Of late, the teaser Darryl Yap’s latest film, billed as The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, has been getting plenty of social media buzz; intelligent, kneejerk and violent reactions and, yes, opinions from leading legal experts, most especially with regard to it being a motion picture that has “libel” splattered all over it.
Yap is, of course, a millennial whose choices and artistic path have thrived and bloomed in controversy. Many opine that his most popular movies are garbage pretending as entertainment and that his projects feed and trigger the gullible with lies disguised as truth, and polarize the movie-going public and society in general.
Others do not scrimp on words as they comment: that issues he raises and uses as arguments are often pointless; that the narratives of his outputs are hackneyed with biases that are quite blatant, favoring the masters he serves; that the movies he has made were clearly meant to revise history and make them playthings; and that he is being complicit to this revisionism, that he is outright unapologetic, with no conscience, remorse, or morality.
Thus, I cannot help but wonder: Do we need a Darryl Yap in the entertainment industry, and what do we make of his forthcoming motion picture offering?
On his Facebook page, Atty. Jesus Falcis offered his opinion about the Yap movie being subjected to a libel case.
What Falcis wrote is easy to read and understand. In most of the points, a libel case is, indeed, hanging like a Damocles sword on the director’s head. Yap’s legal armory to the whole shenanigans, according to the post of Atty. Falcis, is the element of “malice,” which the one who files a case against him must prove in court, and “defense of good motive,” something that can only be made known once the movie gets a playdate and a cinema run.
Will it ever get a cinema run? Only the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), which is currently headed by Diorella Maria Sotto-Antonio and the people she will assign to review the film can answer. In the event that it gets an X rating from the MTRCB, Yap has no choice but to sanitize and trim down the scenes of the movie that members of the classification board found offensive.
If Yap insists on maintaining the purity of his finished film, a second viewing with a different set of reviewers will be accorded to him and its producers.
Yap was not even born when the celebrated Pepsi Paloma case happened. The motivation to make this movie, only he has the answer. It is most wise to give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing that there is no greater good that he wants to achieve from this. Notoriety is part of his DNA. The controversies he spins give the impression that he is relevant. He believes that in his works lie greatness, yet as for telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? That is debatable.
Fact is, on archival material and record books, the late Delia Smith (real name of the starlet that was Pepsi Paloma) filed an Affidavit of Desistance to the rape case she filed against Vic Sotto.
Former colleague and friend of Paloma, Coca Nicolas (real name Johnalee Hickins) said in an online interview by seasoned broadcast journalist Julius Babao that the rape allegation was a PR stunt orchestrated by their former manager.
Another Paloma contemporary, Sarsi Emannuelle (Maria Jennifer Mitchell) doubts the veracity of Yap’s forthcoming movie. She said in a social media post: “At sino ang nagrelay ng story sa director? ‘Di ba patay na ‘yung tao? Siya lang ang may alam ng totoo. Saan nila kinuha ang story (And who related the story to the director? Isn’t the subject dead? Only she knows the entire truth. Where did they get this story)?”
As the days progress, we will all be witness to the blitz that Darryl Yap employs and utilizes to make his “kill” and use it not only as gauge but indicator of his relevance and hold on his flock. The other ulterior motives that Yap still keeps to his chest, in time, will come forth.
I just hope we do not give him the satisfaction of making The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma a box office sensation.