Ploning (Film)

One way to read a film is to understand the concept of space. Film, especially in realism, should capture the elements of montage and mise-en-scene. Montage creates the illusion of conformity in events and mise-en-scene supplies the imaginary map of almost all the cinematic elements used by a director namely the actors (characters), production design (setting and costumes), art direction (arrangement of the decor and furniture), cinematography (lighting and camera movements) and visual effects (techniques in distorting the images).

Space would include memory, silence, verbal and non-verbal pauses, nuances, beats, incidental sound and composition.

These two very important elements were not evident in the film. Director Garcia might have overlooked on this since he poured in over into the story telling device which, as a director, is not vital. The case is: Trust your material and visually comply to the standards of excellent cinematic elements.

The material text of "Ploning" has a simple question and that is, from the boy's point of view, "Is this my hometown where I have left for a very long time?" "I want to remember" is the most basic answer to the question.

Andre Bazin, the theorist behind The Ontology of Photographic Image, suggests that: "realism is more a matter of psychology than of esthetics. He does not make a simple equation between film and reality, as does Kracauer, but rather describes a more subtle relationship between the two in which the film is the asymptote to reality, the imaginary line that the geometric curve approaches but never touches." p. 407, How To Read A Film: James Monaco

The film ended to be stiff and artificial as opposed to the Italian neo-realism's (De Sica's Bicycle Thief, Tornatore's Cinema Paradiso) nostalgic truth. In a nostalgic mood, narration should be seamless. Apparently, the film likes to talk and even talks too much. The significance of silence in memory should not be directed but psychoanalyzed.

Eugene Domingo's portrayal must have been a triumph if she magnifies the concept of memory and silence. Her function is supposedly the memory (whereas before she could still walk) of the past and silence ( the decaying aspect means death) of the present. There is no future. She should have been the key character to nostalgia. Judy Ann Santos is another device. Her character shares with that of the film "Malena." Unfortunately, her character is insignificant with nostalgic mood. She should have done a different role which would make her portrayal unpredictable. The one who is reminiscing, the boy-man, should have knitted the whole piece but it did not work in its essence. Other actors included did not know what to do. they were very confused and misled. Even Gina Pareno's portrayal was not purposive though has the capabilities. Meryl Soriano, Mylene Dizon, Ketchup Usebio, Tony Mabesa, Ces Quesada and Tessie Tomas did not help achieve truth in realism.

The montage (editing) was so badly done. Abruptions in the eyes were too much not to bother it. It always starts and ends with an intended pose of the actors involved and its movements of the actors were overly-directed.

The mise-en-scene: cinematography (lighting and camera movements) was purely mechanical and did not create the necessary symbolical representations in the film. production design (setting and costumes) had created partially what it was intended to do but wrongly used by the director. This is not only for aesthetic purposes but for functionality as well.Music was so usual ( teleserye ) and did not help move the film. Leitmotiff is used best in this kind of film, again, wrongly used and irritating at most in important scenes.

Overall, the film has so much to say. Nostalgia is not one of those. Truth in memory is missing. Silence is nowhere. What else do we have in a "nostalgic" film "Ploning"?

This film needs an impressionistic (inner) device perhaps.

This film has a lot of disappearances more than its acquired appearance.