The Explainer Explained, Again

Thanks to the holiday, I saw another episode of The Explainer, and I guess it is time to revisit my comments on a previous episode that I saw, and see if there are any changes.

The topic yesterday was about Capitol Planning – the country’s attempts to establish a national capital. It was an interesting look at our previous attempts to build our own Washington, DC or Paris. From Daniel Burnham’s City Beautiful to the current ideas of moving the capital to Subic or Clark, these series of plans were partially implemented but never completed.

The use of pictures and drawings made the show more concrete in terms of how the plans looked like. It would have been great if shots from Google Earth or Wikimapia were used to trace the visible aspects of the implementation of the plans (the so-called Diliman Quadrangle is very visible via Google Earth and Wikimapia).

The irritating movement done before by the explainer was gone, thankfully. The director should next time position the explainer near the left side of the TV screen (stage right), to maximize the visuals behind him.

The explainee, Patricia Evangelista, did well, asking questions, making comments. The guest, Paolo Alcazaren, is a competent resource person (I used to read his column at the Philippine Star whenever I get a copy) and knows his history well.

Overall, the show has improved since the last episode that I saw. More polish in the way visuals are presented, and more camera angles, will make the show better.

This show (and the people behind it) should be commended for educating us about issues that really matter. Please continue the great work.

As for the topic itself: Sadly, we are great planners, but we always come out short in the end. Ramos should be chided for building that Centennial Expo; he should have built a national stadium, one building that this country really needs. Or he should have instead commissioned another plan, and have Congress make a law for its implementation.