Aguila (1980)

A brief background on the history of the Philippines can be captured in the movie of Aguila starring the king of Philippine Cinema, Fernando Poe Jr. The film revolves around the life story of Daniel Aguila who has been missing for almost a decade and how his son was able to find him. The events in the film emphasized the historical development of the Philippine starting from the colonial history until the Martial law period. The film also depicted several themes in the political, social, cultural and economic aspects that are still evident in our daily lives.

Out of all the scenes that were shown in the movie, two things that probably struck me the most were the way the politics is played during that time and how a brave and simple man (without being him elected as a politician) could change and improve the lives that he has touched. With regard to the game of politics, we cannot deny the fact that in reality, those who acquire power are usually the ones who get to control and manipulate others. As Eddie Garcia emphasized in the film, "power is needed to help other people". However, in order to get power, one must be willing to do anything to obtain it. And once a person has acquired it, he can absolutely do anything about it.
Moreover, the film has also depicted how politics can be played dirty in running a political campaign and once a politician gets elected in a position. The son of Daniel Aguila, who is played by Christopher De Leon, ran for a position in senate and during the political campaign, they believe that a candidate must make a demand to his people (similar to making a demand for softdrinks or soaps). A candidate must win the hearts of the people by telling them what they want to hear. However, when the candidate gets elected, it is as if all that he has promised to the people have disappeared.  In relation to the context of power discussed above, Christopher De Leon used his advantage of being elected in order to steal money from the people. He was able to use power in order to derive personal interests from it which can be apparent in the lives of our politicians today. This can imply that since the time of Magsaysay (and probably earlier than his term), the system of how politics is played today was already evident during that time. But one thing that bothers me is how did that kind of system emerge and who were those people behind the system? It is something that remains to be a mystery for me and probably to many of us...

With regard to the life of Daniel Aguila in the film, I could not help but compare his life to that of our politicians today. Although Daniel Aguila may be a fictional character, something that is striking about him is how he changed the lives of the people that he encountered. Even though he was just an ordinary man who served the military before, he was able to exemplify what we want to find in a leader... someone who is willing to help other people without expecting anything in return and someone who truly cared for the lives of the people. Daniel Aguila can be a perfect example of a good leader.. however, as we can see it today, majority of our politicians have their own agendas of serving their own interests rather than the interests of the people who believed and voted for them.

Good Morning President

=

Contrary to popular portrayals of the lives of presidents and prime ministers as serious and straightforward in films, the Korean movie, Good Morning President, emphasizes on the personal lives of three presidents with a touch of humor, wry and drama. The film depicts the Korean politics inside the Blue House with three successive presidents who all encountered different dilemmas. The first and older president to be featured in the movie is Kim Jung-Ho who, at the end of his term, won the lottery which puts him to the predicament whether he would fulfill his promise to donate the prize to his fellow countrymen or keep it all to himself and buy the things he needed after he retires. The second president, Cha Ji-Wook, who is a dashing young single father had to deal with diplomacy problems between United States, Japan and North Korea. During his term, he also encountered  to choose a decision of whether to save the father of a young man seeking for his help through kidney transplant or not. The third and first female president, Han Kyuong-ja, had to go through with the crisis of her divorce after her husband gets involved with a real estate scam that also puts her credibility as a president in danger. All of these three presidents are placed into the state of  distressing over the decisions they had to make between politics and ethics to resolve their personal crises. But apparently, they were able to find the answers to their problems by starting a conservation with the Blue House's head chef who unconsciously gave them words of wisdom. And although the portrayals of these presidents are just fictional, it is not be impossible that what these characters had to go through could also happen in real life. In fact, some scenarios in the film are quite applicable to the political  life story of every politician.

With regard to the scenario of the first president in the movie, I think all politicians have encountered the dilemma of whether to stay true to their promises they made to the people or to just break and forget the promises they had made. All politicians, at some point, had to make promises to their people... probably because of the good intentions they have to better serve their country or maybe because they just wanted to uplift their image and popularity in the game of politics. But whatever their reasons are, the promises they make tend to be broken most of the time. Why? probably because they were never really true to their words and all of those promises were just mere white lies. Or maybe because they tend to be influenced by different factors that can alter their decisions or they just probably want to pursue their self-interests more than the interests of the majority of the people. Moreover, because of the promises that have continued to be broken, majority of us citizens are already used to it and that we no longer believe and hope for reforms or any kind of changes that our government officials always tell us.  Hence, the challenge for those politicians who are in their  thrones is to keep and fulfill the promises they make or better yet to just avoid telling promises to the people that they know they wouldn't do.

Highlighting the essence of the story in the term of the second president (at least based on what I understood), is the difficulty of carrying the burden of being the president for the whole country. The second president in the movie had to deal with the problems of diplomacy between other countries and that his decisions can strongly affect the lives of his  citizens. It is very difficult for a president to carry the burden of his own countrymen. The future of the country depends solely on the decisions of the president and that he has to make these decisions carefully. Moreover, a deeper dilemma that a president can go through during his term is the ability to reach out to the needs of every citizen of a country. Based on the film, the president was asked by a young man to help his father survive by going through a kidney transplant. The president, who was hesitant at first, finally gave in to the request of the young man because of what his father said "you cannot love your own country if you cannot help your own neighbor". But shortly after his operation, another man begged for the president to donate his liver to him. This scenario in the last part was hilarious but the point here is that people often regard a president as a "hero"...someone who can save the people from all their sufferings and who can bring about many changes to the lives of the people. But apparently, of course, a president couldn't be superman or batman or all those other superheroes. A president is only a regular person who we have given the authority to govern us and allocate resources for us. We should not expect that a president can solve all of a country's problems because he doesn't have all the answers. So, instead of being too dependent to the president, we as part of a country, must also do our responsibilities and obligations as citizens in order to help ourselves achieve what we want to desire for our country.  Because without the help on our part, the president cannot truly "save the day".

The story in the final part of the movie is for me, less interesting than the other two. But one thing I've noticed with the story is the role played by the president's spouse during the president's term in the office. The life of a president becomes public to the people as well as the life of his/her spouse. It is important for the spouse to be careful with her/his actions because any wrong doing may lead to the damage of the credibility of the president just like what is portrayed in the movie. In the life of a president, everything becomes under scrutiny. Opposition and the media are always on the lookout for any action or event that can expose the true identity of the president. They also have a way of manipulating any information into something that can make or break the image of the president. Moreover, becoming a president gives you the duty of setting an example to the people. Since people look up to you as a great leader, you as a president, must act in such a way that people will love and trust you. Sure, it is easy to pretend acting like how the people want you to be but you can never  hide your true colors.

The Special Relationship (2010)

"All political friendship is strategic and conditional." - British political adviser in the film

The film, Special Relationship, emphasizes the special friendship that blossomed between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and then U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair. It was an alliance between the two like-minded men who pursued and governed center-left political movement in which they called the "third way" and had thrown off the conservative governments. Through the special relationship that was created between these two political leaders, they were able to form a powerful alliance that would definitely shape the political landscape of their countries as well as the political decisions of world affairs. However, no friendship can surpass without experiencing challenges along the way. And even Clinton and Blair's relationship was not exempted from this. The different challenges that they encountered ultimately tested their friendship. It was through this test that their real motivations and personalities were revealed. It is often in this case that one would know if a certain individual can be truly considered a true friend or someone whom one can be trusted.

Based on the film, it can be assumed that Bill Clinton considered himself as a big brother to United Kingdom. The United States, which is considered to be the most powerful country in the world, thinks that it has the responsibility to govern the other countries as well. Hence, Bill Clinton acted as if he had to know more about how Tony Blair should govern his people. Clinton, as a big brother, wanted to be a role model to Tony Blair (in terms of political decision-making). He wanted Tony Blair to follow him as he leads the humanity into a more progressive state. And because Blair felt like it was such an honor to be side by side with the US, he followed it just like a younger brother who looks up and idolizes his big brother. However, with this kind of relationship, it may seem that the big brother always had the control over the younger brother. He wanted to make sure that the younger brother makes no mistake and that he would always be dependent on him. However, when the younger brother was the one who needed help, the big brother seemed to be hesitant. Big brother began to think of his own interests rather than offering help to his younger brother. Hence, when the younger brother decided to take his own action, big brother felt betrayed with the younger brother's decision to stand up on his own.

Hence, in the political arena, friendships that are created between two politicians can be both advantageous and disadvantageous. It could be genuine or deceitful. And it could also be seen only as strategic or conditional, as to what the British political adviser in the film said. More often than not, the politician who has the greater authority between the two will most likely want to get the best out of the friendship. It can serve one or each other's self-interests. 

In the context of the Philippines, it is no longer surprising that special relationships between politicians are popular. More importantly, it is in our culture that we value our relationships between our families and friends and we practice the concept of "utang na loob". Hence, it is already common for us to see politicians who are elected because of certain connections or people who get away with anything solely because "their friends are friends with the relative of the (insert politician here).. In tagalog, (kaibigan nila yung kaibigan ng kamag-anak ni ________).  And in our culture, it doesn't even matter if you're not relatives with those powerful people, as long as you have the connection with them (whether it may be your friend or your cousin's friend...and so on). More so, one way to value our relationship with other people is by doing favors. Hence, the concept of "utang na loob" is formed. For an instance, powerful elite helps an aspiring politician get elected to the office. As a sign of gratitude or "utang na loob", the elected politician then does a favor to the powerful elite who helped him get elected. (I don't even have to give an example because this concept of utang na loob in our relationships is always evident and we could not even deny doing it). With this kind of relationship, it ultimately affects how politicians could make important decisions and govern the people. Having these practices as part of our Philippine culture might give a more dangerous outcome in terms of the special relationships that arise among the politicians. They can manipulate them and could even shape how the game of politics is played.

In conclusion, I'm not saying that special relationships among politicians are either good or bad. What I might be trying to point out is that involving with this kind of relationship surely entails certain conditions that could either result to good or bad consequences. It is up to these politicians whether they would use this relationship as a way to serve their self-interests or they would use it to better serve and govern the rest of the people. 

Spinning Boris

Spinning Boris is a political satire about three American political consultants that were hired to help Boris Yeltsin's re-election campaign in Russia. When Yeltsin's approval ratings were down to single digits, these American consultants found ways on how to maneuver it that made Yeltsin on top of his opponents. They were able to convince the daughter of Yeltsin to adopt the American style of campaigning in order to have the advantage against other candidates. These American consultants were able to spin Boris by emphasizing the positive traits of Yeltsin (although some of these were just pure gimmicks) to appeal to the feelings of the public. And although there were conflicts and suspicious enemies they have encountered, the three American consultants were able to guarantee victory of democracy in Russia through Boris Yeltsin.

What is more intriguing and exciting about this film is how it is based on a true story. I was so amazed by how three political consultants were able to actually turn the tables for the fate of not just for Yeltsin but for Russia as well.It was as if they performed a miracle wherein at first Yeltsin had no chance of winning the elections but on the day of the elections, Yeltsin was proclaimed winner by 3 points. I never knew how political consulting can be very helpful and effective when it comes to election campaigns. Although this industry is quite new, many politicians have undertaken this to increase their advantage of winning. People behind political consulting are deemed to be creative and intelligent when it comes to forming different strategies about campaigns. However, no matter how much contribution it makes to the winning candidate, I still think that a part of political consulting is "dirty". Since consultants are paid by the candidates, they must only project the positive sides of the candidates rather than including the negative sides. They think of any gimmick that would suit the personality of the candidate and that will also appeal to the masses. Hence, whatever negative side that a candidate possess has to be covered up by these consultants through different schemes during the election campaigns. Just like in politics, political consulting also has to be played dirty. Consultants must bring out their best tactics in order for their client to win. And with the majority of the voters here in the Philippine setting, the candidate with the most popularity gets to be elected.

The Distinguished Gentleman

The Distinguished Gentleman revolves around the life of a con artist in Florida named Thomas Jefferson Johnson who specializes in blackmailing people through his sex phone service. Trying to find more ways on how to get richer, Thomas Johnson later on discovers that there's a bigger con happening in Washington and congressmen as well as senators are able to get away with it because it's "legal". Intrigued by what he discovered, Thomas immediately wanted to take part in the political arena. Fortunately, his luck came when Jeff Johnson, a popular congressman in Florida,dies of a heart attack and gave Thomas the idea of running for congressman by using his middle name. He used the name "Jeff Johnson", hoping that people will vote him due to the name recognition. He then used the former congressman's campaign materials and ran on low budget campaigns assuming that people wouldn't give much attention and instead vote for the "name you know". True enough, Thomas Johnson won the elections with slim victory and is now on his way to Washington. Upon reaching Washington, Thomas discovers that there are more expert con politicians than what he thought of himself. In search of the pot of gold, Thomas joins the Power and Industry committee headed by senator Dick Dodge who is considered as the master con of all. Thomas then learns about the greed and corruption embedded in the nature of the con game in Washington D.C. However, after he met some concerned constituencies, he realizes that it is difficult to address the issues of environmental protection, reforms and electrical companies that have greatly affected the lives of several citizens. After gaining conscience, Thomas had to turn the tables and perform the biggest con of his life to expose the greed and corruption happening inside the congress.

It is no longer a surprise for us to see many aspiring politicians running for government positions. Many of those candidates only want to acquire power and wealth. Just like what is portrayed in the film, the congress is where the "pot of gold" resides. And what would be more exciting to run for elections is the corruption that happens inside which is considered by the officials as "legal". Because of power, wealth and "legality" of serving special interests, many candidates are lured into desperately wanting to be elected. They do different strategies during the campaign in order to win. They usually spend a lot of money during the heat of elections. Besides, they know that they would be able to recover that spent money when they are able to win the elections. In result, the game of politics is played by serving the special interests of eager politicians instead of serving for the common people. Hence, many government projects/programs are ineffective in improving the lives of the local people because these are just mere whitewashes to cover for the corruption happening among the officials.

The Distinguished Gentleman gives me hope in believing that despite the rife corruption in politics, there are still politicians out there who are principled and honest to serve the people. This is what makes them distinguished in a game full of "con artists". However, I still cannot guarantee that there are distinguished politicians out there because of the fact that these people can be lured and influenced by how the system in politics is played. And we can never assure that the game of politics is always played fair.

Another point that can be made in the film is the tactic of aspiring candidates to appeal to the masses by name recognition. In the Philippine setting, this has always been evident. Majority of Filipinos only vote for the "name they know. Hence, it gives us to political dynasties among the families of the politicians. However, what is wrong with this kind of tactic is that the people tend to rely on the popularity instead of the credibility of politicians. People rarely give attention to the platforms and viewpoints of the candidates. This what makes it difficult because what if an aspiring politician, who has the potential to lead the country, is running for elections but has gained little popularity from the people is competing against a candidate (who had little background with politics) whose name is already known known because of his former relatives that were also politicians. Do you to think people would choose the candidate who has gained little popularity and actually listen to his platforms? Or would they just stick to the candidate whose name is already known in politics? A few people who would really care for their votes to be counted to someone who deserves it will pick candidate A. But for the majority?....Candidate B will still be preferred. Hence, even though candidate A had the potential to actually lead the country, he is not given the chance to because people would rather vote for candidate B who they think they trust more because of the name recognition. And besides,people would not really bother to listen or pay attention to the candidates' platforms because they think that they're all just the same. Another problem that could arise from name recognition during elections is that, when families try to maintain their political dynasties, they would select any family member (even those without the experience/background with politics) just continue their legacy. Usually, the family member chosen to run for elections is inexperienced and unequipped with the background of politics. So, it ultimately affects to how he works for his position. It reflects his motive of just attaining the family legacy in politics rather than actually serving his own countrymen.

Pirates of Silicon Valley

The Pirates of Silicon Valley tells us the historical development of the two most renowned computer companies, Apple and Microsoft, as well as the story behind the rivalry between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.   

It describes about how these two computer geniuses changed the way we view and use technology today. And how they successfully climbed they way up and built their computer empires. But it isn't just solely out of their creativity and intelligence that they were able to come up with what we have now. They also had to use dirty tricks in order to achieve what they've been known for. Hence, the title became suitable to how the characters were portrayed because of their deceptive and sneaky ways. They became the "pirates" in their own rights who wanted to get the biggest contribution in the world of computers. Steve Jobs (Apple) stole the GUI idea from Xerox, while Bill Gates (Microsoft) stole the very first DOS from an unknown computer company. The perfect mantra for the both computer geniuses is from Picasso's "Good artists copy, great artists steal." quote. 

It is quite difficult to relate this movie to the political arena, but as the way I see it, the people who use dirty tactics/strategies in politics are usually the ones who succeed. They are usually the ones who try to look innocent in the eyes of many people but in reality, their actions can be quite deceptive. They try to break the old rules in order to get what they want. And these politicians, in search for power and wealth, would have to risk everything to get the biggest share in the world of politics.

 In line with this, we can also try to see the resemblance of the personalities of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs with that of our politicians today. Some of our politicians would be similar to Steve Jobs who is visionary, the one who believes that he can change history.. Politicians would picture a great future for the masses if they were to be elected.. They believe that they can improve the lives of the people and who would make a big impact on them. Some of these politicians would also see themselves as people who would leave a legacy in the political arena. But, just like what Steve Jobs did in the movie, he became hesitant in terms of taking the responsibility of accepting his child. He also became cruel boss for his employees who often mistreats them. In the context of the politicians, they can also be hesitant in taking the responsibility of fulfilling the promises they had. These politicians can be so good at envisioning a better future for their people, but wouldn't take necessary actions to achieve them. Hence, most of our politicians have the tendency to be those who are "hanggang salita lang.."

On the contrary, our politicians can also be like Bill Gates who is depicted as self-driven, opportunist and would do everything to be the first in spreading an idea. Just like Bill Gates, politicians today would seek every opportunity they could get in order to attain wealth and power. They use different tactics to put their status on top of everyone. And because they seek to be the greatest, they are often consumed by their greed for power.  

Iginuhit ng Tadhana: The Ferdinand Marcos Story

Setting aside hollywood blockbuster films, we go to our very own locally made film- Iginuhit ng Tadhana.
Iginuhit ng Tadhana tells about the life story of a brilliant man who once ruled over the Philippines - Ferdinand Marcos. This movie describes his journey as he became the next Philippine president who would actually make a big impact on the lives of the Filipino people.

This movie was used as a propaganda to give Marcos the advantage of winning the title of presidency against Diosdado Macapagal back then. And true enough, Marcos did win the elections that time. The movie was also used to propagate that Marcos was more than a politician. Hence,  the story about the life of Marcos was told in such a way that it would look as if Marcos was indeed a "man for the people". And it altered some events to maintain his good reputation. By now, you could have already thought of the movie's bias towards Marcos through the lines of the actor that portrayed as him.

As I've watched the film, I remembered a documentary that I've seen before. The title of the documentary was "Papogi: The Imaging of the Philippine Presidents". Through this documentary, I was able to realize that Marcos has used this propaganda get the attention of the masses. And Marcos, during his time, believed that whoever has the power over information has also the power to manipulate the beliefs of the people. Indeed, he used the media as his medium to seek attention from the people and to also win their hearts. Moreover, Marcos even chose one of the owners of the biggest media outlet to be his vice-president in order to have easy access in controlling the media.

The way I understood Marcos' life is that he was able to carefully plan his political career. He made use of his God-given talent to climb up the success ladder. He was focused and determined to attain what he wanted in his political career. And indeed, he was able to make changes. However, no matter how focused one is in his career, there becomes a time wherein one has to face certain challenges. These challenges are often in the face of an influence that would distract you and hinder you from fulfilling your "planned route". And this seemed to happen in Marcos' journey. He was ultimately faced with a lot of distractions that influenced him into becoming someone that many would despise. He would've have been the greatest president in Philippine society if it weren't for the distractions and influences he had chose to give in.

In life, we inevitably face certain circumstances that can either make or break our lives. It is up to us whether we would stick to our own principles or let it be influenced by other things. We have total control of ourselves and it is only ourselves who are liable for our actions. We must always be aware of the consequences of our actions and that we must keep in mind that whatever decisions we make in life would definitely have an impact on us whether it'll be little or big.

Hitler: The Rise of Evil

The movie Hitler: The Rise of Evil is based on the life story of the infamous leader of Germany, Adolf Hitler, who  failed to pursue his dream of becoming an artist during his childhood years and yet became the most powerful leader of his time as he rise through the ranks of the National German Workers' Party.


If this movie is just a biography of Adolf Hilter, why does the movie has to come up with such a title? Was Adolf Hitler indeed evil? Or was the movie just an exaggeration of the personality of this infamous leader?


 Hence, if you watched this movie for the first time without having much background about Adolf Hitler like I do, you would indeed agree that Hitler is an epitome of "pure evilness". You may only see Hitler as megalomaniac, lunatic, pedophile, and all sorts of bad words you can attach to his name. If the movie's sole intention was to emphasize on the evilness that Adolf Hitler beholds, then we can say that it was successful in portraying Hitler that way. But what made him so powerful did not just come out of pure evilness. There is something deeper than what the movie portrayed Hitler.


And as I read an online movie review (Pop Matters) about Hitler: The Rise of Evil, it dawned to me that the movie was flawed in such a way that it changed some of the real life story of Hitler just to pursue their agenda of describing Hitler like a demon who is trapped in a human's body.


The author of the article did not say that Hitler was good nor did he reject the idea that Hitler was an embodiment of evil. Instead, he enumerated and explained some of the inaccuracies that the film portrayed with regard to the life story of Hitler. One of which is the childhood story of Adolf wherein the film depicted him as the suspect of his father in the incident of his slaughtered farm animals. Because of this, Hitler was shown to be in deep anger towards his father and that his looks gave his father the heart attack and died. However, in reality, Adolf's father died in a local bar after drinking a glass of wine.Also, in many of the biographies written about Hitler, none of these would say that he engaged in animal cruelty.


Another inaccurate detail, and maybe one important aspect in the political discourse of Hitler was the movie's portrayal that Hitler became popular only because of his anti-Semitic speeches. However, the truth behind Adolf's popularity is due to the fact that he delved into more pressing issues than just what the movie portrayed. Adolf discussed in his oratory the severe economic distress and political discontent that the people of Germany has been experiencing that time. Adolf was able to express his ideas  in order to reestablish Germany and instill the national pride among its citizens. Through this, the people deeply admired him and supported his advocacy towards building a "new Germany". But then again, we cannot say that what he did after gaining total control over Germany was ideally good or even brought a better life for Germany.


I was glad I was able to come across the article which made think again about the events on the life story of Adolf Hitler. It gave me a different perspective about Hitler instead of just solely relying to the movie which just mostly presented him as a lunatic, brutal and an evil person. By now, I've realized that Hitler was indeed a talented leader who had so much potential in him. Unfortunately, he used it in a wrong way. For him, his beliefs and his practices justify what he wants to stand up for. But the way he did it was just totally out of control. And once an individual gets out of control, you do certain things that are not considered moral anymore. In the case of Adolf Hitler, his greed for power got him out of control in such a way that he absolutely needed to get what he wanted. I wouldn't doubt that if only Hitler was able to use his talent and potential in a good way, he would've been one of those leaders who would be remembered for his greatness. A new title for the movie would instead be Hitler: The Rise of a Great Leader.


But what strikes me the most in the movie is the quote of Edmund Burke :"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." It is true that the people surrounding Adolf Hitler acted too late before they realized that Hitler was dangerous. But what could be more ironic in featuring the quote is that even though some individuals who fought against Hitler (such as the journalist in the movie) could not win because Hitler had already killed them before they become powerful. Indeed, goodness could not prevail if evilness overshadows it. It wouldn't just take a few individuals to tear down evil but would need a myriad of people to fight for goodness to prevail.


Connecting this to our time today, it is a challenge for us to act right away and be responsible for the actions of other people. We should not let ourselves ignore those people (especially those who have the power) to do certain things that would affect us in some ways because if we would not "care" about those things, it might be too late for us to alter the things that other people have already done. We should also not tolerate our "walang pakialam" attitude towards other because who knows what other people can do that we might regret in the end. Through this, we can avoid history repeating itself.  

All the King's Men (1949)

Who would've thought that All the King's Men film adaptation was actually derived from the famous nursery rhyme Humpty-Dumpty?


"Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall,  
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall,
And all the king's horses and all the king's men 
 Couldn't put Humpty together again."


Based on the song, one would already have a gist on what happened to the story of All the King's Men... Humpty-Dumpty or Willie Stark in the film, is the king who suffered a great fall but his men could not put him back together. 


But the story isn't just as simple as that. What would be more intriguing in the film is how Willie Stark became a 'king' and eventually 'fell' just like Humpty Dumpty in the nursery rhyme.

The story begins with the narration of Jack Burden, a young newspaper reporter in Chronicle, who was assigned to write an article about a Southern aspiring politician named Willie Stark in Kanoma City. Willie Stark, who wishes to run as a County Treasurer in Kanoma, campaigned for reform and justice against the local County Commissioners who were corrupt and unjust. And even though Stark knew that he would lose in the elections, he still continued to spread the truth to the people.  This gave Jack the impression that Willie Stark is an ideal politician who is honest, sincere and principled. And yes, this was also our impression about Willie Stark as he continued to fight for what is truly right. But that impression only lasted until Willie Stark played "dirty" in politics in order to win. With his new principles, Willie Stark held on to the belief that "something good comes out of evil". Hence, he accepted money and bribery from his opponents to help the poor people. He used that money to put up hospitals, roads, schools and other infrastructures that uplifted the lives of the poor people in his state. And because of that, Willie won the hearts of the masses simply because of the "good things" he had done to them even though he became a dishonest and corrupt politician. Also, Willie Stark used blackmail as a weapon against his opponents to shut them up. Ultimately, Willie had total control over his people. The people closest to him were unable to escape his power and were forced to abide to his principles or ways. However, Willie faced his death when one of his men, Adam Stanton, assassinated him due to the issues involving his sister Anne and his uncle Judge Irwin.



While watching the movie, it may give us a hint that the story of Willie Stark is quite apparent in our time today. We may connect his story to the other life stories of some politicians seated in their "thrones". But what is sad about the life story of Willie Stark is how he embraced the "dark side" in order to make a change in the society. But I do believe that nothing good really comes out of evil. It is because when you start taking the "evil path", there would no longer be no room for any good actions. And even though you promise to yourself that you only have good intentions that's why you're embracing the "dark side", you would still be influenced by the dark ways. So it is like contradicting yourself from believing that good comes out of evil. Another problem with the belief that good comes out of evil is that even if the outcome becomes good, the nature or origin where it resulted from is already done in the bad way. So it would be unjust or unfair to say that the ends were good but the means of doing it were bad.



Just like Willie Stark at the start of the film, many aspiring politicians do have good intentions in making the world a better place. They fight for what they know is right and they always try their best to let the people know about the injustice and corruption happening inside the government. And indeed, just like many of us, they also seek for change. But because politics is such a hard game to play, they eventually had to change their game plan. They become influenced by the system and would ultimately forget what they believed for in the first place. And maybe these aspiring and honest politicians lead to their downfall because the more they lack the power, the more they seek for it. So they have to risk it all that it takes in order to achieve that power. And ultimately, the easiest way to achieve power is through playing the game of politics by how it should be played.  


As it turns out, it becomes a sad reality for us, especially those who desperately seek for change, because the people who we thought would change the realm of politics would turn out to be the same people who will betray us once they attain power. And yes, we may blame the system for becoming the root of evil in terms of politics. But I think that the politicians also have to shoulder the blame because they let themselves get influenced by the system instead of initiating for change. They become used and comfortable to the system because it has always been easier to follow the current system instead of changing it and starting again from scratch. 





But don't you guys think that we, as citizens, should also take a part from the blame because as Jack Burden portrayed in the film, even though we knew about the corruption and injustice done by "Willie Stark", we still did not do anything about it. We have turned a blind eye to those politicians because we knew that we had no responsibility for the actions of other people. As a result, we become affected by the actions done by those politicians we've turned a blind eye to.       
_________________________________________________________________________


I saw question from GradeSaver that is something good to ponder on...


"As governor, Willie Stark runs his administration ferociously, using dirty tricks, blackmail, and sometimes bribery to keep his opponents in line. Are such tactics always necessary in politics, sometimes necessary in bad circumstances, or never necessary or justified? "


_________________________________________________________________________
References Used:
All the King's Men Movie (1949) Summary: Retrieved from http://www.filmsite.org/allt.html
Grade Saver All the King's Men Study Guide: Retrieved from http://www.gradesaver.com/all-the-kings-men/study-guide/

Citizen Kane (1941)

Considered as one of the most highly-rated and famous films of all time, the classic masterpiece Citizen Kane has captured and exemplified the techniques and innovations of cinematography. The achievements of the film made it an outset for future film-makers in terms of executing different cinematic techniques.  But what is more interesting in the film is not just the techniques or the innovations it manifested, but  rather it is the story imbued in it. It revolves around the story of a powerful media emperor, Charles Foster Kane, who used his wealth and power to manipulate his political and social environment to take control over his people.  But eventually, he drove away the people who cared about him and found himself isolated in his own palace.  And as he lived his remaining years alone, the only thing that was on his mind and even until his last breath was 'Rosebud'. 


But who or what is rosebud anyway?Many people in the story tried to find the missing piece in the life of Kane but no one really discovered the answer. No one, even the people closest to Kane, never knew who he really was. And that is why it is difficult to interpret the life of Kane because it is  only Kane himself who knew what he wanted and what made him happy.

Hence, the rosebud was not a woman nor an expensive thing. It was the sled given to him by his parents when he was still young. This 'rosebud' symbolizes the innocence of his youth before he was being taken away from home and was exposed to the bittersweet reality of the 'American dream'. The rosebud also symbolizes for the life which he had grew up with- simple and peaceful. It is also through the symbolism of rosebud that Charles Foster Kane felt secured and loved by his mother who gave him away in exchange of a better future for him. And as he grew older without the guidance of his mother nor fulfilling the joys of being a kid, Kane knew that the memories of his youth was something that he could never get back. He then tried to fill in that empty space by controlling the people and purchasing a lot of extravagant things. He thought that what he did would replace and satisfy his hunger for love and acceptance but in the end, he had always knew that nothing can ever compare to the happiness that he had felt when he was young.

The film has demonstrated to us one of the most famous quotes of all time... that "money can't buy us happiness" nor love. It may sound a bit cliche but it is actually true. In the context of the film, Charles Foster Kane has indeed the money to buy all the things he can desire. He bought various extravagant things, statues, paintings, etc that reflected his wealth. He built a beautiful, spacious and grandiose palace that no one even knew how much it costed.  And although he had all the things he can desire of, Kane still felt discontented and empty. How could he enjoy the affluent life he had grown up with when he has no family to share it with? How could he enjoy the riches in the world when he had failed miserably in trying to find love and acceptance among the people?

.....And that one simple thing that can only make him happy that even money could not buy was his memory of his childhood. He knew he was better off without the riches in the world as long as he lived a simple, happy and peaceful life with his family.

In reality, most of us have been lured by the idea of acquiring material possessions to feel satisfied and contented. We are blinded by our eagerness to pursue something that we've always thought would make us feel happy.  In the process, we then become isolated to what we truly desire. We forget the little things that would have a more impact in our lives and that would fill in the gaps in our lives rather than helplessly looking for something that in the end would not satisfy us. And this is the irony or a contradiction of the film and reality. In the movie, Kane pursued in looking for his own 'rosebud' that would fill in the gaps of his childhood memory that he never got to enjoy. But in our own reality, we already have 'rosebud' that would make us feel contented and happy but we still choose to look for something better.

And maybe this is something that we can ponder on. We need to reflect on who or what is 'rosebud' in our lives and what do we do to try to hold on to that? ...because when that 'rosebud' leaves or been taken away from us, we become isolated from who we really are.

References/Guides used:

1. Citizen Kane Movie Review (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2011, from  http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html

2. SparkNotes Editors. (2004). SparkNote on Citizen Kane. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/film/citizenkane/