Notes on Philippine Cinema

by Emmanuel A. Reyes

A book report by:

Kristina A. Marable

2018-21324

FILM 102

Dr. Nicanor G. Tiongson

April 1, 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNOPSIS 1

Introduction 1

I. Form in the Filipino Film 1

II. Myth and Philippine Cinema

Stranger than Fiction 4

On Themes, Message, Symbols, and Realism 5

The World on Her Shoulders: Women in Melodrama 5

Macho Fantasies: Philippine Cinema’s Action Heroes 7

Gay and Really Useful: Homosexuality in Philippine Cinema 8

III. Murder by Fame 9

IV. Black and White in Color: The Lure of Komiks Movies 9

V. Does Political Repression Make Good Cinema? 10

VI. Images of Ourselves in Our Own Reality 11

VII. Why Does Somebody Else Have To Tell The Story of Our Revolution? 12

VIII. The Aesthetics of the Short Film 12

IX. Reviews 13

Snake Sisters 13

Kapitan Inggo (Kumakain ng Bala) 14

Sister Stella L. 14

Kapit Sa Patalim/Bayan Ko 14

Merika 15
 Isla 15

The Boatman 15

Virgin Forest 16

Bomba Queen 16

Miguelito: Ang Batang Rebelde 16

Scorpio Nights 17

Silip 17

Bagong Hari 17

Olongapo: The Great American Dream 18

X. Remembering Vic Silayan: An Interview 18

ANALYSIS 20
 1

SYNOPSIS

Introduction/Preface

In Notes on Philippine Cinema, Emmanuel A. Reyes looks into what Philippine cinema

for what it is, more than what it could be. The book contains, essays that explore the escapist

appeal of mainstream cinema, reviews for Filipino films released between 1984 and 1986, as

well as an interview with the late actor, Vic Silayan. Reyes discusses the peculiarities of

mainstream movies by discussing the ideas and concerns of movies that are used as examples in

the book. Reviews are written with the focus of finding the film’s main message and how

successful it was on delivering it, rather than the good and bad elements it contains. The last part

of the book contains a discussion of the anomalies and issues in Filipino filmmaking in the

perspective of an actor, in this case, Vic Silayan. The author notes that the most significant

contributor in Filipino filmmaking is its audience more than the filmmaker’s creative decisions.

I. Form in the Filipino Film

This essay explains what is form in general, what film form is, and what form Filipino

films have. Form is defined by W. Tatarkiewicz using five meanings – the arrangement of parts,

what is openly given to the senses, the boundary of an object, Aristotle’s conceptual essence of

an object, and Kant’s “contribution of the mind to the perceived object.” These definitions of

form relates to each other and is used in defining what film form is. Film form is a “system of

relationships between elements that function both singularly and collectively” according to film

scholars, David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson. The two subsystems that make up the film

form: a narrative subsystem in which in not literally seen in the film as it is the story and the plot,

and a stylistic subsystem which is composed of the mise-en-scene, the editing, and the sound.
 2

The film must be viewed in its entirety in order to evaluate it. Another definition of film form

comes from the Manunuri ng Pelikulang Pilipino and Bordwell and Thompson, that a film is to

be judged by its content, more than its form. However, these two must come hand in hand in

order to create meaning in a film. Meaning does not to be said out loud within the film, as

expressions of an actor’s face can do it justice. The cinema utilizes meaning in an ideological

manner, not neutral. It comes from cultural beliefs on the perception of the world. As films

reinforce values, it can also challenge these existing values.

In describing the form in Filipino film, it is a derivation of classical Hollywood cinema.

Film movements such as Expressionism from the Germans, montage from Russia, and Italian

Neorealism, came and went, but the classical Hollywood cinema which emerged in 1903

remained and succeeded in capturing the world market. It has a strong emphasis on its narrative

with the underlying thought of it as a form of entertainment. The classical Hollywood cinema

would hinge its narrative development on individual character actions. These actions are

motivated by a desire to achieve something by the protagonist and the antagonist. The opposing

characters are then met at a conflict to move the narrative forward. The conflict is resolved

through a cause and effect chain, giving emphasis on the important aspects of linearity and

clarity. The film ends when the protagonist achieves his goal. In developing the narrative, each

decision is guided by logic and decision, which is followed by every element present in the film.

Criticisms often faced by Filipino movies is its failure to successfully pattern itself

according to the style of the classics. These are then seen as “flaws” due to its deviations against

the Western structure. This is because the mainstream Filipino film is definitely different from

the classical narrative. It has thinner plots, weak on logic and motivation, and predictable; its

narrative structure is untethered and easily deviates from its main idea. Filipino film is also very
 3

escapist in concerns. These then go against the so-called “rules” of the classical narrative, which

in the end, is seen as “flaws.” Reyes disagrees as these should be considered as traits, because no

matter how appalling how Filipino films could get, these have done well in the eyes of the

majority of the Philippine audience.

The form in the Philippine cinema is determined by both creative decisions and

pragmatic ones. The latter includes the production using less raw materials, the local market size,

and the absence of pressure on quality. The Philippine mainstream cinema then manifests four

traits – scene-oriented narrative, overt representation, circumlocutory dialogue, and centrality of

a star. A scene-oriented narrative opposes the classic Hollywood cinema’s plot-oriented

narrative. Filipino films focus more on dramatic expositions, rather than the analytical problem

solving aspects. Alongside that characteristic, Philippine cinema has the tendency to literally

portray everything. From its mise-en-scenes to its character’s attributions, everything is put

together in its simplest, most obvious manner in order for the viewer to easily comprehend what

is happening in the film. Another characteristic is that films contain circumlocutory dialogue as

opposed to the direct dialogue of Hollywood cinema. What this does to a scene is to extend it

rather than bring the narrative forward – too many words are said for something so simple. The

last characteristic Reyes points out is the centrality of a star. Instead of praising actors in their

ability to portray a character so truthfully on screen, Philippine cinema gives more attention to

actors who can play themselves on screen. Scripts are made to fit them, not for the star to fit the

role that a script needs them to.

If changing the form of the Philippine cinema is desired, one must take in consideration

these present factors according to Reyes: the “current industry practices, the state of education in

the country, the prevailing economic conditions, even the notion of contemporary mythology.”
 4

These contribute to the influence on what the viewers should expect to see. A film evolves in

response to the needs of society.

II. Myth and Philippine Cinema

Stranger than Fiction

This essay talks on how Philippine cinema is often criticized unfairly by our own film

critics as they follow criteria from other film scholars from abroad. Films from the West are

different from the ones produced here as our concerns – the quality of education and the

available resources – are different from theirs. With that being said, the standards set by Western

scholars should not be applied in Filipino films as they are likely to be viewed as flaws, instead

of characteristics which particular to our own cinema. If these persist in Filipino film criticism

and cannot deal with the peculiarities of our own cinema, then these should be evaluated from a

different point of view: myth and cinema.

Myths are widely held beliefs which are often rooted from stories from the past, but they

still exist today. The myth as defined by Roland Barthes as a form of speech that expresses a

concept or idea. This definition then exemplifies movies as propagators of myths. Movies reflect

deals with multiple aspects of society, such as economics, religion, sexual norms, and more, thus,

giving multiple functions to the existence of myths. Yvette Biro sees “myth as aversion and wish

fulfillment.” Movies then portray what we aspire to be, and show what we fear. One of the myths

ingrained in cinema is that movies construct values, though, values exist unconnected to

experience. Values then are not made from movies, but rather, are reflected in them. Another

myth is that Philippine movies will soon evolve into a form akin to American. However, this
 5

does not seem to be a possibility as Filipino film as it is, and as it was, has been widely accepted

despite its bad reviews.

Renato Constantino complains about the effect of Philippine cinema focusing on fantasy.

It gives the audience an impression of a false reality, steering away from the truth of what life is.

What happens in films is that it produces unreliable values which are only attractive more than

they are practical. Here it is seen that the role of society is significant in Filipino filmmaking,

that progress within it is an absolute necessity in order to see such in our films.

On Themes, Message, Symbols and Realism

In this essay, Reyes comments on how using themes, message, symbols, and realism, as

reasons in determining whether a film is good or bad is a myth. These standards are not attained

by many important films, as these cannot be used to judge them. If a film were to be judged on

its theme, the film is then reduced to a simple subject matter. It fails to include the details in the

development of plot and character. On message, it cannot be used as a standard to evaluate a film

as all films have a message, to be more precise, have multiple messages to convey. These are

used to shape the perception of an audience. To use symbols is problematic as well, as it can be

used to determine mystics, or create a standard between a film’s subject an socio-political

realities. It is a matter of consistency throughout all films. Lastly, to resort to realism is pointless.

All films are make believe, they are only impressions of reality, not reality itself.

The World on Her Shoulders: Women in Melodrama

This article explains the strong female role in melodrama, seeing that women are given

roles that go through a lot of suffering, yet emerging victorious in the end. At the time in which
 6

men and women started to receive their individual lead roles, film narratives had already shifted.

Men and women were no longer seen as level-headed characters in film, as one takes the lead

and the other, the supporting role. Strong male leads are the central figures of the action genre,

whereas strong female leads, melodrama. The role given to women suffer greatly on their way to

overcoming their problems. Although, this genre justifies the suffering woman as a consequence

of having female desires in a patriarchal society. Komiks melodramas uses the success story to

emphasize this very desire and its consequences in the patriarchy. This kind of story deals with

five concerns: luck or suwerte, success is synonymous with material wealth, suffering is good,

poverty is a given, and crab mentality. Luck or suwerte allows these movies to portray that

success in life is only attained if one were lucky rather than hardworking. In these movies,

character transformation is favored over character motivation. In order to measure one’s success,

it is through what she owns. Through these films, success is synonymous with material wealth –

humility is not taken account of. Being that the Philippines is heavily influenced by catholic

beliefs, it is seen that suffering is good. These movies glorify a character’s suffering, and the

character herself does so too, because it is known that suffering in here means for a reward in

heaven. Characters in these films never question their poverty, as poverty is a given. Political

issues on this topic is never raised to make way for the fantasy elements of the story. Lastly, a

very Filipino characteristic, the crab mentality is present. When the protagonist is seen to aim for

success, her peers put her through hardships to slow her, or to simply take her down.

The suffering in these movies are due to the present social conditions such as the low-

quality education, the division between rich and poor, and, the shortage of decent jobs, mirror the

existing reality. In order to create a positive change in how cinema examines society, it must first

address its social ills.

 7

Macho Fantasies: Philippine Cinema’s Action Heroes

This essay sees the action hero in the Philippine cinema as a man who takes matters into

his own hands being that the legal system and the people in control of it cannot be depended

upon. The action genre is violent, borrowing elements from Western movies, detective dramas,

war movies, and martial arts thrillers. The hero of this genre is what the common citizen who has

realized the corruption in his society aspires to be. With the corruption of society, the hero

usually operates outside of the law. He hero believes in his own definition of justice, which he

makes known through his violent actions. Oppression is what begins the narrative of the action

genre – the hero goes through some kind of torture but is not killed, and later on hunts down his

oppressors and annihilates all of them.

The action genre implies that law enforcement is associated to brutality. The transgressor

would rather die fighting than to surrender to the cruel system. On the other hand, the enforcers

would rather kill a suspect than give him a chance of life after prison. These are the two types of

action heroes – the one against the law, and the one on the side of the law.

In this genre, there is the tendency of arresting the plot development in order to make

way for scenes that contain physical combat. The narrative is put to a halt for these scenes of

violence. The role of women in these films are often limited to girlfriends ready for sex, or bad

girls looking for men. Protagonists in the action genre have the privilege of sharing their

criticisms about society. Despite having issues presented in action films, these are often resolved

only on the surface.

 8

Gay and Really Useful: Homosexuality in Philippine Cinema

According to Reyes, homosexuals, or the image of a homosexual, rather, are confined to

comedy roles as it is the only image that is acceptable to the Filipino public. The tolerance for

homosexual behavior depends on his ability to make himself useful. His use in film is then to

entertain, and is accepted by the heterosexual and the morally upright from having to deal with

the controversies of homosexuality. Homosexuals are limited to comedy roles because of the

humor they can bring through their ridiculous actions as compared to heterosexuals, which then

makes them a target for their hostility. His suffering allows for the release of real life rage and

does not induce pity as it is only done in nature of the genre.

Homosexuality is merely an excess to society, and the homosexual is a transgressor that

must be repressed according to Philippine cinema. The narratives of the gay comedy then are

structured around the idea of discovery and persecution. Jokes are based on 1. the parents

unacceptable to their son’s sexuality, 2. the uncontrollable sexual urge of the homosexual, 3. the

incapability to discipline them and are seen as a threat, 4. the cure for homosexuality are women,

and lastly, 5. the defiance of social conventions by homosexuals allow them to say outrageous

remarks.

This image of the ridiculous gay is promoted by many homosexual writers and directors.

It is odd as a more sympathetic image would have been expected, being that gays are already

involved in filmmaking. There is a distinction between comedy films that include homosexuality

and gay cinema, as pointed out by Nic Deocampo. Deocampo explains that true Filipino gay

cinema must be able to challenge society using the issues that directly deals with the political and

social dimensions of homosexuality. If gay cinema is able to confront society and overcome its

prejudices, gay cinema then will be able to flourish.

 9

III. Murder by Fame

The text examines how fame can lead to the death of a star. In the industry of Philippine

cinema, fame comes with immense responsibilities that goes beyond having skill in the art. A

star is then responsible for making money, fulfilling expectations, and surviving rumors and bad

working conditions. In order to make money, stars are seen as mere commodities for the

consumption of the public. New stars, if they are deemed worthy, become investments of

producers. The money is spent on publicity, marketing their stars through a “Know Your Idol”

type game, as well as spreading gossip. The latter scheme has proved to be problematic as some

individuals kill themselves due to the horrendous rumors going around. Stars are completely

succumbed to the public. They sacrifice their private lives in order to fulfill the expectations the

public has set for them. In terms of our own cinema, a star must also be able to resolve problems

that arise during production. They are forced to deal with harsh working conditions, all while

being expected to provide a good performance. With all those, it is concluded that the viewing

public sees is far from what the actor experiences.

IV. Black and White in Color: The Lure of Komiks Movies

According to Reyes, what attracts audience to komiks movies is its focus on the

dramatization of its conflict, rather than its exposition. Komiks movies derive their narratives

from popular Tagalog comic book serials. There is a huge variation in the types of stories komiks

would convey, however, the term “komiks movies” is almost exclusively referred to the

melodrama. The komiks melodrama is an entire subsection of its own that has the ability to

sustain an audience despite its predictability. This can be understood by these three aspects: the
 10

narrative as a dichotomy, the use of women as central figures within the narrative, and the

sources of conflict in this type of melodrama.

What dichotomy does to a narrative is create comprehensible distinctions within the

elements of conflict as these are simply opposites of each other. Each element must be able to

define the basic conflict of the story. To express such dichotomy, komiks movies are very literal,

and in no way are they subtle in presenting its conflict.

Melodramas were made for women, telling stories from their point of view. The komiks

melodramas had themes on female fantasy and repression. The women in these movies had the

goal of finally putting one’s foot down as an individual, breaking away from traditional roles

imposed by the patriarchal society.

Conflict in komiks movies utilize two different levels. The first is when conflict rises in

the attempt of the poor to be on equal footing of the rich, and the second is when both parties are

well of, the conflict then rises from a man.

Komiks melodramas, in terms of its qualities, still need to be explored. Komiks movies

have the ability to present our society’s preoccupations and prejudices. It is a style of storytelling

that will endure time through the audience it lures in.

V. Does Political Repression Make Good Cinema?

Reyes raises the question, “does political repression make good cinema?” as he

recognizes that films made during the oppressive reign of Marcos were greater than the ones

being made in the liberal reign of Cory Aquino. The Mannheim International Filmweek in

Germany shows much interest in presenting independent works. Films dealing with political

issues would become successful in the festival. In 1986, the Philippines had two entries: Lino
 11

Brocka’s Bayan Ko and Tikoy Aguiluz’s Fr. Balweg: Rebel Priest. These two films reflected the

great political shift from a state of political repression to a state of democracy. With such a great

shift, Mannheim observers were disappointed as to how it failed to level up to their expectations.

Filipino filmmakers have no excuse in turning out mediocre films because of the freedom that

the country has fought for. Filmmakers must take this opportunity to create movies that tackle

the present state of the Filipino instead of producing fantasies that do nothing but waste our

resources.

VI. Images of Ourselves in Our Own Reality

This essay discusses how the image of the Filipino is realized in American cinema as

savages, and how the Filipinos themselves revere their pictures as the truth. This is because

anything that differs from the norms of the West are instantly deemed as primitive and barbaric.

Filipinos allow this situation to occur for the mere idea of foreign exposure. We must create an

image that is true to ourselves, not one that is generated by a country not our own. The sinister

oriental is simply how Hollywood implies this stereotype that Third World countries are evil,

threatening, and anything but nice. How we see ourselves also plays a factor on the images

portrayed in foreign film. If we see ourselves in the notion of suwerte, pagkamartir, and ganti,

these will not bring any progress to a more accurate portrayal of a Filipino in film. Lastly, it is a

matter of confidence. Filipinos must be proud of our own culture, only then will they be

confident to speak up for who we are as a nation.

 12

VII. Why Does Somebody Else Have To Tell The Story of Our Revolution?

Reyes deems it unnecessary and impractical for a country other than ours to tell the story

of our own revolution. As the political state of the Philippines shifted out of a dictatorship,

filmmaking had failed to react to the events before, during, and after that very period. Although,

it is naïve to think that foreigners are doing us a favor by telling our story. In the end it is only

for their financial benefit. Having an outsider tell the story of our revolution may result to false

representations of the country and the people in it. Only our own can truthfully tell our story.

Relying on foreigners to do so will never gain us respect as a nation. The Filipino must fight

back and speak for ourselves.

VIII. The Aesthetics of the Short Film

This essay discusses is that the aesthetics of the short film has the capability to mirror the

society in which the filmmaker belongs to. As longer films require each element to contribute to

the understanding and the development of the story, short films are unable to do so due to the

time constraints. Instead of following the practices of the classic narrative, the short film must be

able to exhibit new ways of presenting visual ideas. Such allows the short filmmaker to break

previously imposed rules on the art. He must have the courage to defy society’s conventions and

beliefs. The society should not limit the role of an artist, but instead, encourage him in his

endeavors. Short films allow a film artist to exercise his right of self-expression. Society must

not hold the filmmaker back because through his works, it is where the identity of a society is

reflected upon. Film as an influential medium uses its power to encourage people to think. Thus,

society must allow the film artist to produce his best works. He will be able to do so through
 13

support and attention to his work. His achievements as an artist will ultimately influence our

perception of cinema.

IX. Reviews

The author reviews a few significant Filipino released in 1984 to 1986, a period of a

struggling government to justify its excesses in the form of the Manila Film Center, and abuses

of a corrupt economy. Despite censorship laws, bold Filipino films were shown exclusively in

the Manila Film Center. With that, numerous bold films were produced and escaped censorship

without a problem. Conversely, films that had more substance, although less flesh, had difficulty

getting through the board of censors. Action films also meddle with Martial Law. Philippine

cinema still managed to turn out a few good movies despite the deteriorating economy.

Interestingly enough, when the dictator had fled the country in 1986, no films touched on the

subject of the Marcoses.

When Sex Becomes Irritating – Snake Sisters (1984), directed by Celso Ad. Castillo

Celso Ad. Castillo’s 1984 Snake Sisters, is criticized by Reyes as a misguided idea. The

idea was a reimagination of the Bible’s tale of the snake in the Garden of Eden, where the

forbidden apple is replaced by sexual intercourse. Beyond that, the film lacked a plot. Reyes

notes that Castillo showed no improvement from his 1971 film, Nympha. The director’s

aesthetics equates realism with visuals that are downright gross and repulsive.
 14

How Not to Eat Bullets – Kapitan Inggo (1984), directed by Jose Yapoco

Reyes comments on Ramon Revilla’s Kapitan Inggo (Kumakain ng Bala) (1984), for

having too many faults, mainly due to the director’s obsession over violence and gore. Utilizing

the myth of the anting-anting, a format that is nothing new to Revilla’s films, he continues to

cash in on yet another epic, even latching on to his disregard for finer details in filmmaking. The

anting-anting allows his character’s body to bounce off bullets, and to attain power over life and

death, as well as immense strength. Many scenes feed Revilla’s gore obsession which takes over

the story, and even compromise the quality of the film in its acting, dialogue, editing, and music.

A Landmark in RP Cinema – Sister Stella L. (1984), directed by Mike de Leon

Reyes claims that Mike de Leon’s 1984 Sister Stella L. is a landmark event in Philippine

cinema. It is a film for each person in the production, made possible by Mike de Leon’s

direction. Reyes praises each person involved in each element of the film for their outstanding

works. Sister Stella L. is proof of innocence lost between the country’s years of submission and

reawakening.

A Look at Turing and Why He Did It – Kapit Sa Patalim/Bayan Ko (1985), directed by

Lino Brocka

In Lino Brocka’s Kapit Sa Patalim/Bayan Ko (1985), its protagonist, Turing Manalastas,

resolves to crime as society continues to oppress him – his decision to do so is difficult to accept

according to Reyes. It is his indecision brings him to turn to crime, going against his initial belief

of being able to make a living without breaking the law. The result is from his character’s pride
 15

and stubbornness more than it is from his circumstance. The film does not settle an issue, but

instead, it opens its doors for discussion.

Tender Effort: One from the Heart – Merika (1984), directed by Gil Portes

Reyes forgives the little flaws in Gil Portes’ 1984 Merika, realizing its efforts in

portraying the Filipino worker in America. The film is able to evoke an image of loneliness that

is uniquely felt by the migrant Filipino. It is a feeling that cannot be fully expressed, nor could it

be relieved entirely. This sad feeling is invoked in each element introduced in the film. Acting,

directing, writing, even its images contribute to the feeling of sadness.

Guts and a Body Wide Open – Isla (1984), directed by Celso Ad. Castillo

Maria Isabel Lopez plays the main role in Celso Ad. Castillo’s Isla (1984), and is pointed

out by Reyes as having exactly what it takes to make it in the movie industry – “a lot of guts and

a body wide open.” The movie is neither bad or good, it is simply coherent. The most humorous

moments of the film happen in its dramatic points. Moreover, the film can be simplified as to

whether or not one can survive a lustful encounter with the actress. It is only Maria Isabel Lopez

that saves the film from another bad review.

The Boatman Sinks in the Swamp – The Boatman (1984), directed by Tikoy Aguiluz

The Boatman (1984) directed by Tikoy Aguiluz is said to take advantage of every

element that is set out to condemn according to Reyes. It is unable to rise above what it reveals

on the moral disintegration and the filth of the Philippine culture. These revelations are used to

cater to the paying audience, rather than challenge their way of thinking.
 16

Through a Forest Darkly – Virgin Forest (1985), directed by Peque Gallaga

Peque Gallaga’s 1985 Virgin Forest is based on a historical screenplay, however fails to

enlighten the audience on the happening during that very period. Reyes’ points out that this could

have been a great film if it were to follow the historical facts it stems from, as well as give

emphasis on the major figures of the story. It gives a false perception that history is merely

comprised of sexual encounters.

Why the Bomba Queen is Sick – Bomba Queen (1985), directed by Efren C. Piñon

Reyes critiques Efren C. Piñon’s Bomba Queen (1985) for being neither fact or fiction –

it is an odd mix of both. The director and producers of the film fails to realize what the film is, if

it were to be truthful or if it were to be fictional. This brings the history of the actor, in this case

Yvonne, that the film chronicles to be considered as irrelevant.

Nida Blanca’s Acting Worthy of High Praise – Miguelito: Ang Batang Rebelde (1985),

directed by Lino Brocka

Nida Blanca’s performance in Lino Brocka’s 1985 Miguelito: Ang Batang Rebelde

claims that it is worthy of high praise as her acting is both moving and expressive. Her

performance was so effective it need not verbal dialogue. Blanca presents a captivating

character, which she has never revealed before. She uses her eyes to bear her emotions to the

audience. Her ability to take risks in her character creates a distinct style, which is both natural,

yet it is daring.
 17

Gallaga’s Revenge – Scorpio Nights (1985), directed by Peque Gallaga

Reyes views Peque Gallaga’s Scorpio Nights (1985) as a confirmation to the trend of

local movies creating bold films in response to low theater attendance because the film is simply

just about sexual intercourse. The film portrays the kinkiest of kinks, showing shocking scenes of

lovemaking which are justified in saying that it is art. Gallaga is able to direct the story in a

manner slightly different from others, however it succumbs to more intercourse. This brings

about the characters’ weak motivations, being seen as people who would die without sex. There

are other things available up for discussion besides sex.

Lust in the Dust – Silip (1985), directed by Elwood Perez

In Elwood Perez’s 1985 Silip, Reyes contributes the film’s worth towards its shock value.

Elwood’s comeback with Silip after Till We Meet Again in the previous year in itself shocked the

viewing public. Beyond that, he put together the biggest sex icons, put sex in open desert sands,

and put bizarre moments in the film. It is these shocking elements of the film that make up for its

narrative and characterization.

It’s Difficult not to like Bagong Hari – Bagong Hari (1986), directed by Mario O’Hara

Reyes claims that Mario O’Hara’s Bagong Hari (1986) is difficult not to like because of

its powerful images. It contains striking compositions, expressive images, and even calls for

visual excitement.
 18

Olangapo, the Film, has Nothing New to Say – Olongapo: The Great American Dream

(1967), directed by Chito Roño

Olongapo: The Great American Dream (1967) is directed by Chito Roño which, as it is

technically a good film, falls short on its ability to pursue a new message on the city it is set.

What the film could have done is attack the people responsible for the moral decay of the people

in Olongapo. Instead of doing so, the film ignores to cut those people of, and sex trade becomes

more lucrative. In essence, the film had nothing new to say about the existing prostition in

Olongapo.

X. Remembering Vic Silayan: An Interview

This chapter is an interview with the late actor, Vic Silayan, by the author. In their first

meeting, Silayan had shared details of his experiences in the Second World War, as well as

working in the movies. Their succeeding meetings allowed Silayan talk about his feelings about

performing and creating characters. Their last meeting together would be three weeks before

Silayan’s death in Kidney Center. Silayan had been suffering through heart problems, and even

in the hospital in his weak state, he still had managed to talk to Reyes on the films he had

watched as a young boy. The actor passed away on August 30, 1987. An edited version of the

interview, Vic Silayan: An Actor Remembers is then included.

He discusses his early life – his family, his education, and his first encounter in the

performing arts. He then talks about his career on the radio, a majority of which was spent as a

radio producer and announcer in DZFM. Leaving his radio career in order to earn more money,

he lands a corporate job. He then explains that his old friend, Lamberto Avellana, bumps into

him one day and asks him to give movies a try. Avellana brings Silayan to LVN, and his career
 19

as a movie actor thus began. During the beginning of his movie career, he had worked with

Gregorio Fernandez who wanted him to become a major movie star. Another great director he

had worked with was Gerry de Leon who he praises for his distinct craftsmanship towards the

camera.

Silayan is then brought up to discuss acting. He explains that he is proud of his

profession, taking it as serious as any other profession there is – he prepares for his job, studies

his characters, and carefully listens to his directors. On kissing scenes, he views it as a part of the

profession and nothing else. He is concerned with his technique rather than his personal feelings.

Reyes questions Silayan on his role as a deranged policeman in Kisapmata. The actor admits that

he initially wasn’t keen on his character and he simply just did his job as an actor. He had also

had many opportunities to work on foreign pictures, in which he is proud to say that Filipino

actors can compare with ones of the West. Lastly, he discusses surviving as an actor. He points

out that there are many difficulties in becoming an actor, mainly that it cannot be a surefire way

to provide a steady income.

 20

ANALYSIS

Notes on Philippine Cinema by Emmanuel A. Reyes is an examination on what

Philippine cinema is and how it should be examined. It contains essays, reviews, and an

interview to explain such concept. Emmanuel A. Reyes wrote and published this book during the

Philippine cinema’s Martial Law and third studio period (published in 1989).

The films being produced and released during the time of the making of this book was

after the Philippine cinema’s period of independent producers (1961-1972). The industry was

filled with studios catering to the masses, focusing more on the money the film would make,

rather than what it could do to contribute in the progression of the society. What Reyes does in

this book is criticize the critiques from our own country, of our own cinema. He gives clear

explanations on how to view Filipino film in a local perspective by not comparing it with other

cinemas abroad, recognizing its distinct traits, and giving an inside look of the local film

industry.

As a professor of film in De La Salle University, Emmanuel A. Reyes’ book is an

insightful account on how to evaluate Philippine cinema using its own unique characteristics. His

points are reasonable being that he realizes the common criticisms of our country’s cinema,

recognizing patterns from past films and the differences of our cinema against the Western

cinema. He believes in the Filipino filmmaker to leave a mark in our country’s cinematic history,

and through festivals, the world’s as well.

The book begins with an introduction to form in film. This allows for the reader to get

oriented with what a film is composed of. It describes its form in a general perspective, that is

David Bordwell’s concept of classic Hollywood cinema, and in a local perspective, that should

be uniquely our own. The scene-oriented narrative, the overt representation, the circumlocutory
 21

dialogue, and the centrality of the star are traits not present in Western cinema, so they are often

seen as flaws. Reyes emphasizes that such difference should not be the way to criticize Filipino

films as our cinema’s form is different, then so should our criteria be as well.

These contrasts are then recognized are traits, bringing the writer to explain some

misbeliefs of our own cinema. He identifies them as myths. There is a wrong belief in evaluating

a film according to its themes, messages, symbols, and realism as Filipino films would have

difficulty reaching those standards. The treatment of women in melodrama suffering has no

relation to success, but only luck does. In the action genre according to Philippine cinema, one

man committing violent acts is seen as the hero of society. Another myth is that comedy genre

films with homosexual concepts constitutes gay cinema, however the two are completely

different things.

He further expounds on the differences of Philippine cinema and Western cinema by

giving the readers a more in-depth look of the industry. He allows the reader to know what it

takes to become a star, how fame requires much more than skill in the art. The appeal of the

komiks movies, despite its predictability, still has the ability to attract and attain an audience

because it is a mere reflection of society. Reyes also points out that during the time this book was

written, barely any good movies were being produced. It was odd, or disappointing, rather,

because by this time, the political system had turned around – filmmakers were freer than ever.

The Filipino filmmaker missed the chance of creating a movie on our own revolution, allowing

other foreigners to do it themselves. The image of the Filipino has been contorted into some form

of degenerate as we simply allow people to speak for ourselves. He encourages the Filipino

society to allow an artist, specifically the Filipino filmmaker, to do his best in all his works
 22

despite it going against societal standards. Only then will movies be perceived differently, and

produced differently as well.

In all of the reviews included in this book, he applies everything he had written in the

previous essays. The criteria in which he expounded throughout the book, using the local

perspective and seeing the film for what it is, is utilized for his own critiques. Some may be

harsh, but he provides good reason for his statements.

The book closes with an interview with the late Vic Silayan. Through this interview, he

offers another perspective inside the industry of the local cinema – an actor’s point of view. He

states that his difficulties as an actor are unique to, or just most prevalent, our own cinema. This

is mostly due to the lack of scripts and heavy reliance on the actor to provide what the director

wants without the guidance of a script.

Through this book, readers will be able to open their minds to the realities of Philippine

cinema – that it is uniquely ours, completely different from the others (specifically, the Western

cinema). Reyes truly believes in the ability of our Filipino filmmakers to create progress in their

films and contribute to the progression of society. What the book lacks, if anything, is a

comparison to other cinemas from nearby countries. A general Eastern perspective may have

added more insight to what and why the Philippine cinema is what it is. Nevertheless the book

provides eye-opening revelations as to how Filipino films are viewed and how it should be

viewed. Notes on Philippine Cinema gives pride in the local film industry, pointing out its own

characteristics and how both film and society go hand in hand in what kind of films will be

made, and how society can be influenced by these very films.

Reyes, Emmanuel A. Notes on Philippine Cinema. Manila: De La Salle University, 1989