What Chiz and Heart's Mom have in common

It is as if both their foreheads have been botoxed clean and free from 

natural emotions. 

And what's with that perennially pasted smile on Chiz's lips

Or is that his base expression?

What to do when your parents are dysfunctional

If your name is Bimby or Heart, or if you're simply curious, this post is for you.

If you think your parents are dysfunctional, it's highly likely, you're dysfunctional yourself.

But the fact you're reading this means you sort of acknowledge that detail in your life and want to make the positive change by

a)  acknowledging and accepting that you need to change

b) accepting that you're screwed up

c) accepting that your parents had a hand in you're being screwed up

d) you're willing to own and you do  `fess up to your being screwed up -- (hey look, sure you're parents fucked you up but most of who you are is You so you're still very much responsible for how you turn out, you just need to work on yourself for at least foreverrrrr but hey, at least by doing so you grow and become mature enough to not blame and place accountability on other people because that is what being an adult is, kid).


So now that you admit you're dysfunctional, what should you do if your parents won't?

1  Let them go

Better yet, let them be. Leave them be.

One of the probable reasons why you're dysfunctional is because you have been controlled a lot. You were told what to feel, what you're supposed to feel, what to do, what you're supposed to do - as if you are incapable of doing and being these on your own. Though this may or may not be your parents fault as they may have been told what to feel and do themselves by their own parents - and they couldn't get themselves out of that rut - it's not your job to fix them.

On your part, the only thing you can do is to allow them to be whoever they are. Controlling them is futile, it also won't work. How do you know it won't work?? Well, did it work for you????

No? Then it won't work for them too.


2  Give back to them what they're dishing out

If you do this, there are 2 ways this could play out.

One - things will get worse. A war could erupt - an irreparable one that will signal the end of both your worlds.

Two - you or the other or both of you will back off.

If you do this to your mother and she's a narcissist - e.g. she considers you as her extension so your success becomes her own and that you are expected to follow her orders, think like her, be like her aka you are her twin or her third arm - she could back off.

For narcissists, nothing's worse when they receive what they themselves give out.  When a mirror is put in front of narcs and they are made to face and look at what they themselves are guilty of doing/being -- this is akin to a nightmare.

Narcs never admit they have a problem they need to fix. They never admit they are guilty of anything. So what they do is project their own sins onto others, e.g. they label others as having "a personality problem," they call people "opportunists," "controlling / manipulators" to the extent they could even call their own flesh and blood as "unstable" because their own flesh and blood decided to have a mind of his/her own -- ergo they could no longer make their son/daughter (aka extension) do whatever the hell it is they want him/her to do.


3  Ignore them when they're acting out

You know how when kids cry and whine because you didn't give them that toy they were pointing at in a store? and then they lie on the floor and cry even more louder so you will do what is appropriate and buy them that toy so people will not think how terrible a parent you are for not pacifying your child's scandalous tantrum?

The same difference goes with dysfunctional parents.

You know the best solution to this situation? Don't give them what they want.

Their crying, their whining have 2 objectives:

To provoke your guilt, e.g. by saying:

       "We didn't raise you that way"  (when parent say this, what they actually mean is "Repent for your
        sins because you're not supposed to do this to us even if we inadvertently conditioned you to.");

       "Look at what your behavior is doing to us." (when parents say this, they're putting the blame on
        you for their reaction. This is very manipulative, cunning. They are giving to you the responsibility
       for something they have total control of and putting on your hands something you have no power
      over. It is extremely mean. It's a fucked up way to raise kids who will value guilt as a virtue. Kids
      who grow up this way choose partners or people who will provoke the same guilt in them and so
      give their all and everything (e.g., they allow their partners to step all over them, they allow their
      partners to use their mercedes benz because it makes them feel happy and not guilty when they  
     share too much of their blessings to others, they think every quantity of their self is worth giving so
     as not to feel guilty when they save some/none for themselves).  Wherever your parents learned this
     fucked up idea from -- take a guess, its probably from their parents or guardians too - and they're
     doing / passing the same fucked up shit on you.

To not make you forget who's boss aka To not make you forget who runs the show aka To not make you forget who you should follow.


4   When your parents are fighting and you're unsure who's telling the truth, don't take sides

Authentic truth is simple and straightforward. It only gets blurred when an aspect of it is shielded, hidden or a part of it is intentionally obscured so your perception could be easily managed / manipulated so you only see what your parent wants you to see.

When you have doubts about who is telling the truth and none of your parents are willing to reveal the 100% facts (because of self-preservation), do the fact-checking and verification yourself.

But when you're just 5 years old, this is easier said than done. Until then, I'll pray that you don't grow up to be slick, manipulative and cunning yourself.


5  Do not allow one or both of your parents to use you as a pawn so he/she can win in his/her war

Remember, you are not property. You are not money. You are not something that can be split in half.

You are a person, an individual. You do not deserve to be played with, controlled like a robot or manipulated like a puppet. You are a person who can think and feel for yourself.

Go to a trusted relative, family member or friend so you can avoid being poisoned by one of both of your parents twisted sensibility. Be open also to the possibility that your parents do not know - however hard they try or however hard they convince you or convince themselves - how to authentically love. They're just hopeless like that. Rest in the fact that at least, by giving yourself space by being away from them, you know how to love yourself.

My Review of Flight

Flight is a psychological drama about a man’s descent from his lofty sense of self to the simple grounded truth:  he is hopelessly in denial of his alcoholism and narcissism.

Denzel Washington is Whip Whitaker, an experienced commercial pilot who needs his fix of booze, sex and cocaine to be able to fly a plane carrying 102 passengers from Florida to Atlanta.  During flight, the plane nosedives but Whip skillfully manages to roll the plane upside down and return it right side up before it crash lands on a field – an almost impossible feat that managed to save 96 lives onboard and which no other pilot could reportedly do.

During the first half-hour of the film, director Robert Zemeckis - a pilot himself -  masterfully takes us on the edge of our seats by putting us squarely on the plane as it turns, rolls, dives - and as all hell, emotions, and the plane breaks.

The rest of the film’s 139 minutes is not just a showcase of how a man’s alcoholism and his denial of it is enabled by the airline pilot’s union and corporate America, it also exhibits Denzel Washington’s affecting and brilliant performance as a loathsome loser.

Whip Whitaker elicits very little sympathy but Denzel Washington manages to keep us hooked. Just like an addict, we become fixated at what he will do next. Will he stop drinking? Will he face the truth about himself? And every time he doesn’t, we keep coming back for more and hope along with him that he will see the light.

Kelly Reilly, an English actress who was in the Sherlock Holmes sequel, is beautiful and compelling as Nicole – a recovering heroine addict. Unfortunately, her talent was under-utilized since her character served only as a convenient prop so Denzel Washington’s Whitaker will have someone to trade barbs and tension with as he struggles to manage his addiction.

Don Cheadle plays the lawyer who does his best to keep Whitaker out of jail. Bruce Greenwood is the head of the airline pilot’s union who is similarly struggling to save Whitaker from his self. Both are level-headed in their portrayal of enablers who are just as out to save Whitaker and themselves from the legal and financial consequences of the plane crash.

John Goodman sticks out like a sore thumb in the movie as he plays the clownish drug dealer who is keeping Whitaker addicted yet highly-functioning.

The film starts out with a visual high thanks to the impressive special effects at the early part of the movie. However, it descends to a cop-out of sorts as it oddly becomes a commercial for Alcoholics Anonymous.

Maybe the movie was required to deliver to American audiences the lessons it was supposed to learn: that drinking is bad, being an alcoholic is worst, change is better – and possible. But the movie became preachy and only served to alienate non-5-year old audiences who don’t want to be told what to do. 

Indio vs Juan Dela Cruz

Anyone noticed how the names of these two programs seem to reflect how we collectively think of our cultural selves?

Is it just me or do these programs validate the fact that we still see ourselves from the eyes of our colonizers?

Indio is a Spanish word that means Indian.

Juan dela Cruz - a name used to refer to the Filipino everyman - was actually conjured by a foreigner.

The Scottish publisher R. McCulloch-Dick of The Philippine Free Press was the first to use the name Juan de la Cruz to refer to Filipinos in general when he noticed the name's ubiquity in court dockets and police blotters.

So are you an Indio or a Juan dela Cruz?

My Review of A Moment in Time aka How to romanticize a dysfunctional relationship – the Star Cinema Way

Star Cinema - like Coco Martin's character in A Moment in Time - is creepy.

Disclaimer: My opinion about Star Cinema is supported by past and most recent romantic films it has unleashed on hapless moviegoers' short attention span.

Chronologically,  these include the following:

Suddenly It's Magic
24/7 In Love
One More Try

and it's latest offering - A Moment in Time.


The fact that these movies got made - regardless of these films' commercial success or failure - shows the thought process and sensibilities of its `creative' staff. From these same films we can therefore deduce a Star Cinema Theorem which states that:

Copy the plot of an old movie + replicate scenes from these old movies + sprinkle fresh, good-looking stars x (insert sexually repressed/dysfunctional characters) = VOILA! Star Cinema Movie!!!

e.g.

Suddenly It's Magic = Isang Tanong Isang Sagot

24/7 In Love = (Perverted) Love Actually

One More Try = In Love We Trust

A Moment in Time = Suddenly It's Magic (the Coco-Martin-serenading-Julia-Montes-and-Julia-Montes-beatboxing-scenes), My Only U (the-Julia-Montes-giving-Coco-Martin-a-surprise-bday-party-scene), Milan (the Coco-Martin-going-to-Amsterdam-to-look-for-Julia-Montes-scenes).

I therefore conclude that Star Cinema's creepiness knows no bounds.

Why?

1) It doesn't give a shit that it is xerox-ing plots, scenes from movies already seen and then using it in their 'original' film without acknowledging the source of its `inspiration.'  It's creative piracy. If you buy an unoriginal dibidi of a Star Cinema film you're actually buying a double-dead movie / it's a pirated version of a pirated movie.

2) It is copying its own scenes from its own movies because
a) it is easier to do aka it's the lazy way to make movies - it's writing without actually writing
b) it's there
c) they find their own work amazing enough to be replicated continuously aka they're so pleased with themselves they just want to jack off to their own product


Their inherent creepiness is so deep-rooted it just leached into Coco Martin's character in Star Cinema's latest film A Moment in Time.

Coco Martin's Patrick is a less skilled version of John Lloyd's dysfunctionally suave character JD in The Mistress.

To be fair, A Moment in Time is fun to watch thanks to Julia Montes' and Coco Martin's charismatic and affecting performance.

But - Julia Montes' Jillian is right when she shouted at Patrick and called him "Weird!" when he drew her face on a wall, called her by not-her-name (with the expectation that she'll pay attention to him), and hurled himself in front of her chauffered car.

Weird is right but is an understatement as Patrick is simply dysfunctional.

And the Star Cinema way to make this personality dysfunction likable, romantic, aspirational, entertaining  is to apply the Star Cinema theorem:





1 Add a good-looking actor - to better distract you from the abuse he is inflicting - and even find it okay enough for you to even ask for more of the same


2 Convince the audience that love is equal to violating a person's  boundaries

Patrick calls Jillian all the names he thinks fits her but not her real name. He doesn't even bother to come up to her politely and ask. Instead, he assumes her name is "Heidi," "Sheryl," "Baby" 

because he really doesn't want to know who the real her is. He only wants to know the image he has of her - thus his question at the start of the film:

"ANO ANG ITSURA NG TOTOONG PAGMAMAHAL?"

You can see an image, a picture, but can you experience an image? a picture? 

He can't experience what love is so he settles to have an image of it / a picture of it in his head. 

He only loves his image/imagining/perception of who he thinks Jillian is but not THE REAL Jillian.

That is why Jillian is wise when she says, "(Sana) di lang ako drowing sa canvass mo." -- because she knows she is.

He doesn't care about the real Jillian - he only cares that he thinks he cares. It is an image of himself loving an image of someone else that he LOVES - not the person - regardless of whether that person accidentally killed Patrick's mother (a contrived plot device to easily explain away Patrick's abnormal behavior). 

If it aint already obvious, Patrick is already abnormal even before he discovered Jillian's accidental killing of his mother. 

3 Make unwarranted persistence adorable


When Jillian says "NO," Patrick doesn't listen to her because he thinks that she doesnt really mean "NO."  He doesn't think she is serious. He doesn't care that she is serious. He doesn't respect her "NO" because he only cares about what he wants not what she wants.




4 Make arrogance and rudeness an adorable virtue

To those who think Coco's Patrick is adorable when he forces himself on her space - in that scene where he was wearing a Max's Delivery uniform inside an elevator and was with Julia's character Jillian - think again.

If you are not creeped out by this specific behavior, ask yourself if you'd want to experience something similar in real life or - better yet - imagine how your reaction will be. To be fair, don't imagine Coco Martin creeping you out. Imagine someone else, e.g. one of those long-haired villains in those late 80's early 90's Pinoy action movies. Doing this mental exercise is a true test of your authentic reaction to abnormal behavior.



5 Make deception a natural part of a relationship

When Patrick discovered that Jillian accidentally killed his mother, it was actually not the discovery that made him act "weirder." He is already weird in the first place.

The fact that he hid his discovery and pretended that everything is fine or that there is nothing wrong - is downright chilling.

If this detail went over your head - look at where you are now and ask yourself if you're in a relationship that echoes that dynamic. Ask yourself too why you didn't find that detail odd???

6 Make the process of wearing down a person's healthy boundaries the "noble" goal of the adorable protagonist - better yet make it the film's aspirational climax

Patrick's process of pursuing Jillian is akin to stalking. Jillian has expressed her defiance by saying
 "Look, your shit's got to stop." (that was a paraphrase).  But Patrick doesn't. He chases her car and gives her something he knows he could hook her emotions with - her old violin. And his hooking strategy worked. She falls for him. They get back together and she lives unhappily ever after with him.

He never loved her. He never will. If he really loved her - and if he doesn't have a personality disorder -  he won't string her along and pretend that he didnt know she accidentally killed his mother.

If the movie wanted a happy ending, Jillian could have ended up not with her Hallmark-card spouting-fiancee or the insanely obsessed and psychologically dysfunctional Patrick, she could have discovered why she fell for Patrick - her own issues - her fears - her beliefs and then made the life-saving decision to love her self and be the person she wants to attract and have a relationship with. But that's not dramatic enough for ya huh.

All in all, A Moment in Time is not that bad -- 

A Moment in Time’s glossy visuals helped soften Manila’s grime and grittiness the same way Coco and Julia’s onscreen presence made this Star Cinema movie about an emotionally abusive relationship, exceptionally entertaining, romantic, aspirational, and even likable. - WEIRD!!!