Summary:
Confusion best describes my reaction right after I've seen Woody Allen's Melinda and Melinda and Kidlat Tahimik's Perfumed Nightmare. The essence and the objective of the two movies were not met and shown clearly for better understanding of the story because of the undeveloped plot, style, and the like.
Confusion best describes my reaction right after I've seen Woody Allen's Melinda and Melinda and Kidlat Tahimik's Perfumed Nightmare. The essence and the objective of the two movies were not met and shown clearly for better understanding of the story because of the undeveloped plot, style, and the like. Questions here and there were left unanswered because of the difficulty in deciphering the ideas presented in the movie but as I tried to recall the film, I realized there's more than what meets the eye.
Melinda and Melinda presented two stories in just one movie: the comedic and tragic perspectives of life, which can then be difficult for the audience because viewers often have to identify which scene belongs to which plot, which segment can be connected to a particular setting, and the like. From the start of the movie, the idea of presenting life as "comedy" or "tragedy" interests the viewers but as the movie progresses, the scenes become dragging so much so that the execution turned out to be sloppy. There was not much distinction in both stories because when the comedy side was showed, it wasn't featured as a full-comedy act. The tragedy side was also not fully presented as a drama story but only a melodrama of some sort. There were dramatic scenes found in the comedy part and vice-versa causing the tone of both stories to be slightly similar.
As for Kidlat Tahimik's Perfumed Nightmare, it was a whole different kind of movie because of the time it was made (probably in the 1970s). As the film opens, we see him in three stages of life symbolized by the toy and then real "jeepneys" as he crosses the bridge to his village. The execution of the story was not fully given attention because of the scattered presentation of scenes and the symbols that lie within every segment. At first I couldn't find any answer to my question about its title-why it was called as such and what its relevance is to the whole story. The monotonous style of narration, translation, and mood in the story was what made it boring. With a lot of symbols associated with every detail, it becomes difficult for the viewers to understand the story especially the main character, Kidlat Tahimik.
Both films have shown many symbols that can be associated with every story presented. Realizing these symbols, I had to think outside the box! Look at the bigger picture and then relate each detail to another for a better understanding of the plot vis-à-vis the purpose of the movie. For the movie Melinda and Melinda, it can be observed that the music combined with the starting scene signals the central idea of this film- that different kinds of people view life differently among each other. Two playwrights with different points of view meet at a restaurant in Manhattan (where one knows that a restaurant is commonly full of people- symbolizing the ambiguity of life) and then discuss about what they think about life, be it comedic or tragic. There are also symbols that can be found in Perfumed Nightmares, where the bridge becomes the center of the film and it can be understood as the passageway of animals, people, and machines--connecting past and future, reality and dream, countryside and city, tradition and modernity. It also symbolizes Kidlat Tahimik being the narrator-protagonist, the ever-present possibility of self-fulfillment, and the change of his ambitions and dreams from being traditional to modern. It is also a movie that hides the political culture of the Marcos dictatorship, where Kidlat mentions the name of their patron saint, St. Mark, known locally as San Marcos and this can be paralleled to the cultural regime of rituals.
There are so many more symbols that can be associated with these two movies but it is more than necessary to discuss the postmodernism that can be found in their styles and stories. Because of their seemingly difficult idea, it makes them postmodern so much so that certain aspects of the film can be further developed as a form of parody. The scenes of both films show spoof and characters or settings belonging to one scene are used in a humorous way in another. The attempt to showcase comedy acts in some segments of the story somewhat explain the postmodern side of these films.
Both movies did not exactly meet the standards of most young audiences because these doesn't deliver a direct emotional charge. The confusion between the characters and the situations in the movie tend to leave the question of emotional charge unanswered. Kidlat Tahimik's life did not leave us happy nor sad. Melinda's situation did not affect the way the viewers think of her identity and attitude. Although these are the outcome of both movies, realizing that each symbol in every scene matters is a big positive effect already. The first reaction that was bad was now changed into something positive. The realization of knowing there is something more beyond sight really helps in understanding the movie and appreciating it even better. ♫
This is the complete article, containing 842 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
