Being above "Above the Clouds", or why this is not a movie 'mountaineers' will like

[ialman]

Comments

Another tadhana disaster

[anonymous]

Someone wrote an open letter to Jadaone sharing the same sentiments before. This is the problem when media, with writers having little knowledge, come up with a film to get the attention of their target market -- it leads to destruction. Just like "Above the Clouds", "That Thing Called Tadhana" consciously unconsciously (Psych term) taught people to release all their negativity (make "hugot) to a certain "escape" place recklessly by-passing all travel SOP. Like Tadhana, the movie gives the WRONG impression to its viewers, especially to the uninitiated in the outdoors to vandalise and bastardise whatever their blade can strike.

Kudos to your article but brace yourself! Fortunately for you, the "fans" of the film are not jejetards. I hope no one floods your blog with nonsensical retorts from "avid fans".

RE: Another tadhana disaster

[ialman]

I didn't get to see Tadhana although I've been made aware of the tourism nightmare that resulted from it.

I am writing this review from an outdoorsman's point of view, and no one from the outdoorsy set will disagree with me in my criticism of the film's apparent glorification of vandalism. The fans are welcome to come to the blog and start a discussion. As long as they remain respectful and on issue, they may freely disagree with me.

Thanks for visiting!

Re: Another tadhana disaster

[anonymous]

The producer of Tadhana and ATC is the same... Now we know where the problem lies.

Re: Another tadhana disaster

[ialman]

I'd rather not speculate, but I suppose they saw an effective formula in the first which they tried to replicate in the second. I really should try to see Tadhana.

Leave Nothing but Footprints

[anonymous]

#AboveTheClouds has a nice storyline BUT it tolerates and/or promote outdoor vandalism as socially acceptable practice of self-proclaimed conquerors (kuno) who visited the mountains - no whatsoever lessons about taking good care of the environment yet the movie portrays that the parents of Andy, one of the lead character, loves that particular mountain but they vandalized.

Re: Leave Nothing but Footprints

[ialman]

I agree. I think that the filmmakers cannot hide beneath the veneer of realism or even artistic freedom. As public artists, they have a duty to ring the right bells, to send a clear and unequivocal message about caring for the environment. They may argue that this was unintentional, that it was never their plan to romanticize vandalism, but they should also be equally responsible for the result, for the consequence, however outside the sphere of their ambitions. I'd like them to answer the question: if those vandals were removed, would the film had been less effective, would Andres have been less affected?

RE: Re: Leave Nothing but Footprints

[anonymous]

One more point that I'd like to add in my comment above, the movie DISRESPECTS the sacredness of the coffins of the dead.

"Kung iyong kabaong kaya ng kamag-anak nila ang buksan ng mga estranghero ng walang pahintulot para lang tingnan ang kalansay na nasa loob, okay lang sa kanila?"
(If the coffins of their loveones are opened by the strangers without permission just to see the skeletons inside, is ir okay to them)

Re: Leave Nothing but Footprints

[ialman]

Sang-ayon ako sa iyo sa puntong ito. Kahit pa sabihin nilang ginawa lang nila ang kabaong na iyon (props) at walang aktwal na kabaong na ginalaw, sadyang nakapanlulumo ang karakter ni Pepe Smith, na magsasabing napakadalas nyang gawin ang paglalakad sa bundok, na sasabihin pa niyang ang mga espirito ay nagbabantay sa kapaligiran, pero ganun-ganon na lang ang pagbale-wala niya sa mga kaugalian ng mga taga-dun.

"Only fools will make fool out of themselves"

[anonymous]

Agree that the movie was neither promoting tourism nor mountaineering as a hobby. You are also on point about the transcendence of Grandpa-Grandson relationship. And yes there were vandalism: but I am sad that you missed the point that these scenes were mere exaggeration and sarcasm. "The movie romanticizes vandalism, which is unacceptable behavior particularly where the outdoors are concerned." -- only fools will make fool out of themselves. "Mountaineer-newbie" or "Mountaineer-wannabe", or "fools" whatever they were called will never, ever get this point and I like the way you 'quote' them.

Re: "Only fools will make fool out of themselves"

[anonymous]

Unfortunately, most viewers have the monkey-see-monkey-do mentality. Say it was only used for sarcasm and exaggeration, there will be people who will be doing the same just because their favourite personalities have done it in film. Barely a few people look beyond the film. Barely a few people's minds travel beyond the films references -- culture, tradition, people. A few perils of filmmaking is either you assume that most people are intelligent to go figure or too dumb for their minds to function. I'm not saying that the filmmaker will have to spoon-feed information but to drop hints for people to have a full inference of your message.

Filmmaking is a form of communication through storytelling. Pepe Diokno explaining his film just shows that he is not effecting in that aspect. I hope he learns from this and from Tadhana (as it is his prod team who produced it).

Re: "Only fools will make fool out of themselves"

[ialman]

I agree. Pepe should be responsible also for the message the movie sends and its effect on people, whether he says it is intentional, or just part of his story-telling technique.

Re: "Only fools will make fool out of themselves"

[ialman]

Indeed I chose not to check my outdoorsman biases at the door. I was running late for the film and in fact missed about 5 minutes of it. That is probably the reason why I'm looking at it from this specific angle, as I am sure that other reviewers, who have a better grasp of the cinematic artform than me, could write a better review with the tools at their disposal. But I'm glad I did not brush off my mountaineering credentials, because this is what I'm most passionate about. I agree with you that the scenes depicting the dirty river, the dirty campsite, the vandalized rocks were over-the-top, meant probably to draw attention to a nagging reality. I have no argue with that. It is that Andy isn't shocked by the vandalism when he finally finds the boulder where the photo was taken, and in fact honors the spot. That to me seems surprising, following an argument put forth by the director saying the grandfather symbolizes years of neglect and destruction, while Andy is the new generation who leaves things as they are. Of course he doesn't

Agreed!

[anonymous]

Bonjour!

I've seen neither of the films but I completely agree with your sentiments.

That said, I just discovered your blog, well-done, bravo!

xox,

ML
@20YS

Re: Agreed!

[ialman]

Hello there. Thanks for discovering the blog. Hope you find something worthy of your time here.