I'm left with more questions than answers after seeing Guez's stunning Off World, which is probably the director's goal. Lucky (played by the intense Marc Abaya) returns to the Philippines after being raised for the bulk of his life by a Canadian family. His mother gave him up for adoption when he was a toddler. He returns to Smokey Mountain, a slum outside of Manila that is depicted in all its horrifying decay. It is something of an enormous landfill, except that thousands of people happen to live there. The smoke in the air that gives it its name is the product of the decaying trash releasing methane gas and other toxic chemicals.
Lucky is of course trying to find himself, his identity, and he is aided in this quest by an NGO employee, Julia. She facilitates a reunion with his brother, who he initially rejects because of his genderqueer presentation. What follows is a strange and disturbing journey through life in the slum and the emotional confusion that comes with meeting a family you never knew. It is a story that is familiar, in a setting that is grotesquely strange.
What is unclear is the relation between director Mateo Guez and the main character. There is a strange moment at the end where the narrator (the main character) points out a child riding on the back of a garbage truck. He says that he paid for him to go to school next year, and he'll be coming back to make sure he went. This is a strange moment. Is this the director speaking? The actor? The character? It's unclear. It seems to be saying: "Don't worry. I didn't go here, make a film, and abandon it." But without a better understanding of who is speaking, it's impossible to interpret this sequence.
Adding confusion is that the film is not subtitled. Most of the dialogue is English, but there are extended sequences in Tagalog. We can generally intuit what people are saying, but nevertheless are made to feel as outsiders -- which is certainly the point. It is Lucky's perspective, who also does not speak the language. This is a very useful device in the film, and a decision worth applauding.
But this decision may have had too much of the effect it intended -- despite its stunning beauty and horror, I never really connected with the film. The poverty on display is indeed horrific and terrible depressing. But while the story is interesting and compelling at times -- notably in a drug-induced binge that takes Lucky through the slums -- it just seemed to fall flat. Perhaps it was never developed. Perhaps the acting wasn't compelling. Perhaps its because the primary love story is heterosexual. Or perhaps as a viewer the material is so unfamiliar that it cannot feel anything but alien. It's a beautiful film -- I cannot deny that. I just felt like there was something missing.
About Us Trevorade is a community of people just like you who spend their days thinking about sex, gay men's health, and HIV/AIDS. Welcome!
We Need Your Support We're supported almost exclusively by donations from generous souls like yourself. So please, if you enjoy the content here, shell out a few gay dollars to help us cover our hosting bills.
Clips
N' Chips
Liberal-Minded. Antillean-American. Queer.
Non-PC Feminist.
Joe.
My. God.
Gay Culture, Short Stories, & More! NY-Based.
Kaleidoscope
Fellow Ann Arborite and
Gay Blogger. Sexuality & Human Rights focus.
Knucklecrack
Gay Activist Eric Levin's Fabulous NY-Based
Blog.
Pam's House Blend
She's a fabulous North Carolinian blogging about politics, LGBT and women's rights, the influence of the far Right, and race relations. What more can I say?