It’s a matter of survival

I read my good friend. Shirley Pizarro’s traditional wish list for 2003 in her column in the Manila Bulletin with head slightly bowed while struggling against the bulging powers of all the unwanted fats, complex carbohydrates and sugar-rich foods for the gods and devils I devoured during the holidays, to suspend my disbelief.

Disbelief because, for as long as showbusiness is plainly the business of show and not the philosophy of "synchro-destiny" or the wonders of metallurgy, The Buzz will air stories about Madame Auring and Mystica.

What are the rules of showtown? They are as self-serving as the laws that govern the war vs. terror of George W., the son. They are as infinite as Deepak Chopra’s Ayurvedic eclat. They are as wild and as sinister as the mob’s. They are as flippant as the rules that control our wily hearts and are as barbaric as the laws of the jungle. Therefore, our lowly Buzz does stories from the "boring" debates on pornography versus art to the evils of piracy to the wedding of Isa and Geryk and the flaky love story of Jimboy and Mahal to the film Development Fund Law and yes, to the asim of Madame Auring and the lachrymal outings of Mystica. Which stories will not cheat my good friend Shirley Pizarro of her precious Sunday afternoon time? What is a cheap trick and what is a "class" trick? When a public affairs show intellectualizes a debate on whether Diana Zubiri’s Mandaluyong overpass stunt was right or wrong, the show isn’t cheap (or is it?) because it is public affairs and not showbiz. The fact is, it’s so dastardly convenient to malign Madame Auring, Mystica and showbiz – they being plain and simple comedy – because they entertain, sometimes they make us sneer at ourselves.

I read Shirley’s column with my head bowed because as a dutiful ground soldier of the "network" kingdoms, I took the reprimand meekly from some of our bosses who share Shirley’s opinion even before her wish list saw print.

Some well-meaning friends tersely admonished me for the asim interview with Madam Auring. One reminded me quite strongly about responsibility, prudence and yes, the highfalutin’ concept of "class."

Television is a strangely complex landscape. It pays fairly well but it’s easier to watch it where you don’t worry about ratings and commercials or where you don’t lose hair because someone out there is lurking in the dark hoping you’d miss a step so he can snatch your show.

"We do all sorts of stories to survive," I murmured. I was being scourged for that asim interview. "And if we don’t do it, some show will." Anyway, S-Files concluded the Madame Auring-Mystica saga. I could not blame S-Files. They did what had to be done. Something that we could not do anymore the week after the asim interview because "it left a bad taste in the mouth."

Is it all about survival? What about inspiring, empowering television? What about educational entertainment? What about "classy" stories? Where have all the values gone? Morality on television? So when Madame Auring was chattering about her asim, the P30,000-50,000 allowance she gives her boyfriends or the death of her seven boyfriends, people laughed, others sneered while some were appalled. But looks like people watched her and wasted precious time that Sunday afternoon!

So the question is, is there space for Madame Auring and Mystica on The Buzz or S-Files or Startalk?

Strange as it may sound, when you think about it seriously, for as long as they are part of Shirley Pizarro’s wish list and the Bulletin’s Top 20 Showbiz Stories for 2002, for as long as some people are entertained, for as long as people are appalled, for as long as people watch, for as long as we allow them to do their stunts on national TV – then they do. Tita Shirley, wishing that The Buzz stop airing interviews of Madam Auring and Mystica is like telling you to quit entertaining your readers with your puzzling puzzlers! Or am I just puzzled! Read on and enjoy a puzzler!

Producing a concert is not a walk in the park. Some people think it’s as fun and easy as playing Chinese garter. It can be tricky. You can get a big name performer, print tickets, do some press releases and scream a TV and radio plug, swing some print ads – and the cash register is expected to ring for the rest of the millennium and beyond. If it doesn’t, some people turn really nasty.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend bumped into a producer in some hospital. After the obligatory intros, the couple started lambasting relentlessly with the ferocity of a mindless tornado a management office which manages a talent he contracted for a concert. "Mahirap kausap, lahat naman ng hiningi nila binigay namin, blah blah blah (all this producer had to do was switch on his lights and read a clear, fundamental contract that he signed). And who forced them to do this concert in the first place? And did they also realize what the management office did beyond the signed contract out of goodwill?

"God is alive," murmured the officer in charge of the management office. May he who is lying be struck by lightning thrice in the head. But what is disgusting is everytime the producer talks to the management office, he displays decent behavior. That hospital encounter also produced a butchered version of a story about the producer going directly to the artists – asking the artist to actually help sell tickets – blah, blah, blah!

It’s pathetic. There will always be two sides of a story. But the years this management office have spent in the industry will prove that no matter how small it is, it has not robbed anyone of anything – has not fooled one idiot in this world, has not forced any producer to mount a ballroom extravaganza for easy money, that is has not intentionally made life difficult for anyone, except of course when some people insist to play piko and Chinese garter in this intrigue-laden concert arena!