The Ugly Truth

Tanpa banyak basa-basi, Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler) membawakan sebuah talkshow yang membahas tentang hubungan pria dan wanita. Jauh dari kesan jaim, Mike sangatlah vulgar dalam memberikan opini, bahkan setting talkshow-pun dibuat seadanya seperti ruang kerja laki-laki yang berantakan dan seadanya. He’s a bad boy yang tidak malu menelanjangi para penelpon dengan pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang memojokkan, dan sebagian besar dinilai agak merendahkan martabat wanita. Hingga akhirnya Ia menandatangani kontrak untuk menjadi host dalam acara berita yang diproduseri oleh Abby Richter (Katherine Heigl), si pribadi perfeksionis dan kaku yang mengidamkan laki-laki dengan ciri-ciri yang diejek sebagai ciri-ciri ‘Gay’ oleh Mike. Perbedaan mereka yang kontras membuat Abby selalu naik pitam. Dari sinilah plot The Ugly Truth berkembang. Kedekatan Mike dan Abby dalam pekerjaan, yang dimana lebih banyak kontra daripada pro-nya, mewarnai narasi film ini.

Film ringan yang sangat menghibur, durasinya yang pendek memang terasa namun rangkaian dialog konyol dan scene-nya yang komikal konstan membuat penonton terhibur dari awal sampai akhir film. Bila dipanjangkan lagi, ceritanya pasti akan terasa bertele-tele.

The Ugly Truth yang menjadi pesan utama film ini, disampaikan dengan vulgar oleh Mike Chadway dalam perannya sebagai host. Ia jenis lelaki yang percaya, bahwa fisik wanita sangat menentukan keberhasilan mereka dalam mendapatkan jodoh. Wanita harus misterius sekaligus menggoda, mereka harus menggunakan ‘aset’ fisik mereka untuk menggaet laki-laki, yap begitulah saran Mike kepada para penonton setianya. Menyenangkan mendengar celotehannya yang kasar namun pada saat yang sama very true. Sementara itu, Abby yang mengagungkan keajaiban feeling dan naluri, menolak mentah-mentah idealisme Mike.

Akting Katherine Heigl mengungguli Gerard Butler di film ini, jauh dari perannya sebagai dokter di Grey’s Anatomy, Katherine sukses memainkan peran sebagai seorang wanita urban yang control freak dan perfeksionis. Ia cocok memainkan peran-peran ringan seperti ini, seperti perannya dalam film komedi romantis 27 Dressess.

Kesimpulan saya, film ini cukup menyenangkan. Tidak ada salahnya menyempatkan sedikit waktu di malam hari setelah kerja untuk menontonnya bersama teman atau pasangan kita.

Wake up Indonesian Brands

Before you start reading this post, try to name at least five Indonesian brands which are famous regionally or internationally within five minutes.
One…
Two…
Three…
Four…
Five…and stop!

So how, do you manage to name five? Or even not a single one?

I couldn’t name one within five minutes. Maybe I could if the time limit is extended to 10 minutes, well umm maybe 20, or erm, an hour…I’m not sure. I won’t say that there are none but maybe there aren’t many Indonesian brands out there that have gained regional or international fame. This is a problem for our country. We almost don’t have powerful brands recognized by the international community. It’s ironic and sad because we have the resources, creativities, and talents yet until now we are still not able to make full use of them to create world-leading brands.

In fact, we are left behind the other Asian countries as Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore, and Japan. Malaysia got Royal Selangor, a successful international brand which is now retailed in upscale outlets around the world, such as Harrods of London, David Jones of Australia, and the museum of Modern Art Gift Shop in New York. Next, Malaysia got Padini Holdings, the mother company of Malaysians well-known brands such as Padini, PDI, and the one and only VINCCI. Last but not least, Malaysia has Air Asia, the Asia’s most famous affordable flights.

Taiwan has Acer and NAUTICA. Yes, NAUTICA was actually made by a Taiwanese- born business man named David Chu (I was a bit surprised when I knew this, I used to think NAUTICA was an European or American brand such as CAT or Lacoste). Singapore is famous for its Singapore Airlines and SingTel. The last is Japan, which I don’t need to tell because I’m sure y’all could name the brands less within 5 minutes.

Then what happened to Indonesia? It’s about time for us to take more account on this matter because the impact of international brand is not only beneficial for the host companies, but it will also give a lot contribution for our country, especially in terms of economical factor. Besides that, having strong domestic brands which are known worldwide would give a good image for Indonesia. They would be the country’s representatives in the international community. So the world will know that we actually have ‘the quality’ to compete.

I think this ‘left behind’ situation is not an obstacle, but it is actually an opportunity for us to create strong brands of our own. Remember, we already had the resources, creativities, and talents, we only need to build-up our will and passion to create something brilliant from these valuable assets.

It’s nice to know that Indonesia already had a few strong brands which are known internationally but still formed as small players. For example: Batik Iwan Tirta, which is adored by foreigners and a batik boutique named Bin House, one of the famous foreign tourist destinations in Jakarta. These brands are on their way to soar and hopefully they will achieve international success as Royal Selangor or NAUTICA.

As Indonesian young generations, we need to be optimistic and inspired because who knows, we might be the future creators of world-leading brands. Think globally, start today because big success comes up from little things

Documentary, representation of reality?

Do you like documentary films? Or you don’t because you think that this type of films are boring and not interesting?

Or, do you think such films represent the truth, nothing but the truth? If you do, then you have to read this post…

Representing Reality???

Many people think that documentary is a representation of reality, simply because they assume that this type of film is recording factual events or regarding factual subjects. Moreover, they often think that documentary is identical with objectivity, thus it should be objective. Well, they are wrong.

Documentary is not a representation of reality, but it is the film maker’s representation of our historical world. What is conveyed in the film is the film maker’s point of views or arguments, and what makes it a documentary is because the representation is concerning on social matters or issues. I learned this from a book titled ‘Introduction to Documentary’ by Bill Nichols, the father of documentary.

The Example: Bowling for Columbine

Let’s take Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore as the example. The film is about gun violence in U.S and U.S gun ownership policy. Moore uses the shooting incident at Columbine High School as a case to begin his arguments. He tries to convey that gun violence in America have been becoming more serious for these past few years. The number of cases on gun violence is increasing, A lot of innocent people was killed, and there is no sign of this going to be stop. The next question is, who is the bad guy? What factors have made these problems emerged in America?

These are questions that Moore tries to answer in the film. He has his own answers and he attempts to make his viewers believe on him. Briefly saying, he wants the viewers to think that he is right.

In the film, it is obvious that Moore doesn’t attempt to be neutral. He aggressively posts his arguments by giving subjective evidences. Moreover, he is not only interviewing his correspondents but he is also intriguing them with unexpected and disturbing questions.

According to theory, this film is a documentary because of two reasons:

1. It represents the film maker’s point of views.

Even though the authenticity of some evidences are doubtful but Bowling for Columbine represents Michael Moore’s point of views. He believes that America’s unrestricted gun ownership policy and culture have made the big problems emerged.

2. Social matters or issues about our historical world

Michael Moore’s arguments are concerning on social matters or issues. The issues are gun violence and gun ownership policy in U.S. Thus Bowling for columbine is a documentary.

The issue of objectivity

Documentary is definitely not objective. How it could be objective if in its very nature, documentary is not a representation of reality? what is being conveyed in the documentary is the film maker’s particular perspectives about our historical world. When he defends his arguments or point of views in the film, it is impossible for him to be on both sides. It is just like a lawyer defending his client. He has to support one side and disregard the other side. It is a matter of choice; on which side do you want you to be?

Are you still thinking that documentary is boring and not interesting?

There is a lot that you can gain from a documentary despite a bunch of knowledge. It is fun to analyze how the filmmaker drags you on his side; how he persuades you with his arguments only to accept his point of views. Please remember that when you see a documentary, it means that you see the historical world from the eyes of the filmmaker.

Documentary is about both communication and persuasion. There are many things you can learn by watching documentaries;

1. You can learn how to communicate ideas by using commentaries and images.
2. Not only learn how to communicate, but you also can learn how to persuade people, because documentary is an art of persuasion. Therefore, you can learn how to persuade people in order for them to accept your ideas. It is always exciting when you can make people believe on what you think….it seems like you have power over them.
3. Different filmmakers have different approaches. Perhaps you can imitate their techniques and make a documentary of your own

So, how about know? Still perceive documentary the same way as what you’ve been always thinking?

Here’s a suggestion: next time when you see a documentary, try to practice what you’ve learned from this post. Try to understand what goes beyond the film. because it is the ‘key’ to understand documentary. Happy watching…