Berdasarkan jalannya diskusi setelah pemutaran film oleh SIpAL (Sociedad Indonesia para America Latina) 29 April 2013.

Durasi film Amores perros ini cukup lama, yaitu 154 menit atau sekitar 2,5 jam, ditambah lagi alur cerita film ini yang sangat khas Amerika Latin, alias (biasanya) berjalan cukup lama, lambat atau tidak terburu-buru.
Ada banyak hal yang dibahas dalam diskusi film Amores perros kali ini. Pertama pembicara membuka diskusi dengan secara singkat menceritakan kembali filmnya, bagaimana film ini menggambarkan kekerasan dengan gamblang, bagaimana keadaan Mexico awal tahun 2000an sangat mempengaruhi latar belakang film, kemudian bertanya pada peserta dari ketiga plot cerita (yang saling berkaitan) yang diceritakan dalam film, plot cerita mana yang paling disukai. Banyak peserta diskusi yang menjawab bahwa plot ketiga, yaitu plot cerita berjudul El Chivo y Maru, yang menceritakan tentang seorang pria tua bernama El Chivo. Sekilas pandang El Chivo hidup seperti seorang gelandangan bersama anjing-anjingnya, tetapi sebenarnya El Chivo dalah seorang pembunuh bayaran yang profesional dan merupakan mantan anggota pemberontakan gerilya.

Kemudian pembicara membawa arah diskusi untuk mengeksplor plot El Chivo y Maru ini. Pertama, bahwa bagaimana penampilan seseorang dapat begitu menipu dan menentukan pandangan orang lain atau masyarakat. Melihat El Chivo sekali pandang, peserta diskusi tidak ada yang mengira bahwa ia lebih dari seorang gelandangan, bahwa ia seorang pembunuh bayaran, bahwa ia punya otak dan punya hati serta masa lalu yang kelam. Pembicara menambahkan bahwa dalam kehidupan sehari-hari kita, stereotype, labelling, stigma begitu kental. Contohnya dengan hidup di Yogyakarta, pembicara sangat merasakan bagaimana ia dilabelling sebagai orang Bali (diikuti oleh stereotype negatifnya) dan bagaimana orang Indonesia dari bagian timur, yang banyak menimba ilmu di Yogyakarta, harus menerima labelling dan stereotype negatif dari masyarakat. Misalnya stereotype bahwa orang Indonesia dari timur suka ribut dan suka minum (intinya preman) sampai-sampai ada beberapa tempat yang menolak kehadiran mereka.

Menggelikan. Menurut saya, fakta bahwa banyak dari antara kita menyebut ‘orang Indonesia timur’ sendiri adalah sebuah diskriminasi (terlepas dari fakta bahwa secara geografis hal ini memang benar adanya); ada kesan bahwa mereka dianggap berbeda dan bukan bagian dari Indonesia selayaknya yang lain. Saya dari Batam dan orang tidak pernah menyebut saya orang Indonesia dari barat, begitu juga halnya dengan teman-teman yang bersuku Aceh, Batak, Minang atau yang berasal dari Indonesia bagian barat lainnya. Begitu juga dengan orang Jawa, mereka tidak pernah disebut sebagai orang Indonesia dari barat atau tengah dalam komunikasi sehari-hari.

Berkaitan juga dengan cerita El Chivo ini adalah tentang idealisme. Ia dulunya adalah seorang suami dan ayah dari sebuah keluarga yang bahagia. Ia kemudian memutuskan untuk meninggalkan keluarganya dan bergabung dengan pemberontakan gerilya, dengan alasan ia ingin menciptakan dunia yang lebih baik bagi keluarganya. Tapi pemberontakannya gagal dan El Chivo harus menerima kenyataan bahwa ia terpisah dari anak perempuannya yang sudah tumbuh dewasa. Ia banting setir dengan hidup seperti gelandangan dan menjadi pembunuh bayaran profesional yang bekerja untuk atau dengan orang-orang berkerah putih (yang dulu ia lawan dalam pemberontakan gerilyanya). Terkadang dalam kondisi-kondisi tertentu, idealisme dapat menjadi bumerang dan menghancurkan diri sendiri dan orang lain.

Salah satu adegan penting juga yang terdapat dalam plot cerita El Chivo y Maru adalah ketika El Chivo menemukan semua anjing di rumahnya mati dibunuh oleh Cofi, anjing hitam yang dulu ia rawat dan selamatkan dari luka tembak. El Chivo sangat sedih karena anjing-anjing tersebut adalah teman hidupnya. Setelah ia membakar bangkai anjing-anjingnya, ia menempelkan moncong pistol di dahi Cofi dan siap menarik pelatuk. Tapi ia tidak bisa, ia terlalu sayang. Inilah salah satu bukti yang membedakan manusia dengan hewan. Manusia punya otak dan hati, hewan tidak.

Ketiga plot cerita film ini, selain diikat oleh adegan tabrakan mobil, lebih dari itu juga diikat oleh kesamaan bahwa semua tokoh di dalamnya menunjukkan rasa begitu sayang pada anjing. Pertama, Octavio pada anjingnya Cofi, yang jago diadu dengan anjing lain; kedua, Valeria, seorang supermodel Spanyol, pada anjingnya Richie dan ketiga, El Chivo pada segerombolan anjingnya dan Cofi. Rasa sayang yang ditunjukkan pun berbeda-beda. Octavio walaupun sayang pada anjingnya, rela menjadikan anjingnya untuk diadu demi mendapatkan uang, Valeria justru seakan-akan lebih sayang pada Richie dari pada pada Daniel, pasangannya yang telah meninggalkan keluarganya untuk hidup dengan Valeria dan El Chivo menunjukkan rasa sayangnya dengan menyelamatkan Cofi dari luka tembak dan tetap memeliharanya walaupun Cofi sudah membunuh semua anjing yang ia miliki dan ia sayangi. Rasa sayang pada anjing ini seolah-olah, tanpa disadari, menggerakan keseluruhan cerita.

Judul film Amores perros atau Love’s a Bitch pun menjadi tidak sesamar-samar sebelumnya. Cinta adalah seekor anjing betina! Ha. Judul yang sangat menggelitik dan menarik untuk digali terus lebih dalam, maknanya bisa ganda, bisa macam-macam.

Even though I really enjoy watching superhero films, I'm not a fan of them and I don't read the comics as well. So I don't know anything about them at all, except from what is being depicted in the films. A couple of days ago I watched Man of Steel in the big screen and I felt somewhat whimsical watching it. The trailer is giving pretty good impression, but unfortunately the film is not. I was going to watch a blockbuster film so generally I expected it to be just so-so, entertaining or even 'bad', those typical summer blockbuster film. But sadly, this film surpasses the 'bad' expectation I had, it's slightly worse. When I write this, IMDb gives it 8 and Rotten Tomatoes gives it 56%. I have to agree with Rotten Tomatoes.

This film has a huge potential to be great and amazing but here are the bad things:
Bad writing. Maybe not a giant plot hole, but tiny plot holes everywhere. What's with the back and forth story telling? It's unnecessary, hasty and hampering the characters to develop.
Also it lacks of emotional atmosphere or attachment. As we can see in the scene where Clark's mother were persuading little Clark to get out of the room? They're talking private conversations in front of the whole class. Now that's unlikely and strange and makes me can't really relate to the characters.
The other emotional thing that is missing is the chemistry between Clark Kent and Lois Lane; it's zero chemistry. Whenever the scene just depicting the two of them I prayed for them not to kiss, because it'll ruin the film even more. And yep they did kiss in the end. Duh. No chemistry or romantic background whatsoever. It seems to me that both Henry Cavill and Amy Adams acted their parts appropriately, but the script is just forcing them to kiss.
And the other scene that is strange for me is when the Daily Planet's officers (one of them is Laurence Fishburne) were trapped in the ruins of the building and seemed so desperate, so what? The writing is so poor, that I can't feel any emotional attachment to the characters, I just don't feel for them. Everybody just feels like cameos.
The Christianity notion also quite disturbing. I don't mean the church scene, just the overly stated fact that Clark Kent is not human, he's not from this world, but he feels for the humans and willing to sacrifice himself to save the humans' lives. And plus he's 33 when doing all of this, that before showing himself as Superman, he's lost, wandering here and there, looking for himself and just unknown to the rest of the world. A little bit Jesus-y but maybe it's just me. Hehe.
Overload fighting and destroying buildings are unnecessary; it belittles the lives of the humans/civilians around in my opinion. What's so superhero about that?
The story that Lois Lane looked for Clark Kent and found out about him and his past is also odd. Is it that easy? If Clark Kent was helping people and disappearing here and there plus there were witnesses, why didn't the other also tries to find out the truth about him?
The other ridiculous scene is when Clark's father died because of the tornado, sacrificing his life for a dog and banned Clark to save his life (and Clark agreed). Overall, the story telling is lack of soul, warmth and reality. It blended too many themes to one film, like superhero, sci-fi, alien invasion, disaster, etc and sadly not succeeding in doing so. The story doesn't really flow. There isn't any 'peak' of the story that left me breathless and gaping.

Great cast? It is actually a great cast; Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane and Laurence Fishburne among others. except maybe for Amy Adams, who is talented and lovely as she is, maybe appears a little bit too old for Henry Cavill's portrayal of Superman. I can't say whether Henry Cavill is a good Superman or not because this is the first time I watch him acting and I never really watch a superman film before. Great cast but destroyed by the writing of the film.

Great music score by Hans Zimmer, but unfortunately and disturbingly overplayed throughout the film.

Many and obvious brand replacements.

I enjoy Zack Snyder's 300, but for this one, it's just too much CGI and too many zoomings. The fighting doesn't look real.


Finally, the good:

The starting scene with the destruction of the Krypton is quite nice, also for the whole concept of natural birth, absorbing the earth, trying to dominate the earth by placing the machines in the north and south of the earth, etc.
The human side of Superman is properly depicted, even though a little bit dull. At least Henry Cavill can deliver the act that makes me realize that Superman/Kal-El is really not a human, he's an alien. And I guess one of the decent scene is when he let out a scream after killing Zod. At first I didn't understand why did he have to be that sad. After a few readings, people said he was sadly screaming because he had to kill his own kind, his own people, that was not much left in the universe. I also agree that Kal-El's best moments were when he was portrayed as human/Clark Kent, not as Superman in the film.
Michael Shannon's portrayal of Zod is great too. He's not only evil and powerful but he had a background; his loyalty, determination and ultra-nationalism for Krypton made him like that.
The ending. A couple of minutes before the film ended is in my opinion, one of the best parts. It feels like the film found its grip and started anew. When the film ended, I was partly disappointed by it because it feels more like an absolutely dragged-trailer than a film, like the whole film is only an introduction, and right after the ending, it should be where the film begins. The ending is partly makes me can't wait for the sequel. I do hope they'll have a better script and everything for the second film.

Of course I need more viewings of this film, but that's all I have for now.

Still fangirling over Michael Fassbender, I watched his other films. After falling for him first in X-Men: First Class (2011), rekindled it in Inglourious Basterds (2009) plus, I didn't realize that he's in 300 (2006), this time I watched Jane Eyre (2011). (Greetings British film that capture the life of high class and middle class people in 1830s. Hello again!) Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers and Michael Fassbender as Edward Fairfax Rochester.
I have never fully read Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, I only read the simplified version of it (for kids) when I was in my first year of senior high. So I didn't really know the atmosphere of the novel, etc. But in my opinion this version has some better qualities compared to the BBC version of 2006, starring Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. First, the character of Jane Eyre by Mia Wasikowska is captured perfectly according to the character's real age in the novel. Mia Wasikowska makes Jane Eyre more humane, giving us insights of her terrible past and childhood and at the same time not decreasing her character. Michael Fassbender's Edward Rochester is also more constantly coarse, real and sympathetic (besides of course more effortlessly handsome than Toby Stephen's portrayal).
Unfortunately, with Michael Fassbender being cast as Edward Rochester, they should have casted someone at least 'equal' to him as St. John Rivers. Placing Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers is really a no-match for Michael Fassbender, moreover with his tendency to rebel-insecure-appearance (I always capture this teenage-rebel-appearance whenever I watch Jamie Bell). I have to say that Jamie Bell is somewhat miscast. (Plus, his great chemistry with Mia Wasikowska from Defiance (2008) still lingers in me, so...) The cinematography is really beautiful with its candlelights, shades and natural lights. The choice of music is a no-brainer. The costumes are marvelous. Plus, they have Judi Dench playing as Mrs. Fairfax! (Is Judi Dench overrated? Maybe, but I still adore her)
What this film lacks of, is time. I wish it would be longer, even though I like the brief ending better in this film than in the 2006 version. It gives more room to our imagination about how the ending will proceed. Being a TV mini series, the 2006 version is more unimpeded dealing with the development of its characters and making sure its correct connection with the novel. Also what I find disturbing is in the scene when Jane Eyre sitting by herself in her small 'schouse'. She wrapped herself in blanket that has embedded modern font in it, see for yourself. I find it utterly disturbing. Where the hell they got the blanket from? Setting, properties... hello?

My first encounter with Quentin Tarantino's film was not that romantic and smooth. I was curious about his films because so many people praise him and treat him (and his films) like cults. So I bought Pulp Fiction (1994) and watched it when I was around 16. I ended up not understanding the film; I enjoyed some parts of it, but at that time it just didn't make any sense to me. So when Inglourious Basterds was released and nominated for so many awards, I wasn't really eager to watch it, worrying that I would end up not understanding the film; I haven't reached the 'level' of understanding, enjoying and appreciating his films yet.
Until last night.
Right now I'm fangirling (again) over Ben Whishaw and Michael Fassbender. So I browsed Michael Fassbender films and found out that he actually appeared in Inglourious Basterds. I had the film laying down quietly in my hard disk for ages and I hadn't watched it, so I decided to watch. I'm not really sure at first, but I kept watching the opening credit (quite classic), then to the opening scene. It was already 2 am but I just couldn't stop watching it. The way he directed it was so cool and interesting that it made me curious and hungry about what would happen in the next scenes. Wonderful atmosphere.
I kept waiting for Michael Fassbender to appear. He finally appeared in the middle of the film. I thought he was going to play a German role, instead he played an English role. (Oh my God, he's just so...)
This is ultimately not the film that will be my first choice or whatever, due to the violence in it, but I have to say that this film is quite something. It's different and unique, especially the way Tarantino captured the scenes. He loves long shots (and they're brilliant), peculiar-angle shots and dividing his films into some chapters. My ultimate favourite scene is when they're down in the tavern. I think it was so great.
Christoph Waltz's performance was excellent! Hands down. Unfortunately, Brad Pitt's performance was somewhat appears weird to me, seems unnatural.
(Spoiler Alert!)
Such a creative idea to make a film about alternate history (ending) of World War II. I like the way Hitler died, the ending of World War II, all collided with films, with cinema. We know that Hitler also used films as his propaganda. He said that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. As we can see in this film, the man of his propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, accompany him in the viewing of the film. My lecturer in class told me that Hitler's favourite director, Leni Riefenstahl, made a film for him in 1934 called Triumph des Willens. I haven't seen the film yet, but it is said that the film had successfully build Hitler's might and right despite his weaknesses (for example, he's not that high and mighty in terms of his height).