Questions:

1. What are the primary sources you encountered in the documentary?

Secondary sources? Tertiary sources?
2. Why did Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Tavera had different
interpretation about the same event? Based on the sources they presented who
is more convincing among the two? Why?
3. Did Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively? Explain your
answer.
Please review the differences between primary and secondary sources.
Primary are immediate, first-hand sources.
Answer: Secondary sources are analysis, scholarly works.
You may have mistakenly switched the two.

1. The primary sources was when Howie Severino interviewed Gaston Damag
who is a Pinoy Visual Artist in paris and Manuel Ocampo who was visiting
Gaston in paris. The secondary sources was the “The Parisian Life”, it was
the most famous art of Juan Luna after the spoliarium. And the tertiary
sources was when Howie Severino interviewed professor Eric Zerrudo of
the University of Sto. Thomas. According to professor Zerrudo, the
interpretation of the “The Parisian Life” is that the woman on the painting
was a prostitute and that’s because of the situation of paris before.
Does it warrant 2. I think it’s because they’re just being biased since they are both from the
that Luna does Luna and Pardo de Tavera family, so it’s really inevitable to have different
it previously, interpretation about the said event. Although their interpretation have a
and he does it point and somehow accurate on what happened in the past, however I
again with the think Mara Pardo de Tavera’s interpretation was more convincing because
intention to kill of the thought that Juan Luna was a bit temper, it’s really possible for him
his wife? to do such thing as what Mara’s interpretation.
3. He did. He was really aiming to present Juan Luna’s life from the very
beginning of the documentary, he even did a deep research about luna’s
affair in the past.