#AngHulingElBimbo
Though kita ko kung paano problematic AHEB in some aspects, I think we shouldn't burden art to completely show us how to deal with the problem. Edi sana nagsulat tayo ng academic treatise. We remove art of subjectivity and freedom if that's the case. + https://twitter.com/MarchingHere/status/1258696226440011778

AHEB is a proscriptive piece. It shows *what the shouldn't be* kaya it appears problematic. Perhaps ang primary goal niya is to expose and stir conversation. Successful sya in that regard. It's not flawed just because it did not EXPLICITLY offer ways how to dismantle patriarchy.+

Spoonfeeding robs the opportunity to conceive an intellectual audience, one that explores all possible avenues to challenge the portrayed problem. We don't allow the audience to contemplate further if prescriptive art lagi ang inihahandog. +

Perhaps some consider AHEB's mere proscription as problematic because it assumes the framework of the art as ending with the curtain call. For me we should not treat the audience as a mere consumer of the narrative, but as a co-creator of it +

Hence, the art of AHEB transcends the curtain call. With this, we allow the audience to produce and perform the redemption, to continue the narrative. The art becomes a wake-up call, a guiding light, rather than a blueprint. +

If I want a blueprint of how to dismantle patriarchy I'll refer to the social sciences. Doon may explicitness. But in art we imply, we use symbols because we want a certain degree of liberty or room for interpretation. Art yields questions. Science yields answers +

Also, may argument na it possibly implies and reinforces the toleration of rape culture and absolution of perpetrators. Gets. Too much room for interpration allows extreme ones to emerge. Dito nagkukulang ang AHEB. +

As a comparison, let's have Dulaang UP's Nana Rosa. Mas brutal ang portrayal ng rape, pero hindi siya viewed as problematic, kasi yung storya umiikot mismo sa victim. Hindi ornamental plot device yung paggahasa, pivotal siya. Sa AHEB, ornamental yung rape sa 3 lalaki +

Wala man lang paexplore sa consciousness ni Joy. Hindi nabigyan ng justice yung character niya kaya walang resonance yung pagreclaim niya ng agency sa latter part nung sinuway na niya si Banlao. +

Sa Nana Rosa yung problema ay portrayed sa lente ng api, hindi ng spectator. Though valid at mayamang diskurso pa rin ang perspektiba ng saksi, oppression is best challenged through the perspective of the oppressed. +

Pag LGBTQ rights issue, having a cis hetero observer as the protagonist does not do justice to the struggle. It's like hiring a white actor for an Asian or African-American role. Hence, kapag usapang VAW ang main isyu tulad ng sa AHEB, dapat sa lente ng kababaihan ang treatment.+

Ayon so ito lang naman some of my hot takes on AHEB. Nakakatuwang makita ang iba't ibang perspektiba ukol dito kaya please feel free to rebut or to share your thoughts uwu. +

TLDR
1. Intellectual not a spoonfed audience.
2. Proscriptive vs prescriptive art
2. Audience not as plain consumers but as co-creators
3. IMO: Art does not give explicit blueprints. It raises the questions.
4. Oppression narratives must always privilege that of the oppressed.

Hence, AHEB did not totally fail. It instigated. And the fact that we are having these discussions renders it quite successful. We cannot topple the patriarchy with one artwork. But with it we can pique some minds, and ultimately, initiate action.

It's a start!

+++

If the viewer interprets the ending as absolution for the enablers and as obligation of forgiveness, balik tayo sa proscriptive nature of AHEB. It doesn't necessarily reinforce or tolerate such narrative; instead, it offers a cautionary tale against such.

+++
Doon sa point ko na valid pa rin yung perspective ng spectators sa oppression, I recommend The Kite Runner which is a novel by Khaled Hosseini. A coming-of-age story set in Afghanistan of how a boy grapples with guilt upon witnessing the rape of his friend. Nuanced treatment!

live update:
so may nabuo na po kaming framework ni @gbgrcia on dealing with social commentary art forms abangan po ang broadcomm x artstud publication choz

+++
My friends and I were able to pinpoint why AHEB somehow did not work in its proscription, and this is mainly why it's being considered as problematic. Proscriptive narratives like Nana Rosa or the seemingly nihilist Iska by direk Boborol work because +

although walang complete redemption for the protagonists and accountability of the 'antagonist,' klaro yung tindig nito sa kung paano itatrato ang enableism and oppression. It is with condemnation. +

SPOILER: In Nana Rosa, the audience is left with Rosa's death, continued denial of Japanese gov, and the continued persecution of comfort women. Kahit bleak, throughout the narrative, clearly condemned ang mga ito. Klaro yung gustong ielicit na emotion sa audience +

In Iska, she resorts to treating her autistic grandson like an animal. Ultimately chaining him out of desperstion even if she promised not to do so. Nihilistic. Classic tragedy. Pero klaro sa akda na condemned ito. Klaro yung gustong ielicit na emotion sa audience: anger&disgust+

In such narratives, wala mang accountability for the perpetrators in the end, there is an ACTIVE demand for it. In AHEB, hindi malakas yung call to anger and disgust. Walang malakas na demand for accountability. +

Nana Rosa condemned her rapists. Iska condemned herself. And the audience is clearly encouraged to do the same. But Joy? Joy forgave. Hence, nadilute yung demand for accountability. It presented the dangerous and problematic message of forgiveness over liability. +

The absolution ending may in itself be a proscription, a warning not to be like Joy. Para sa iba hindi naman daw naabsolve. And that is where AHEB becomes problematic. Hindi klaro yung gustong ielicit na emotion. +

It almost seems like we should sympathize with the enablists for their silence, not be angry with them. Yes, art is subject to multifarious interpretations. However, it becomes problematic if in its ambiguity, it allows dangerous ones to emerge. +

In art, there may be ambiguity regarding what plans of action are best in dealing with the issue portrayed. That's up for the audience to explore. However, the call to action must be unequivocal, and AHEB is conflicted in such call. +

If we are not powerfully compelled to feel anger and digust towards the sources of oppression which, in AHEB, are Emman, Anthony and Hector, the art form merely becomes a description, not a proscription. A mere showing of reality, not a stand that it shouldn't be. +

If the art is social commentary, the commentary should be crystal clear. An artwork becomes problematic if it shows an issue but doesn't comment on it. With this, it only capitalizes on the oppression, it doesn't call to change it. +

With AHEB, there's a call to change, but the call is soft.

TLDR!
Eto framework nung arguments ko:
Political art must ideally have
1. description (issue in reality)
2. proscription (commentary and stance)
3. general prescription (action).

Social commentary art must be able to balance all three, without:

1. distorting the reality/issue
2. being vague in commentary/stance
3. spoonfeeding or limiting the possible courses of action +

If I want plain description, I'll go to VAW victims directly. Reality is the best reference. If I want plain prescription, I'll resort to the social sciences. Doon explicit. But if I want all three plus digestibility, empathy, and emotional appeal, I'll resort to the arts.

AHEB:
Description - klaro
Proscription - soft masyado
Prescription - masyadong ambiguous ang proscription kaya lito ang audience