Happy New Year, guys!!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Baler
| Rating: | ★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Drama |
Okay, so first off, I'm going to lay my cards on the table and say I'm potentially biased. Joem, Bok, AG and I were supposed to write the script for this movie, if it weren't for the demands of our day jobs. So, I could be kinda bitter. Although, I will say that, after seeing the movie tonight, I feel quite vindicated. We at Bodega would definitely have written a much better script than whatever that was.
But, the movie did win awards at the latest Metro Manila Film Fest, so it did have its merits.
First, the good stuff.
My salutations to the studio for finally thinking out of the collective local film industry's (very) small box. Instead of the incredibly formulaic romantic comedies (Desperadas 1 and 2), sex comedies (One Night Only, later installments of Mano Po) and product-placement only-for-morons comedies (Iskul Bukol, anything with Enteng Kabisote in it) that tend to glut the MMFF, Viva Films decided to go big, or go home. It took vision and ambition to go with a historical flick (and partly in Spanish, no less!), which takes more money and more skill to make. May other studios follow suit. Let's hope they all grow enough balls to think large, like that one local studio that attempted to make a Genghis Khan bio-pic. (Now that, my friends, takes massive balls.)
The makers of the film also wisely avoided turning the movie into a shining example of nationalistic xenophobia. (Filipinos= good, anybody foreign = bad) Dr. Dumol was given a copy of the script, and it was supposed to end with some "glory of the Philippines" bullshit. Director Mark Meily had enough sense and integrity to dump those parts. Since that screenplay guy has apparently won an award for it, he should be thanking Mr. Meily for his restraint. If he had gone the way of the script, it would have been a disaster on the scale of "Bagong Buwan".
It was also obvious that some care was taken for the film's production value. Despite the seemingly cardboard walls of the church (which shook in a way stone walls would never do), most of the sets and costumes look well-made. The attention to detail was there to some degree, despite a few goofs. For example, in the first battle of the siege, the Philippine forces had a rolling four-pounder cannon, which the real revolutionary forces at that time and in that place never had. They switched to the more accurate-looking crude cannons during the siege proper, and the four-pounder was never seen again. Also, according to the historical record, those cannons the revolutionary forces had fired only stone shot, and not proper ordnance like in the movie. Aguinaldo's army was not all that rich. But this is just an amateur historian nitpicking.
As for the acting, I really liked Michael de Mesa's friar priest. The actor playing the altar boy was not bad either. Old typecast standby Joel Torre was his usual self as he always is in historical set-piece dramas. Leo Martinez, another typecast "historical figure" actor, was surprisingly restrained as the commanding officer of the besieging forces. And, Philip Salvador had his moments as an anguished revolutionary, even if the script had him revert to old cliches from time to time. Can't be helped, I suppose.
And now, for the reasons behind the two star rating.
There was a great movie somewhere in "Baler". Unfortunately, they chose to shoot a side story instead. There's this song from Team America: World Police that went, "I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark in Pearl Harbor. I miss you more than that movie missed the point...." I think Mark Meily missed the point in "Baler". And that is behind everything that is wrong with the movie.
"Baler" is our "Pearl Harbor". And "Pearl Harbor" sucked mightily. Forget about using "Baler" as a history teaching aid. For all the touted research, "Baler" was as "historical" as Michael Bay's greatest embarrassment.
The stories behind "Pearl Habor" were already there for the taking. How would America react to being attacked on its own soil for the first time since 1812? How would people cope with impending war? What went on in the mind of the people responsible for going to war? Can a nation stricken pick itself up? But no, Michael Bay chose to expend all of the film's story capital on the riveting question of who gets to put his dick in Kate Beckinsale.
"Baler" has largely the same failures. The story here, as in any siege story, lie mainly with the suffering of the besieged. Why do they fight? What makes them hold on? Is honor worthy of death? Is disgrace worthy of life? Would we have done the same as them? Occasionally, you may veer out to the besiegers as well. Why do they fight? Are they willing to commit brutality in the name of their cause? Is their cause just? (Which can also be asked of the besieged.) But, no. All of these questions, all of this story capital, is just so much white noise in service of a cheesy love story. You'd think fanfic writer Stephanie Meyer wrote the script. Because of this, they commit numerous egregious errors.
By far, the saga's most interesting character is Lt. Saturnino Martin-Cerezo, the Spanish lieutenant who held his unit together for almost a year in the face of increasing attrition and insurmountable odds. It is his account that tells the story of the siege of Baler in the most intimate and personal manner. He or someone close to him should be the hero. Instead, because he is Spanish, his role is cast in the background. Worse, the character is horribly miscast, with typecast one-trick-pony movie thug Ryan Eigenmann portraying the man who was arguably the most literate and compelling personality in his entire unit. Captain Las Morenas is better portrayed, in that he is limited to shouting slogans and being the token compassionate Spaniard instead of having his character ass-raped. Although, Baron Geisler speaks and looks like a Japanese officer rather than a Spanish one. He probably only got the role because his name sounds vaguely German. Lt. Juan Alonso Zayas (sp?), the gallant Puerto Rican officer, has an built-in story line that could drive an entire movie. Instead, his only personal line was "let's use the boy as a human shield".
So it boils down to Jericho Rosales' indio soldier, Celso Resurrecion, and his Kapampangan friends to carry the besieged side of the story, despite the fact that almost all the natural-born soldiers had already deserted the unit by the time they took refuge in the church. So, to deal with this conundrum of coming up with storylines for non-existent soldiers, they decided to focus on the love story.
Jericho Rosales is a dependable lead, though he is slowed down by his rather painful attempts at Spanish. Guess the accents of the other Spanish speakers. Geisler's is the funniest, followed by Eigenmann's. They all speak haltingly, like its their first month out of Instituto Cervantes, and Rosales is no different. As for Anne Curtis, the female lead and love interest, she seems awfully Spanish for a Tagalog. And, her acting performance was about as good as Pinocchio on Valium...wooden as hell, without the charm. She supposedly won as "Best Actress", which probably means that the other contenders must have really, really sucked. She couldn't even make already melodramatic lines sound remotely dramatic. That's like a spoon-fed person missing the spoon. (For more comic fun, watch her ostensibly brown baby pop up a mestizo in the epilogue.)
So, in essence, you are expecting one dependable actor and one horribly over-matched actress attempt to carry a stupid storyline above other more compelling storylines happening about them. It was brutal to watch. And because they overlooked the better storylines lurking in the background, when those storylines exerted themselves, the film looked all sorts of stupid.
For example, when Lt. Martin-Cerezo continually defies all attempts at making him surrender, including throwing out a Spanish delegation, you have no inkling as to why he's so stiffly holding on to the defense of the church. The impression you get is that Lt. Martin-Cerezo is just being an ass about things, which is all the script and the underwhelming actor allow you to think. The best character in the entire story is given almost no empathy. Even the wonderful scene of the priest saying Mass for the townspeople in the midst of conflict is ruined by the lack of build up. The tensions between the townspeople and the army ostensibly out to kill every Spaniard, including a beloved priest, is seen only in small snatches. The shooting of the carabao and the fire-raid were also minimized for the sake of the absurd primary story, ruining the chance for some much-needed action to break the tedium of siege life. The American attempt to get the Spanish to surrender comes off as comic relief rather than a point of tension. The silliness of the entire movie, all due to that very fundamental mistake of supplanting the story already there with something infinitely more superficial, looms large by the time you see a puppy provide as much meat as an adult dog, or see the aforementioned suddenly mestizo child.
I really wanted to like this movie, if only to remove the bitterness of not having wrote it. But, I just can't. I hated "Pearl Harbor". There's just no way I'm not going to hate "Baler" now that I've seen it.
I just hope that the next time the local film industry attempts something potentially epic, they recognize the epic and not cram it in such a small box as a frickin' love story.
** / *****
Thursday, December 25, 2008
"Star Wars" - an a cappella tribute to John Williams
This guy does several John Williams classics with Star Wars lyrics...with the notable exception of John Williams' actual Star Wars stuff.
I Still Believe in Santa Claus
Whew. Glad to get that off my chest. *closes closet door*
You may be thinking, "you mean, metaphorically or symbolically, right?"
You'd be wrong.
I'm talking about the whole fat guy in a red suit with flying reindeer bit. I believe he does manage to get around the world in one night, and can squeeze his massive bottom into any chimney just to give children gifts.
So, the typical reaction is what in fuck's name do you think you're doing believing in Santa Claus at age 26?
It's not easy to explain. It's not that I got mysterious gifts every Christmas. Sometimes, all I got was a lousy shirt. (Naughty year, I suppose.)
Since there is no easy explanation, let me try by answering the objections instead. What exactly is so objectionable about the reality of Santa Claus?
The most common objection is the one given to kids above the age of 7: it is rationally, logically impossible for reindeer to fly, for a fat old man to fit into chimneys, and for such a man to go around the world in 12 hours.
I would say that if I'm supposed to believe that a race of primitive, poo-flinging chimps would someday compose Handel's Messiah, why not a jolly old man with more contortionist skills than a houseful of yogi who travels at trans-light speed with aerodynamic reindeer?
Not everything on Heaven or Earth will be found in your philosophy, Horatio, even if you do call it "science" and obtain government legitimization and funding.
The next objection would be that Santa is just a symbol, a myth, a projection of our desires. That cannot be real.
I would say that a symbol may be the most real thing one will ever see. For isn't the symbol of justice far more real than the actuality of court proceedings and paper signings? As for the myth, who is to say that myths aren't real? I fall squarely on the side of Tolkien, who believed that man can become legend, and the legend become myth. This does not make the man any less real, it only makes the myth more true. If that divine imprint in me that seeks out the Ultimate Myth has any say on the matter, it is that the falsehoods of smaller myths cannot stand against the greater truths they convey towards my longing to understand the Greatest of all Myths. If that Bishop of Smyrna became legend, then became myth, it does not eradicate the reality of the Bishop of Smyrna. That he may still exist to this age is as real to me as such immaterial things as dreams and hopes are real.
As for desire projection, how can desire render the real unreal? Does our projection of our own understandings and desires on the natural world make the natural world a fiction?
CS Lewis, in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, wrote that the White Witch's most potent curse is to make it "always winter, but never Christmas". The first inkling of hope that the curse was fading was the reappearance of Father Christmas (Santa!), who says that "she has kept me out for a long time, but I have got in at last."
If the forever winter can never be real to me, how in the world can Santa not be?
The final objection would be that only someone insane can believe that Santa is real past a certain age.
I would reply by saying that maybe it is true. Maybe I am insane.
But what is "insane" really?
G.K. Chesterton once said that believing in the impossible may be the most sane thing of all. He says in Orthodoxy that, "mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination." From his line of reasoning, the only alternatives to believing in the impossible are a reductionist materialistic worldview that gathers knowledge only on things not worth knowing in the deepest sense (I am moved to delve intimately into the eternal wisdom of particle collision...nah...) or the madness of trying to fit the infinite into a woefully finite mind. Logic and rationality can only grip so much. You must either accept the mystery of ages, from the God who became Man to even the Bishop who strides the world in one night, or face the emptiness of a material world or the madness of shrinking what can never be shrunk. You tell me which is now "insane".
Let me close my response to this objection with Don Quixote's words from the musical The Man of La Mancha:
So, feel free to have at our cookies and fruitcake, St. Nick, and to the rest of you a Merry Christmas.
You may be thinking, "you mean, metaphorically or symbolically, right?"
You'd be wrong.
I'm talking about the whole fat guy in a red suit with flying reindeer bit. I believe he does manage to get around the world in one night, and can squeeze his massive bottom into any chimney just to give children gifts.
Yeah, that guy....
So, the typical reaction is what in fuck's name do you think you're doing believing in Santa Claus at age 26?
It's not easy to explain. It's not that I got mysterious gifts every Christmas. Sometimes, all I got was a lousy shirt. (Naughty year, I suppose.)
Since there is no easy explanation, let me try by answering the objections instead. What exactly is so objectionable about the reality of Santa Claus?
The most common objection is the one given to kids above the age of 7: it is rationally, logically impossible for reindeer to fly, for a fat old man to fit into chimneys, and for such a man to go around the world in 12 hours.
I would say that if I'm supposed to believe that a race of primitive, poo-flinging chimps would someday compose Handel's Messiah, why not a jolly old man with more contortionist skills than a houseful of yogi who travels at trans-light speed with aerodynamic reindeer?
Not everything on Heaven or Earth will be found in your philosophy, Horatio, even if you do call it "science" and obtain government legitimization and funding.
The next objection would be that Santa is just a symbol, a myth, a projection of our desires. That cannot be real.
I would say that a symbol may be the most real thing one will ever see. For isn't the symbol of justice far more real than the actuality of court proceedings and paper signings? As for the myth, who is to say that myths aren't real? I fall squarely on the side of Tolkien, who believed that man can become legend, and the legend become myth. This does not make the man any less real, it only makes the myth more true. If that divine imprint in me that seeks out the Ultimate Myth has any say on the matter, it is that the falsehoods of smaller myths cannot stand against the greater truths they convey towards my longing to understand the Greatest of all Myths. If that Bishop of Smyrna became legend, then became myth, it does not eradicate the reality of the Bishop of Smyrna. That he may still exist to this age is as real to me as such immaterial things as dreams and hopes are real.
As for desire projection, how can desire render the real unreal? Does our projection of our own understandings and desires on the natural world make the natural world a fiction?
CS Lewis, in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, wrote that the White Witch's most potent curse is to make it "always winter, but never Christmas". The first inkling of hope that the curse was fading was the reappearance of Father Christmas (Santa!), who says that "she has kept me out for a long time, but I have got in at last."
If the forever winter can never be real to me, how in the world can Santa not be?
The final objection would be that only someone insane can believe that Santa is real past a certain age.
I would reply by saying that maybe it is true. Maybe I am insane.
But what is "insane" really?
G.K. Chesterton once said that believing in the impossible may be the most sane thing of all. He says in Orthodoxy that, "mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination." From his line of reasoning, the only alternatives to believing in the impossible are a reductionist materialistic worldview that gathers knowledge only on things not worth knowing in the deepest sense (I am moved to delve intimately into the eternal wisdom of particle collision...nah...) or the madness of trying to fit the infinite into a woefully finite mind. Logic and rationality can only grip so much. You must either accept the mystery of ages, from the God who became Man to even the Bishop who strides the world in one night, or face the emptiness of a material world or the madness of shrinking what can never be shrunk. You tell me which is now "insane".
Let me close my response to this objection with Don Quixote's words from the musical The Man of La Mancha:
I've been a soldier and a slave.
I've seen my comrades fall in battle...
or die more slowly under the lash in Africa.
I've held them at the last moment.
These were men who saw life as it is.
Yet they died despairing.
No glory, no brave last words.
Only their eyes, filled with confusion...
questioning why.
I do not think they were asking why they were dying...
but why they had ever lived.
When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies?
Perhaps to be too practical is madness.
To surrender dreams, this may be madness.
To seek treasure where there is only trash...
too much sanity may be madness!
And maddest of all...
to see life as it is and not as it should be!
So, feel free to have at our cookies and fruitcake, St. Nick, and to the rest of you a Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
And a Merry Christmas to All!
The first service of religion is to show to man, "isolated in the universe and unable to compare himself to anything," "how much he cost." The sacrifice of the god himself demonstrates "the enormity of the crime that demanded such an expiation; the inconceivable grandeur of the being that could have committed it; the infinite price of the victim who said here I am."
The inconceivable grandeur of man that required to redeem it an infinite price is emphasized all the more when Maistre cites Aeschylus's Prometheus: "Look at me, it is a God who has made a God die."
- A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph de Maistre
O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
'Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! O, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was Born;
O night, O holy night, O night divine!
Led by the light of faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts we stand by the Babe adored.
O'er the world a star is sweetly gleaming,
And come now, Shepherds, from your flocks unboard.
The Son of God lay thus w'thin lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our Lord.
He knows our need, our weakness never lasting,
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
- O Holy Night (composite of first and second versions), Christmas Carol
[Picture credit: Flickr: Matilde]
And for the Bodega Boys:
[Photo Credit: Amusing Pics]
Have a good one!
The inconceivable grandeur of man that required to redeem it an infinite price is emphasized all the more when Maistre cites Aeschylus's Prometheus: "Look at me, it is a God who has made a God die."
- A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph de Maistre
O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
'Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! O, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was Born;
O night, O holy night, O night divine!
Led by the light of faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts we stand by the Babe adored.
O'er the world a star is sweetly gleaming,
And come now, Shepherds, from your flocks unboard.
The Son of God lay thus w'thin lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our Lord.
He knows our need, our weakness never lasting,
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
Behold your King! By Him, let Earth accord!
- O Holy Night (composite of first and second versions), Christmas Carol
[Picture credit: Flickr: Matilde]
And for the Bodega Boys:
[Photo Credit: Amusing Pics]
Have a good one!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Folly of "Hate Crimes"
Okay, so here we have a story of a woman gang-raped by four deranged men.
Now, this stuff often makes the local news of any given area. But, US national news? Oh, wait, its because the woman's a lesbian. And the four men committed what is called a "hate crime".
What is a "hate crime"? Another moronic invention of stupid Western intelligentsia. It is an additional charge (and penalty) placed on top of a criminal act if it was committed against members of certain "protected" groups.
First of, aren't all crimes already driven by some kind of hate or malice? Crimes are mitigated by circumstances, not by the quality of motive. Why? Because, simply put, a supposedly liberal (in the classical sense) society cannot penalize thought or belief. All crimes are "hate crimes". Therefore, an additional distinction is useless. Worse, its arbitrary.
If the woman who was gang-raped was straight, does it mean that the crime was somehow less serious because it falls outside of some retarded legal definition of "hate"?
One might object and say that the purpose of "hate crime" laws is to prevent certain people from being sigled out for harassment due to prejudice. If that is the case, then why isn't the burning of Gov. Palin's church considered a "hate crime"? (Note the snarky caption below the pic.) What about an old lady being pushed around by a bunch of angry gay activists? Maybe they'll charge the old lady, because gays are in the "protected" column.
In the end, what you're punishing is not the crime, which has already been punished with the first sentencing, but the thoughts of the one being charged. I thought secularists and liberals were all about free thinking? If we as a civilization start punishing thought, we are a few steps away from tyranny. Remember, even Galileo walked away from his trial without being charged.
Second, "hate" is such a subjective concept that any attempt to derive a legal definition or category out of it will always involve the projection of the definer's biases. This problem is twice exacerbated in the application. Who gets to define "hate"? Why?
And, how is anybody ever certain of a person's thoughts? The article about the rape tries to put the scare in you by saying:
Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI.
Now, how certain are they that all those 1460 "hate" crimes in 2007 were motivated by actual hate? Does the FBI employ mind-readers? What is this, Minority Report?
From the article:
Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation.
You know why they declined to reveal it? Because they can never be 100% sure of the criminals' motivations! No hate crime conviction will ever be based on 100% certainty. Any consideration of "reasonable doubt" ought to outright dismiss every "hate crime" charge. In this case, on what basis will they hang a "hate crime" charge? On the fact that the criminals knew the victim was a lesbian? What if they raped her because they found lesbians (femme lesbians, at least) to be hot? Is it now a hate crime to think that lesbians are hot?
If thinking THIS is hot is now a crime, then sue me. I plead guilty.
That's just for starters. Imagine trying to determine the "hate" in every crime against people in the "protected group". The absurdities you'd have to go through are astounding.
The subjectivity of hate would make hate crime legislation an easy cudgel for the hands of tyrants.
Considering the fact that we've never had hard "race" issues, "hate crimes" legislation in the Philippines will likely come from either homosexual activist groups like the one led by Danton Remoto, or xenophobic nationalist groups hoping to tar and feather every foreigner who sets foot in this country. It is easy to let your compassion allow you to be manipulated into going along with these victim-mongers in helping enact disastrous legislation.
If you ever value your freedom, never let that happen.
Now, this stuff often makes the local news of any given area. But, US national news? Oh, wait, its because the woman's a lesbian. And the four men committed what is called a "hate crime".
What is a "hate crime"? Another moronic invention of stupid Western intelligentsia. It is an additional charge (and penalty) placed on top of a criminal act if it was committed against members of certain "protected" groups.
First of, aren't all crimes already driven by some kind of hate or malice? Crimes are mitigated by circumstances, not by the quality of motive. Why? Because, simply put, a supposedly liberal (in the classical sense) society cannot penalize thought or belief. All crimes are "hate crimes". Therefore, an additional distinction is useless. Worse, its arbitrary.
If the woman who was gang-raped was straight, does it mean that the crime was somehow less serious because it falls outside of some retarded legal definition of "hate"?
One might object and say that the purpose of "hate crime" laws is to prevent certain people from being sigled out for harassment due to prejudice. If that is the case, then why isn't the burning of Gov. Palin's church considered a "hate crime"? (Note the snarky caption below the pic.) What about an old lady being pushed around by a bunch of angry gay activists? Maybe they'll charge the old lady, because gays are in the "protected" column.
In the end, what you're punishing is not the crime, which has already been punished with the first sentencing, but the thoughts of the one being charged. I thought secularists and liberals were all about free thinking? If we as a civilization start punishing thought, we are a few steps away from tyranny. Remember, even Galileo walked away from his trial without being charged.
Second, "hate" is such a subjective concept that any attempt to derive a legal definition or category out of it will always involve the projection of the definer's biases. This problem is twice exacerbated in the application. Who gets to define "hate"? Why?
And, how is anybody ever certain of a person's thoughts? The article about the rape tries to put the scare in you by saying:
Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI.
Now, how certain are they that all those 1460 "hate" crimes in 2007 were motivated by actual hate? Does the FBI employ mind-readers? What is this, Minority Report?
From the article:
Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation.
You know why they declined to reveal it? Because they can never be 100% sure of the criminals' motivations! No hate crime conviction will ever be based on 100% certainty. Any consideration of "reasonable doubt" ought to outright dismiss every "hate crime" charge. In this case, on what basis will they hang a "hate crime" charge? On the fact that the criminals knew the victim was a lesbian? What if they raped her because they found lesbians (femme lesbians, at least) to be hot? Is it now a hate crime to think that lesbians are hot?
If thinking THIS is hot is now a crime, then sue me. I plead guilty.That's just for starters. Imagine trying to determine the "hate" in every crime against people in the "protected group". The absurdities you'd have to go through are astounding.
The subjectivity of hate would make hate crime legislation an easy cudgel for the hands of tyrants.
Considering the fact that we've never had hard "race" issues, "hate crimes" legislation in the Philippines will likely come from either homosexual activist groups like the one led by Danton Remoto, or xenophobic nationalist groups hoping to tar and feather every foreigner who sets foot in this country. It is easy to let your compassion allow you to be manipulated into going along with these victim-mongers in helping enact disastrous legislation.
If you ever value your freedom, never let that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)