White Lady

Rating:	★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Horror

“White Lady”
Boots Anson-Roa, Angelica Panganiban, Pauleen Luna
Directed by Jeff Tan
Regal Films, 2006

In art and literature, Aristotle is often quoted for having said that all art is imitation—the Greek word for his concept is mimesis. Thus, you have the concept of the word mimicry for the animal behavior of adapting to their environment for survival, or mime, that theater style famous in beauty contests or high school theater arts.

Jeff Tan’s “White Lady” must have taken this definition too literally that the film is a hodgepodge of some ingenious works that we have previously seen onscreen.

“White Lady” opens quite cinematically, with zoom-in shots of the classroom chairs where the sort of epilogue for the story commences. Kind of tells you this is a serious picture to reckon with. Kind of thrills you, really. But as the movie progresses, we are made to infer that the sensibilities being showcased one after another are the ones we must have seen in a number of movies produced in the past.

A number of scenes in the film remind us of those in the Ring, The Grudge, Willard, or even Feng Shui, and all other stuffs horror flicks are made of.

Of course, we say an artist can normally be a product of his influences. But for his part, being too imitative to the point of copying quite accurately what was done before is synonymous to plagiarism—an act that encroaches anyone’s right to intellectual property, such as those who made these previous films.

Such act highly resembles the act of photocopying articles from a book, and using them for one’s own purpose.

The storyline is not original as it takes off from the white lady myth and the supernatural details we must have head over all our superstitious country.

We can cite instances of the lack of originality.

The way all the kontrabidas die in the film reminds you of Kris Aquino’s Feng Shui, in which characters die according to their own year in the Chinese calendar—dragon, horse, snake, boa constrictor?, etc. Similarly in this film lacking originality, antagonists die according to their fear, probably because the White Lady herself knew about all of them, when she hovered in the campout where they phobia session took place.

The white lady coming out of the canvas reminds you of Sadako coming out of the television screen towards the end of the Ring which shocked people in 2002. The white lady spewing out smoke and ashes [right, because she was burned in the tool shed] makes you recall the horror specimen in the Grudge, both films anyway had their Hollywood
versions.

The computer graphics work involving rats overwhelming one male character, the playing dolls moving and walking reminding you of 80s horror flicks where monsters and mumus were rolled on wheels, etc., or the mirror being shattered on the face of the lead female kontrabida, have yet to be polished so as to appear realistic, er believable. They have to be so—after all, everything in the film discipline must be make believe, a mimicry, an imitation. Logically, then, we should be made to believe.

Furthermore, Iwa Moto’s Mimi tells us that Moto is not an actress—her coñita twang and even a Koreanovela countenance do not match quite acceptably. Her final scene, though, matches up with her hackneyed acting as she dies of the shattered glass from the mirror. She is supposed to render the story much tension—with her original evil character, but she falls short of evil—just laughable in her cliché performance. Seriously, that is not a good thing for someone newly introduced in the industry, maybe. We can even wonder why she was discovered to act.

Meanwhile, the Ilonggo twang, according to my Ilongga companion, does not even sound believable, as she observed some inaccuracies or un-grammatical Ilonggo sentences in the dialogues. The director must have capitalized on Gian Carlos’ Ilonggo roots, but the un-grammatical sentences in the script did not save the Ilonggo sensibility.

The “Ili-ili” (Hiligaynon for lullaby) theme, though, gets both our praise and flak. While it brings to an Ilonggo a sense of nostalgia, the actress’s lip synching another singer’s voice three or four times throughout the film suffices more than enough that he has seen more of such stuffs in television variety shows, where singers are said to be “singing” when they are not. At least in music videos or MTVs, we can forgive the swelling vocals [sounds] because it is timed accurately with the singer’s actual singing.

Citing the flaws of the film should make you curious about it. True. So, there. There’s not much else to say about it then.

To be fair, though, let’s ask, “What are the film’s sources of redemption, if any? What are its pluses, if applicable?”

Pauleen Luna’s Pearl is simply engaging. Luna is a promising actress with her un-hackneyed countenance as the female lead who faces the dilemma, and who closes it satisfactorily in the final scene. Her pretty face does not fail to refresh the audience who is compelled to negotiate an otherwise dark, hackneyed storyline.

Angelica Panganiban’s Christina, the white lady herself, shines in her own way, too. Her portrayal as the innocent victim and a vengeful angel of death is quite portrayed with originality, complementing Boots Anson-Roa’s wicked [or weak-ed] Ilongga Lola Tasya, who gets away with her accent slightly unscathed, and who succumbs to the same predicament as her granddaughter Christina [but who finds herself in the middle of a Tanging Yaman poster in the final scene].

All the other characters, it should be noted, are pathetically stock characters. They are the cliché roles that we see being portrayed day in and day out on soaps [and other suds] on television. There’s nothing new about them.

That the film ends in a melodramatic way [anyway, scenes all throughout vacillate between Love to Love Season 10? and Shake, Rattle and Roll V] tells us that it is not a horror film after all. Perhaps it is something else. Or something else? Makes us think of the film otherwise by asking, “What is the film trying to do, if at all?” Ah.

In all, they say the best thing to constructively critique a badly made film is to ignore it, or not to review it at all. Or cite it at the end of the year as the worst this and that. Razzi Awards, etc. Of course not.

We believe in what the young people can do—so we do not just sit down and be apathetic to it like the rest of the world. At best, we could point out some things for consideration so next time they produce anything, we will not be shortchanged.

All art is imitation, it is said—but some people take it quite literally. Sadly.