 |
| From wikipedia. I do not own poster copyrights. |
- It’s not Jose Rizal. Much have been dissected about Rizal’s martyrdom but very little of the other characters who joined him in the revolution. In the 90s, the Rizal storyline has been exhausted by superb movies by superb (and my favourite) directors Marilou Diaz-Abaya (José Rizal, 1998) and Mike de Leon (Bayaning 3rd World, 1999). Rizal’s life has been retold countless times every natural-born or bred Filipino know Pepe or Dr. Jose, which makes retelling opportunities veer toward anticlimactic and bland. Take Illustrado, a GMA teleserye on Rizal which didn’t work. This time around, the national hero moved out of the limelight to give way to...
- The General. A military strategist and tactician, Antonio had a more exciting life like Rizal, but he took a more traditionally revolutionary path. (Yes, he was on the streets like a real anarchist with guns and bombs.) He was not like Bonifacio, whose concept of the revolution was inspired by the illustrados in L’Éurope but he learned of it the way Rizal did: he was thrown smack in the middle of 19th century revolutionary Europe. Prior to becoming the revolution’s general, he was exiled and jailed in Spain, which in those days was the hotbed for anarchist and nationalist views. To be honest, the General’s life is more cinematic than Rizal. While Rizal’s is more poetic (he was a writer and a doctor and everything else gray), Luna’s was more action-oriented—a very good quality to consider in making a film. Yet, very little retellings were made of his life. I suspect that this was because he was an antihero (not widely palatable in mainstream storytelling) and he was killed by fellow Filipinos (which leaves a bad taste in the mouth). For overcoming these, my four thumbs up for Jerrold Tarog.
- It’s a historical drama. You seldom see this movie genre in Filipino cinemas because nobody watches these movies, a disappointing regression since the 90s saw the upsurge of these types of films. The last years had seen the influx of historical war hero movies like El Presidente and Bonifacio: Ang Unang Pangulo, which I didn’t bother to watch because 1) Aguinaldo’s family approved what was to be told or not in the premier, or so that’s what I heard from the grapevine; and 2) Bonifacio was portrayed by Robin Padilla. No way am watching that.
- It’s not romcom. Thank the gods.
- John Arcilla is the man. He is not a superstar, which translates to portraying a role without the pageantry and influential amour that comes with being a star. While watching the film, Arcilla was no longer an actor playing the man, he became the man himself—and without diluting into the background (Leonardo di Caprio, a fine actor, can transform into any role but melds into the background. The endpoint: Snoozer.) Arcilla had a fine transformation. I cannot say more because my knowledge of acting is very audience-oriented.
- American annexation. This, I think, is the most refreshing part of the film. Historical movies of decades past always vilified L’Éspagne and the Japanese—but very little or none dissected the whole American annexation experience. The only time I saw one was in Bayani, a 90s anthology of heroes for children in ABS-CBN, when they featured Macario Sakay, the last revolutionary leader who fought against the Americans. Exploring this time in history was a smart move; not only did it show what these Kanos feel about us (about our food, climate, and indirectly as the White Man’s Burden, which continues to this day) but also introduced a new enemy: ourselves. (This concept is very Buddhist and I wonder if Luna talked to Orientalists while incarcerated or was there even Orientalism during that time? And should anarchist actions be defining variables for nationalism? The director claimed creative rights). These raises the debate on how much brainwashing did we experience during that time for the sake of peace and foreign affairs.
- Theatrical. Maybe this treatment was the reason I feel the film had too much exposition because it talked a lot. The advantage: the same message is sent across (can this fall under hegemony?). Therefore, they reach the same conclusion as the director. No ambiguity here. With film as a mass medium that sends out a clear message, this one fits the bill. With film as an art form, I am not sure yet. I may have to see it again.
- It’s a period film, duh. I love period films and this is a very personal one, no? Anyway, I read a personal essay/review in GMAnews.tv about the different moustaches in the film. It was an entertaining read.
- Found story? Having recently attended a writing workshop by local legend Bing Lao (I have yet to pass his standards), I got oriented on the concept of found writing and found stories. The film was red and green, with touches of brown. With this background, I cannot help but regard this movie as a spawn of this form of writing (which, as I have known, was the writing sensibility wherein I have the strongest affinity.) I think this is found story, but not found writing.
- The family is damnation? The film not just raises issues on nationhood or nationalism (an imaginary concept, according to Anderson). But it also questions the Filipino importance for the family. How far or how much do we risk for the sake of our families? Can nationhood and revolution (very Western concepts) be assimilated into a Filipino context of family (very Asian) without losing its meaning? Can nation and revolution be greater than the family? As the general asked, can we forego our personal ties for the good of our country? This sensibility is what you take home, consciously or unconsciously, from Heneral Luna--and it is a troubling one at that. (Sorry, another footnote: The general's stand on nationalism is very Western and binary but this is not surprising since he did study in Europe. Also, films have a natural tendency to show the other, after all, the Aristotelian model of storytelling and Greek rhetoric follow this perspective. Sorry, I am saying a lot. The point is: If Tarog could explore a concept of this depth, I cannot wait for the next ones.)
P.S. I heard that the outcome of this movie will define the fate of two more historical movies by Jerrold Tarog: the lives of Gregorio del Pilar (played by Paolo Avelino; which was often done as an action film in the past) and Manuel Quezon (played by Benjamin Alves). I am a history buff and want more of this, please!!!
P.P.S. A colleague was uncomfortable with the whole "we are our worst enemies" concept and argues that this disregards Western expansionism and continuing influences. I agree, but as I said, film (and history) have taken into binaries because the rules (formulas, for practitioners) are mostly crafted by the West. Nationalism is a very debatable concept--when did this concept come into being? I think that history, with its limitations, has reduced nationalism to revolution (an initial subaltern lapse). I regard the reductionist perspective as more of the limitation of the rules of filmmaking (storytelling) and not of the filmmaker, though it would have been a nice touch if it tackled nationalism in an Asian context. Then again, Asianism is a debatable concept as well, and is totally non-existent in 19th century colonial Southeast Asia.
Disclaimer: Making this review had me watching it again so as not to be swept away by the strong revolutionary emotions in the film. As is with my experience with watching mainstream films, storytellers bank on a few good scenes or create a beautiful heart-wrenching ending to make the audience think it is a good film. (Yes, be wary of such pitfalls.) I initially think this was the case with Heneral Luna because it is strongly red in nature and as I have proven in Heroes, viewers have the tendency to remember scenes or stories in “red” because of its strong sweeping appeal. Second screening gave me the advantage of perspective; I did a rereading of the material, both in screenplay and execution (in the little I know of directing, sorry) and did some re-visioning to craft this review. This review is ethical: I have no personal relationship with the filmmaker or know anyone from this production house nor is it biased or paid for. As far as I am concerned, this is both objective and subjective as a film review. And yes, my academic background pops up every now and then; just emit the footnotes. - 9/15/2015
No comments:
Post a Comment