An Open Letter to Rude Customers Ordering in Fastfood Restaurants in the UK: An Etiquette Guide

To all the rude customers I’ve ever served as a crew member for a fastfood restaurant, this is for you:

1. “Whatever” is not an appropriate answer when the crew member asks you whether you want your meal medium or large, whether you want your burger to come with a meal or not, whether you want your drink to be diet or regular or when you are asked what sauce you would like with your meal. Answering “whatever” to an already underpaid, overworked crew member smacks of laziness and rudeness, and it says to the world that you are too lazy to think and answer appropriately.

2. Figure out what you want to order first before you go to the till. And even then make sure you have already made up your mind. Really.Queuing up for a few minutes, and not using that time to figure out what you want, as well as coming in as a group and not figuring out what you want, and when, coming up to the till, you use this time to discuss, in detail, what you want, what meal size, whether you want it with a dessert or not, the nutritional value of which, asking the crew member how much each meal will cost, or what the individual price is, and then asking the crew member to calculate said meals or estimate said meals off the top of his/her head, is stupid. The meals and individual prices are posted for you,in lights, in large letters, to see. Figure it all out before you come to the till and allow other customers to order first. In addition, if you come with your friends, or your family, make sure you get their order first before letting them sit across the room. Don’t be shouting to them across the room in the middle of ordering if they want their burgers to come with the meal, and if they do, what drinks they would like, or if they want cheese with their burgers or if they want desserts or what-not. You’re just being lazy and it’s a waste of the crew member’s time. We have better things to do – like serve other customers.

3. Crew members are not calculators. Don’t ask us stupid questions like, “If I order a burger, and a small portion of fries, but without the drink, how much would that cost?”

4. The menu is fixed. They cannot be altered at your convenience. If you want flexibility in how your meal is presented, go cook your own meal. So, don’t be asking us stupid questions like, “Can I have a burger meal with the fries and the drink, but instead of the drink, can I have the ice cream instead?” or “Can I have a burger meal with the fries and the drink, but instead of the fries, can I have the salad instead?” We know you went to school. Even if you finished only middle school, it doesn’t take a genius to know that whatever is posted on the menu in big, bright, well-lit letters, is what is available.

5. The price is fixed. We didn’t make the price. It is what it is. So when you order an ice cream for, say £ 0.59 (or roughly $1.50) and it’s different from the other restaurants, it’s probably a franchise, or it’s probably a different restaurant, or they make their own ice cream, or they get their ice cream from an expensive maker from Switzerland, we don’t know and we don’t care. As such, getting angry at us for prices that are out of our control, is inexcusable. Shame on you, stupid customers!

4. Crew members are not the restaurant.If the food is better at some other restaurant, don’t be coming to our restaurant and ordering food and complaining that the food in some other fastfood restaurant is better, or the service is better, or some such crap. If you like the food in other restaurants, then just don’t f**king to our restaurant!

5. Nothing comes for free. A fastfood restaurant is a business, like any other business. If the crew member says the sauces are not for free, or whatever, it is not. So don’t hassle us. If the meal costs £ 3.79 ($6) and you only have £ 3.75, we can’t accept your money. You don’t go to Walmart or Harrods or Primark or whatever, get a piece of clothing that costs £3.79 ($6) and ask the salesclerk if she/he can give it to you for £3.75 because that’s all you have, do you? What makes you think  the fastfood price list is negotiable?

6. Eating. Yes, there are restaurant or lobby persons whose sole duty is to keep the tables, chairs, floors and restrooms clean, but for pete’s sake, do you have to be such a pig? Do you need to leave the tables like a hurricaneor a tropical cyclone just went through it? Do you need to smear the tables and chairs and floors with sauces? What kind of mouth do you have that when you eat the meat, lettuce, sauces, pickles, mustard, onions just drip onto the table? Why do you need to throw the wrappers and tissues on the floor? Did you not learn about eating and table etiquette from your parents? Is this why your kids are the same? If you can’t eat properly, then stay in your pigpen or pigsty of a home and spare us your manners.

5.Talking on your cellphone. We know you are a busy person, as evidenced by your power suit, well-polished shoes and posh accessories, but talking on your cellphone/mobile while ordering is plain rude, especially when what you are talking about with your mates or friends is the recent Britain’s Got Talent episode, or the new movie at the cinema or the latest gossip about the latest celebrity.  If you intend to talk on your mobile for a longer period of time, then get out of my face and let some other starving customer order.

6. Abusing crew members is not a sport. We know you probably had a bad day. Maybe you lost millions in stocks, maybe your spouse is just about to divorce you, maybe you’re unpopular in school and you want to redeem your reputation, maybe your kids hate you, maybe you’re just being an asshole, but that is not an excuse to be angry at crew members for orders that at times are your fault not ours. Making fun of the crew member, his/her ethnicity, accent, using swear words, using a tone with us, is inexcusable. If you can’t be polite, then go somewhere else.

7. If you are a non-English speaking foreigner and you are in an English-speaking country like the UK, learn English! Don’t come to England or some other English-speaking country and not bother to learn the language, or how to pronounce certain words, and then become angry at some poor fastfood crew member whose English is better than yours, who does not understand your stupid order. If you have been here a year, it is not an excuse to have not learned other aspects of the culture,such as polite language, proper terms for certain things, appropriate behavior and so on. Other people living in the country is not expected to adjust to you foreigner. You adjust to the culture.

8. For speakers of English as a first language. Enunciate. Shame on you for growing up with English as a first language and never having learned to speak it properly! Shame on you for slaughtering its syntax and grammar!

9. Kissing, embracing, fondling each other while ordering is not allowed. While we understand how you want to show your affection to each other for everyone to see (only to break up a few days, weeks or months later), please understand that we are here to give out orders and if you can’t keep your hands off each other, and being physically affectionate with each other is more important than your burger meal, then go get a room and make a meal out of each other. There is a reason why bedrooms were invented.

10. The toilet is for relieving your bladder and sometimes, your bowels. Fastfood restaurants did not put it there so you can conduct sexual transactions in it. So, again, if you want to do it with someone, get a room. If you can’t afford it, then you shouldn’t be doing it.

11. Your underwear is meant to hide your private parts. Hence a bra is meant to conceal your bosom, and so on. Your bra is not for storing your money, which you fish out, without batting an eyelash, while paying for  your order. While we understand your fears of being mugged and the importance of protecting your money, we feel that storing your money in a more hygienic way is better than storing them in areas which compete with your body parts. Plus it is just really gross.

12. Shower.We understand that your neighborhood fastfood restaurant is just a stone’s throw away from your house, and it’s alright if you come into our restaurant looking like you just woke up. In fact, we can tell from the shirt your wearing, and from the food stuck in your teeth what you had last night, but do you have to come in smelling like an unwashed dog that has been frolicking in mountains of slush and garbage? You don’t see us coming to work smelling like crap. Why shouldn’t you come smelling the same way as well?

13. Your fake gang wars are so 1990s. Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac are dead. You don’t need to prolong the gang culture. We know you are bored. Your country is so wealthy and comfortable that you have had to invent social problems, fake gang wars and assist in the increase of crimes, you know, just to spice it up a bit, but our restaurant is not your turf, or any gang turf for that matter. So don’t be scrawling your gang signs on our walls and chairs and tables. Or hogging our tables and holding your fake gang meetings there, if you are not ordering. Our chairs, trays and tables are not weapons to be used for your gang war. Also, you look stupid in jogging suits, hats and sleeveless tops. Your walk is funny – maybe if you pulled your trousers up you could walk properly. If you want to be part of a war, then go sign up in the army and request that you be assigned in Afghanistan or Iraq. We’re sure that will help you with your urges.

14. Dress appropriately.We know fastfood restaurants are not like fancy restaurants with dress codes, but that doesn’t mean you can come to our restaurant half-naked, or shirtless. We know there is a credit crunch and a recession going on, but surely you can afford to wear proper clothes?  And finally,

15.“Please” is a perfectly natural way to end any request. It costs nothing and will gain you everything. You don’t even have to waste any valuable muscle, you just need to utter this one word. Conversely, saying “sorry” for a mistake you made is also not entirely bad.

See how gracious crew members will suddenly be when you start growing a brain and follow these small tips. Remember, we make the burgers. With bare hands. Your burgers are at our mercy.

The News from the Philippines – they just make me feel really dirty (31/5/2009)

I tried not to find out more news from my country, dear country, which, I find out fom Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Stanley Karnow is described as “300 years in a Catholic convent and 50 years in Hollywood” (best description of my country ever!). The sex scandal has gone international with the Agence France-Presse picking up the story in “Sex video scandal grips Philippines“. Even writer Jessica Zafra has picked it up, read her blog entry here, but for the complete article, go to Philippine Star. There is a Hayden Kho facebook quiz which asks, “Which Hayden K Scandal Video Are You?” (click here for the PDI article), but one of the best articles I’ve read so far is the one entitled, “The Morality of Sen. Bong Revilla” (for full article click here), which is a very comprehensive, detailed, analytical attack on Sen.Bong Revilla, his morals, his integrity and why he has no right to take up a cause for women when all his life he has made a living out of mistreating women and perpetrating stereotypes about them (and by that, I mean, being the macho, sexist, patriarchal action star who has cheated on his wife in reel as in real life as well).

Meanwhile, some stupid,sneaky-assed legislator in the Philippine Congress is making a bill to stop me and other bloggers, texters from calling him and other legislators stupid, sneaky-assed legislators. It’s called “The Right of Reply” and it will complicate things even more. Click on PDI’s article for this, here for updates, and on Jessica Zafra’s blog, here, for insights from the writer and Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin.

And of course, we are on the brink of recession, bills that further curtail our rights might be or will soon be passed, people who oppose the government, or its officials keep disappearing and/or get summarily executed, OFWs keep getting sent to dangerous places.

Sigh. Methinks I will go and bang my head on the wall some more.

King Kho: How this sex video scandal has made its 2 main stars (paradoxically) bigger than ever (updates)

I swear I was going to stay away from this – but it just keeps getting better. Following this is like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Consider the things that have happened since I last posted here:

1. Anti-Kho t-shirts distributed in Senate (PDI)- because ’tis important to have t-shirts that say, “I’m Never Gonna Dance Again Beware of Hayden Cam” and “Beware of Hayden Kho” than say, shirts that say, ““I’m Never Gonna Dance Again with you GMA” and “Beware of Chiz Escudero, Loren Legarda, Jejomar Binay , Mar Roxas and pretty much any other presidentiable” (for a great blog post on what to ask presidentiables by Nina Terol, click here). I think of so many other shirts better than this one. How about a shirt for all those children sold into sex trafficking and child labor? Those Filipino women duped into dodgy overseas work with equally dodgy employers? How about a shirt for those Filipinos kidnapped in Nigeria? in Somalia? Mindanao? What about a shirt for Filipinos victimized by the endemic corruption in the country? Righteous much? Hell, no. Katrina Halili was a victim, yes – but no more a victim than the millions of victimized Filipinos who’ve never had their day in court.

2. Hot Katrina Halili is new Bench Body endorser (PDI)- Hmmm. In the article by Inquirer’s Maurice Archache, apparently, “Katrina shows off her winning form in the latest Bench Body campaign, proudly proclaiming that she’s “single and hot”. Hmmm some more. I don’t know – but doesn’t this seem a bit like in bad taste? Didn’t she go to court to sue the guy who made her into a sex object, recorded it for posterity and is now being sold like hotcakes in Quiapo? This just seems bizaare somehow.

3. Katrina: Patay na ako pero may video pa rin (I’m already dead, but vdeos will still exist) (GMA7) – Apparently, some conscientious journalist (God bless ‘im!) managed to get hold of the actual statement. Among other things, Katrina Halili’s statement was an admission of stupidity and naivete and the belief that love conquers all. But towards the end of the statement, it becomes a statement for upholding women’s rights (“Ang issue dito ay pang-aabuso sa kababaihan” (“The issue here is the abuse of women”)), a searing anti-DVD piracy call and a call for the Senate to uphold laws protecting women. Overnight, Katrina Halili, who’d probably never heard of women’s rights or feminism, becomes its primary speaker. Never mind that Filipina activists have devoted their whole lives for the cause, it takes one unknown starlet, a sex video scandal and a suddenly frisky Philippine Senate ready to take up the cause where before they would not.Sadly, sex sells, even in the Senate.

4. Authorities raid shops selling sex videos. According to GMA7, as the authorities keep raiding shops selling said Kho-Halili sex videos, the sex videos have become scarce and now they are looking for the main source, the burning shop. Good luck with that one. That’s like finding a needle in a haystack, in the middle of a storm. In related news,  Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has filed a bill on cybercrimes. To be dubbed “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2009″, it seeks to punish cybercrime offenses. Upon further inspection, these cybercrime offenses are “those against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems, illegal interception or intentional interception without right; data interference or the intentional or reckless alteration of computer data without right” which is as vague as anything. And if it is vague,how can you punish it? If this gets passed, expect the many different, creative ways of interpreting this. Alleged “misuse of devices” will also be punished, as the “use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available computer devices or computer passwords for the purpose of committing cybercrime”, “computer-related forgery through intentional input, alteration or deletion of any computer data and computer-related fraud such as interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby, with the intent of procuring an economic benefit for oneself or for another person or for the perpetuation of a fraudulent or dishonest activity”, content-related offenses such as cybersex and child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications or the transmission of commercial advertisements without prior consent from the recipient and aiding, abetting or attempting the commission of cybercrime. Hmmm. That would mean the millions using the internet worldwide can and will be punishable. I am astounded at the scope and ambition of this bill. The audacity! The temerity! Usually they just challenge foreign celebrities to fist fights!

My question only is – how do they institutionalize a system that can track perpetrators of cybercrime? We can’t even have a proper automated poll machine. Or corruption-free broadband deals. As long as we don’t have the mechanism for that, prosecuting perpertrators of cyber crime is like catching a well-oiled electric eel while you are blindfolded, in a big, dark, unlit room.

But at the same time, the Senate can’t even prevent illegal recruiters from proliferating, and these illegal recruiters don’t even need to use the internet. They can’t even crush the Muslim/secessionist/separationist insurgency, or the kidnappings in Mindanao, and those don’t even use the internet. They can’t even prevent the summary executions of journalists from dying. Or file a statement or bill condemning these acts.  And what, pray tell, are we doing about the Philippine economy? Or the 2010 elections for that matter? I suspect GMA et al are having a field day – as long as the others are distracted, people don’t have to look closely at her administration.

Methinks the Senate’s priorities are f*cked up.

I rest my case.

Methinks I need a break from this. Will review movies for now.

Love in the time of Kho (part 3) – or the stars of this sex scandal answer the most important philosophical question of all time: “Why did the chicken cross the road?”

Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained?

Well, I certainly am, especially if you read Philippine Daily Inquirer’s “Sex, lies, drugs top Katrina, Hayden face-off” , which chronicles the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction, telenovela that is the public senate inquiry into Katrina-Hayden sex video. That account details the circus, the chaos, the madness, the surrealism, the embarassment that is this scandal.

While reading it, I already came up with choice lines from the inquiry that can, in the future, probably enter the Filipino sub-cultural lexicon (To misbehaving kids: “Ayaw mong tumigil? Sige, makakatrina halili ka!” As a curse:”Ma-hayden kho ka sana!”. New punishment: playing “Careless whisper” over and over again to punish erring people, preferably outside their window, in the middle of the night). Said lines can also be used to answer that oft-asked philosophical question with metaphysical ramifications: “Why did the Chicken cross the road?”

So, if these people were asked “Why did the Chicken cross the road?” they would answer like this (based on the senate inquiry):

1. “That question is uncalled for. I never threatened any chicken. What kind of threat? I don’t even know you… “- Sen. Estrada (during the Senate Hearing on the Kho-Halili sex video scandal)

2. “You cannot question the chicken’s intent. You have no right to lecture us.” – Sen. Estrada

3. “I demand that road before the chicken!” – Sen. Estrada

4.  Mayor Abner Afuang – doesn’t answer, goes and pours water on the chicken…The chicken keeps its cool. Mayor Afuang is arrested.

5. “Please arrest that chicken, arrest that chicken!” – Sen. Madrigal (in response to Mayor Abner Afuang’s action)

6. “That’s precisely why we objected to a public hearing on why the chicken crossed the road.” – Lorna Kapunan (on Afuang’s action)

7. “Because the chicken was high on ecstacy” – Hayden Kho

8. “Because it was stupid. It gave its heart and soul to crossing the road, but it was all lies, it was all scripted. The chicken was made to believe it was a princess. It is the victim here”.  – Katrina Halili

9. Vicky Belo – could not be reached for comment. In Europe on holiday.

And the chicken? No answer – it is too busy dancing to the tune of “Careless Whisper”. In a bandana and briefs.

More rants and raves about this sex video scandal (part 4).Click here.

PS

There is an ongoing contest on youtube.com entitled “The Democracy Video Challenge”, where international amateur and professional filmmakers are asked what democracy is.  Our very own filmmakers, Aissa Penafiel and Migs Ocampo are competing and are finalists for the challenge. I think their video is timely and reflects the Filipino zeitgeist, including the current fascination with scandals. Vote for our filmmakers! Support Filipino directors!

Love in the time of Kho: sex, lies and pirated DVDs (part 2) or my own tips on how NOT to get caught making love on cam)

As you may recall, I posted Inquirer editor Pennie Azarcon-de la Cruz’s tips (“Lovemaking in the time of Hayden cameras”) on how NOT to get caught having sex with potential Hayden Kho cameras lurking in the room. To wit:

1. Make sure to conduct all lovemaking under a blanket. 2. To save energy—in all sense of the word—turn off the lights before you so much as unhook a bra or slip into pajamas.3. Invest in masks and complete anonymity and turn foreplay into fun and games. 4. Be considerate of minors who might later be watching your video.5. Be sure to give credit where it’s due. 6. And finally, if you strongly suspect there’s a hayden camera but can’t locate it, relax, lie down and make sure you look really good.

As Ms. Azarcon gamely admitted that she is ancient and thus glad that her youthful indiscretions took place before digital technology, cameras, internet and the wonder that is DVD piracy (this would mean she grew up in the Middle Ages ^^), I find that her suggestions are not enough. Unlike her, my generation grew up right smack in the middle of the digital revolution, Dr. Juan Flavier’s DOH/Catholic Church condom wars and the availability of alternative lifestyles on the internet. Although I sympathize with Katrina Halili, I think maybe if she had come across these, maybe she wouldn’t be in the quandary she is in right now (Warning: this is not for the faint of heart, or the narrow-minded or the perverted. Your inappropriate comments will not be tolerated. That being said, let’s continue to take this issue seriously, devote more time, space and energy than necessary, even as the Philippine economy spirals out of control, the employment is on the rise and our politicians keep getting dumber every election year. Enjoy!). My suggestions are as follows:

1. Phone sex. What better way to stay away from possibly compromising situations that will be distributed in Quiapo and inadvertently become blockbusters, making unwitting, unwilling stars of its actors? Phone sex is safe, can be done anywhere, and no clothes have to be taken off, and no dignity or reputation tarnished. Unless you are a politician, your phone gets wire-tapped and some conscientious journalist gets hold of it and broadcasts it for the whole nation to hear. In which case, you must have an exit strategy involving a State of the Nation Address, a Charter Change and the best damn apology the nation has ever seen.2. Consider dating the same sex.There is nothing un-PC  or extreme with this suggestion. In a patriarchal, sexist, homophobic country such as ours where though gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people abound but are just tolerated or worse, ignored, the worse thing that can happen to any person is to be caught in the throes of ecstacy with the same sex. The doer and the do-ee are both afraid of being outed, and thus the likelihood of a secret camera in the person of either,or hidden in the room, is virtually nil. Plus, you help the cause of GLBT rights everywhere, and you might actually increase the same sex population to such a degree that the Philippine government might just consider granting GLBT people the rights that they deserve.

3. Be more creative. The trouble with the kind of life we have right now is people always live on the fast lane.  If people are more creative, then maybe they could avert crisis. Try some S&M, for example. The leather masks, the leather gear, the whip – will all make sure your anonymity is maintained. Just make sure you have a safe word. Not your thing? Then try sex role playing, which involves dressing up, themes, a storyline and calling each other by specific names, is always a good antidote to doing it in your birthday suit.

4. Explore the joys of solo sex. Afraid of being caught on camera? Bored? Then stay at home and love yourself some more! Add candles, incense and a bit of Barry White and voila! you will discover that the greatest love of all is in you all along.

5. Discover the art of achieving sexual pleasure, without actually going all the way. Dry sex?  No, it is not as dry nor as unfulfilling as you may think.Time to order copies of “Kama Sutra”, Japanese Pillow Books, and books on tantric sex on the internet. You do not only help the book industry, score points with your partner, but you will also drive the Department of Finance and the the Bureau of Internal Revenue nuts so much that they might actually consider removing tax on imported books. Unless they really have no brains and think that aside from Stephanie Myers’ “Twilight” books being subversive, sex books are as well.

6.  And when all fails, abstinence is best. Sure, you will always be grumpy and unfulfilled, and you will always feel like you need release, but aside from keeping the Catholic Church happy, you can sleep knowing that you live to fight another sex-scandal-free day.

Note: Can’t get enough of the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili sex video scandal? Read part 3 of my “Love in the time of Kho” series by clicking here, as I try to find the correlation between philosophy, metaphysical ramifications and the senate inquiry into the sex video scandal.

Love in the time of Kho: sex, lies and pirated DVDs

I tried to resist commenting about this one, I really did, but since this is the only news I can read on Philippine news sites on the net (shame on you Philippine media! shame on you! Depriving Filipinos overseas thirsty for Philippine news with much-needed news!).

Anyway, people already know about the story. I have decided to post an abbreviated version of Sunday Inquirer Magazine Executive Editor Pennie Azarcon-dela Cruz’s tips on dodging the Hayden Khos this world on her blog post “Lovemaking in the time of Hayden cameras” (full post in the link provided):

1. Make sure to conduct all lovemaking under a blanket.

2. To save energy—in all sense of the word—turn off the lights before you so much as unhook a bra or slip into pajamas.

3. Invest in masks and complete anonymity and turn foreplay into fun and games.

4. Be considerate of minors who might later be watching your video.

5. Be sure to give credit where it’s due.

6. And finally, if you strongly suspect there’s a hayden camera but can’t locate it, relax, lie down and make sure you look really good.

Click here for my own suggestions (and give credit where credit is due): “Love in the time of Kho: Sex, Lies and Pirated DVDs (part 2, or my own tips on how not to get caught making love on cam”)

Retro-mad review briefly: “A Girl Thing” (US, 2001, TV movie)

There are just so many things wrong with this film, despite the positive reviews from the American media – admittedly from the gay media – but the one thing I’ve realized is gay media will lap up any TV show or film about GLBT people for as long as it portrays GLBT people. Never mind that it is mediocre, or just plain awful, it’s the visibility that matters. Well, I don’t agree with that mindset, and if I find mediocrity in any show or film featuring GLBT people, I would be ruthless.

I came across “A Girl Thing” whilst bored and surfing the internet for more lesbian or lesbian-themed films I can forcefeed down my unsuspecting readers (^^) and saw this one. Like I am wont to do, I surf other sites to see what they thought of it (not because I have no mind of my own, but because I don’t want to waste my time on crappy films). There were positive reviews on this one. Besides, it has a supermodel (Elle McPherson), Steven Spielberg’s wife (Kate Capshaw) and Stockard Channing. What could go wrong, right? Supermodels were a rite of passage for me – while other young girls were busy acclimating to their assigned gender and heterosexual roles, I was busy oggling Cindy Crawford covers on Cosmopolitan (this was before they were franchised and started showing Filipino models instead). This is thus an excuse to show my favorite Supermodel music video of all time, George Michael’s “Freedom 90″:

Anyway,as I mentioned, since there were positive reviews I happily sat down bereft of a sense of foreboding or fear that it would suck. Boy, was I wrong. Sitting through this drive is more excruciating than a root canal. In fact, a root canal might actually be better than this.

The story:

The story opens with hotshot lawyer Lauren Travis (Australian supermodel-turned-actress Elle McPherson, who, clearly having not learned her lesson when she starred in one of the Batman movies, tries her luck again in another movie. Word to Elle: Give up, mate!) going to her therapist, Dr. Beth Noonan (the always awesome Stockard Channing) to process a lesbian experience she has with another woman. The woman in question is Casey Montgomery (Kate Capshaw), an equally successful exec that Lauren meets during a double date. At the end of the night, they find themselves more interested in each other than the bad dates they both end up with, ending up exchanging phone numbers instead. Naturally they call each other, bond, end up having dinner by themselves, culminating in the climactic seduction/love scene, followed by the processing (mostly on Lauren’s part, who is confused by her feelings), the requisite squirm-worthy anti-lesbian things happening (gossip around the office, friends abandoning her, job a bit on the line) and the parting of ways at the end of the story.

See, I have no problem with TV shows, TV movies (this is one of those) or movies tackling post-millenial gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered experience. Changing definitions and ideas of what it means to be gay is well and good, and I am always for open, healthy discourse about this. This film raises issues as, is homosexuality a choice, a lifestyle or something you are born with? Is sexuality fluid? Age-old discussions amongst GLBT circles, I know, but as the world becomes more and more open (and paradoxically more reactionary in the process, as the California Supreme Court shows in its decision to uphold Prop. 8), such discussion helps explore the tricky waters that is sexuality.

Except – watching this was a bit awkward for me, and the dialogue and acting is a bit wooden, excruciating, the plot points grimace-inducing.First of all, it is hard for me to suspend disbelief and be convinced that Elle McPherson and Kate Capshaw are lesbians (or bisexuals, for that matter). Elle McPherson is nothing other than Elle McPherson playing Elle McPherson trying to pull off being a person suddenly interested in a woman. Ditto for Kate Capshaw. The love scenes go on more than is necessary and I had to stay awake during most of it. It was uninspired and trite. Like the acting. I can diss L-Word’s storyline all I want, but that TV show never failed to induce a variety of emotions from me – primarily surprise. Because that show, for all its faults, surprises with the acting and range of its actors.

Another thing is the irrational behavior Travis’ bestfriend, played by Kelly Rowan (from The O.C. – the MILF who introduced me to the word “MILF”) suddenly displays. Yes, being gay can induce many kinds of reactions from homophobes, but Rowan’s character’s reaction – bordering on irrational hysteria and hatred, is puzzling. What? Does she have a crush on Lauren or something? Is she jealous that Lauren is getting some and she isn’t?What?!? Clearly I’m missing something. Maybe if I bang my head against the keyboards some more I’ll be enlightened.

Furthermore, the dialogue is about as exciting as watching traffic. Either that, or as about as excruciating. Consider these lines: Lauren Travis  – “Let me ask you something, do you think that lesbianism and alcoholism are directly related?” and Casey Montgomery answers, “Maybe”.  Also, Casey describes herself as a “career bisexual”. Now, this just makes me say, “What the hell?”

But the winner is Casey Montgomery dishing the dirt about her night with Lauren Travis to her bestfriend: “We did everything but insert foreign objects into each other“. That one just makes me say….eeewww. I understand the need to be detailed when it comes to writing – but that is just way too much information for me.

One line though sums up Casey Montgomery’s dillemma: “I don’t even have the balls to be bisexual”.

Clearly, this movie lacks the balls, full stop.

That being said, the one redeeming value is watching the amazing Stockard Channing. I loved her in “Grease”, loved her in “To Wong Foo”, I loved her “First Wives Club” and pretty much anything where she stars. Here, as a tribute to Stockard Channing, I post my favorite scene from “The First Wives Club”  (or as I like to call it – the First Ajumas Club)

Alright, Stockard Channing is not in this one, but it was still a funny movie and that scene is one my favorites. Goldie Hawn trumps daughter Kate Hudson every time. ^^ It’s scenes like this that make me have this internal soundtrack, playing in my head, like it’s part of a movie or something.

Retro-mad film review: Fried Green Tomatoes (US, 1991)

I was watching stand-up comedian Margaret Cho’s “Revolution” (might review the DVD soon – she’s gay and funny, I’m a big fan), while waiting for Jon Stewart’s greatest lesbian moments load in afterellen.com, (he’s straight, smart,  funny and pro-gay, what more can you ask?) and listening to the radio at the same time. Suddenly, “Baby I Need Your Loving” came on the British radio. I happen to shamelessly and secretly love Motown. The coolest thing about volunteering at Oxfam is having access to a plethora of music ranging from African music, to Motown to 80s music and so on.

The Secret Life of Bees

Anyway, the song plays and I remember “The Secret Life of Bees”, which starred Queen Latifah, Jennifer Hudson, Sophie Okonedo, Alicia Keys and an eeriely older Dakota Fanning. Queen Latifah is an Oscar and Grammy winner (Chicago, Hairspray, but I will always remember her as the bad ass lesbian in “Set If Off” – she rocks a lesbian and she had one hot girlfriend in that movie), Jennifer Hudson is the American Idol runner-up and Oscar winner, Alicia Keys is of course best known for being the New York born, Grammy winning, bad-ass piano prodigy, Dakota Fanning is of course, famous for being the precocious child actor who plays precocious children really well. Anyway, this is another one of those Southern dramas replete with mystery, memories of African American oppression, the fight for civil rights and so on. Set in the 1960s when African Americans were granted the right to vote, it is interesting in the first half, and then it just lost me in the second half. I don’t know why, it just bored me. Though there was tension,  conflict and so on, it just seemed bland, and lacked character motivation and plot. I assume the screenwriters (apparently it was based on a book) assumed that thoughtfully adding issues of class, race, civil rights, a few scenes of violence would make up for its blandness,but that didn’t work. I also think it also has to do with all these award-winning actors all in one movie. I think there should be a rule against that, because I seriously think that one movie can’t take all those award-winning actors all in one show – the universe would simply just…implode. The only good thing I liked about this film was Sophie Okonedo (underrated! She should do more films. And not because she played a mentally challenged young woman in this film), and that’s because I think she has the talent and she could carry a whole film just by her lonesome. I hope she does soon.

Fried Green Tomatoes

Which brings us to Fried Green Tomatoes, a 1991 film directed by Jon Avnet, adapted from the novel by Fanny Flagg entitled “Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe”. I know this is a little dated, it had come out in 1991 and hence is almost two decades old, but it’s worth watching, or re-watching again, because this movie, unlike “The Secret Life of Bees”, is actually a thought-provoking, tender, sweet, well-crafted tale about an American South that’s long gone. It is a movie that is both romantic and bittersweet, and it has all the charm that “The Secret Life of Bees” lacks. Very few stories about the American South touch the heart like this one, and I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a brief respite from the mindless, special effects-laden summer blockbuster line-up this year. I also recommend “The Color Purple” (although I recommend the book more than the movie. But the movie features a very young Whoopie Goldberg in her feature debut, so that’s worth checking out) and “To Kill a Mockingbird” (true, this one has no gay subtext – but I love it nonetheless). And if you’re feeling industrious, you must read and watch (not necessarily in that order) “Gone with the Wind”, the mother of all literature that is American South. Anyway, interestingly enough I get to watch this film only last year – but that was because in 1991, I was in high school, and I had the mistake of reading the movie reviews about this film from a Catholic magazine in my hometown, back in the Philippines, so you can imagine how an impressionable young person would view such a film with such content. But now, I have watched it and I have no regrets.

The Story

Evelyn Couch (the divine Kathy Bates) is in the middle of a mid-life crisis. Overweight, stuck in the suburbs, unhappy with a marriage that has fizzled out and a husband who prefers watching baseball and dinner (preferably at the same time) over her sexual overtures, she is at the end of her rope. A stay-at-home wife, she fills her time going to vagina workshops and workshops that tell her how to rekindle her marriage. Once, when she goes to visit the care home where her mother-in-law (who, of course, hates her) stays, she stumbles across Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy, “Driving Miss Daisy”) who is alone and lonely herself, but is happy and friendly enough to share the story of the Threadgoodes, especially the life and times of Idgie Threadgoode (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Ruth Jamison (Mary Louise Parker), who go through the ups and downs of life together.

Ruth and Idgie meet while Idgie’s older  and favorite brother, Buddy Threadgoode (Chris O’Donnell) is flirting with Ruth. A tragic accident (Buddy gets run over by a train while trying to retrieve Ruth’s hat) devastates Idgie and she retreats from her family and community, choosing instead to live on her own and to hang out with the town’s not-so-reputable citizens, drinking, smoking, gambling, getting into fights and strutting around in men’s clothes. Idgie’s mother is up-in-arms, but does not know how to deal with this daughter and so, one summer, a few years later, she enlists the help of Ruth (who is staying for the summer before she gets married) to coax Idgie out of her unlady-like, rebellious, uncouth ways and start living like a proper young Southern woman. This proves unsuccessful, and it only draws Ruth into Idgie’s world. Idgie, in fact, succeeds in making Ruth help her give out goods illegally from the back of a train, jump off a train, have a picnic near a bee’s nest, get drunk, play baseball, swim naked and drunk in the river and play poker. While Idgie is already set in her ways, and does not change, clearly Ruth has a soft spot in her heart.

And this is where a lot of viewers, critics and fans have argued. The book on which the film is based makes it clear that Idgie and Ruth are lovers. The film version has sanitized and effectively de-gayed it. But this 1991, pre-Ellen, pre-Will and Grace, pre-Queer as Folk and pre-L-Word. It was a different time then. So when one views this, one can and might become confused about the relationship. One can view them as really close friends or full-on lesbian lovers. If you think they are just intensely close, then you are leaving in the Dark Ages. ^^ For Ruth and Idgie are gayer than the lesbians at a Pride March, the characters of L-Word and Queer as Folk  combined. ^^

Case in point: You can see it in the long, lingering, smoldering looks they give each other , most notably during the bee and honey scene, where, as Ruth looks on while Idgie goes to get honey just for her, a multitude of emotions go over her face: fear, trepidation, admiration, awe. In fact, I do believe this is probably where she falls for the charming Idgie. When after getting drunk during Ruth’s birthday, Ruth announces to her that she is getting married, Idgie’s crestfallen expression gives away much about what she feels, and when Ruth gives her a drunken kiss, Idgie’s expression shifts – like she is perplexed, but also, like she has died and gone to heaven.  And so, when Ruth gets married, Idgie refuses to attend the wedding (because what lesbian in her right mind would want to watch her beloved get married to someone else?) , but drives all the way to Alabama (from Georgia) to see Ruth and her husband set foot in their new house for the first time. It becomes more implicitly gay when Idgie gets up the courage to visit her after a few months (because that’s what we do – especially those of us incapable of articulating our feelings to pretty women ^^), finds out Ruth is being beaten up by her husband and gets all worked up. Ruth convinces her not to do anything and Idgie relents. But when Ruth’s mother dies, and Ruth sends a cryptic biblical verse to Idgie (Ruth 1:16), it sends Idgie bursting in Ruth’s house, taking her away from all the violence of her husband  (but not after her husband hits and kicks her one last time). Ruth leaves with Idgie, and Idgie gets enough money to start off a cafe with her. The front area is for white people, while the back area is for black people. All is well, and Ruth and Idgie raise Ruth’s son together. Ruth’s husband comes back though and demands his wife and son to come back with him, but Idgie defends her family and home, because, you know, Idgie is kind of the “man of the house” – and she rocks the part as well. ^^ Anyway – this is where it gets hazy (this is hazier than the implied relationship between the two main characters): the husband disappears and the issue would have been dead and buried, except one day, the husband’s truck surfaces from a river a few miles from the cafe, so the police from Georgia start investigating. Since they can’t find the body and are aware of the tension between Idgie and the husband – Idgie goes court, only to get off scot-free when her mortal enemy, the town reverend,  concocts an alibi for her at Ruth’s request (now, that is true love). They live a long life, until Ruth dies and Idgie raises her son alone.

This is a story within a story,and the other story here is that of Evelyn, who, upon hearing the story of the two women empowers herself, able to stand up to people who regularly ridicule her, gets a job and even puts  her husband in his place.

Dreamy and poignant, this story is actually as much an ode to an American South long gone, as an ode to the strength, beauty and endurance of female friendships, and relationships, at it were. Production values are sound – although this being the early 90s, it does have that gritty, early-90s-set-in-the-60s feel to it – with none of the glossy, clean feel of newer digital filmmaking and special effects. But this film compensates with a solid story that keeps you riveted to the screen the whole time, superb acting from the leads, especially Mary Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson, and supporting leads from Kathy Bates and the late, great Jessica Tandy (who won an Oscar for this movie). The only beef I had about this film was, as I already mentioned, the sanitized, lesbian overtones. When I was watching it, I had this distinct feeling that Idgie fell for Ruth because she hero-worshipped her brother so much this was a kind of f*cked-up way of getting closer to her dead brother, rather than a natural, personal choice for her. Hence her lesbianism was in direct correlation with the brother, not with Ruth. I find out this is also an issue that other critics have raised with the movie, since the book establishes that Idgie was a flaming lesbian (^^) and her brother had nothing to do with her lesbianism or her feelings for Ruth. There are instances in the book, in fact, when Idgie allegedly has sexual relations with prostitutes, a fact that Ruth is jealous about. Anyway, that being said, this film is still as gay as can be, and as afterellen.com notes, it even has a courtship period, a period of long absence, and a period where they actually get together and live a (not-so) happily ever after. As for the consummation of the relationship, the director reveals in his  commentary of the DVD of this film (commentaries! the greatest thing that has ever happened to DVD! yay!) that since there was no way of showing overt displays of affection in the film – the food fight scene is the outlet with which they show and defuse all that pent-up sexual tension between the two. Good call. All that physical action in the food fight, including the food and sex connection, makes for a good articulation of the subtext.

Overall, despite the downplaying of the gay aspects of it, this is an excellent film. As one watches this, one actually becomes wistful for those days long gone when though the fashion was bad,  the hair was bad and the special effects were bad, in films,but the stories and the acting were good. I hope for a cinematic renaissance of those things soon – maybe not the bad hair, and the bad fashion – but the excellent stories and excellent acting.

North Korea fires more missiles, Margaret Cho says Koreans are sneaky-assed people

Bet you didn’t expect this post to have North Korea, missiles, and comedian Margaret Cho on the heading huh? Well, I have.

So South Korea has claimed that North Korea has fired more missiles, according to the latest BBC News. In true international diplomatic fashion, UN has issued a statement, is scrambling to make a resolution, to condemn North Korea actions, and are thinking of tougher measures. Meanwhile, South Korea has decided to join the “PSI – a US-led non-proliferation campaign involving searching ships carrying suspect cargo, aimed at stopping the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction”. North Korea has, of course, claimed this is tantamount to an outright declaration of war. And why did North Korea fire the missiles in the first place? Because they realized the US still has a hostile policy against North Korea.Why did I italicize and put those words in bold letters? Because I find it interesting – even amusing that after firing a missile, this is what the UN does -1. issue a statement, 2. make a resolution that 3. condemns North Korea actions and 4. come up with tougher measures. These euphemisms, vague replies, well, it almost seems as if this is an admission of impotence. I can almost see UN dignitaries wringing their hands, walking to and fro, throwing up their hands in the air, saying, in a Dustin-Hoffman-Rainman-like way, “What are we going to do? What are we going to do? What are we going to do? Def-def-definitely, they fired a missile. Def-def-definitely they fired a missile.”

I am wondering if the global financial crisis is already over. What are they doing now? All I can hear on Philippine news is the Katrina Halili and Hayden Kho sex scandal. All I can hear from the UK news is the MPs charging their exorbitant expenses for non-existent homes to the government. Who knows?

I think a video of Margaret Cho explaining North Korean political attitude towards weapons policies is way better than the UN one. So I am posting it now.

Retro-mad film review: The Secrets (Ha Sodot, Israel, 2007)

There are scenes in this film, when the camera lingers on the face of the protagonist, Noemi (played by the incredibly beautiful Ania Bukstein) right before, during  and after an event has happened in her life. These close-up shots are beautiful, powerful and demand you to look into Ania’s steely gaze, then look away. These shots have no dialogue, hence they do not require any tedious reading of subtitles, but they are quite effective. Bukstein does not speak, but you can sense, just from watching her, the thoughts swirling through her mind, the emotions boiling beneath the calm exterior, raring to explode, like she is teetering over the edge of a precipice and debating whether to jump or not.

And this is one of the few things that make this movie, directed by US-educated Israeli director, Avi Nesher, compelling.

Bukstein’s Noemi is a young Orthodox Jewish woman whose father is a rabbi, and is being pressured to marry a man she is not even interested in. Her mother has just died. She convinces her father to allow her to go to Safed, to an Orthodox Jewish women’s seminary and study for a year before she gets married. Here she rooms with two interesting girls. When the first one comes on, you know this is not the one Noemi will fall for – logic will insist that she will fall for the hot, rebellious young woman who will probably be her exact opposite, who must have already come from some other hedonistic, nihilistic, liberal but incredibly romantic place, like, say Paris,  drinks and smokes and gets into fights with the other ladies, as well as be fascinated with the beauty of the forbidden. True to my prediction – in comes Michel (Michal Shtamler), breezing into their room, the fourth roomie with a penchant for smoking, fighting and the unthinkable.

Naturally, the two don’t hit it off in the beginning, but they do begin to warm to each other, especially since it is impossible to be immune to each other’s charm, especially during a double dinner date with guys. What cements their relationship into a strong bond though is a friendship they form with the town’s outcast,  Anouk (the amazing Fanny Ardant – she walks into a room and you can see something profound fill every square inch of screen. She commands the camera to pay attention to her. This is my first time to see her and I even I sense this), who is driven by past misdeeds (and possibly a crime) to seek redemption at the hands of the patriarchal, sexist rabbis of the church, only to be turned away.

When Michel convinces Noemi to provide Anouk with that elusive, long-withheld, well-deserved redemption thorugh “Tikkun” and the forbidden practice of the sacred Kabbala, this is actually where the film takes off and soars and keeps flying well into the end credits. The rituals they go through, the prayers, the burning, and the climactic immersing into the water, a kind of purification, both thrilling, compelling and fascinating all at the same time, the scene itself almost seems like a prayer, an invocation for us to explore deep within our own societies, and ourselves and even to something even more primal and ancient. Noemi and Michel’s activities do not go unnoticed and for their actions, they receive disapproval, condemnation and the threat of ostracism from their church elders, friends and society. And this is where it sustains my interest. Rather than go the overly melodramatic route (as some filmmakers are wont to do) and scenes of blood and tears and much gnashing of teeth, with the requisite exposition (usually delivered by the protagonist), about the world being unfair and unjust, Nesher chooses to play it smart, and keeps our main characters, especially Noemi, as intelligent as they were when we first beheld them. Noemi, for example, remains strong, adamant, forceful. As she discovers the secrets of their holy books, and their rituals and practices, she slowly becomes even more empowered, and you can almost see her new empowered self emerging from the old one. There is a growing confidence and strength in her, and you can see it as she takes on friends, family, even the church. Her character remains lean, taut, as if ready to strike any minute at anyone who challenges her newfound enlightenment and discovery that she can, in fact, go head to head with any of the male patriarchs of their church. And she manages to do this without shedding a single tear, being hysterical or killing herself. As she discovers who she is, her world outside unravels. She discovers things about the church but it does not seem as if change is possible. She discovers a deep affection and love for Michel, culminating in one night of (not-so) unbridled, consummated passion (more on that later) but it ends with Michel marrying the neighborhood flutist anyway (there is a confrontation scene between the groom-to-be and Noemi that is so explosive it’s amazing: and Bukstein barely even says anything). She discovers that the road to redemption and change is long and arduous.

I found this film refreshing and brilliant. And while I may secretly would have wanted the two main characters to end up together and have a happy ending, I also knew, deep inside that it would make sense that they wouldn’t. I already knew from first setting my eyes on Michel’s character that they would probably discover something profound with each other but would never be together. Plus, the movie already made a point of illustrating how hard it is to be a woman in the Orthodox communities of Israel, how much harder would it be for a lesbian living in the same place (are you reading this, fellow gay movie goers? This is not a stereotypical lesbian movie. I don’t even think of it as a lesbian movie,but an Israeli film with lesbian content.). As I already said, I found Bukstein’s acting amazing. It does not hurt that she is beautiful as well and I am totally crushing on her as well. My only regret is that I did not see a more explicit love scene between her and Michel and instead see a lot of legs, granny underwear, and partially obscured faces in what would seem to be throes of ecstacy. In what universe is lesbian sex as weird and as embarassing to watch as this? ^^  Clearly this was directed by a straight man trying to escape the Israeli board of censors. No, wait, it was directed by a  straight man trying to escape the Israeli board of censors. Note to director: either show it or don’t show it all. ^^ Better yet, show them like director Jean Jacques Annaud did in “L’Amant” (The Lover, 1992) as shots of skin, light, in rapid succession – effectively reducing the intimate scene itself to an exhilirating,tittilating abstraction (Sigh…they don’t make them like they used to anymore. If this were L-Word, we would have seen, not only the love scene from all the different possible and probably angles known to man, but we would also see some ass, some accessories and whole lot of  atttitude.).  But this is the only, extremely minor complaint I have about this film. Overall, it is a beautiful film – and it is a testament to the fact that acting isn’t just about delivery of words. It is about being, itself. Sadly something Hollywood has lost in all its years of pursuing global box office glory. Size does not really matter. It’s substance that does. ^^

Best quote about this film I’ve ever encountered:

“When considering this film, you won’t have to sigh to yourself, “Oh, another of those Kabbalistic, lesbian, coming-of-age romps.” – Patricia Miller, Durango Herald, “Regrets, commands, Rule of Love:’The Secrets’ follows young women into seminary in Israel” (January 09, 2009)

Amidst all this, Michel and Noemi discover a deep affection and love for each other, culminating in one night of (not-so) unbridled, consummated passion (more on that later).