Maranan, Rhealyn M.

CLOHS 2A

Reflection Paper on the film: Bayaning Third World

Bayaning Third World is a 1999 Filipino documentary and satire film that revolves
around Jose Rizal and the National hero's alleged retraction of his attacks against the Catholic
Church during the Spanish era in the Philippines. It is a movie within a movie. In the show, the
two filmmakers are obsessed with doing a film about Jose Rizal. Their effort to explain the
hero's life's mysteries led them to confront the past and its characters. The film's highlights
include the respective meetings with Dona Teodora Alonso, his brother Paciano, and sisters
Trinidad and Narcisa, his love and interest Josephine Bracken, the priest and supposed witness
of Rizal's retraction Vicente Balaguer, and finally, Rizal himself. The film sought questions that
were never and will never be answered, and it presented and created a doubt in me about the
hero's real motive. Some of these questions are: Was the reason why Rizal disapproved of the
revolution was that he was not the one who started it? Was he holding a rosary in his right
hand when he was gunned down? And the biggest question of all which will be the main topic
in this reflective essay: Was the retraction letter of Rizal genuine or fake?
At first, I thought that the film would be a bore because of its black and white feature.
There were times when I had to rewind because I dozed off or zoomed out. While the majority
of the characters were believable, ready to make viewers laugh and upset, curious and
entertaining, and even admire and hate, Bracken stood out as comical with her forced accent.
Bayaning Third World manifested the reality that no one form of Rizal exists. I found the film
revolutionary because it portrayed Rizal as a person just like us, full of contradictions and
imperfections. It made me see other sides of him that were not written in elementary books
and taught in high school. His life is told in a series of interviews complemented with amusing
references, and intellectual debates made it easy to understand and fun and stimulating.
Though the film has a lot to point out about our national hero, there are three main
points on which the author concentrated: (1) Rizal, pro or against the revolution, (2)
Speculation whether Josephine Bracken and Rizal got married or not or if their relationship was
authentic or not, and the most controversial issue (3) the Retraction System.
At the beginning of the movie, Rizal may have stand firm about his statement that he
was against the revolution. However, many speculated about his bravery. Two sides of the coin
were open. The first side tells that he was not that brave enough to face the enemies through
sword and shields. The second side was he wanted to fight back through pen and paper, not to
be easy for the enemies to track him down. Though in my perception, even he was pro or
against the revolution, it would not make any difference because from the Spaniards'
perception, he was the one who started the revolution and even though at the back of the
story, he even declined it.
 Were they married? Married or not, it does not make one less or above the society.
Today, marriage is not a big issue for some. For them, living together was enough, though not
evident by the church written document, as long as the commitment is being kept by the two.
Just like in Josephine and Rizal's relationship, maybe it was a way of telling the people that even
before living together without any marriage contract was already being practiced.
Was the child labored by Josephine, Rizal's, or was it from his stepfather; An issue that
came up when Josephine gave birth to a premature stillbirth child. This issue so far for me lacks
evidence because no one could prove the authenticity of the statement. And that, when we
compare it to reality, if the child were really from his stepfather, it would make Rizal a man
more because he whole-heartedly accepted the child despite the controversy.
Since the most controversial issue is about the retraction, let us first define it. According
to a dictionary, retraction means withdrawal or drawing in. This topic did not bring me to sleep
because of the film's humor that balanced a severe issue. It became controversial because the
filmmakers have to decipher whether the signature was authentic or not. In the movie, Dona
Lolay and Paciano believed that Rizal did not retract because it was inconsistent with what he
believed in. I knew this was an insufficient reason, but both of them were close to Rizal, and I
assumed they already knew him very well by then. And what they said really made sense – Rizal
went abroad, wrote nationalistic poems, essays, and novels, joined several groups, sacrificed his
love many times – all for one goal: to give justice and equality for the Filipinos. The retraction
was against Rizal's beliefs, and based on the many years of struggles to liberate the Philippines,
to retract seemed to be the last thing he would do. His sisters, Narcisa and Trinidad, on the
other hand, gave ambiguous, inconclusive testimonies. It was not clear whether they believed
that Rizal retracted or not. From my point of view, a document older than the people today is
really a tough job to think upon because in the first place, there were only two priests who
were there during the signing and that these two priests were really determined that Rizal
would sign the retraction document. However, the idea that it was falsified would not be
removed from my view because the primary source of information is a priest who was with the
Spaniards and really pushed Rizal to convert to being a Catholic again.
The issue touched on the authenticity of Rizal's relationship with Josephine Bracken.
Historians have battled whether or not Josephine loved Rizal or if she was just one of the spies
sent by the friars. Seeing it from my view, I think there was real love between both of them
because Josephine, having a good life outside the country, gave it all up to be with Rizal and
that even though Rizal was on probation for his death, she never gave space in their
relationship. She was there throughout the trial and when Rizal was killed in Bagumbayan.
Though the movie used a technique wherein the filmmakers would re-visit the past for it
to appear more realistic, in the end, it did not give a definite and exact answer to the many
questions involving Rizal. After all those efforts of finding the truth about Rizal's alleged
retraction, there has been no substantial evidence that could put an end to it. Some believed he
wrote that to marry Josephine, some says that the signature was forged, some says the Catholic
church just invented everything at that time to erase the notion of Rizal, a mortal enemy of the
church, as our hero. I guess that is what makes history a bit difficult. We only have the facts –
the date, the people, the event, but we really don't know the truth behind those facts.
 Quite frankly, this film is so complex and rich in vivid details, but what made me like it is
that it would move its audience into thinking and questioning the what-ifs and what could be in
the life of Rizal. This film is a great mental exercise, and it could also change or boost your views
on our national hero. Whatever is which, Rizal may die, but his ideas and thoughts forever live
and remain indelible imprints in time.