Monday, July 23, 2007

Tribu (2007)

Tribu (Jim Libiran, 2007)

Tribu's script is Jim Libiran's Palanca Award-winning screenplay. It follows the members of three gangs thriving in the narrow alleyways of Tondo. It opens with a voice-over by Ebet, a kid who describes his community as a place where only the strong survive; that kids have as much right as adults, as long as they have the guts to push through. The film follows Ebet who witnesses three youths being initiated into the Thugz Angels gang (the males are beaten up with a wooden beam; the female is given the choice of pain or pleasure). That same night, the gang is framed for the death of Boy Turat, member of another gang. The film revolves around that death, which becomes the impetus for the climactic gang war.

It's structured like a half-hearted Robert Altman picture. You are aware that Libiran is going for that sprawling portrait of a the seedy Tondo hood through its numerous characters. Sure, it's about the free-styling gangbangers that roam the dreary Tondo nights but Libiran's camera curiously follows every detail with a peering eye: those violent marital fights that erupt in full view of those hanging in the streets, the pitiful utilities man who gets bombarded with complaints of expensive electric bills, the grimy butchering of hogs, the rumormongering, and more. Libiran jumps from one resident to another; carefully sketching a boisterous portrait of Tondo living.

But it's only half (or less) an Altman-homage; much of the film is spirited away from Fernando Meirelles' hugely successful City of God (2002). Libiran's recollection of the many Tondo gangs may have all the little details right (the initiations rites, the freestyle rapping, the sudden sparks that tempt intrigue between the rival gangs) but the film traverses too closely into Meirelles territory.

Accompanying the narrative is a soundtrack composed of freestyle rapping performed by the cast. I believe this is the meat of the film. The borrowed plot merely serves as frames for these rap artists (referred to by Libiran as modern poets) to deliver their verbose and angst-ridden verses. These are the highlights of the film; the beats and rhythms of homegrown hip-hop are in itself, worthy of a film without the overly expounded (yet sloppily directed) gang war.

Part of the film's success can be attributed to the rapport Libiran garnered from the Tondo residents. He manages to get adequate performances from the non-professional castmembers (I sat in front of the boy who played Ebet, who inadvertently provided commentaries on who among the cast are actual residents of Tondo). It certainly feels like the entire community welcomed the film crew (the main theater of the Cultural Center of the Philippines were full of Tondo residents who cheered and jeered at the sight of familiar faces on the silver screen; quite a lovely crowd) and opened their homes and lives to Libiran and his crew.

This brings me to the irony of the film. While gang culture has become the norm in the impoverished communities in Manila, the film treads it with no fresh ideas. Libiran proudly proclaims that through the film, the top rival gangs in Tondo have patched up and settled their differences, which is undoubtedly good. The experiences in filmmaking, however, are vastly different from the film itself --- which can be described as gritty for mere gritty's sake. It plays out like a cautionary tale, or worse, a stamp of legitimacy to the stereotypes that have prevented progress in Tondo. It attempts at harsh realism, but only succeeds in sensationalism, something Tondo hardly needs.

This film won Best Full-length Feature Film in the 3rd Cinemalaya Film Festival.


DanielLee said...

I'm definitely intrigued.

Oggs Cruz said...

Hi Daniel,

It's something that would most definitely appeal to audiences abroad. I only wish success for the film, of course. My not liking it hinges on its inability to reach greater heights with its material; atmosphere and local color are topnotch, but the plot is too sensationalized and jarring to the director's intentions.

dayukdok said...

i don't see the point of comparing mr. libiran to the other directors you mentioned. why not take the film for what it is -- a jim libiran film.

maybe what you want to see in his film is exactly what mr. libiran doesn't want to show?

Oggs Cruz said...

Thanks for the comment, kid.

Can you expound on your statement "maybe what you want to see in his film is exactly what mr. libiran doesn't want to show." I wouldn't know what he doesn't want to show since I saw the movie for what it is and what it shows --- sensationalism to operatic (or if you want it, gangsta rappa) proportions. I admire the atmosphere, the lengths Libiran took to flesh out reality in his film, what I didn't admire is how the plot succumbed to the temptation of being a cautionary tale.

Being compared to Altman is a complement, by the way.

dayukdok said...

mebbe he intended it to be a cautionary tale... who knows? have you asked mr. libiran personally what his intentions were in making this film?

my point is, why compare pinoy directors with other directors - foreign or not - even if to do is a compliment? can't one just say "here's a new film-documentary by mr. jim libiran... another one done in the distinct libiran style."

Oggs Cruz said...

Thanks again kid,

Again, films aren't judged by what they were intended to be. If that were the case, there would be no bad films, only good ones --- which you and I know, isn't true. Directors can't be their own critics. In any case, if it is indeed intended to be a cautionary tale, I'd be more disappointed.

And what is wrong with comparisons; and is there really a distinct Libiran style? I'm sorry kid but to answer your question, no, in an artform that is already more than a century old, there's no such thing as distinct or original. If there are, it's not Libiran's.

dayukdok said...

maybe i'm just not cut out to think like a film critic.

good or bad, a film is a product of the director's (and his team's) efforts --- to say "blood, sweat and tears" may be cliche, but true nevertheless. and that's something i just can't diss so easily.

maybe it's just me.

Oggs Cruz said...

Everybody's a critic. Your reasons for liking the film (that each film is a product of the filmmakers' blood, sweat and tears) is in itself, a piece of criticism; quite valid in fact. It all points down to points of view, and perpetuating it by writing.

Oggs Cruz said...

Predictably, Tribu won Best Picture in Cinemalaya. It has the biggest scope, with the biggest ambition, and Libiran is a fascinating director with vast style (and enough experiences). I still think Tribu could have been a better film; especially with Libiran's immense passion for his native Tondo. Congratulations.

Rich said...

Kid, you got what it takes to be a critic... Like Oggs said, everybody's a critic... I just don't think that, Oggs, you are. Your righteous criticisms in some of your films are so outstandingly in denial beyond cinematic comparison. You approach it with a verbalistic observation, or atleast I think it is, towards a merely non-idealistic art. Altman, Spielberg, Lee, Zwick, Macinzski, Stolav, Chung, Rosario, Rodriguez, Polate, Teranitti, Pussini, and Howard... are only a handful of the greatests... they are not Directors...they are Filmmakers... Big difference...what's my point Oggs? My point is what Kid was trying to say...there's merely no comparison between any of them.. They have their own style like a volcano has its own. The late Bob Altman had a different brush like of Libiran's, but ..they are both artists. Artists at their own peds.

Kid's point was to merely circumcise the "critic" that can easily be based on your observation and wonderment on how it is easy for some (Oggs) and hard for others (Kid) to relay such a "critique". I hate to say it, but though Libiran's Tribu didn't fully capture my attention for its uniqueness, it gave me a passion for what filmmakers do..."painting a canvass". And that he did very successfully.

Oggs, not to dote on an issue of personal being, but you seem to be a very intelligent person, however, the past 14 movie film critiques that you have novelized seem to have been too disected. How do you watch a movie? Isn't it just as simple as "watching" it? I feel that you overly extend your arm too far in that cookie jar. What's in front of you is the palette? Don't think too hard. You can't enjoy a piece that way.. Or hell, maybe you are enjoying it that way you do.. So be it... To each his own.

Kid's comments are to submerge a feeling of distaste to what he or she might think are not tooinformedbeings... A compassion towards the filmmaker's hard work.. Yes, we get that. Yes, he/she thinks that the blood, sweat, and tears, are not easily absolved.. but should be chizzled to our member. We feel it, but understanding it is another.

First, Cinemalaya is not a film festival. It is merely a week of screenings. A film festival is not Cinemalaya, Cinamanila, nor Manila Film's pure egotist market fest. A film festival is where filmmakers are... As a jury member myself to two reputable film festivals, how I only wish that these so called events were different... for the sake of the young filmmakers who would like to be the Filmmakers of the future... A Filipino I am... A Filipino I quote... Second, Tribu does deserve a prize. Can't compare it to any other works because it is merely an entitiy of its any other films... Third and last, Tribu can't be any better than what it is... if it were different...then it wouldn't be Tribu now would it?

The Philippines have two idealistic societies; those of power and those of not.. How you define that power is all up to you.. Oggs, absorb both and this whole thing will eventually make sense to you.


"Nothing can combine better judgement than just a simple scroll from a pencil and a fold from a paper."

-Jurassa Hasmin "Power"- 1967

Anonymous said...

Kudos Rich. Den of inequity. Admiration for some..non consequitor for others. Well put.

Oggs Cruz said...

Thanks for that piece of education, Rich (which shook me to my core),

I am aware of the vast differences between all filmmakers, or directors (when do directors graduate to become filmmakers; is this a canonical concept; a cinematic sanctification?). As for comparisons, I use them as measurements, as gauges, as points in this vast cinematic history. I don’t claim my comparisons are objective or academic (sometimes I re-read my writings, and I cringe as to the mistakes I’ve made in the past); these are hunches (you may refer to them as intellectual masturbation), wherein a cinematic image turns on a stimulus that instantly refers to that point of cinematic history, as known to me. I agree with you that a filmmaker and a film is unique; and I also agree that to change a film to subscribe to anybody’s wishes is to completely modify the film (but this brings in to mind the very contemporary concept of director’s cuts, producer’s cuts, and many more --- are these different films; which film is whose?).

I look at films as pieces of literature --- all open to criticism, interpretation, interpolation, and discussion. My “reviews” are open to immense criticism (overextending my arm too far in that cookie jar, as you’ve said), I look at each and every detail and subscribe meaning, fault, praise to those observations (the same way I excite myself over words authors choose in writing their books --- despite the fact that these words may not be the author’s but the proofreader’s). Is that a fault, to some yes; but to me, it isn’t (it’s as overly reaching as feminist, psychoanalytic or Marxist reading). I’m turning the films I watch into a personal experience; addressing some moments I enjoy or hated with interpretations and probably rationalizations. We’re human because we think; Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of merely watching movies --- like paintings which tell stories despite its perpetual immobility, films are evolving (the same way trash films of the past are given their due in the present).

Let me make this clear. I enjoyed Tribu. I was angry when Jim Libiran told the story about CCP and the Tondo rappers. I admire how Libiran turned Tondo into a sprawling landscape where day and night are vastly different. I used Altman as a point of reference because of Libiran’s ability to merge stories that flow with the film’s narrative (half-hearted because I’m sure Altman wasn’t the inspiration; probably from his own experiences and made literary by his workshops with Bing Lao). Meirelles, I used, because it just reminded me of that film and it does tread similarly to City of God --- whether it be intentional or not, is not a matter of concern.

So why did it seem that I disliked the movie; because of how it culminated. And that’s where I agree to your point that if it ended differently, it wouldn’t be the Tribu that is admired for “its grand and graphic depiction of contemporary Tondo, its raw passion and searing violence, its terrible social conditions and conflicting social mores, and its people’s coruscating embrace of both sacred and the profane, the filial and the tribal, the tender and the vicious.” To me, it’s sensationalizing… to some, it’s realistic. It’s really a matter of perception, not of taste (I don’t subscribe to tastes). If the film ended differently, would it be better; maybe, maybe not. Again, it doesn’t matter. Thousands loved the film for what it is, who am I to judge.

I take offense, however, to your statement that I am not a critic. First, I never claimed I was. I do not get paid, I am not published, I do not get invited to become jury members of film festivals (prestigious or not). But to completely nullify my aspirations is as hurtful as the one you accuse me of (of putting aside the blood, sweat, and tears of the filmmaker). I welcome people to comment in my blog (I never thought about screening comments) because I want to invite discussion to the films (or movies) and because I believe everyone is well-suited to become a critic (all you need is a brain, paper and a pen (or a computer) --- as your quotation states). Are my writings perfect? No. I have no grand delusions for them to be portals of cinematic knowledge (heck, I am not the best in the field I decided to be in (law), what more, for a hobby). However, it is not only cinema that is being revolutionized by the digital age. It is also film writing; some bloggers are happy with I LOVE OUIJA! ANG GANDA NI JUDAY!, while some would reach further interpretations. Can you fault us? I don’t think so.

In any case, thank you very much for your comment, which I highly respect. I don’t know if this will make sense to you, but it makes sense to me.

I end with this quote which addresses the new kind of criticism that evolved with the age of the computer (something I subscribe to); seriously, when the world has been shrunk to the size of a laptop and cultures are becoming more apparent to the everyday person, there will be new ways of appreciating art and film (we don’t just watch them, we think them, we live them, we breath them):

“In short, we’re living in a transitional period where enormous paradigmatic shifts should be engendering new concepts, new terms, and new kinds of analysis, evaluation, and measurement, not to mention new kinds of political and social formations, as well as new forms of etiquette. But in most cases they aren’t doing any of those things. We’re stuck with vocabularies and patterns of thinking that are still tied to the ways we were watching movies half a century ago.” --- Jonathan Rosenbaum

Oggs Cruz said...

Lastly, isn't referring to a film as best, comparing? As jury member to two festivals, how do you decide which wins? I'm just curious.

Anonymous said...

By simply "watching" them Oggs. "Watchiing" them... That is a feat in itself.

Anonymous said...

In the decade that I've been in this industry...the film industry that is...the more a critic dissects a rubinized movie to its core, the more it becomes trash.. It's not a good feeling when one takes offense..? Does it? But we carry a jargon that often is mistaken for rape in beliefs. That my friend is what you need to understand. I think that your mental masturbation is quite an o.c.d. for leaving an open policy in your blog. You love to love it. You love to hate it. Hey, some people love porn. You.... love this. To each his own. One last thing, Jonathan Rosenbaum became the windy city's critic because of a painted canvas that he could never finish... and that my friend is to each his own.

Oggs Cruz said...

First and foremost, may I know who the person is behind “rich?” That way, I may know to whom I owe this re-education.

I pay deference to your experience, but not exactly to your way of thinking:

- Further clarifications, you say you simply “watch” movies. What happens afterwards? When it’s time to deliberate with your co-jury members who among the filmmakers deserve the top prize, what do you contribute? How do you watch films (it simple enjoyment, technical marvel)? More interestingly, what do you make of films, such as those by Bela Tarr, Lav Diaz, Tsai Ming-liang, etc., which if simply watched, wouldn’t amount to anything. Don’t tell me you just “watched” Lynch’s films, or Cronenberg’s horrors. I’m sorry, films aren’t simply watched. The best films are those which invite discourse; invite interaction with the audience --- which is also why a film festival is not merely a bunch of screenings, or as you wish that it is a communion of filmmakers and filmmaker-wannabes. A film festival is for everyone who wants to partake in film; whether you are a filmmaker, an aspirant, a writer, or like me, an over-thinking blogger. Belittle my experience, but when I over-think films, I find gems in trash and I find trash in conceived gems (case in point: Roger Corman’s films as opposed to Paul Haggis’ Crash).

- Your whole point is that we love different things, that there are so many schools of thought existing, and that we should be bound to respect differences and uniqueness. I ask you this: why dismiss this writer as not a critic, or in your words… “I just don't think that, Oggs, you are.” Is it because my writings are righteous (as you say), overreaching (as you say), I approach it with a verbalistic observation (as you say). Again, mere differences in schools of thought; one can’t be judgmental with somebody else’s opinion. Criticism is simply that: forwarding an opinion.

- You put filmmakers in a pedestal; but what are films, are they simply watched, simply enjoyed. You make differences between filmmakers and directors. One thing I’ve noticed: those who canonized these filmmakers are the ones who don’t simply watch their films; they overthink, find symbolisms and relate it to their respective fields --- that is art, and my friend, film is art --- not a mere show.

- You bring up Jonathan Rosenbaum’s history; how he became Chicago’s critic (which I don’t quite get; he became Chicago’s critic because of his failures?). That’s beside the point. My point is: there’s so much to film writing than mere watching and enjoyment. The quote I gave you simply puts into perspective my way of thinking: that there are many discourses in film (and not only the filmmakers, which you give undivided importance to: half of filmmaking belongs to the audience, to those who process the films and make them their own by relating it to personal experiences). I am not part of the industry, as you speak (and I do not hope to be part of it, if it means sacrificing my personal beliefs for mere enjoyment), but I hope I am part of the burgeoning film culture (which includes both filmmakers, film lovers, and everyone in between) that the internet is sparking. Film is democracy; the filmmaker doesn’t have a definite say as to what his films mean once he releases it to the public. Film isn’t merely consumed, it is experienced (and that’s how criticism should be; a remuneration of film as assessed by the critic’s own experiences, beliefs, and knowledge).

- I repeat… the independent revolution does not merely belong to the filmmakers. It belongs to everyone who loves film. Now that our filmmakers are unbound from the commercialism of the dying Philippine cinema, they are beginning to make films that matter, that aren’t simply “watched.” That’s when the audience needs to be unshackled from the bamboozlement the proliferation of Hollywood films has given us.

Oggs Cruz said...

By the way,

I think this deserves its own post, so those who don't know about Tribu can take part in the discussion.

Noel Vera said...

Yo, oggs, only have this to say: you show great patience trying to sort out and make sense of these guys' comments; have a hard time myself. Stick to your guns; I think you have a point. Films are made to be compared (Filipino to foreign, and vice versa); Cinemalaya is a screening of films--which is what a festival is, actually; all filmmmakers are directors, in my opine not all directors are filmmakers (though if you ask me for a strict definition it would be a tough job--but, I submit it would be a tough job for anyone who realizes what the real issues are).

You're doing good, oggs; I don't think these people have made much of a case, actually.

Noel Vera said...

Oh, and the Rosenbaum references--well, I can't be sure what he's hinting at either, but I suspect he's suggesting Rosenbaum's a failed filmmaker, which is your standard silly charge against film critics (why judge films when you can't even make one?). To which Pauline Kael had the classic reply (freely paraphrased): "You don't need to know how to cook an egg to be able to tell if an egg's rotten."

Noel Vera said...

Lemme try that again.

Oh, and one thing I wish we Filipinos would cultivate is a culture that, if not actually accepting of criticism, at least recognizes its place in the world. One reason I believe Filipino films (and possibly the nation in general) has been mired in the backwaters for so long is this aversion to intelligent and reasoned criticism.

The best thing Jim can do with your piece, oggs (and reading over it I can't say it doesn't state its reasons, or fails to come up with some basis for comparison, or even totally demolishes the picture--it's a mixed review that's careful to point out what it believes are good points and what it believes are bad) is at least consider what you have to say and keep them in mind till his next film. Which I trust you'll see and write about as well. That's how this whole thing works--or is supposed to work, anyway.

Oggs Cruz said...

Thank you very much Noel,

I heard you're coming up with a book on Mario O'Hara.

Noel Vera said...

I hear that too. Actually, I 'finished' a few chapters, but haven't really worked on it.

Anonymous said...

Ang sabi ng iba, mala-“City of God” (2000) ang atake sa pelikulang ito na nakabatay sa 2006 first prize play ng Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Award na isinulat rin ni Jim Libiran. Mala-docu na bersyon ng “GangLand” (1995) naman ni Peque Gallaga ang tingin ng iba. Resulta marahil ang mga pahayag na ito ng paksa, pagiging biswal sa karahasan, at iba pa. Anu’t anuman, ito ang paborito kong pelikula (sa lima na napanood ko) sa Cinemalaya.

Sensasyonalismo ang tawag ng ilan sa ginawang pagtalakay ni Libiran sa pang-araw-araw na buhay ng mga Tondo rappers, subalit ang tawag ko rito’y Realismo. Bilang buhay na saksi sa buhay-Tondo, isinalaysay mabuti ni Libiran ang isang bukas na lihim ng Looban: ang ekonomikong kahirapan at buhay-gang.

Niyayakap ni Libiran ang esensiya ng Indie (para sa akin) bilang isang (limitadong) espasyo at midyum na hindi lamang para sa “malayang” pagpapahayag ng isang manunulat ng kanyang saloobin, bagkus bilang isang espasyo upang ilahad / ilantad ang reyalidad ng lipunan sa pinakamatapat na paraan. Ang pagkuha sa mga taga-Tondo, partikular sa mga mismong rappers at gangsters, sa mga tambay ng tindahan at kanto, sa mga nagrereklamo sa billing ng Meralco at iba pa, bilang mismong artista sa pelikula ang nagpadagdag sa pagiging makatotohanan ng buong pelikula. Bagaman, hindi naman maitatanggi na dahil “acting” pa rin ang kanilang ginawa (dahil hindi naman tunay na docu o bahagi ng third world cinema ang palabas), at bilang mga “amateur actors” may ilang eksenang eksaherado, partikular ang eksenang gangwar, na para pa nga sa iba ay “poorly executed.”

Hindi ko makakalimutan ang poetikong linyang nakakuha na sa aking atensyon sa simula pa lamang ng palabas. “Sa Tondo, kahit bata, pwedeng maging Diyos,” sabi ng isang 8 taong gulang na batang lalaki habang ipinapakita ang benerasyong ibinibigay sa Sto. Nino, ang patron ng Tondo, kasunod ang imahen ng mga binatilyo at dalagitang lantad sa karahansan, walang takot at handa nang kumitil ng buhay; mga teenagers (ang ilan ay musmos pa nga) na naghahari-harian sa gabi sa kani-kanilang eskinita at teritoryo. Kung tutuusin isa nang malaking balintuna (paradox) ang relihiyosong sentimiento ng sangkatundohan at ang palaging asosasyon rito sa karahasan at pagiging sanggano.

Umaalingawngaw ang pagkamatulain atmospera ng buong palabas hindi lamang dahil sa mga bersong binitawan ni Teo Antonio (ang tindero ng manok), bagkus maging sa presensiya nina Vim Nadera (kolektor ng Meralco) at Mike Coroza (isa sa mga pulis) na kapwa mga multi-awarded na makata sa tunay na buhay. Idagdag pa mismo ang presensiya at mismong mga bersong inililikha ng mga streetpoets / rappers na bida ng pelikula.

Nire-reclaim muli ng palabas ang Tondo bilang makasaysayang pook ng mga berso at talinghaga. Sa Tondo, naganap ang pinakaunang Balagtasan sa Pilipinas (Abril 1924), sa pagitan nina Jose Corazon de Jesus (aka Huseng Batute) at Florentino Collantes. Sa Tondo, naganap ang pinakamalaking rally (Marso 1940) ng mga Modernong Makata sa pamumuno ni Alejandro G. Abadilla (aka AGA) laban sa mga Tradisyunal na makata; sa nasabing rally sinunog ng mga itinuturing na Sakdalista at Rebelde sa Panulaang Tagalog ang mga libro ng mga matatandang makata bilang simbolikal na pagtalikod sa mekanikal na paglikha ng mga makatang may sukat at tugma.

Oggs Cruz said...

Well said micmic,

Thank you very much for that beautiful review...

Anonymous said...

Good job micmic, and Oggs too. I've been thoroughly educated. Btw, Noel Vera is my film oracle.

I very much agree with the "cidade de deus resemblance". And also, I agree that the film is a little manipulative. Mr. Vera taught me to "evaluate films not based on intention, rather execution."

Anonymous said...


Bigla lang akong napunta dito sa site mo dahil naghahanap ako ng news articles tungkol sa Tribu. At mas naging interesante para sa akin basahin ang mga comments sa review mo kaysa sa ang review mismo.

Gusto ko lang sabihin na tama si Noel Vera. Wala naman masyadong sinabi si Rich. Palagay ko nga, hindi nya rin alam kung ano ang sinasabi nya.

Ipagpatuloy mo lang ang sarili mong proseso bilang isang kritiko. At wag lamang bastang maging "Isn't it just as simple as "watching" it" ang iyong pagtingin sa mga pelikula.

Oggs Cruz said...

Thanks anonymous and om,

I love your photographs om; that's one of my biggest regrets --- we used to have two good professional cameras but I never bothered learning how to operate them.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the compliments. Keep on dropping by, if you wish :-)

Anonymous said...

just saw the film- tama, d nga maiwasang d makompara sa ciudad de deus at parang pa-sensational ang dating pero--its honest. reality un. if it seems sensational to us outsiders its just normal life to them. i bliv there's no reason to criticize mr libiran.
as for the acting, maganda nang oa umakting ung mga bata, lalo lang nakikita na mga totoong clang tga-tondo cla at lalo lang lumalabas ung honesty ng pelikula.
at d man nga maiwasang maikompara ang tribu sa ciudad, o c mr libiran sa mga mas accomplished at/o foreign filmmakers, mas maganda nga namang panoorin at i-enjoy ang tribu for its own merits, not because of its parallels to other related works.

Anonymous said...

a i want to get a copy of this film how and where can i get it or order it ?? please email me at

Anonymous said...

Matagal ko nang gustong mapanood ito, e. Walang torrent. :)) Pakisabi naman kung saan makakabili nito. YM: slave_unit7 . Salamat.

Anonymous said...


-7 yr. old boy na naburat sa mga kupal na pinagsasabi ni OGGS na 100% abnoy at feeling magaling.. what an a$$hole..