no dinner, so i raided the fridge and made it myself

sandwich of toasted wheat bread, spinach-artichoke cream cheese, "excellente" Quiapo ham, and tomato slices.

two scoops of sweet corn ice cream with walnuts and banana slices

glass of california red

i should "make" my own dinners more often. its hours later and im still so satisfied with it. he he.

just a little hiccup this morning 'coz my data analysis software (SPSS) expired. something wrong with the license code i got in Ateneo. remedied it by switching gears and using STATA instead. that worked out, and the program actually seems superior, for my needs.

so this afternoon, i've been 'mucking around' with the data. this is where the art side of economics is supposed to happen. you got a whole pile of variables (im dealing with around fifteen), and from doing all these runs you're supposed to find a well-specified model lurking around somewhere. well, it's also partially voodoo magic if you're preparing a paper that isn't so much for publication as it is for a requirement. i'd like to think that i'm still more of the former mindset. . .im not getting drained by this. not yet.

I finished the Provence book, and in record time too, 'coz i knew that not finishing it would just distract me from this paper. i miss living in a french environment (french, NOT swiss).

i've been running into my students lately. just this evening i bumped into one of them in Shakey's, and another two at Starbucks. they call me 'sir', which is something i easily got used to. i think it's just another way of saying 'kuya' though, in my opinion. coz im not that much older than them (max 6 years)

i've been making some decent progress with my thesis. im ready to write starting tomorrow. the theoretical framework is practically there -- which has been the major stumbling block for the longest time. now, comes the easier (yet tedious) business of analyzing the data. i move from theory to empirics. now that we've gotten a justifiable framework on the ground, we have to give the data the right treatment. all of this work has to become a decent draft due for submission exactly 1 week from now. i'm glad that i have a wonderful chunk of 3 days of no school just before submission. a LOT of work can be done then. hopefully more polishing than cramming. i will start the runs of the data tomorrow. if you are one my few friends who the ins and outs of logistic regressions, expect phone calls during this week.

quite a bit, as usual, has happened since last entry. i've been buying a whole bunch of books lately -- this is just the influence of hanging around more literay people. they buy books like fast-food meals. book moratoria occasionally become necessary, as well. the sports/active life has taken a backseat for a while, which is a little ironic because the AXN show begins this week, and runs for the next 3. there was a little mall tour last saturday, and despite the fact that it could have become very cheesy and jologgy really fast, that didn't happen. Tricia Chiongbian helped Revilson with the hosting duties and she actually had to say my name. wow. i always thought she was cool. we met Kerry's wife and kids. cute. they'll jump out of a plane to skydive someday.

sunday morning, building brownie pts with mr dad, i went on a litle quiapo tour with Dr. Zialcita. it was ok, learned a few things, but it really isn't for the normal tourist. going around quiapo is interesting, but it also is a study in urban decay and mismanagement. empty, deteriorating houses, and other urban problems. still, bright spots: like the Nakpil house just behind the Quiapo church, and news that the U-Belt community plans to revitalize the areas around their campuses. that is an excellent first start. we have to move beyond the sensibilities and tastes of people like Mayor Lim though. im glad that ppl like him get stuff done, but things could still be so much better. whoever heard of not wanting to support socialized housing because of a problem of too much migration. ridiculous. what a backward way of thinking. what am i talking about here? send me a buzz.

food tripping around quiapo is fun. miki bihon at the panciteria is TASTY. the handmade hopia is actually better than the stuff in Binondo ('coz its factory-style there). pops bought some excelente ham and some wholesale nestle's crunch. had a lovely lap sunday afternoon after all that walking. i now have a further notion of streets in Manila, as well as geographical appreciation of how small Quiapo is. Calle Hidalgo connects San Sebastian to the Catedral de Nazareno. The Golden Mosque is also in the area. The place is just brimming with promise (like Intramuros). You just have to fix it up a bit, as well as adopt a more sensible approach of dealing with the poor residents living in these places. You can't see them as social parasites needing eviction. I like the word Dr. Zialcita used: monolithic. You can't see Intramuros as a monolithic structure, something for tourism. It has to be planned in such a way to deal with the social realities that exist. This makes a lot of sense.

i bought a fluffy book today: Mayle's A Year in Provence.

two movies

i wonder if i realize that i spent about a thousand bucks (to my international blog audience, approx only 20 US$, but that is a bit in these parts) in greenbelt last night. it only hit me now, the lunch after. 200 bucks in parking, around 300 hundred on movies, 300 on dinner and another 250 on alcohol-infused coffee.

no regrets though, 'coz i thought it was money well spent. i use hindsight, again, to realize that the night was actually an operation in comfort and nostalgia. dinner at banana leaf and curry, killing time and gossiping in Segafredo -- for those who don't know me in certain sense, this place is classic. Watched A Very Long Engagement in the early afternoon, and caught the midnight showing of Phantom of the Opera. Both movies were good, you should watch them. I just don't have the energy now to properly review and properly explain why I found them both good, in their own ways.

I'll clip here though a review I found decent on IMDB.com, a place I go to AFTER I watch an interesting movie. Someone asked me to review A Very Long Engagement after I'd seen it, well we'll see if I ever get around to that. In the meantime, here's the review below, which I don't think the author will really mind if I post it here.



Author: endymion82 from San Francisco, CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

So, I usually don't qualify my reviews, but this movie is sort of special, and the comments I've read are from all over the map so I feel I should give some idea of where I'm coming from too.

I've been an playwrite, actor, and director for years, with work of mine have been doing both domestically and internationally, and having appeared in plays both amateur and professional and every level in between, including a professional opera and many a musical: whenever I watch anything, I approach it on three levels: artist, critic and audience. Also, I grew up seeing shows on Broadway, both mega-musicals and little indy plays in the Village, and while generally speaking my tastes lean more towards "arty and indy", I do have a broader pallet and it would be more accurate to say that my real interest is piqued by anything that is genuinely good at being what it is- which is one way of describing "Phantom of the Opera." Because yes, it's not as complec and intelligent as the work of Sondheim, or Kander and Ebb, but for what it sets out to be, an enthralling and absorbing Gothic romance (a genre that is rarely done well on stage, let alone as a musical), it achieves on every level: the score (which is soaring and crashing and large, just like the emotions of the characters who sing it), the design (ornate and overwhelming and grand guigol to the hilt), the story (which is totally ridiculous on some level, but since gothicism and romance are both genres which celebrate the extremes of our minds and imaginations, this is totally appropriate). "Phantom" is a brilliant example of art where the content and the style of the rendering of that content fit each other to a tea, and while it may not be YOUR cup of tea I sort of feel that anyone who thinks it's crap has basically missed the point or is just sour grapes because the thing is so damn popular and so damn good at being what it is (and lets face it, it's hard not to resent a success sometimes). Genius is often ridiculed, especially genius of an unusual nature or in a somewhat unconventional field (and Gothic romance, be it novel, film or musical, is looked down on in general, usually for the very qualities that make it interesting) and Webber's work is genius, because "Phantom" is, for all its faults, tightly written, a brilliant balance of camp, melodrama, satire and fairy tale, and while the style of music might not work for each listener, it effectively illuminates the story and conveys what is most important about the characters: their titantic (albeit, somewhat simple-minded) emotions, desires, fears and obsessions.

*SPOILERS*

The movie, in my opinion, takes what is best about the play and does it even better. Though some of my favorite bits from the stage show (the rehearsal of Don Jaun where the piano plays itself, Raoul's part in "Wondering Child") are gone, they have been dropped in favor of brilliant improvements, namely having the chandelier crash at the conclusion of the film (it really brings the whole thing full circle), and allowing more glimpses of Paris 1917, finally explaining why it is Raoul returns, what happens to the Phantom, etc. Other good bits that we see now but never saw onstage: an affectionate moment between Meg and Madame Giry, some history of the Phantom, a deeper sense of what Meg may know or not know about the Phantom's presence, the stalking of Josephe Bouquet, the life of the underclass of the opera house, the Hall of Mirrors from the book, etc. Also, the music has been beautifully re-orchestrated, and never sounded better. I'll take orchestra over canned synths, any day, thank you.

The cinematography is beautiful and the "opera" moments are well done- complete with the cornball, almost intrusive dancing and vibrant but totally unrealistic sets and costumes that characterized "grand opera" at the time. The sense of constant claustrophobia back stage is great, and adds to that sense of what it was like to live and work in this tiny world where everyone is a performer and half your wardrobe comes from the costume department (did anyone else catch that moment where Christine takes her dress from the wardrobe?), adding to the central question at "Phantom's" core- what (who) is real, and what (who) is an illusion- and is real preferable to illusion, or vice-vera? The bleedingly bright colors and deep shadows of the movie help echo all of this- reminding us always, this story is not real, hero on white charger and all, but we don't want it to be: it's a legend, it's a fairy tale, it's a farce... it's a masquerade. It's, as the Auctioneer says, "a strange affair." "Phantom" told and acted realistically, totally wouldn't work, so don't ask it to, or judge it that way.

The best thing about this movie is the performances, and the director has done a wonderful thing by moving AWAY from Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, both of whom gave role defining performances, neither of which are any more "correct" than any other. The question isn't, are Butler and Rossum as good as their predecessors, but rather do their versions of the characters work, and the answer is: yes. Return to "Phantom" as a text, not as a show with a history, and you'll see that Christine is supposed to be dreamy, lost, emotionally unstable and young, just as Rossum plays and sings the role. Butler, with his harsher singing and deeper range, is much more believable as a madman who is sometimes pathetic and pitable, but still ultimately a deranged egomaniac who lives underground and makes wax statues of the woman he loves. The rest of the cast is equally good, with Minnie Driver giving a heroically hysterical performance, Jennifer Ellison combining strength and curiosity with innocence and a certain grounded quality (I've always believed the audience is ultimately supposed to identify with Meg, who is the only character who never panics and maintains a healthy sense of "reality) that contrasts nicely with Rossum's morbid dreaminess, and Patrick Wilson doing much more with Raoul than any of the actors I've seen on stage. I wish Simon Callow had had more to do, but such is life- at least he was there. Miranda Richardson continues to prove she can play anything, and conveying more with a look than most actresses can with a full script of dialogue. Her accent is totally brilliant: it sets her apart, makes her glamorous and mysterious, and at the same time, is another sly tongue in cheek reminder that what we are watching should only be believed to a point: it is, after all, just another version of beauty and the beast.

why im going to do some reading tonight

the day began pretty cerebral, i finished my take home midterm from dr. de dios. thankfully, it all seemed to come together in the last minute. good work, pleased with it. later in the afternoon, watched the ateneo-ust football game, don't know what came of it because maita and i left to attend the queer theory talk, which was pretty interesting, and also profitable, because im beginning to piece together the reasons why maita and i, on occasion, seem to be on totally different wavelengths.

one big thing, is, both of our conception of the term neo-liberalism. for me, it begins and ends with the economic theory behind it, and i always assumed that other people appreciated that this what my treatment of it. i never went to the politics behind it. and it's true what dr. manalansan says. neoliberal (spanish) for these bolivians and mexicans. it's not an academic term. it's imbued with more meanings -- the politics behind it. so when i called myself a neo, a Davos person and not a Punto Alegre one, people saw Bush, Giuliani. there is a big gap between what i seem to represent and what i actually conceive in my mind.

anyway, these are just more piece of the puzzle coming together. it's a good thing. the queer theory talk, well it wasn't anything new to me really. but it did re-awaken /remind me of how public spaces are destroyed and taken over by other forces. yes.

brief tidbits: a. the speaker answering the question of what to do --> that one flew over my head. steering away advocacy of only one issues. different marginal groups coming together to advocate for each other, maita will have to explain that more to me. b. marx is still a dirty word in the american academe c. scary revelation; i think more like the american academe than i realize and remember (and this is not in the good sense, but in the more of you-were-clueless as to the roots of your thinking sense) c. he forgot to mention why he didn't like using the word gentrification

p.s. we drew with UST. 1-1. good 'coz we were behind most of the way

spent a bit of time with Charlene this week, which meant that I got more than my usual dose of conversations about literature and music. went over to Magallanes last night, how nice to know where that is -- for my own secret reasons --, to watch the Triplets of Belleville. Ok, here's the deal with that movie. It's starts of exonarably slow (". . .now, I know why Nemo kicked it's butt in the Academy Awards. . .").

The musical score is quite good though, and stylistically interesting. French Canadians are behind it. I figure this movie is best watched in a nice den, where you can be languid, and get distracted by pets and other books, and you can then glance up and pick up from where you left off. It's stylistic, it's art. It's a good "in-the-background" film (gasp, blasphemy. but hey it works that way too.)

Caught film shorts of Tim Burton. Frankenweenie, and Vincent. Quite good. Ended the night with more Capuccino Crema (if all coffee tasted like that I'd have 3 cups a day). Charlene booked me for the rest of next week for A Very Long Engagement & Phantom of the Opera.

Have been consuming a lot of film, books, plays lately, relatively speaking. Almost escapist. . .ALMOST, but not.