ambitious. The English translations and subtitles therefore present some challenges for the movie in getting its message across to a more cosmopolitan audience. The essence and meaning in the original language are sometimes lost and/or distorted. I’ve noticed some inconsistencies with respect to some translation issues. For example, Leopao, the correct spelling of Saili’s title, is sometimes rendered as Leapao in the subtitles which effectively undermines and robs the correct name of its symbolic meaning of “noisy voice” which has direct significance to the movie’s oratorical subtext.
Overall, however, Tulafale has prevailed in the minimum threshold of ambitiousness through its intrepid venture into uncharted waters of film-making. In other words, the bird at Utufiu is not only eager to soar, it is already flying, albeit low, so far.
...cont'd
1/10/12
The Tulafale (The Orator)
What’s my take on the movie?
"It’s a very ambitious effort with convoluted sophistication which unfortunately did not deliver - literally and figuratively - in the end."
Stay tuned for a detailed review ....
"It’s a very ambitious effort with convoluted sophistication which unfortunately did not deliver - literally and figuratively - in the end."
Stay tuned for a detailed review ....
1/9/12
No tie for Romney ...
...in New Hampshire. LOL!
After a close race in Iowa, effectively a tie between Santorum and Romney, in NH there will be no tie (pun intended) for Romney. (Sorry, can’t help the equivocality of the HuffPost picture of the remaining GOP candidates. LOL!) I guess all of them want at least a tie but Romney doesn’t want one.
Barring any last minute surprises, look for Romney to win handily in NH and then on to South Carolina where he - though he also leads in the polls there - may experience some anti-Romney vote from an onslaught of attack ads especially by Gingrich. I still feel that Romney will win SC too.
After a close race in Iowa, effectively a tie between Santorum and Romney, in NH there will be no tie (pun intended) for Romney. (Sorry, can’t help the equivocality of the HuffPost picture of the remaining GOP candidates. LOL!) I guess all of them want at least a tie but Romney doesn’t want one.
Barring any last minute surprises, look for Romney to win handily in NH and then on to South Carolina where he - though he also leads in the polls there - may experience some anti-Romney vote from an onslaught of attack ads especially by Gingrich. I still feel that Romney will win SC too.
1/6/12
The chapel, the gym and the new year
Now if we narrow our human experience down to perhaps the most basic dichotomy of the spiritual and the physical, then there are no two places in which the new year becomes more evident than at the chapel and in the gym respectively. In the beginning of the year, these two places are noticeably more crowded; the correlation is both strong and convincing.
The sinuous (no pun intended) pattern is very similar to that found in chapels/churches also. During the first few months the congregation swells only to dwindle during the latter part of the year.
And me? Well I try to be consistent going to both chapel and gym throughout the year. I understand that I still have a lot to improve on especially the spiritual side, hence more emphasis on the chapel than gym. But the two - temporal/physical and spiritual - at least in my Church, go hand in hand. Put simply, any aberration, abuse and neglect of the physical can and will have an impact on the spiritual as well. Some may disagree but it is a sublime, if not a sacrosanct principle. The objective, I believe, is for a more balanced and healthy individual.
In fact in my Church, the emphasis on both the physical and spiritual is reflected in the chapel complex which has a chapel proper and also a “gym” where basketball and volleyball are played. Other cultural, physical fitness activities and exercises like aerobics, zumba, hot hula - you name it - are also held in the chapel gym.
So in this new year, it’s back to the basics - the emphasis is on the chapel and the gym. Truth is that we need good health (temporal and spiritual) first and foremost before we can pursue and accomplish most other things including our resolutions for the new year.
Ia maguia le kausaga fou ia ke oukou, e sau le fuaka ma loga lou, ia sao fo'i ma uli le folauga i kaimi sousou. Koaga i le chapel ma le gym ae aua le alu ma mou! LOL!!!
Sexy - Alive or Dead
Note: This is one of those “fai aku ai fo’i” (just sayin’) posts .... :)
Some women in the office last week tossed around a copy of the People magazine with Bradley Cooper’s picture on the cover. “The Sexiest Man Alive” caption in large print says it all. Previous recipients included the likes of Tom Selleck, Johnny Depp and George Clooney among many.
Okay, what’s my drift?
Well, I have always been peeved by the use of the term “Alive” in the title of the accolade. It certainly is a careless misnomer, or an emphatically misplaced quantifier - and qualifier. The obvious question is: “Alive”, as opposed to what, “Dead”?
Along similar connotational references we can therefore audaciously ask: Is a dead man sexy? Are there sexy dead men? Note that I said “sexy dead men” - not “dead sexy men.” Syntactically and semantically speaking, there’s a difference. There are dead sexy people but there aren’t any sexy dead people. Catch my drift? .. LOL! If those seem confusing and/or ambiguous, then “Sexiest Man Alive” is worse - it’s collusive and moronic. Or are they trying to stress the currentness and contemporary relevance of the honor?
And from a marketable standpoint, I doubt the inclusion of “Alive” leads to more magazine sales, than without it. If the former is true, then I think it’s more a reflection on the women - and some men - and their hoydenish tendencies.
Is a man - or woman for that matter - still sexy after he/she dies? I don’t think so. The opposite is exactly what the title insinuates - that the sexiest man can be a dead one too. Well, unless of course he’s Dracula or a Stephanie Meyer vampire. I can understand a magazine wanting to be different from maybe another magazine’s similar honor but the word “Alive” gives the title an absurd and half-witted, if not an eerie feel.
The title also seems to be advertising and reminding the obvious requirement for the honor - and that is, a man must still be breathing and not officially dead, at the time the decision is made. And why not “The Sexiest Man of the Year?"
So is there possibly a different intelligible connotation or context in which “alive” is emphatically and imposingly used by People? (How many connotations are there besides the one we find in a Wanted: Dead or Alive poster in Western movies?)
Having ruminated a remotely possible connotation, the one that came to mind was the cosmopolitan one. In other words, the word “alive” seems to connote and encompass all the men in the world including the more primitive loincloth-clad and protuberant-bellied tribesmen and natives of Africa and the Amazon rainforests and the Samoan aumaga. But it seems that the only sexiest men alive are those in the US and other western countries, aye? Hey, Samoa has a lot of these too, aea? ...hahahaa.... Just ask the late James Michener!
So again what is the real perspicuous function - grammatical or otherwise - of “Alive” in the “Sexiest Man Alive” title? If People magazine wants the title to be valid, intelligent, believed and legit, then it should drop the word “Alive” and replace it with a more practical qualifier. Either that or have a “Sexiest Man Dead” promotion too. LOL!!!!
...ia fai aku ai fo’i
Some women in the office last week tossed around a copy of the People magazine with Bradley Cooper’s picture on the cover. “The Sexiest Man Alive” caption in large print says it all. Previous recipients included the likes of Tom Selleck, Johnny Depp and George Clooney among many. Okay, what’s my drift?
Well, I have always been peeved by the use of the term “Alive” in the title of the accolade. It certainly is a careless misnomer, or an emphatically misplaced quantifier - and qualifier. The obvious question is: “Alive”, as opposed to what, “Dead”?
Along similar connotational references we can therefore audaciously ask: Is a dead man sexy? Are there sexy dead men? Note that I said “sexy dead men” - not “dead sexy men.” Syntactically and semantically speaking, there’s a difference. There are dead sexy people but there aren’t any sexy dead people. Catch my drift? .. LOL! If those seem confusing and/or ambiguous, then “Sexiest Man Alive” is worse - it’s collusive and moronic. Or are they trying to stress the currentness and contemporary relevance of the honor?
And from a marketable standpoint, I doubt the inclusion of “Alive” leads to more magazine sales, than without it. If the former is true, then I think it’s more a reflection on the women - and some men - and their hoydenish tendencies.
Is a man - or woman for that matter - still sexy after he/she dies? I don’t think so. The opposite is exactly what the title insinuates - that the sexiest man can be a dead one too. Well, unless of course he’s Dracula or a Stephanie Meyer vampire. I can understand a magazine wanting to be different from maybe another magazine’s similar honor but the word “Alive” gives the title an absurd and half-witted, if not an eerie feel.
The title also seems to be advertising and reminding the obvious requirement for the honor - and that is, a man must still be breathing and not officially dead, at the time the decision is made. And why not “The Sexiest Man of the Year?"
So is there possibly a different intelligible connotation or context in which “alive” is emphatically and imposingly used by People? (How many connotations are there besides the one we find in a Wanted: Dead or Alive poster in Western movies?)
Having ruminated a remotely possible connotation, the one that came to mind was the cosmopolitan one. In other words, the word “alive” seems to connote and encompass all the men in the world including the more primitive loincloth-clad and protuberant-bellied tribesmen and natives of Africa and the Amazon rainforests and the Samoan aumaga. But it seems that the only sexiest men alive are those in the US and other western countries, aye? Hey, Samoa has a lot of these too, aea? ...hahahaa.... Just ask the late James Michener!
So again what is the real perspicuous function - grammatical or otherwise - of “Alive” in the “Sexiest Man Alive” title? If People magazine wants the title to be valid, intelligent, believed and legit, then it should drop the word “Alive” and replace it with a more practical qualifier. Either that or have a “Sexiest Man Dead” promotion too. LOL!!!!
...ia fai aku ai fo’i
1/4/12
One Down! ....
...New Hampshire next ... and then a few more to go before Romney seals the nomination?
The vest obsessed Rick Santorum, the last of the concocted anti-Romney candidates has surged within the last several days and by virtue of coming in second in Iowa, he is seen as the likely candidate these CONServatives will rally around. Santorum has picked up the baton after all the other screwball surrogates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich) had risen and fallen in the polls, hence out of contention - barring miraculous surprises - due to scandals and ineptitude.
But if the CONServatives want to coalesce around Santorum and make this a long drawn-out Primary, they will be disappointed in the end by Romney winning the nomination. Now if by a long shot, Santorum or another not-Romney candidate ends up being the nominee, because of the ultraconservative vote, still they will be more disappointed because Obama will beat their consensus candidate in the end.
These CONServatives still have a lot to learn about the shifts in American politics. Inasmuch as I support their conservative values agenda, such platforms cannot be realized with a parochial and strictly partisan approach. They need independents and moderates on their side to secure the White House. And it’s Romney who appeals to those voters too.
 |
| Mitt and Ann Romney: America's next first couple? |
The Iowa vote is in and Romney won by a split hair (no pun intended) margin of eight votes. Rick Santorum came in second. But a win is a win for someone who has been the frontrunner since the beginning of the 2012 GOP race.
Now Politico has reported that the Republican Party conservative elites (aka religious bigots) are rumored to have already started calling an emergency meeting to pick which of the remaining candidates (sans Romney) to support. In other words, a blatant bigoted conspiracy to stop Romney. These morals-touting hypocritical ultraconservatives, might just as well support Obama. Because Romney is the only candidate who is seen as the ONE to defeat the “Anointed One”.
The vest obsessed Rick Santorum, the last of the concocted anti-Romney candidates has surged within the last several days and by virtue of coming in second in Iowa, he is seen as the likely candidate these CONServatives will rally around. Santorum has picked up the baton after all the other screwball surrogates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich) had risen and fallen in the polls, hence out of contention - barring miraculous surprises - due to scandals and ineptitude.
But if the CONServatives want to coalesce around Santorum and make this a long drawn-out Primary, they will be disappointed in the end by Romney winning the nomination. Now if by a long shot, Santorum or another not-Romney candidate ends up being the nominee, because of the ultraconservative vote, still they will be more disappointed because Obama will beat their consensus candidate in the end.
These CONServatives still have a lot to learn about the shifts in American politics. Inasmuch as I support their conservative values agenda, such platforms cannot be realized with a parochial and strictly partisan approach. They need independents and moderates on their side to secure the White House. And it’s Romney who appeals to those voters too.
Again, Romney is the one Obama and the Democrats fear the most. They have admitted to it during the 2008 election and the fear remains stronger today, considering the terrible economy and Romney’s matching strengths as a “turnaround artist” having been a successful businessman, CEO, Olympics leader and former governor. (By the way, if in doubt, then at least compare these skills and expertise with Obama’s experience when he ran three years ago. He had zilch, zippo!) The fear by the Democrats of having Obama run against Romney is evidenced by the fact that they (Demos) have already run attack ads on Romney a few months ago. Hence while Romney, last night, enjoyed a slim victory, Obama experienced a slim increase in heartbeat, which is only going to get faster and more rapid as Romney advances in securing the Republican nomination.
But I guess I will let some other pundits and prognosticators ponder the outcome of the 2012 race. People like Pat Robertson who said not too long ago that God already told him who the next president will be, though he will not say who it is yet. LOL! And of course Cindy (Crawford) who is nearing her endorsement of one candidate (hahaha). I will wait for some augural results. And who can go wrong with CC ...lol... who, incidently, supported BO in 2008? ...:)
Finally, last night, energized by his success, Santorum affirmed his resurgence by announcing “Game On!” ... to which I say “Game Over!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)