rotban

Saturday, September 01, 2018

The Hows of Us shows the problematic core of breakup movies

The Hows of Us, Star Cinema's latest love team vehicle, begins with an inspired shot of an empty house. Over the next few minutes, the house fills up with appliances, furniture and knick-knacks as it charts the history of our couple, a history that proves to be tumultuous. While it makes for a promising introduction, The Hows of Us ultimately turns out to be a messy rehash of previous films in the Star Cinema lineup, a tragic squandering of the Kathniel love team's talent.

When we meet Primo (Daniel Padilla) and George (Kathryn Bernardo) again, the two have been separated for years. Flashbacks point to the reason behind this rift: Primo's too much of a dreamer, content to letting George support them both financially to pursue his musical dreams while at the same time ignoring George's own dreams to become a doctor. This culminates in a sequence where George basically abandons her NMAT exam to tend to a drunken Primo. To non-medical students, this constitutes a time where one sacrifices her dreams for the sake of the other. To medical students, intentionally sinking the NMAT is a huge deal: many medical schools screen admissions based on how well a student performs during an NMAT, and if one fails an exam, it shows up on a student's record. Had I been in George's shoes, I would not only have split with this no good guy, I would never want to see him again.

But here we are, years later, and Primo's back, ready to reconcile. Let's just ignore the fact that his existence caused untold amounts of pain to George - two years later, she's still reeling from that incident and she's still not a medical student. And here's where the movie loses me completely. I went from a doubting skeptic to someone completely repulsed by the very notion of this film. It's a feeling I've felt before, with another love team vehicle that operated on a similar premise: 2017's My Ex and Whys.

The beginning of The Hows of Us features a debate about the roles of men and women in a relationship. Although the film tries to prove the fact that a complementary relationship is key, it manages to back up the point that women merely exist to clean up the messes of men instead. There's a scene near the middle of The Hows of Us that encapsulates this toxic idea: before the breakup, Primo was a complete leech. He contributes nothing in terms of money to the bills or household expenses. Later on in the film, he sells something to George (it's a product he acquires through multilevel marketing, itself a highly dubious source of income). He returns some of the money George pays him, saying it's his contribution to paying the bills. On the surface it looks like a sweet gesture, but you have to remember, that's still George's money, and Primo still doesn't work a regular job. He's not shown doing anything like a job for the rest of the film and it feels like a token gesture to get audiences to side with him.

In both films, both men come back with their tails between their legs, their situations supposedly changed for the better. In trying to get the couple back together, both movies conveniently dismiss the agency of the woman, with both scripts having side characters (even characters who were skeptical of the relationship in the first place) goad the poor woman to just make up with the guy already, because he has apparently magically changed for the better, even though this change is depicted poorly in the film. The film sweeps all of his problematic behavior under the rug. Not once does the film imply that a relationship based out of cooperation and understanding is the way; instead, the girl should keep on providing for the guy instead.

I'll say this in Tagalog just to hammer down the point: Hindi dahil nagpapacute ang isang party, dapat magbati na kayo. May dahilan kung bakit kayo naghiwalay.

And here we wonder why people keep on coming back to problematic, abusive relationships.

We repeatedly see how Primo's held up over the years, how he had to give up his musical dreams for his dad. We do not see what happened to George in the same time period, and how delaying (or probably even stopping) her medical studies could have impacted not only her life, but that of her brother's or her family's.

All I see are justifications for the man, with little indication that he truly has the capacity to change. There are moments where you see him truly changing for the better (like a particular scene where Primo sacrifices something important) but those scenes are few and far between. I attribute this (like in My Ex and Whys) to a poorly written script. Should we forgive Primo just because he's the love team partner of George? Personally, I don't think so, and this is the problem I have with breakup films. The couple has to get back together no matter what, because it's the expectation of the audience. Who cares about what's sensible or right? I do not like films that try to tell me what to do.

The film changes gears near the last act, following several well-trodden romantic tropes: the couple heads towards an exotic locale (this time, it's Amsterdam) in search of George's long lost father. it does little to advance the plot and it further bloats an already bloated film. Not only that, we are constantly assaulted with declarations from both George's brother (who, despite all his naivete, should really know better at this point) and Primo's friend that George should make up with Primo, pretty please with a cherry on top. By this time we are assaulted with pretty pictures and declarations from Primo that wouldn't look out of place as captions on an Instagram picture. 

There is a moment near the end that is supposed to be cathartic, but because the film has spent most of its running time telling me how to feel, I zoned out. There are flashbacks to happier memories and an appeal to sentimentality, but all it left me was a bad taste in my mouth.

The film then tries its hand at ambiguity, but this uncertainty leads into more unsatisfactory, unanswered questions. It escapes the dilemma it has established (should Primo and George get back together or not) by running away from it. It doesn't make Primo accountable for his earlier actions at all, nor does it complete the process of George's journey towards understanding her feelings about the whole thing.

I do not like The Hows of Us. Even though I appreciate the craft behind some of the aspects of the film, and even though I appreciated the performances of the two leads (especially Daniel Padilla), I despise the fundamental idea it is built upon. I fully admit I am in the minority saying this; despite my misgivings, the film has made tons of money at the box office and will continue to do so. But even if you, dear reader, elect to dismiss my thoughts on the film completely (like how the film dismissed George), consider this:

Whenever you see our government deny couples the choice to get divorced, whenever you see a family member or friend get back into a relationship that doesn't look good, when you see a sister or a best friend choose to side with an abusive man because "they're meant to be together," remember this film. Remember this film and the films like it, and remember the role these films played into perpetuating a culture where these things continue to happen.

Have fun with that notion.

No comments: