Genre, National Concept, and the Filipino Jose Rizal
By Janelle Tangonan Anderson
Part 1 - Introduction; General History
Part 2 - Film History of The Phillipines
Part 3 - Latin America; India; Indonesia
Part 4 - Genre and The Film Jose Rizal
Part 5 - Conclusion
In this essay, I will argue that the concept of genre functions similarly in many cultural contexts. I have chosen the genre of historical spectacle or epic melodrama, and will discuss the similarities in several countries. More specifically, I believe that the Filipino genre film, Jose Rizal (1998), has many similarities with the same type of genre films in Latin America, India, and Indonesia.
The Philippines is a nation that is difficult to explain, and to explain its cinema and cinematic history is even harder. I will attempt to first discuss the nation's overall history, then its cinematic history, and then analyze the film Jose Rizal with other films. As a second generation Filipina American, I am interested in studying the cinematic representations of the Philippines.
General History
The Philippines is an archipelago of hundreds of islands. There are many different dialects and regions. This diverse land was colonized by Catholic Spain, as Latin America was colonized, for almost 400 years. In 1896, the hero Jose Rizal was executed by Spain. This sparked the Philippine Revolution against Spain. Then, in 1898, America intervened, and the Spanish-American War began and ended in a few weeks. However, the Filipinos had a short-lived independence. The Philippine-American War began, and Filipinos and Americans fought between 1898 to 1901. Finally, America successfully colonized the islands, and ruled until 1945. In 1945, the Philippines became officially independent.
Film History of The Phillipines
Roy Armes agrees that it is difficult to study Southeast Asian film history. He writes, "Comparatively little is recorded, in English at least, about the various national cinemas of these states, though in most, production of a least a primitive kind dates back to the silent period." I would agree with Armes, except that since the Philippines was an American colony, there are resources available in English, although most are published from Manila and are hard to obtain. Armes does say, "The most important cinema in Southeast Asia is that of the Philippines, which offers a full reflection of that country's troubled past and serves as a striking example of the difficulties of establishing a national cinema under colonialism or neocolonial dominance." I believe that Filipino cinema has similar issues with the cinema of other colonized peoples.
Armes describes the differences between the colonial cinema before World War II, and the cinema after independence. Armes says that Renato Constantino, a renowned Filipino historian, says that films about Jose Rizal by the Americans were slanted. He says that Jose Rizal was used by the American colonizers in "moulding the desired colonial consciousness...Jose Rizal was a safe hero. He condemned the Revolution and refused to join it; he was a reformist and a great believer in education; and most important, he was shot by the Spaniards in 1896 and therefore had nothing to do with the Americans." There would be other later films about Rizal, but I believe that the 1998 version is the most interesting version.
After the war, Filipino films can be divided into three categories: 1945-1960, 1962-1974, and late 1970's. Armes says that the early Filipino films had many similarities with Mexican films of the 1950's. In the late 1970's, more daring filmmakers appeared, such as Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal, Mike de Leon, and Kidlat Tahimik.
As I have stated earlier, the Philippines has a similar cinematic history to other countries. For example, the Spanish Empire stretched from Latin American to the Philippines. Cuba also had its War of Independence, and America acquired the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War of 1898. During the 1940's, the Filipino cinema modeled itself after Hollywood, such as the cinema of Mexico. Some Mexican filmmakers were in the "thrall of the American Dream and its doctrine of 'manifest destiny'....later on, "It is no accident that Mexicans became the first to protest the misrepresentation of their reality by Hollywood."
According to Michael Chanan, in the late 1950's, Latin American cinema began to change. He writes "...[it was] a cinema largely devoted to the denunciation of misery and the celebration of protest." I see parallels with the Filipino directors Lino Brocka and Kidlat Tahimik. For example, many of Brocka's films dealt with the problems and miseries of the poor. Tahimik's films are mostly semi-autobiographical documentaries. They deal with identity, race, class, post-colonialism, and religious issues.
India
Latin America was colonized by Spain. The Philippines was colonized by Spain and America. India was colonized by Britain. The Philippines and India, both South or Southeast Asian nations, have experienced similar events. For example, Indian cinema is a popular indigenous cinema, serving different dialects, as the Filipino cinema is also a popular indigenous cinema. The epic melodrama serves both nations in unifying its people. It serves as a symbol of an ideal, unified nation. For example, Jose Rizal provides a hero to whom presumably all Filipinos can relate. According to Ashish Rajadhyaksha, in India, "the film melodrama had acquired the status of the privileged form of representation of an industrialized, modernizing nation-state, and the means by which the key hegemonies informing the post-war and post-Swadeshi idea of a 'national' culture were expressed."... "The epic melodrama acted as a cultural vanguard."
More specifically, both nations deal with the issue of nation versus region. Should the "nation" be idealized or the region? For example, India has many conflicting languages, including Gujarati, Kannada, Hindi, and Marathi. Likewise, the Philippines must serve different peoples who speak Tagalog, Ilocano, Visayan, Pampangan, Muslim, or Cebuano.
Indonesia
Thirdly, the Philippines also has similarities with Indonesia. Both are huge Southeast Asian island nations. Both were colonized by European powers. Both achieved full independence after World War II. However, there are some differences. For example, according to Armes, "The manner in which the four former colonies achieved their independence varied from a peaceful transfer of power from the colonizer to a trusted local elite, in the case of the United States and the Philippines [compared to more violent overthrows]..."
GENRE AND THE FILM JOSE RIZAL
I have tried to argue that Filipino cinema, in general, shares similarities with the cinema of other colonized peoples. Now, I will look at a specific genre, epic historical melodrama, and look at a specific example, the film Jose Rizal (1998). The film was produced by GMA films, directed by the female director Marilou Diaz-Abaya, and starred Cesar Montano. The film won several prestigious awards, including the FAMAS Awards of 1999, which included Best Actor, Cinematography, Picture, Director, Screenplay, and Theme Song. It also won the 1999 Cultural Award at the Metro Manila Film Festival. It has also premiered at several well-known film festivals around the world.
The film is about Jose Rizal, a pre-Revolutionary hero of the Philippines. He was a nineteenth century Filipino artist, novelist, and doctor. He was educated in the Philippines and in Europe. In 1887, he published his first novel, Noli Me Tangere. It was written in Spanish, but published in Berlin. Later, he published his second novel, El Filibusterismo. These novels encouraged, even indirectly, the 1896-1898 Philippine Revolution against colonial Spain.
Dr. Jose Rizal
Thematically, the film deals with Rizal's life and martyrdom. The Spaniards executed him in 1896, and soon after, the Revolution began. The film deals with politics, race, class, religion, education, and economics. Also, the novels' protagonist, Crisostomo Ibarra, could be the alter ego of Rizal. He could also be a metaphor for the Philippines. The film deals with colonialism, and also, I believe, indirectly with the colonialism by the United States. For example, even though the film ostensibly is about Rizal, a 19th century revolutionary, the film is also about the problems of the American colonial experience, and the problems that the Philippines now faces in the present day. It is unavoidable, because the film premiered in 1998. This is one hundred years after the end of the Philippine Revolution. The director, Diaz-Abaya, reflects on how the nation has changed in one hundred years. In many ways, the nation still faces the same problems of a century ago. For example, Rizal was an ambivalent hero. He had his doubts. Should the Philippines rebel against Spain? Then, Rizal is executed. The Philippines today has doubts. Should it rebel against its neocolonial power, the United States? How far can it strive for independence without risking the United States' wrath?
Formally, the film is an epic film. For example, it lasts almost three hours. It is truly an "epic." It also spans almost forty years, the life of Rizal. I believe that the film uses mostly "realist" style, however it also has some very experimental elements. For example, the film is not just a straight, linear narrative. The film opens with Rizal's final days between 1891 and 1896. But there are also flashbacks to his childhood. Then, there are frequent scenes in black and white, whenever we see scenes from his novels. In this way, Diaz-Abaya alternates between black and white, flashbacks, and the present time of the film. The film also builds up and climaxes to the execution of Rizal.
The cinematography is beautiful. For example, the film opens with close-ups of everyday details in Philippine colonial life, such as Filipino wood furniture, the interiors of the home, Catholic altars, lace curtains, Filipino food, and so on. The music sounds somewhat melodramatic, and has a very Spanish influence. For example, we hear Spanish guitars. The lighting reveals almost a nostalgic feel for the late nineteenth century. However, we soon learn that there are problems in this colonial island "paradise." For example, we see scenes of violent abuse, such as the rape of native women by Catholic priests, the beating of young altar boys, and wide shots of hundreds of natives being thrown off their land. The dialogue in the film is a mixture of Spanish, English, Tagalog, German, and Belgian. This is in keeping with all the various colonial influences on the country.
I believe that the film is an example of Third World Cinema. For example, it deals with indigenous and colonial history. It demonstrates the problems with language, such as Rizal switching back and forth between Tagalog and other Western languages. It also deals with oral history. For example, Rizal's mother tells him stories about the past, and then Rizal tells his story to his lawyer, his jailer, and so on. Diaz-Abaya also explores themes of exile. For example, Rizal is sent to study in Europe, and to also escape persecution by the Filipino Catholic Church. Then, when he returns to the Philippines, he is sent into exile again to the southern island town of Dapitan.
The film is historical epic genre, but it also crosses into other genres. For example, it is part road film, in that Rizal takes a journey all over the world, and then finally returns to Manila, only to be executed. It is also a social commentary film. It is also a musical. For example, the theme song "Awit ni Maria Clara" is heard several times throughout the film. It is also part doomed love story, in that Rizal and his first love, Leonor, never are able to marry, and then, the Church does not allow him to marry his second love, Josephine Bracken.
The film has been a huge success for Philippine cinema, both commercially and artistically. However, the film almost did not get made. Why? For example, Ruel de Vera wrote, "Philippine producers seemed to fear that familiarity would breed apathy." In other words, most Filipinos know the story of Jose Rizal, but producers feared that Diaz-Abaya would not be able to do a fresh take on the story. The film had a $2-million budget. De Vera says, "Much of the credit for this goes to the maverick approach of director Marilou Diaz-Abaya. [She is] the 43-year-old veteran of 16 films..." Says Diaz Abaya, "Jose Rizal is just one of many good films coming out now that hopefully will be the start of a new golden age for the Philippine cinema." Diaz-Abaya continues, saying, "History books and historians have failed to make us fall in love with ourselves and give us a sense of pride on a national scale." Hopefully, this film, and this genre, will have contributed to the national ideal. Tony Rayns believes that "The result is an elegant and stirring film."
In conclusion, I have tried to argue that Jose Rizal is a significant film, and that its historical epic genre functions similarly in many cultural contexts. For example, the historical epic genre is used to promote unity, identity, and the national ideal in India, Mexico, Indonesia, or the Philippines. Diverse peoples are given a hero to idealize. The film may be studio produced, government backed, or independent. However, this genre is useful in encouraging both personal and national pride.
