VLAD BUNOAN, BWORLD

This is not a Rizal film

Noel Vera

"Baya=
ning Third World" (Third World Hero) is Mike De Leon's long-awaited film on=
Jose Rizal. It took over three years to complete, beginning way back in 1=
996 with the announcement by GMA Films of a massive, P70 million epic starr=
ing boy-toy Aga Muhlach as Rizal. Then Muhlach left, reportedly because De=
Leon was taking so long; eventually De Leon himself abandoned the producti=
on, to announce that he was making his own, independently produced film. =
No less than three other Rizal films were initiated and finished while De L=
eon's picture maturated: Tikoy Aguiluz's "Rizal sa Dapitan (Rizal in Dapita=
n); Marilou Diaz Abaya's "Jose Rizal" (ironically, the same production GMA =
Films intended De Leon to direct, rumored to have an even bigger--P120 mill=
ion--budget); and Mario O'Hara's "Sisa." The picture was invited--sight un=
seen, mind you--to the Director's Fortnight at Cannes International Film Fe=
stival (which it failed to attend). There were long periods when no one kn=
ew what was happening--the project was shrouded in a secrecy as tight and m=
ysterious, it seemed, as Kubrick's own latest (and last) work, "Eyes Wide S=
hut."

I finally saw the finished product last week, and can personal=
ly testify to the atmosphere of electric anticipation that hovered over the=
audience. Some eighty minutes later, when the film's end credits began to=
roll, an image and six words popped into my mind. The image: Magritte's f=
amous painting about a pipe, and its enigmatic label. The six words: "this=
is not a Rizal movie."

Or, it's not a Rizal film any more than Magr=
itte's pipe is not a pipe.

The film follows two filmmakers (played b=
y Ricky Davao and Cris Villanueva) as they attempt to do pre-production res=
earch on a film on Rizal. The two get into endless, impassioned debates; t=
hey propose all sorts of absurdities (Rizal Underarm Spray), and make witty=
observations (Rizal on a devalued one-peso coin is still number one). The=
y go out and interview people from Rizal's life--his brother Paciano (Joone=
e Gamboa), his sisters Trining (Rio Locsin) and Narcisa (Cherry Pie Picache=
), his mother, Dona Lolay (Daria Ramirez), his (reputed) confessor, Father =
Balaguer (a hilariously villainous Ed Rocha), and his (reputed) wife, Josep=
hine Bracken (Lara Fabregas).

Their conclusion (people who wish to s=
tay surprised may want to skip to the next paragraph--though doing so may u=
ltimately prove pointless) after much hemming and hawing basically boils do=
wn to this: Rizal's life is unfilmable. It's the long, shapeless and rathe=
r inactive life of an intellectual bum (something I concluded myself long a=
go, when I was involved in writing the screenplay of "Rizal sa Dapitan"). =
De Leon (with his scriptwriter and co-director, Clodualdo Del Mundo) go so =
far as to allow that many interpretations can be made from Rizal's life--ro=
ughly translated, "to each his own Rizal." But significantly, the film lac=
ks certain basic elements of traditional narrative film: there is no dramat=
ic story, and no recognizable dramatic characters--no one who is changed or=
transformed during the course of the film (the two filmmakers, who get sta=
r billing, are named "filmmakers 1 and 2"). Significantly, the last shot o=
f the film shows filmmakers 1 and 2 (stand-ins for De Leon and Del Mundo?) =
throwing up their hands and walking away from the project. This is a Rizal=
movie about the impossibility of making a Rizal movie. In short, this is =
NOT a Rizal movie!

Possibly the single most brilliant director of the =
Philippines (alive or dead) and his closest and best scriptwriter have play=
ed a joke on the long-expectant--three years in the making, not to mention =
the waiting--Philippine public. And what a joke! It's long, multi-layered=
, and elaborate; it's richly allusive--drawing not just on practically ever=
ything we know about Philippine history and our national hero, but also on =
everything Mike De Leon knows (which is considerable) about film and filmma=
king. And the punchline works like a time bomb: you may find yourself laug=
hing your head off hours after seeing the film, or--thinking about it a few=
days later-- chuckling irrepressibly. Or you may find yourself not laughi=
ng at all--to each his own reaction to the film.

The film is simply =
stuffed with jokes and references. The film's structure, for example, mode=
ls itself on Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane:" the first twenty or so minutes i=
s a fast and funny recapitulation of Rizal's life and significance (a la Ka=
ne's life, recapitulated in "The March of Time). Later the interviews begi=
n, with the different people who knew Kane--I mean, Rizal--bringing up and =
debating various issues. One shot, of a Filipino declaiming in front of a =
huge banner, recalls a similar one in Welles' film, where Kane is giving a =
speech; several times we catch the filmmakers poring over a huge blow-up of=
Rizal's execution, a direct quote from Michaelangelo Antonioni's film "Blo=
w Up." De Leon's favorite German Shepherd makes several appearances in the=
film--gently mocking Alfred Hitchcock's tendency to make personal appearan=
ces in his films.

Other jokes: Cris Villanueva, talking to different=
people and concluding that their life's story would make a better film tha=
n Rizal's. Father Balaguer's testimony of Rizal's last days in prison, whi=
ch De Leon mercilessly lampoons in all kinds of subtle ways (having read pa=
rt of Balaguer's testimony, I can say that De Leon manages to make fun of h=
im without once exaggerating him). My personal favorite, however, is the m=
oment when the filmmakers finally confront Rizal himself (played by Joel To=
rre): his replies to the filmmakers' questions prevaricate hilariously, as =
befits a true student of Jesuits ("What did you do the night before your ex=
ecution?" "The Spaniards did what they had to do; I did what I had to do").=


Some reservations: despite the astonishingly wide range covered by =
this relatively short film, De Leon fails to bring up the matter of money--=
the difficulty of funding a Rizal film, or any film for that matter (De Leo=
n in the years after his GMA debacle should be more than familiar with the =
subject). Lara Fabregas ruins the fascinatingly unreliable character of Jo=
sephine Bracken (did she marry Rizal, or didn't she?) with a cartoon Englis=
h accent straight out of Repertory Philippines--I mean, neyewbahdie tahwks =
loyk thaht! And De Leon blunts the sharpened point of his joke with a voic=
eover statement at the very end of the film--to sit through all that ambiva=
lence and ambiguity, only to have everything cleared up at the very last se=
cond! Del Mundo admits, though, that that final voiceover is still tentati=
ve, and may be removed during the film's final sound remixing (here's to ho=
ping they do).

Where does De Leon's film stand in comparison with othe=
r recent Rizal flicks? I can't comment regarding "Rizal sa Dapitan" for ob=
vious reasons; for equally obvious reasons, though, I think "Bayaning Third=
World" is a far superior film to the monumental "Jose Rizal." The first i=
n its eighty short minutes covers more of Rizal's life than the second does=
in three hours, with more clarity and historical accuracy. It gives prope=
r--that is, primal--importance to the question of Rizal's retraction, frami=
ng the issue thus: if Rizal didn't retract, then he stuck to his principles=
and died a hero (and a heretic). If Rizal DID retract and returned to the=
Church, then he went against everything he had written and said and died a=
coward (or, as I would put it, a recognizably human being). "Jose Rizal's=
" implication that Rizal retracted and is still somehow a hero is, as De Le=
on's film so eloquently points out (without once directly pointing it out),=
a complete contradiction in terms.

I can't quite call De Leon's fi=
lm superior to O'Hara's "Sisa;" both recognize the difficulty of filming th=
e life of Rizal, both use diametrically opposite approaches--"Bayaning Thir=
d World" filling up the gaps with wit and intellectual speculation, "Sisa" =
with imagination and heart. "Bayaning Third World" displays remarkable ing=
enuity in trying to make what should have been a dry historical debate live=
ly and involving; "Sisa" displays equally remarkable ingenuity in trying to=
make a coherent and even moving historical drama out of an impossibly smal=
l P2.5 million ($25,000) budget, shot in ten days ("Bayaning Third World," =
though I can't be sure, must cost at least P5 million or more, shot for ove=
r a year). Calling one better than the other is probably a matter of taste=
(personally--and I think you can see this coming a mile away--I plunk down=
in favor of imagination and heart). Both films, however, should be a matt=
er of modest pride for all involved: Rizal finally, brilliantly deconstruct=
ed on film--twice. This may not be a Rizal film, but it's a remarkable Riz=
al film nevertheless.

(Comments? Mail me at <noelv@...>)

=