Sunday, February 27, 2011

the last samurai review

last samurai review

the movie has a splendid cinematography. the director precisely depicted the different Japanese customs. even the costumes were scrupulously made and the fighting scenes are realistic. the Japanese people's elegance, meticulousness, industriousness  and  remarkable history was portrayed in utmost beauty in this movie. 
In all fairness to Tom Cruise's authentic action stunts, in my opinion. the character that out stands most was Ken Watanabe who played as Katsumoto. just by looking at him gave us a sense of respect to his great stature. he always had the air of dignity and honor in him, characteristics that were consistent and undisputed throughout the movie. moreover, his character gave us a wider and better view of what is it to be a samurai. that being such is not at all times living in blood thirst battles but also in love and devotion to his country and duty towards his people. 

furthermore, this movie delineated the conflict between the eradication of past culture to gave ingress to the modern world. it is a constant warring even on contemporary times the tag-of-war between the relinquishing of ones tradition to embrace the modern ways. it is a challenge on each nation on how to remain or continue the traditions even in the advent of technology. the movie in all aspects revolved around this conflict or this theme. 
verily sacrifices are essential for a nation to prosper. but what made a nation are its traditions, customs and beliefs, so it isn't rational and it makes no sense to eradicate these.



Saturday, February 26, 2011

her eye..


her left eye left me speechless.
so nomadic. so fierce.
inner flame waiting.
lynx.
vertigo.
ESOTERIC.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

i just can't sleep

but literature is not just the meaning of the symbol in it and how it reflects to us, but in appreciating literature we ask ourselves how we came up with the meaning. why we thought it to be that way and what are the process we underwent to decipher the symbol behind. why it took us this long or this short to understand deeply the subject of contemplation. and in the whole process, in the process alone, what did it made of us? how did we define the process and  how did the process define us?

***

searching for oneself is in truth not a search, but a recollection or an acquittance of the self you know you are yet was hidden, of the self you never knew you could be, or the self that is who you are from the beginning. and through literature we begin to acquaint or know ourselves more. not just ourselves but life and the people around us. we peep at  the windows of our recluse selves and find that there a lot of people outside who verily are interconnected with you consciously or not. therefore, literature is a beautiful window of the walls of yourself. and because it is the window, it includes the curtains that gradually filters the winds of the past and the present.

***

why am i frank? does it mean that i'm frank then i'm being rude on you? no, you don't understand. in the contrary i'm making things easier for you. if i'm going to kill the hope on you, it's like giving you another life. why prolong the torment if you will still perceive the same torment in the end?

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

a lot of things i realized tonight

it's not just the mere discussion and appreciation of the literary pieces but how it transcend and reflect on different cultures, philosophies, and forms and systems of human life. primarily, it is where literature springs itself. literature is the manifestation of an answer, of a daily philosophy that is hidden within intricately and scrupulously woven words. and in deciphering  its beautiful riddles and conundrums that we disclose the meaning of the literary piece and of life itself. it is by digging deep the depth of its semiotics that we realize the shallowness and profoundness of life and the system we are living.
tonight i enjoyed and indulged myself to another literary piece and that was of Gibran's The prophet. i knew from the begging that my report wouldn't just be a sole reporting and dishing out of facts and meanings of the poem. nevertheless, it would be a discussion or a conversation and a debate of different perspectives and opinions from people in various walks of life. it would be an exchange of rebuttals and propositions within the group. verily, i was delighted and even excited with the thought that i would be listening and conversing with people who really makes sense, who can really defend their stands. it would be an attempt to intertwine the bizarre and the absurd, the fiction and the fact. it would be a transcendence of different knowledge and experiences in which our philosophies and idealism sprung. 

***
a classmate spoke to me earlier this evening that my classmates in a certain subject is making fun of the way i speak, i don't know if it's my accent or my grammar though i know it's correct, or is it my diction. nevertheless, this classmate of mine said that my classmates are secretly chuckling every time i speak up or discuss things in front. she said that she's deeply concerned with me and that's why she took the initiatives to inform of my current status in class. i don't know if she's profound of the word "concern" cause visibly it didn't even show a hint. but what my concern is not my stratum in class but the shallowness and stupidity of my classmates thoughts including that of the "concerned" classmate. 
first, i would like to say that i can speak in different accents. i have a smooth grammar and i trust my diction. i even try to appropriate my terms into the level of there understanding. i even spend most of my saliva in interpreting the point in the simplest way i can, in the simplest way their brain can comprehend.
second, it's not my problem anymore if you guys are too dumb or too influenced with your notions that you're dumb. believe me when i say that there are no such people as stupid or dumb when they are willing to learn. i can say that a person is a fool if he says no to knowledge and fears new learning. 
there is this one instance when this "concern" classmate reprimanded me for speaking in English because her opinion was that why would i use the language if most of my classmates can't understand it. i was seriously taken aback with what she said. i mean, isn't it alarming?? these are graduating students yet they don't know basic english! how did they survived college and all of their other English medium classes if they are having hard time comprehending the book... which are mostly written in  English! 
so i made a side comment about it and said: "guys, did you heard what she just said? well, she thinks you're dumb because you can't understand my simple English. how pathetic."  
oh please, prove her wrong! because i don't think you are.
third, i believe that i don't have to conform myself with the system our class is in. i don't even have to attach myself to you though friendly acquaintances will be entertained. but to subside myself in such a level will do me no good and to you as well.  how will you learn if you will confine yourself on the little learning  you attain now. how will you know wisdom and knowledge if you'll keep on mocking others and not see yourself as someone who could be greater and better as a person. this could only be achieve through profound willingness to learn. 
please don't stop with the current notion and grow and prune to be someone greater. please don't be stocked in the mediocrity of life...to laugh at others because you don't know what she's talking about.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

The Prophet

Gibran in 1897. Told he was a mystic
Gibran in 1897. Told he was a mystic—“a young prophet”—he began to see himself that way. Photograph by Fred Holland Day.
Shakespeare, we are told, is the best-selling poet of all time. Second is Lao-tzu. Third is Kahlil Gibran, who owes his place on that list to one book, “The Prophet,” a collection of twenty-six prose poems, delivered as sermons by a fictional wise man in a faraway time and place. Since its publication, in 1923, “The Prophet” has sold more than nine million copies in its American edition alone. There are public schools named for Gibran in Brooklyn and Yonkers. “The Prophet” has been recited at countless weddings and funerals. It is quoted in books and articles on training art teachers, determining criminal responsibility, and enduring ectopic pregnancy, sleep disorders, and the news that your son is gay. Its words turn up in advertisements for marriage counsellors, chiropractors, learning-disabilities specialists, and face cream.
“The Prophet” started fast—it sold out its first printing in a month—and then it got faster, until, in the nineteen-sixties, its sales sometimes reached five thousand copies a week. It was the Bible of that decade. But the book’s popularity should not be laid entirely at the door of the hippies. “The Prophet” was a hit long before the sixties (it made good money even during the Depression), and sales after that decade have never been less than healthy—a record all the more impressive in that it is due almost entirely to word of mouth. Apart from a brief effort during the twenties, “The Prophet” has never been advertised. Presumably in honor of this commercial feat, Everyman’s Library has now brought out “Kahlil Gibran: The Collected Works” ($27.50), with a pretty red binding and a gold ribbon for a bookmark. While most people know Gibran only as the author of “The Prophet,” he wrote seventeen books, nine in Arabic and eight in English. The Everyman’s volume contains twelve of them.
The critics will no doubt greet it with the same indifference they have shown Gibran ever since his death, in 1931. Even his publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, brushed him off. When Knopf was asked, in 1965, who the audience for “The Prophet” was, he replied that he had no idea. “It must be a cult,” he said—an ungrateful response from the man to whom “The Prophet” had been a cash cow for more than forty years. In 1974, a cousin of the poet’s, also named Kahlil Gibran, and his wife, Jean, published a good biography, “Kahlil Gibran: His Life and World.” Then, in 1998, came the more searching “Prophet: The Life and Times of Kahlil Gibran,” by Robin Waterfield, a translator of ancient Greek literature. But until the first of those books appeared—that is, for forty-three years after Gibran’s death—there was no proper biography of this hugely influential author. Both Waterfield and the Gibrans complain about the literati’s lack of respect for their subject—Waterfield blames it on snobbery, “hard-hearted cynicism”—but the facts they dug up were not such as to improve his reputation.
Part of the reason there were no real biographies is that little was known about Gibran’s life, and the reason for that is that he didn’t want it known. One point that seems firm is that he was born in Lebanon, in a village called Bsharri, in 1883. At that time, Lebanon was part of Syria, which in turn was part of the Ottoman Empire. Gibran, by his account, was a brooding, soulful child. From his earliest years, he said, he drew constantly—painting was his first art and, for a long time, as important to him as writing—and he communed with nature. When a storm came, he would rip off his clothes and run out into the torrent in ecstasy. His mother, Kamileh, got others to leave her strange boy alone. “Sometimes,” Gibran later recalled, “she would smile at someone who came in . . . and lay her finger on her lip and say, ‘Hush. He’s not here.’ ”
Gibran’s father was not a good provider. He owned a walnut grove, but he didn’t like working it. He preferred drinking and gambling. He eventually got a job as a tax collector, but then he was arrested for embezzlement. Poor before, the family now became destitute. In 1895, Kamileh packed up her four children—Bhutros, Kahlil (then twelve), Marianna, and Sultana—and sailed to America. They settled in Boston, in the South End, a squalid ghetto filled with immigrants from various countries. (Today, it is Boston’s Chinatown.) Kamileh, like many other Syrian immigrants, became a pack peddler; that is, she went door to door, selling lace and linens out of a basket she carried on her back. Within a year, she had put aside enough money to set Bhutros up in a drygoods store. The two girls were sent out to work as seamstresses; neither ever learned to read or write. Kahlil alone was excused from putting food on the table. He went to school, for the first time.
He also enrolled in an art class at a nearby settlement house, and through his teacher he was sent to a man named Fred Holland Day. In European art, this was the period of the Decadents. Theosophy, espoused by Madame Blavatsky, became a craze. People went to séances, dabbled in drugs, and scorned the ugly-hearted West in favor of the more spiritual East. Above all, they made a religion of art. Day, thirty-two years old and financially independent, was a leader of the Boston outpost of this movement. He wore a turban, smoked a hookah, and read by candlelight. He did serious work, however. He and his friends founded two arts magazines, and he was a partner in a publishing house that produced exquisite books. By the eighteen-nineties, though, Day’s main interest was photography. He particularly liked to photograph beautiful young boys of “exotic” origin, sometimes nude, sometimes in their native costumes, and he often recruited them from the streets of the South End. When the thirteen-year-old Gibran turned up at Day’s door, in 1896, he became one of the models. Day was especially taken with Gibran. He made him his pupil and assistant, and he introduced him to the literature of the nineteenth century, the Romantic poets and their Symbolist inheritors. Robin Waterfield, in his biography, says that this syllabus, with its emphasis on suffering, prophecy, and the religion of love, was the rock on which Gibran built his later style. According to Waterfield, Day also gave Gibran his “pretensions.” Imagine what it was like for a child from the ghetto to walk into this world of comfort and beauty, a world, furthermore, where a person could make a life of art. Fortuitously, Gibran already fitted into Day’s milieu in a small way: he was “Oriental.” Day made a fuss over Gibran’s origins, treated him, Waterfield says, like a “Middle Eastern princeling.” Gibran looked the part. He was very handsome, and also reticent. A later mentor declared him a mystic, “a young prophet.” (This was before he had published anything professionally.) And so he began to see himself that way.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

ako, ako, at ako pa!

 pa cute.
 normal!
 suspicious.
 pout!
Sleeping.

Monday, February 14, 2011

something for he♥rt's day

How to survive valentine's day without being and feeling pathetic?

a. hang out with friends who has the same status with you. 
b. read books and lots of them. i recommend mystery, intellectual and suspense thrillers. 
c. solve difficult math problems.
d. decipher codes, figure out riddles.
e. go outside and observe people. make sure you're several meters away from them, just right distance for viewing.  and then you could start making up stories in your head about the different scenarios happening. it could be a comic dialogue between sweet couples or about groups of people.
 this is best done with a company so that you won't look stupid jerking and laughing alone. or better yet buy Piattos.
f. lecture on safe sex and make people aware of the different sexually transmitted diseases.
e. make a table showing the statistics of people getting pregnant, acquiring HIVs and STDs, taking suicide, and breaking up during V-days.
g. make a table showing the rapid increase on capitalists revenues during V-days. besides, they were greatly affected by the season. i even believe that they are the ones who invented V-day. nyayks!
h. recluse yourself at home. don't go out unless if it's for calls of nature. 
i. make a list on how to survive valentine's day without being and feeling pathetic.
j. Sleep the whole day.
k. clean your house.
l. just forget V-days ever existed.

and a lot more!!! singles, don't feel so down during valentine's day cause there's a lot of people out there who were wishing to be on your shoes. valentine's are not just for two people who are sexually and emotionally and physically attracted with each other. but also for people, singles like us who also wants to mingle and to be mingled with. it's not because it's V-day then you should withdraw yourself. go out there and have fun!

however, if you're as apathetic as me. who just wants to spend the day at the library or bookstores then care less what others think. if they're thinking that you should be more sociable today just ignore them and go on with your usual pace. you can always choose not to go along with their celebrations of mediocrity. why would you heed them anyway. they're not the ones feeding you. right?

it's just how you perceive Valentine's day, some sees it romantic and others plain. just happens that i see it plain this time, for no definite reason actually. i spent the day reading books and sleeping. (oh include this one.)


About Me

My photo
once in a while you chance to meet people from the inside universe of their own.