Otherwise Maladroit

14 January 1999 Jose Rizal

14 January 1999

Jose Rizal

Marilou Diaz-Abaya's Jose Rizal perpetuates an old colonial tradition initialized by Americans in venerating a man that arguably could be more European than indiyo . To further prove the "coloniality" of the film is its nod toward Aguinaldo's heyday as the climax of the Revolution. The film and its makers probably meant well, but it veils the true intention of the organizers of the Revolution. To refer to Rizal as the sole, or at least, most important inspiration of the Revolution snubs the contributions of heroes who achieved much more for our people.

Dr. Jose Rizal was an intelligent and important man, but his achievements are average for a person of his background and education. In my opinion, Rizal did not go far from the platform he was launched from. He was privileged, and it was hardly surprising or monumental that he was able to do what he did for society. And even then I think he could have done more.

Jose Rizal, the GMA film, seemed to portray Dr. Jose Rizal's life as one long, continuous, and painful struggle. I find this portrayal a bit hard to believe. Rizal suffered more than whom? Than the peasants and the middle class? Than the katipuneros secretly amassing? With Rizal's legendary trail of women from all over the globe; gatherings to wine and dine; and opportunity to leisurely spend on reading, writing, and play, surely not. Sure he was face-to-face with prejudice, and ignorance withstanding them with the aplomb of a martyr, but it should be taken to account that his formative years were still exceptional. He studied in the archipelago's premiere universities, and even had the opportunity to stay in Europe to complete his degree. These are things only privilege can obtain. Is it then his choice to identify himself with the hardships endured by the less privileged, him being an ilustrado, that magnifies his character? How then, are the likes of Marcelo H. Del Pilar different? Is it his fiery novels? Well, what of Juan Luna, whose paintings are the equivalent of Rizal's "Noli" & "Fili" in the visual arts?

To clarify, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are monuments of local literature, and were (and still are) sources of inspiration, fraternity, and pride for our people. But is the brilliance of these novels unparalleled in its time? It makes me wonder why Andres Bonifacio's writings are not as generally popular and respected as Rizal's.

Which brings me into another facet of the film: the portrayal of Andres Bonifacio. Among our icons, Bonifacio is the most understated and underplayed. Generally stereotyped as an illiterate man who has a big heart, but cannot look past his bolo , cannot be more untrue. Bonifacio was literate, and resorted to violence only when all options were clearly exhausted.

Gardo Versoza did not help. Aside from being appalled that a former "titillation king" has taken up Bonifacio's role, portraying the Katipunan's Supremo as a person who could have peed in his pants upon meeting his "idol", Rizal, will further mislead people into believing his already distorted image. Bonifacio was a fan, but not a psychotic one. Also, he was shown as angrily rousing his comrades into violence, and charging into battle with rage and gritted teeth. Andres Bonifacio was anything but belligerently mindless with violence. And why must he be always costumed as a farmer? When in fact he never wore anything other than an Americana and military uniform?

Again, as in most presentations on "Philippine" history, the gravity of the fraternity of the members of the Katipunan was overlooked. Where was Emilio Jacinto, Miguel Malvar, and Macario Sakay? Where were the moments when they sang songs composed for the Motherland, or penned essays and poems, or when they planned their next attack? Was the Katipunan a spontaneous organization, single-handedly enlightened by Rizal's novels and propaganda?

No. The noble organization of the Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan, was not formed and called so to shout "Mabuhay si Rizal!" at a drop of a pin. These were not people who were singularly focused into martyring themselves for Rizal. These were people who drew inspiration from the struggle of another race: the French. The Katipunan was, in truth, inspired by the French Revolution. The Katipunan was an organized, and formal institution that understood the sacrifice of armed struggle, but was comforted by the chance to achieve its ideals. With or without Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo the Revolution was already in ferment, and with or without Rizal it was inevitable.

I may be going too far in saying, that Rizal was only an icon of the Revolution. Rizal's place could have been filled by any other popular ilustrado that attracted the ire of the colonial government. Since Rizal was so visible and controversial when he was alive it was relatively easy to tag him as the poster-boy of the aspirations of the oppressed masses. Such as Wowie de Guzman today (there is of course no comparison in terms of character).

On another aspect, the scriptwriters could be favourably commended. It was very imaginative of them to present parallels between Rizal's life and the lives of characters in his work. Somewhat like "life imitates art", or vice versa. Still this artistic indulgence, that translated well on the big screen, is not of great import in relating the reason of the importance of Rizal's novels when they were published.

I suppose that there is not much about the Katipunan in the film Jose Rizal, since it is about Rizal and not the Revolution. Historically GMA's production of Jose Rizal is, I dare say, grossly inaccurate in some aspects. And what will this inaccuracy equate to to future generations who, undoubtedly, will be obliged to watch this film? Well then, another century of venerating Rizal without truly understanding him.

(Incidentally, Renato Constantino wrote an essay Jose Rizal: Veneration Without Understanding.)

posted by Otherwise Maladroit @ 5:12 PM