GA Villafuerte's Lihim ng mga Nympha - Cinematic Plagiarism

Glenn (Walter Arenio) takes his friend Marco (Alvin Duckert) to the back roads of a remote town to visit his friend Nardo (TJ Morello). Upon arrival, the Manila lads learn that Barangay Masukal is a longer hike deeper into the woods – and tricycles refuse to go further. On their way to Nardo’s hut, Marco sees a bevy of scantily clad girls (“Labas ang suso”, he eagerly tells Glenn) bathing at the stream. But Glenn is in a hurry, “Baka abutan tayo ng tanghali.” The guys eventually find Nardo’s hut – in the dead of night! At the dinner table, Marco asks Nardo if nymphas really do exist in these woodlands. That night, inebriated Glenn disappears, only to be found in the morning enjoying the cool waters of the river. Glenn unexpectedly gets a visit from two girls who join him. Meanwhile, Marco meets Karen (Mia Henares) who whispers, ”Hayaan mong paligayahin kita,” then swiftly disappears from his sight. Later that day, they’re warned against the pesky nymphas.

The day after, Berting (Chubi Manalo), a young neighbor rushes to inform Nardo that their friend Carding (Bench dela Torre) is found dead, with a white flower beside his naked body. Their suspect: the nymphas. In another part of the woods, a bevy of girls wrapped in white loin cloth gather around each other, chanting a dissonant hymn. Cecilia (Adriana Gomez), the supreme leader of the group, announces that she has chosen Rosario (Honey Lopez) as her successor who would then inherit her powers. Karen shows her displeasure and storms out. Wasn't Rosario last seen teasing Carding to his hut?

That night, Glenn goes missing – again! Marco and Nardo scamper to find him before it’s too late. They find him being sexually manipulated, seemingly lost in the chagrin of the nubile nymphs. The ritual was on-going; the boob-baring girls were chanting gibberish – a really messy incantation, swaying their bodies with discrepant hand movements. Will they get Glenn back before it’s all too late? Will Glenn suffer the fate of Carding?    

A walk into the woods.

"Pare, may mga chicks. Labas ang suso," remarks Marco when he sees bathing nymphas.

In 2010, a local film was released on video called “Sa Piling ng mga Nympha” topbilled by Charles Delgado and directed by Chris Reyes. What’s more surprising - 90% of this flick mirrors Director G.A. Villafuerte’s “Ang Lihim ng mga Nympha” shown April this year – the plot, the scenes, the lines, the setting, etc. Some similar scenes include: Charles reaches the woodland on a tricycle. When the driver was asked for Charles’ exact destination, the former replied, “Di na ako puwedeng tumuloy. Delikado na dito.” Another scene: a group of bare breasted nymphs were spotted by Charles bathing by the stream. Even casting is diligently inspired by the original: Since the 2010 version has an African-Asian girl in the cast, Villafuerte’s version hires an African-Pinay named Sarah Obama (who plays Estela) to complete the "copying". There are more “copies” found in “Lihim...” Yet you don’t find attribution to the original movie.

Now here’s the funnier fact: While 2010’s “Sa Piling ng mga Nympha” was moderately watchable, 2012’s “Lihim ng mga Nympha” turns out a film making atrocity. Everything about this “re-telling” is inferior to the original: performances, plot twists, technicals (exceedingly horrible sound: you couldn’t hear anything from conversations), etc. In fact, I was surprised to find a competent Winston de Dios in  the original version. His part had some degree of difficulty (he was running amok because his wife was abducted by the nymphs). De Dios turned mediocre once handled by exploitative directors Lucas Mercado (“Rigodon”) and Paul Singh Cudail (“Sulot”). Why is "Ang Lihim..." a lot worse than the original? Why "remake" a relatively new flick (2010)? Who told Villafuerte he could write anything decent - or that he could direct anything outside a children's play? More importantly, who gave him permission to debase better films, turn them into cinematic scraps, then call them his? Questions abound.

NATURE OF NYMPHS

“Nymphas”, in this film, is a neologism of sort. The term is a Tagalized version of "nymphs". But these entities aren't even part of Philippine mythical creatures. What are these creatures? Nymphs originated from Greek mythology. They aren’t goddesses, but minor female nature deities associated with a particular location (sea, land, wood, celestial and underground). They are “divine spirits” who dwell and guard their natural habitat. Depicted as beautiful young maidens, these creatures love to sing, dance and make merry. As consequence of their character, they are known to mate with humans who get caught under their spell.

I can only assume that Villafuerte's nymphs are analogous to our “diwata”.  Villafuerte however tweaks the nature of these creatures. After all, his nymphas do not exactly "mate” and “make love” – they “fellate” their victims. They also love ogling at their victim’s back sides. Isn’t that very gay?

Walter Arenio (as Glenn) and a friendly visitor

Alvin Duckert as Marco

Sarah Obama (as Estela) and Mia Henares (as Karen)

Honey Lopez as Rosario

Walter Arenio provides a dashing consort with his sculpted physique, sexy masculine swagger and very Pinoy looks. More importantly, he captures the relaxed demeanor of Glenn. If you think he’s a run-of-the-mill actor, think again: he played Tony, the boatman, in Auraeus Solito’s magnificent “Busong” (Palawan Fate). So his presence in an exploitative Pink Film baffles. Though he doesn’t wave around his pecker, he has several “wet bulging brief” moments and a couple of backside peekaboos that would make you blush.

Alvin Duckert has a more ambitious part because he evolves into a totally different character in the epilogue (one of the cringe-worthy changes from the original story). Prettyboy Duckert is an enthusiastic actor. While his performance is better than bland, Duckert fails to imbue emotive heft so he comes off as superficial. And please, Alvin, stop dressing up as a woman ever again. It isn't a flattering sight. Masagwa! TJ Morello fares better with comfortable demeanor; his delivery isn’t snagged by doubt or irresolute action common among noobs.

FLACCID APPENDAGES

Adriana Gomez makes her film debut here. While she occasionally suffers from tentative emotions, she doesn’t do so badly. She isn’t allowed to do much except look “queenly” – as Cecilia, the queen of the nymphs. These days, Gomez appears in one (bad) indie flick after the next. She could probably be among this year's busiest. Bench dela Torre, as Carding, is expectedly disrobed. In the scene after his sexual dalliance with Rosario, he is left completely naked in bed, his flaccid appendage plopping down his abdomen. Ooohlala indeed! J 

HIGHLIGHTING THE UNFLATTERING

Now let me turn to Chubi Manalo who turns in one of the hammiest performances this side of Jonas Gruet. He speaks like a 7 year old boy with Trisomy 21: monotone delivery, intonation that ignores syllabication and then there’s his speech deficiency – he lisps! And if that isn’t punishment enough, his lines are riddled with so much S’es – and if they were bullets, they’d have murdered him already. Check this out: “Di muna makapunta thi lolo kathi thinuthumpong thiya tha thakit ng paa. Thabi ng manggagamot, impothible daw ang pagkamatay nya, wala ngang dugo o thenyaleth na pinatay thiya.” That is a LOT of S’es for someone like dear Chubi. What I am saying here: a director who’s cognizant of the weaknesses of his actors would surely notice this and remedy the lines by finding substitute words that Chubi could properly deliver, instead of hurdling 13 S’es in his lines! Sigh. He is actually better off just bathing at the stream – sans speaking lines - since he adequately flaunts his engorged member under his wet undies better than he delivers lines. I am telling you, Chubi's had it more-than-adequately engorged! J      

YES, MICHAEL, IT'S BAD

The script is slapdash and thoughtless. I ask again, how can cinematic plagiarism turn out so much worse than the original? In a scene where Glenn gets an unexpected visit from two nymphas, Cecilia catches her wards canoodling with the bathing Glenn. Cecilia shouts their names to call their attention: "Hasmin, Karen... halika kayo rito!" Then Glenn stands up and shouts back, "Sandali, anong pangalan nyo?" Every creature in the woodland could hear Cecilia, but Glenn. Someone needs a hearing aid! When they found Carding dead without finding blood or any sign of foul play, they thought this was impossible. Hence must be caused by supernatural beings? Huh? Haven't they heard of "bangungot" (a relatively common concept in barrios)? Or a heart condition? Or a myriad of medical conditions that don't manifest with physical signs? 

If their lives were indeed in danger, wasn't it easier to just leave the darn place and go back to Manila? In Villafuerte's "Bahid", his characters similarly stay in a household that's gradually dropping like flies (there's a killer in this story), and I couldn't understand why they wouldn't just leave. You see, Villafuerte is so fixated by inscrutable weaknesses that are easily remediable. He constructs these problems - then gets stuck finding his way out of his own narrative dilemma. Wawa, debah? Villafuerte is also gravely inconsistent with his thoughts: the gist in this film is that nymphas seduce their victims then they die. But there were several scenes of seduction that didn't amount to anything, but an excuse to show the nymphs playing with their victim's joysticks. After all, these nymphs didn't like sexual intercourse. They prefer fellating their victims! How very inspired, right?    

TURNING GAY

The big difference between the two flicks is: the plot has been tweaked to accommodate Villafuerte’s pedestrian homoerotic fantasies. 2012’s version turned gay! By doing so, it artistically crumbled because of ineptitude and film making incompetence. Then again – this clueless director believes he completed “another masterpiece”. These days, the term "masterpiece" has acquired new meaning, and it isn't "work of outstanding creativity". It's the extreme end of the artistic spectrum. Makes your skin crawl.

Palawenos Alvin Duckert and Walter Arenio share company and a head-scratching plot twist.

Walter Arenio

Alvin Duckert

TJ Morellos

Chubi Manalo

Bench de la Torre

Bench de la Torre

Honey Lopez

Adriana Gomez

Light moment with the cast.

A scene with Charles Delgado from 2010's "Sa Piling ng mga Nympha".

Tense moment with Charles Delgado in "Sa Piling ng mga Nympha".

Rico Maria Ilarde's Pridyider - Malevolent Souls

Uncertainty cloaks Christina Benitez’s (Andi Eigenmann) homecoming. It’s been 20 years since she last set foot on the home she once shared with her parents (Joel Torre and Janice de Belen) before the gruesome events that eventually overtook the household. She had since been taken by her aunt (Lui Manansala) to San Francisco where she was raised - beautiful (she is plagued by talent manager Dick – played by Baron Geisler), talented (she finished culinary and is cooking up dishes for a restaurant she plans to open in the Philippines) and conflicted about the fragmentary, albeit sketchy anecdotes she keeps getting about the demise of her mother – and the disappearance of her father. “Bakit nila ako iniwan?” she naggingly asks herself. But she gets no answers.

Home turns out to be a dilapidated house in a desolate fogbound subdivision on the throes of commercial development. Dust has settled long ago as it has been deserted in years. Lights flicker irregularly and a silhouette seemingly hovers around the dark corners. She arrives to an empty abode filled with fading photographs and clunking appliances that have seen better days. Among these is a giant refrigerator – ang “pridyider”.

Tina stays by herself, mostly immersed in experimental dishes. But at midnight, she discerns a presence, and tumbling sounds that bump in the night. And she is made acutely aware of the historical conundrum that inundates her past. She has to know more about her parents. She needs to know what happened to them. Was mother the crazy woman she keeps hearing about? Where was her father? If he were dead, why didn’t they find his body?

The unpalatable answers unravel gradually. Her father was an amorous man who sought the affection of other women while her mother was constantly enveloped by jealous rage. Her love for her husband so consumed her that he made a pact with the devil to summon his affection. She was to perform a ritual involving body parts of all the women he’s had affairs with, capped by the blood of her husband. Unfortunately, she wasn’t able to complete the ritual. To avoid getting caught by the police authorities, she hid inside the refrigerator – and died! Since then, the mother’s sinister spirit has possessed the refrigerator. She habitates the household.

To face her dilemma, Tina enlists the help of nosy neighbor Celine (Venus Raj) and her girl Friday Agatha (Bekimon); her childhood friend James (JM de Guzman); a petrified priest, an albularyo and a creepy anophthalmic former investigator, Detective Albay (Ronnie Lazaro) who has lived the life of a recluse after dropping the unsolved case.    

As Ilarde’s story is seamlessly told, the cast renders an engrossing performance all around. Andi Eigenmann limns her character with emotive panache. Her thespic control is remarkably fine tuned, and this is nothing short of admirable. There are no excesses there. Acting prowess must really be genetic. JM de Guzman, stripped of the need to sentimentalize his scenes, is adorable and enjoys great screen chemistry with Eigenmann, which is quite unexpected. Ronnie Lazaro recreates his Inspector Albay with indecipherable stroke reminiscent of his character in Richard Somes’ “Ishmael”. Even Venus Raj is interesting as she is quirky. Joel Torre, one of this year’s busiest actors, is likewise engaging. But it’s really Janice de Belen who runs away with her sinister presence. Malevolent and doomful, De Belen reminds me of Carmina Villaroel’s creepy turn in Yam Laranas’ “The Road”.  Seeing her stand frozen with chopping knife makes you wanna hide in some cave in the far reaches of Vanuatu!   

“Pridyider” pays homage to the original “Shake, Rattle and Roll” (1984). In the original film, Ishmael Bernal directed Janice de Belen for the trilogy’s 2^nd episode with similar title.  In the current version, De Belen’s iconic scene (she opens the ref’s door and thrusts her sweaty body deeper into the refrigerator) is reenacted by Eigenmann. Though the story is different, the narrative arc is similarly engaging.

The cinematic elements work well: the setting renders a spooky atmosphere; Teresa Barrozo’s music eerily lingers unobtrusively; Mackie Galvez’s cinematography sparkles with clarity even in dimly lit scenes; the CG effects are more than commendable as well. In fact, those tentacle-like monsters move with visceral feel. They don’t look artificial. Baron Geisler’s scene (he was being devoured by the ref) was particularly eye-catching. Ilarde and Onay Sales’ script avoids the unnecessary excesses customary in ardent horror flicks. All these result to a coherent story that moves with due pacing.

There are minor cracks in the story that could have been secured and adjusted: if Tina’s father really cared for his daughter, what kept him from making correspondence with Tina? Surely, a snail mail with an explanation could have prevented Tina from eternally wondering why she was “abandoned”. In this age of new technologies, there’s really no logical explanation for staying away from a loved one unless 1) you’re dead; 2) you were swallowed by a Black Hole; 3) you’re all lip service and the truth is, you just didn’t care enough. Twenty years is a long time to be away.

The scene at the hidden basement (or was it a “cave”) was reminiscent of a scene in Katie Holmes’ “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark”. With victims’ heads indiscriminately appended on walls, Ilarde fabricates a gruesome world of the restless undead. This disturbs more than many other horror scenes from the recent past.

“Pridyider” could have floundered in high camp. Venus Raj’s humorous turn is akin to this temperament, but her character was beautifully moderated that her presence didn’t feel importunate to the plot. Otherwise, it could have provided a “major major” debacle. More importantly, Raj provided some welcome quirkiness to an otherwise sedate predisposition. Every aspect of “Pridyider” is well tempered making it one of the year’s most engrossing horror ride.

James fixes Tina's electricity woes.

Inspector Albay aka Ronnie Lazaro aka "Ishmael."

Making pact with the devil - and more.

Tentacled monster and Alfred the cat.

Attack of the hungry refrigerator.

Now what do you call this?

Daughter and father scream for help.

Creepy mama is fueled by her jealousy.

Victims at the basement.

Albularyo fights with the evil spirit.

Andi Eigenmann (above and below)

JM de Guzman (above and below) as James. He manages an electrical shop.

Venus Raj as nosy neighbor Celine

Baron Geisler is Dick., a Hollywood agent. He's attracted to Tina. 

Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries - Introspective Narrative Takes a Dynamic Pace

Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom), a surly 78 year old physician, is taking the long road from Stockholm to Lund to accept his honorary degree award from a university. But this recognition seems to provoke Bunuelesque nightmares, daydreams and bittersweet remembrances from his younger days. Unexpectedly, his pregnant daughter-in-law Marianne (Ingrid Thulin), who isn’t exactly fond of him, asks to take the ride with him to see Evald, Isak’s son (Gunnar Bjornstrand) – a physician in Lund. Marianne’s pregnancy has been causing dissent in the couple’s otherwise harmonious relations – he doesn’t want children. This caused Marianne to runaway, seeking refuge in her querulous father-in-law’s house in the Swedish capital.

Along the way, Isak and Marianne meet of flurry of characters: there’s young and ebullient Sara (Bibi Andersson) and her two admirers Anders and Viktor (Folke Sundquist and Bjorn Bjelfvenstam) who bring back memories of Isak’s younger days when his girlfriend (a cousin named Sara) got married instead to his younger brother Sigfrid (Per Sjostrand); then there’s the middle aged couple whose constant squabbling almost caused a fatal vehicular accident. The road is long – around 320 miles (515 kilometers) and takes about 5 hours to drive. 

The group takes a side trip to the Professor’s ancestral home by the sea; a quaint neighbourhood punctuated by trees and wild strawberries growing amidst hedges. These remembrances further stir the professor to take stock of his past; a nebulous past when people thought highly of his character. In fact, at a gas stop, the owners fill up his car and wouldn’t hear of accepting payment – to honour the professor’s kindness in his younger days. “I should have stayed here,” Professor Isak muses.

When Professor Borg finally receives the award, he realizes that the pomp and pageantry of his recognition were nothing but an empty ritual. There were bigger, more important things to celebrate, like Marianne and Evald’s reconciliation. That night, Borg’s sleep was dreamless and peaceful. There was a smile on his face. 

Professor Borg takes a road trip with his daughter-in-law Marianne.

Swedish film master Ingmar Bergman gives a surprisingly dynamic storytelling tack to subjects (twilight years of life, aging, regret) that would usually take an introspective, albeit indolent and deliberate pace. In the film, Professor Borg is mostly contemplative. It is thus a wonder how Bergman imbues his story with vibrancy, enough to sustain attention. As a film maker, he doesn’t like his stories “slow”. He scoffs at Michaelangelo Antonioni’s style, referring to “Il Grido”: “Damn, what a boring movie it is.” He further discusses the Italian director: “Antonioni never really learned the trade. He concentrated on single images, never realizing that film is a rhythmic flow of images, a movement. Sure, there are brilliant moments in his films.” He didn’t even like “L’Avventura” and thought Monica Vitti was a “terrible actress”. (I personally loved that film and think highly of Vitti, one of the golden age’s most charming actresses, but then that’s just me.) His tirade against the other film master really underlines his storytelling style: fluid.

VICES OF WOMEN

There are traces of misogyny, like when Bergman refers to the "vices of women": weeping, giving birth, and speaking ill of neighbors. Had he not referred to himself as "an old pedant", it would have been unforgivable. But then this was an era where women didn't exactly enjoy social equality with men - and it wasn't fashionable then to be "politically correct". If I were to ask you what men have as vices, would the list be as unflattering? 

The story takes aging and regrets to the road. What other film is brave enough to tackle such subjects? Would Cinemalaya be daring enough to cover these subjects? It’s possible, but highly unlikely. Who would be its captive audience? Did Brillante Mendoza have enough audience for his “Lola”? Did Adolf Alix’s “Adela”? My point here is, it’s not the easiest subject to sell. But Bergman captures the audience’s attention from Borg’s very first nightmare: he finds himself in an empty town with broken houses and clocks with no hands (a recurring image in Bergman’s ouvre). Then an empty horse-drawn carriage traipses the streets with a hearse. And the body inside was Borg’s.

Though Gunnar Fischer’s black and white cinematography is beautiful, you somehow wonder how the setting would look on color cinema (the film was produced in 1957). I can easily imagine the stark beauty of the hedges and the wild strawberries surrounding Borg’s ancestral home. Furthermore, “Wild Strawberries” remind me of Mes de Guzman’s “Diablo”. The sense of closure from both films is quite familiar. Couldn’t he have gotten his inspiration from Bergman? 

Sara and Isak in one of our protagonist's daydreams.

Isak's nightmare involving bacteriological examinations he couldn't seem to pass.

Ingrid Thulin and Gunnar Bjornstrand play married couple Marianne and Evald..

Ingmar Bergman as a young man. He would produce theatrical puppet shows.

RD Alba's Biktima - Befuddling Suppositions & Cinematic Deja vu

Alice de la Cruz (Angel Aquino) is a news correspondent in a struggling network thirsting for the big break; the breaking news that would make her a household name in her industry. When Boss Jane (Sunshine Cruz) offers her a crucial assignment in remote Camandao village, she grabs the chance and heads to the Sumal Coast leaving her unemployed husband Mark (Cesar Montano) and five-year old son Buboy (JM Ibanez). However, her ambition would take her off-track as she convinces her contact (Lloyd Samartino) to head to a treacherous area. She gets caught in a crossfire, killing most of her colleagues, but she survives and becomes captive, taken as a “ransomless” hostage.

Six months later, Alice is found unconscious at a secluded roadside. Though she’s amnesic, she gradually regains her memory. In stages, she regains these harrowing vignettes in flashbacks, each one punctuated by acting out and re-experiencing her ordeals (she joins a group of intercontinental hostages; people get killed; she gets raped; she tries to escape but gets caught; as punishment she is tasked to kill another hostage; she tries to escape again).

When she eventually reunites with her family, she finds out that she was indeed taken for dead. Her family and friends have buried her. And Mark and her son are on the throes of moving on. She also discovers that Mark has engaged in an “extramarital” affair with her best friend Sandra (Mercedes Cabral). What’s more confounding are her intermittent anxiety attacks as she re-experiences her harrowing ordeal with the bandits. She suffers blackouts, inflicts pain on herself and conflagrates into bursts of anger. Suddenly, her once amorous family life has turned acetous. Young Buboy had to move in with her aunt while Alice tries to recuperate from her trauma.

But Alice is more concerned with the growing bond between her husband and her bestfriend. And she has decided to unravel the truth behind this coupling. Moreover, she wants her son back. She will get him – at all cost!  

There’s a sweeping sense of déjà vu watching RD Alba’s “Biktima”. On one side, the dubious hostage situation reminds me of Brillante Mendoza’s recent “Captive”. On the other side, there’s Topel Lee’s also-recent “Amorosa”, and if that isn’t enough, it browsed on sketchy post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that also had Angel Aquino herself skirting through cuckoolandia as the titular Rosa. Finally, anyone remembers Lino Brocka’s “Biktima” (1990) which starred Sharon Cuneta and Christopher de Leon? The latter actually won several awards for Gina Alajar who, in her prime, was the most brilliant actress of her generation (she won Urian and Famas for the film).

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

But let’s get to the nitty gritty. First off, I have to run a discourse on this oft-misinterpreted psychiatric entity because it’s getting too erroneously overused. Mostly, PTSD is an anxiety disorder caused by an extraordinary major life stress; an accident, death of someone, ravages of war and survival, serious threat to one’s life or physical integrity, sudden destruction to home or property, witnessing physical violence, etc. These events are relived in dreams and waking thoughts. These anxiety attacks don’t necessarily become PTSD unless they satisfy specific criteria called DSM-IIIR in psychiatric parlance. Needless to say, PTSD doesn’t exactly equate to “insanity” because reaction to trauma doesn’t make you crazy! It just makes you scared! Klaro, Topel Lee and RD Alba? When you get scared and jittery, you don't turn nuts. So for the sake of the clueless, albeit lazy film makers and their researchers who keep espousing on PTSD, here is your coffee table criterion:

DSM-IIIR for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

A. The person has experienced an event outside the range of usual human experience and that would be markedly distressing to anyone.

B. This traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in at least one of the following ways:

1. Recurrent and intrusive distressing recollection of the events (in children, repetitive play in which aspects of the trauma are expressed)

2. Recurrent distressing dreams of the event (the most common)

3. Sudden acting or feeling as if the traumatic events were recurring, i.e. illusions, hallucinations, dissociative episodes like flashbacks, even those that occur upon awakening or when intoxicated

4. Intense psychological distress at exposure to events that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event, i.e. anniversaries, etc.

C. Persistent avoidance of the stimuli associated with the trauma – or numbing of general responsiveness (not present prior to the event), as indicated by at least THREE of the following:

1. Effort to avoid thoughts or feelings associated with the trauma

2. Effort to avoid activities or situation that arouse recollection of the trauma

3. Inability to recall an important aspect of trauma (psychogenic amnesia)

4.  Markedly diminished interest in significant activities

5. Feeling of detachment or estrangement from others

6. Restricted range of affect, e.g. unable to have loving feelings

7. Sense of a foreshortened future, e.g. does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, long life

D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), indicated by at least TWO of the following:

1. Difficulty of falling or staying asleep

2. Irritability or outbursts of anger

3. Difficulty of concentrating

4. Hypervigilance (paranoid)

5. Exaggerated startle response

6. Physiologic reactivity upon exposure to events that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event (e.g. a woman raped in an elevator breaks into sweat or hyperventilates whenever she takes the elevator)

E. Duration of the disturbance (duration of the symptoms in B, C, D) of at least 1 month or longer

Though this list tends to be overly didactic and/or laborious, fact is, this criterion is quite specific and almost exact. Let’s take Angel’s condition. Item B begrudgingly satisfies only two items where there should be three. Most other features are sketchy and lead more to psychotic criterion than anxiety disorder.

Most PTSD patients would rather shy away from anything that would remind her of the traumatic event, yet Alice is intent on getting her job back. Moreover, we never see her get nightmares or have difficulty falling or staying asleep, usually a hallmark – though not pathognomonic – of PTSD. While most PTSD patients get disinterested or dismissive with significant events, Alice dives into things as though it was another day at work. These are salient points that seem uncharacteristic of PTSD cases.

The point here is, if you’re focusing on a specific diagnostic entity, why not study the case well? Don’t assume you can create situations out of suppositions or hearsay. Consult a specialist because you’re going to feed these indolent thoughts to a paying crowd. They even had to clutter the situation by saying that Angel’s father had a “history of insanity”. It’s muddling an already muddled narrative strain. How convenient, right? Let’s make sahog everything para masaya. LOL

The film is likewise guilty of fast resolutions. This was a woman afflicted with PTSD who actually had violent streaks. In fact, she murdered her aunt. Yet they released her easily like she just recovered from typhoid fever or malaria. What should prevent her from killing her own son since PTSD may have long term repercussions; the symptoms can recur intermittently for years. Isn’t “suicidal or violent ideation” a cause for concern? After all, “killing someone” isn’t part of the criterion for PTSD. How about schizophrenia? Why not Major Depression? How did her closest ties (her best friend Sandra and her Auntie Jean) remind her of the trauma? Were they abrasive or intrusive? Jealousy couldn’t be a stressor for PTSD. I’ve never heard of such thing until now so this one is for the books! We all should make a medical journal out of it.

HOSTAGE WITHOUT RANSOM

Angel was supposedly taken hostage by some terrorist group akin to the Abu Sayyaf bandits, yet despite her stature (a famous TV personality and a news anchor), the authorities or her family were never informed about her being taken hostage. Akala ko ba, hostage situation? She was in fact considered dead after the bomb explosion. Her husband and son have moved on quite easily. What’s a hostage situation without demand for ransom? Don’t tell me they forgot. J She could have fetched a considerable amount, not to mention media mileage because of her stature, couldn’t she? The bandits could have taken the media blitz for their notoriety yet her capture was never known and you simply wonder why.

BAFFLING SURPRISE

When Angel first saw Mercedes, her “bru” (their term of endearment) best friend at a supermarket, their reaction was one of surprise - and discomfort. Not elation. This was again spurious, if not suspicious. Yet Angel was stunned and, once again, this baffles. Did she have an inkling of Mercedes’ indiscretion with her shaggable hubby? Not at that point. Prior to her capture, she received a ring from Mercedes that she was coming home soon from her work overseas. Her presence in the country couldn't be surprising.

And why is Angel’ Alice, the psych patient, confined to her sick bed and hooked to an oxygen nasal cannula? Are PTSD cases in respiratory distress? It couldn't be bronchial asthma or COPD, could it? Anyone can check out our Mental Hospital and other hospital psychiatric wards to know that these patients aren’t exactly bed-ridden unless they undergo special procedures like the electro-convulsive therapy (which shouldn’t take an hour). Most cases are ambulatory. Heck, even the catatonic ones aren't confined to bed. Co-writer Disi Alba (who also plays Tita Jean), supposedly a Family Med physician, should at least be aware of this.

PERFORMANCES

“Biktima” is buoyed by earnest performances lead by Angel Aquino who’s always dependable. In fact, she kept this middling effort afloat. However, you are acutely aware that her depiction is a redundant exercise. Wasn’t she a hostage victim a few weeks ago in “Captive”? Didn’t she get raped in the Brillante Mendoza flick? Moreover, didn't she play the post-traumatic case in "Amorosa"? Cesar Montano is unusually relaxed and casual as the unemployed husband who lost his wife to bandits. He used to be one of the country’s most dependable and insightful actors yet in his older years, he has failed to impress. And I am mostly bothered by his middle-class Taglish dispatches. When he gets news of his wife’s “demise”, he delves into a spine-tingling, “What?” By jeeves! Ano ‘to, English-language flick with subtitles? J  He must have thought he’s still hosting “Singing Bee” or that creepy-crawly talent search “Artista Academy”.

Mercedes Cabral is likewise conjectural. In fact, it feels like she couldn’t make sense of her narrative stock. Why was she suddenly the psychological stressor that stimulates Angel’s aggression? She is, for Pete’s sake, the best friend of our protagonist! Her presence is supposed to provide quiescence and sobriety to her friend’s psychogenic dilemma. When psych patients “panic”, doctors call on their family and closest friends. Does Mercedes look like a bandit for Angel to actually consider her foe? She is, after all, one of Europe’s loveliest, debah? She couldn't be scary.

LOOKING FOR THE SANDRA SHE ALREADY FOUND

After Angel’s threesome dinner with Cesar and Mercedes, Angel went berserk and acts up at the restaurant. She throws plates and bolts out the door – then she drives to her tita, looking for her son Buboy! Then the flustered aunt calls on Cesar and Mercedes warning them of Angel’s state. Why would Angel look for Mercedes when she just left her at the restaurant? She could easily do that by going back to the restaurant. In the following scene, a hospital bed was shown vacated, and the nurse scampers to report the escape of a patient. Was Angel actually confined? How can she join her husband in a restaurant traipsing like a model while being confined in a hospital? Did Cesar help her escape from confinement for a sumptuous dinner out? There’s a stark disconnect here, obviously. Someone got confused. The editor? The story teller? The director? All of the above? 

THANKLESS

The film has thankless cameos by Lloyd Samartino as Fred, the Liberation Organization’s contact; Ricky Davao as Officer Bondalo; Mark Lapid as leader of the kidnap group, Disi Alba (a doctor by profession) as Auntie Jean and Sunshine Cruz as Jane, lovely but otherwise miscast as a television station’s news chief. The production values are a hit and miss. One scene (Cesar takes his child to bed, then the scene cuts to a birthday celebration) runs without sound. And the visuals, dark at times, could be better. The cages where “kidnap victims” were kept look like school play set, I could probably kick a branch and it would fall off like Lego pieces.

“Biktima” is mostly a rendered version of an incipient idea not fully threshed out into a coherent fictive . It is undecided, befuddling and psyched out (no pun intended). I was mostly left disaffected, stolid and phlegmatic for the remainder of the cinematic sprawl. For a flick that’s supposed to conjure high drama, thrill and edge-of-your-seat suspense, “Biktima” drove me to ennui. That can’t be good.

Philip Anthony as one of the hostages. He also co-wrote the story with director RD Alba.

Ricky Davao (right) as Officer Bondalo interrogates Alice.

Alice

Alice and son Buboy

No Other Woman, anyone?

Angel Aquino as Alice, Cesar Montano as Mark and Mercedes Cabral as Sandra

RD Alba