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/