EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

I think that Tahimik kept repeating progress because the message of the movie was, for the most part, anti-progress. I got kind of an anti-globalization feel from the whole movie as well. Tahimik starts out as this guy who idolizes and is in awe of technology and “bridges to the moon” but once he experiences it and realizes the consequences of progress he renounces everything about it. He realizes that progress sacrifices important values and he comes to appreciate more the simple beauty of his hometown. The supermarket taking out all of the independent farmer stands (i think called seasons in the movie) represents the harm that progress can do to the little guy and the simpler way of life.

When Tahimik talks about his grief in all of the stands being taken out of business the American responds with “why are you sad about it, it’s a good thing, one less stand means one more parking space”. That sentence seems to be the frame of reference that the movie is trying to shine light on.

One thing that stood out to me in the movie was when there was an announcement for the supermarket and it said: “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, and Supermarket!” I must say that in French it does rhyme so it does sound a little better but it still seems like such an impractical thing to say. Albeit it was an advertising and those are not always the most realistic of things but I think that that slogan emphasizes the point that Tahimik was trying to make about progress maybe being more convenient but is it necessarily a better way of living.

What a dark and strange film! I really didn't get it at first. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or serious or what. It seemed to take a turn after the circumcisions. Until then, it seemed more like a random historical film than anything else. I didn't see it as being satirical until the american showed up.
For me, the film really came together when Tahimik returned from his vacation. The supermarket had again claimed another innocent small market worker in its quest for profits. After that point, everything he did and said was criticizing capitalism, the ideals behind it, and its impact. My favorite part was when he was looking at the small chimneys and said, "if the little chimneys work, why make super chimneys?" That was so simple, yet poignant. If the market works, why make a super market? I just loved that.
But now for the questions...
The camera work was something I was trying to figure out the whole time. In the end, I can only guess that its instability was to give the viewer a sense of just that, instability. When they moved Tahimik's mother's home and they say they kept having to move it because of the constant urban growth. This seemed to reflect that idea of "progress" really creates instability for those who do not profit from it.

I like what Eleanor said about the instability of the camera. Now that she mentions that it really makes sense. When I first thought about it I was able to come up with two different reasons. At points during the film I thought they were trying to make fun of American movie making and how Hollywood goes about it. It seems in some movies they try different things with the camera to make it seem different, interesting, or more "artsy". They may be making fun of all the different attempted camera shots in our filsm in this film by making it do crazy things. They may have also done this to reflect on what the American or first world population might expect from one of the movies that a less wealthy country makes. I don't necessarily think this personally, but they may be making a point that they can handle movie making, and it won't be what other countries might expect.
I think that the American talked weird because it shows us that anyone from another country thinks that other languages/accents sound different/odd. Americans are no exception. It may be a reflection of his character too, It made me feel like the man was kind of sketchy.

The whole film was about his upcoming trip to America. Being a driver in the Philipeans, living in a house with ten people made of bamboo, and wearing the same shirt everyday, going to America was beyond exceptional. Everything that he did throughout the movie was about going to America, or thinking about America. HE listened to an American radio show, wondered what the first words said when the American astronaut landed on the moom, kissing the calendar girls in the morning. The phillipeno town he lived in also held a beauty pagent, which I thought was very strange, for the simplicity of their town.

The techniques used when making this film, we based around the American culture. I beleive that the camera movement was to show the point of view for the Phillipino. The American talked so strange, because maybe that is the stereotype that we Americans hold in other countries, very monotone but strong voices.

The market and the airport were the main parts of this movie that I came away with. He was so enamored by the simplest things in the airport, that we as Americans think so little of. He was so in tune with the walking sidewalk bringing back his dollar when he through it on, that anything else goign around him didnt matter. I also found it interesting how he counted the bridges and related the number and types of bridges back to his hometown, where there is only one. He obviosly lives a life of simplicity, and the destrucation of the market, the one thing that he felt comfortbale with, ruined him. He could not believe the building and unneccary things that were being built that we dont even think about. It really made me think of the society and culture we live in, and how the bulding and the moving sidewalk dont even phase us.

Questions: The main character, was he the producer of the movie? What were they sacrificing for by beating themselves?

In response to Andrea's post:
Yeah, Kidlat Tahimik, was the producer/writer/actor in the movie. It is supposed to be kind of autobiographical. I am pretty sure that baby that the German lady had was supposed to represent the birth of his own son in real life. About the people whipping themselves I am not really sure but I would guess that it has something to do with the sins of mankind or their individual sins…? That seems to be what sacrifices are usually about

I didn't really look at this as a film- it seemed like a home video. I think that was probably what they were going for: simplicity, the anti- "progress".

I noticed that Eleanor commented on the circumcisions… was that what it was? I was very confused at that point. With Kidlat’s comment about his “jingling balls” I thought maybe they weren’t being circumcised. If they weren’t being circumcised, what were they doing? Is that some sort of ritual in the Philippines?

Also… along the lines of tradition… I thought the scene with the men whipping themselves was a tad random. I’m sure there’s something behind that, but we barely got a glimpse and then the entire scene was over.

The interesting part about this movie is that it addresses the humor in culture shock at some points. The movie seems to have to so opposite sides two it. For example, the American with his raspy voice that almost sounds demonic. Then we have our main character who is very simple minded, amazed at the smallest aspects of the west. I thought it was interesting that the more he saw of Paris and Europe in general, the more he seemed to reject it.

The way the film was shot was also interesting. At times you couldn't tell what the shot was because the camera was so blurry or so up close to an object in the field that it wasn't clear enough.

The film made an interesting point about progress. At first it is seen as so good---especially with bridges. The interesting thing was when in Europe we see older Euorpeans complaining about the progress and how things need to be done in the older, simpler ways. Even our main character discovers that the way his country does things is preferred.

Although this is probably in the top 10 list of weirdest movies I've ever watched, I kind of enjoyed it. There was a very likable dry humor throughout it, which wasn't laugh-out-loud but chuckle worthy. Another added bonus was that it actually had an underlying message.

For me it seemed that Tahimik's movie was focused on the interpretation of progress and it's consequences. I agree with Dena's comment about the movie having an anti-globalization vibe. A line that really struck me was when the American was telling Kidlat of his plan for the future, "Chewing gum, bleu cheese and then jets and weapons," that gives the idea of progress a certain dark twist. Obviously the conclusion of the film indicates that even Kidlat, a man so open towards "progress" had, had enough progress, or so-called progress.

The relationship between Kidlat and the American is an example of the Filipino and American relationship, although there were probably a few Filipino's who were against the colonization and fraternizing with the colonists. The chewing gum's significance in the movie was quite large, at least to me, like we said in class, it represented how in the beginning the colonists were sweet like the initial taste of gum and then lost their flavor. However, I still feel that the main message of the movie was about the positives of the simple life, like Kidlat realizes that having 28 bridges doesn't make a place better than his village with the single bridge.

I think the laughter throughout the film is a mocking type laugh. Since the film seems to mock western civilization in relation to the life within the village. The "stop light" laughter seems to drive this point home. Why would they need a stop light" in there tiny village other than to relate to western society.

I think the american speaks like that because their actually is a radio station called the voice of america and the voice sounds like that. I know this station exists around a series of small islands in the pacific and the voice is defferent sounding, much like the one on the film.

I think progress is a sign of capitalism in the film. The supermarket is a capitalistic form of western civilization. Kidlat represents his views of capitalism through the supermarket.

I really enjoy watching this film. It's a lot different than American films. The direction of the film is interesting because it serves as a semiautobiographical interpretation of someone's live. In a way, it seems that Kidlat was a cynical person with a good heart! What an oxymoron! He shows the positive and negative sides to the progressive movement. It seems that in the beginning of the movie, it drifted from a optimistic point of view; he created the fan club, have visions of prospering in America and then drifted to more a pessimistic view. Well not necessarily pessimistic, more like a reality finally hit Kidlat. He realize that all the promises and the optimism he heard from the radio news annoucement was squash when he realize dreams don't neccessarily come true easily. I'm glad that he stay true to his roots and incorporate everything his entire family and village told him. I would definitely recomment this movie to others!

This movie was defiantly different from anything else I have seen. Because of that I think it took me a little long to catch on to the satirical tone. I think the repetition of 'progress' was partially to show how much this term was drilled into the minds of people. It was almost said so much that it lost all meaning. You here this term over and over, but do you really understand the meaning of it? When Tahimik traveled to France he got to see progress in its finest and realizes that he does not really know what this word means. He knows the meanings told to him by those promoting progress.

The American may speak oddly to show how people interpret each other differently. As others have stated in the blog and as we discussed in class, it also seems like the American is representing Satan. He seems to be a controlling force telling people what to do. He encourages Kidlat that European and American progress is good, when Kidlat realizes that the way the Filipinos do things works just fine. The American seems to be an evil force that is trying to lure Kidlat away from his culture.

I also think that the American was represented by an oddly voiced, long, lanky, short shorted, stark white-legged man to show the impressions that are made from certain experiences with people different from yourself and how stereotypes are created. Maybe Kidlat's experiences with American's were only with those that embody the image he created for the American character. This would be just like the chewing gum because Kidlat associates chewing gum and Americans just like he associates this image of an American.

I was glad that Kidlat returned home after his trip to Paris and realized that bridges don’t mean progress, but that when simple things get the job done there is no real reason to change and try to be super. Before we discussed the end of the film, I was not sure of Kidlat’s fate. I thought that he either killed himself in the super-chimney, or that he was using the super-chimney as a space shuttle so he could be an astronaut (which didn’t seem too crazy of an idea since the movie was a little weird). Knowing that he went home is better closure than the idea I had.

Tahimik is always laughing because he truly enjoys his life. He is a successful man in his hometown in the Phillipines, owns a cab, and is president of the Warner Von Braun Fan Club. His life is ahead of him and could not be happier when he is hired to be the chaffeur for the American in Paris.

My favorite scene in the movies though was when he got to the airport. He had the funniest time with the moving sidewalk. Then when he would throw the money onto the walkway and watch it come back automatically was hilarious. I also found it hilarious that he shipped his jeep all the way to France so he could drive the same thing.

I was very interested in this film and in trying to understand the significance of the chewing gum. We discussed in class that American soldiers used to give kids in the Phillipines chewing gum. Maybe the gumball career was used to show how Phillipines make a connection to soldiers and gum. It was so funny how the soldier had a monopoly on gumball machines in Paris and that he was going to sell his company to get into the bleu cheese business. I think Tahimik uses humor here to show how Westerners spend their lives on insignificant things...like the progress of chewing gum or bleu cheese. It also kind of showed how progress begins with small things like these (chewing gum, bleu cheese) but develops into larger things, like escalators, concrete bridges, super markets, super chimneys. Does anyone else have thoughts about the significance of chewing gum in this film?

First of all I have to say how refreshing it was to see that a lot of you, including Qualey didn't know what to make of some of the parts of this movie! You never want to come off as simple, but I don't think I could have explained the exact significance of some parts if I had a gun to my head! That's not say I didn't enjoy it, as I was constantly entertained by the surreality of it all. Well, except for the circumcision scene which nearly made me faint. Also...Bleu Cheese!? C'mon, that's hilarious!

I really liked the idea Yashkumarie had about the whole film looking and playing out like a home video. The simplicity of the film kind of reflected the simplicity of Kidlat. He was happy with how life was like before his voyage to Paris. But then things started to get very hectic and muddled when he actually arrived which indicated a sense of cultural anxiety and uncertainty. This film didn't really set out to condemn big business or capitalism with a ton of fervor, rather it just presented the concept of cultural uneasiness in globalization.

After the current wave of semi-heavy handed issue films in American cinema, it was a treat to watch a film that obviously had something of importance to say but also allowed the viewer to interpret the events in a less singular manner.

I like the movie a lot. I thought that it was interesting especially in its context (the 1970's) because that was a time period that postmodernism was very popular. I agree with many aspects of postmodernism (I wrote a paper against the idea of "progress" in a class once). Many postmodern ideas seem to have falen out of favor today but aI think that aspects of the ideology are still relevant, and the ideas in this film are still interesting even if some parts appear to be somewhat dated.

The focus on individual imagery represents the contrst between the large and the small, the individual and the conglomerate, the forward march of progress and the relationship that it has to common people that don't experience the progress. I liked the scene where he was being laughted at by the scary-masked elites and then there was a shot of him from a distance (meant to make him look small). I thought that was effective.

I really loved the music in the film too.

Perfumed Nightmare was not funny to me because I thought for a lot of it that there were some very serious cultural issues being addressed in it such as the past war, his father, the idea of “progress”, the cultural values, his friend with the butterfly on his chest, the circumcision and more. I felt that there were many funny parts but at the same time I was trying to be sensitive to the issues. I suppose if I were to ever see it again I probably would laugh more the second time.

I thought the masked faces represented fakeness in the people of progress. That those the American hung around with were probably progress driven like himself. Tahimik doesn’t seem to understand the purpose for super things such as supermarkets or super malls. He finds it vain and pointless it appears. I agree with Kyle that Tahimik seems to really enjoy life despite problems or differences. He seems to adapt well but also to be filled with more life that those who are obsessed with progress like the American. The American seems to be a very vain and rude man with his devilish voice. He seems like he is only out to make money

I believe the film has a message that industrialization is not always a good thing. The movie follows Kidlat in his search for progress, but when he finds it he sees it is not all that he wanted it to be. At the end of the movie he says why there are supermarkets when local markets work just fine. This shows that the progress he sees has just complicated his life and has also gotten away from core values. At the end of the film Kidlat finds he wants to be at his home village again and in a strange way flies back. He has realized that his dreams of development were not exactly what he wanted.

I believe Kidlat spilling the chewing gum is significant because it shows that he is not able and or ready to adapt to his new society. This also shows that progress is not always the best thing. The gumball machines are placed in odd locations, and this shows how development may make things more complicated and in the end worse.

I had no idea how to react to this film at first; there didn’t seem to be any significance to the first 40 minutes and I just got confused! Ok, I’m sure everyone was taken away by it but that circumcision scene….was it necessary? Did it really add anything to the movie at all?!

Well I thought it was evident that the word progress was repeated so frequently because the entire film was based on the progress of the Filipinos compared to the Americans. The film definitely was against progress of the American sort and almost mocked the lifestyle of the “progressed.” Having Kidlot’s experience appear so negative, the film made the “simple” life seem very good. Kidlot even “decided” at the end of the film that he no longer wanted to progress—he just wanted to go home.

I was wondering if anyone else thought the scene changes were abrupt and awkward. It kind of threw me off how quickly it moved from scene to scene and idea to idea. Does anyone have a take on this? Why would they do this in the film?

Laughter gives the video its personality. The video has humor that gives the story and characters personality. The laughing gives characters a sense of joy of life even though they seem to be going through some difficult periods of colonialism. Tahimik's face expressions shows his humor towards the world. I think he does this to show his easy going personality. This is why I think the AMerican talks funny as part of the humor and also because of the domination of the Americans.

I think that the focus on the individual images and specific sounds were put in place in order to bring you into the place and their life. I noticed there was a significant amount of time spent filming cows or caribou and different landscapes of the land. I have yet to figure out if there is a deeper meaning to the animals but I feel that generally the filming of these images were to immerse those watching into this place. It created a sense of simplicity and was displaying the adoration for the simplicity. Later on in the film after they arrive in Paris, it is at first viewed and percieved as great"progress". Later we see that this progress is eliminating the heart of the city, such as with the lady who sold the 2-yoked eggs being taken over by the supermarket. The attitude towards progress shifts from glorifying progress to despising it. The character starts out with a desire to have progress as such in various western civilizations and ends with the realization that there is a darker side to it.

When I first started watching this film, I thought it was more like a home-movie, similar to what Yashkumarie said, and I thought that it might have been because of poor funding at first, but after seeing the whole thing I think that it was for a purpose. My realization that this film had a plot and that there was an actual sequence of events leading up to a climax was when he was getting ready to go to France. That is when I started noticing Kidlat’s change in attitude toward western thoughts and ideals, and I agree with Dena that the turning point seemed to be the Supermarket pushing out the local vendors. This is when Kidlat starts to see that maybe the western idea of progress isn’t the best thing and isn’t something to strive for. Throughout the first half of the film, Kidlat talks of progress and how the Filipinos should push for progress and his hero is Verner Von Braun, but his attitude does a 360 during his trip to France. The Filipinos are told that progress is good and that it capitalism will make their lives better, but Kidlat realizes that sometimes what’s best is already set in place. The message I got from this movie was that sometimes the simplest things offer the best solutions and progress isn’t always needed.

The American's voice was odd, and I think it was Kidlat's way of portraying Americans as mischief or to some extent questionable. The bridges represent "progress" in Kidlat's mind, and he repeats it throughout the film and reminds us at how not advanced his village is compared to how advanced Paris is.

I think that the American's voice was kind of a ridiculous poke at the American ideal. He sounded suspiciously Schwarzenegger-like, perhaps commenting on how even "american" celebrity is imported into the country. Further, his height might have suggested what the end of the film seemed to hammer with kidlat exclaiming at the three chimneys. He was tall, but standing next to him, Kidlat functioned just as well, if not better. For the american's tallness hindered him-he was gangly! He had TOO MUCH height, whereas Kidlat had just enough, however lacking dynamic. Kidlat seemed really interested in american grandiosity and its allure. He ended up seeing past the luster and seeing such a consumerist society as simply too much.