Going back to my previous post, I feel a disclaimer is in order.

With my previous post, I am, by no means, slamming people who like 'Be With Me', okay?

You have your reasons for liking it. I have my reasons for not liking it. We have to agree to disagree.

I guess I've finally reached the brim of the pot, so to speak, that I had to write out that post regarding pretentious Art and pretentious Artists. It is something that has been on my mind for a long time, which is not directly related to 'Be With Me' actually, and is, instead, triggered off by something else, which I will write about later.

Anyhow, I regret to say that this post is (again) going to be about 'Be With Me'.

After so much ranting on the film, I feel much obliged to explain clearly, as far as I can, why exactly I do not like 'Be With Me'. It is queer actually, because given that 'Be With Me' is not much different from '12 Storeys', there should be no reason why I like the latter and not the former. After much pondering, I suspect it has - ironically enough - something to do with the inclusion of Theresa Chan's narrative in the film.

Ironic because, if I am not wrong, the film was inspired by Theresa Chan's story, and her life story is the foundation of the entire film. If anything, that should be the part of the film that shouldn't go wrong because it is the highlight, the theme, the core. But Theresa Chan's story didn't fit in the narrative at all, I feel. Instead, it disrupts the structure of the film, which from the story of the old couple, the lesbians, up to the point of the love-sick security guard, works wonderfully in the relation of the theme Love, portraying its myriad forms and incarnations, beautiful and otherwise. It rode on the myth that is romantic tendencies, reducing love to nothing more than common and everything less than glamourous. Then in come the thread that is Theresa Chan's story and the previously tightly-woven fabric starts unraveling. Not to trivialise the extraordinary woman's story, but it's not as closely related as the other three stories are to one another, and that disrupts the flow for me. If this thread has been left out of the entire narrative, I suspect the film would be more impactful in the articulation of its theme. As for Theresa Chan's story, it would do her more justice to make a documentary on her life than thread it through a collection of narratives wherein hers simply doesn't fit.

I suppose one can always argue that I am wrong, that her story did fit into the film because her story is one of loving oneself and loving humanity as oppose to the other three stories that focus on mainly loving another and not loving the self enough. But I didn't see 'Be With Me' as a dialectic sort of film. And dialectic didn't work as well as simply just portraying in view of the context because it makes everything a little too neat. Perhaps Eric Khoo did set out to juxtapose Theresa Chan's story with the other three, but like I've said, I would prefer he had not done so, and simply concentrate on presenting fuck-up Love.

And so that is why I do not like "Be With Me'. Its dialecticism is a tad too preachy to me, and was awkwardly worked into the film.

If anyone has other views, I would gladly hear it. Comment away.

***

Now, about my reaction towards high culture, it all began when I was researching on Singapore theatre during the holidays. I am interested in writing, and truth be told, I have written various things slashed away here and there. And during the holidays, I was toying with the idea of writing plays, so I went about learning more about how theatre is like in Singapore.

And it is, a little off-puttingly, high culture. And it's not just plays. It's same for films.

Nothing wrong with high culture itself, but in other countries, there is a balance of high culture cheem works and works that are more rooted in realistic drama that are more accessible to all. The lack of that in Singapore is disturbing because it seems to say that most artists in Singapore aims to be cheem, and so most made themselves appear a little pretentious.

And if they are not pretentious, they are certainly alienating audiences.

Go back a week or two, there was an article in ST about a theatre company in Singapore, and one of the directors commented something to the effect that Singaporeans cannot appreciate Art, and one of the ST journalists (I cannot remember if it's Ong Sor Feng or Clarissa Oon) commented something that I understood to mean that the Singapore Arts scene should not alienate audience by being elitist. And that is basically what I feel about artists in Singapore. There is, by and large, a trace of elitism going on. Most seem to round themselves up into this tight inner circle, doing their own thang, and then complain that no one appreciates them. I don't know how much of this elitism I feel has got to do with the fact that most arty people in Singapore are rich people, but there's that, there's a divide, and it separates people like me from them, and I cannot feel for their work at all.

I suppose we are coming from different places, these Art people and me. They talk about Art a lot, and having no formal artistic training, I have no solid idea what the Art they speak of is. I see Art in a simpler form, of telling stories. I like listening to stories, and I like telling stories, and as Neil Gaiman (god to many arts student who know about him) once said it best, good writers write about stories they care about in the best way they can to make other people care about their stories too. I think it applies to all forms of artistic expressions.

And if the local arts scene ain't moving forward as fast as we'd like, then perhaps it has more to do with just simply lack of governmental/people support, and lack of education in the arts, and political restraint in excesses.

Perhaps, artists are simply still far away from being able to tell stories in a way that will make people care about them. And that inability to connect the audience - it's entirely the artists' fault.