Part 1 - What did you find most striking about “Nationalism, Contradiction, and Identity: Reassessing the Origins of Filipino Cinema,” the lecture delivered this morning by Prof. Charles Musser of Yale University? What new idea or concept or insight did you find most memorable? (5-8 sentences only)
Part 2 - If you could ask Prof. Musser a question related to his talk, what would you ask?
Deadline for replies is May 11, Monday, 12 noon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find the idea that Mr. Edward Meyer Gross did not leave the Philippines, though the war just ended, very striking. The post-World War condition of any country would be very difficult, especially for the Philippines, yet Gross stayed to attend to his coconut plantation and later his partnership with Molina. Imagine you are in a new land, and everyone is in poverty. Of course, you would want to go back to your homeland and just continue your adventure or journey when everything is in better condition. I find it very memorable, that they, Molina and Gross, have to include the phrase “Cheaply done can be given away, greatly done must be paid for,” in their advertisements. Considering the economic crisis today, I will not be at all surprised if I find this phrase in any advertisements. If I were to ask Mr. Musser a question, it would be "If the Philippine cinema's identity is greatly influenced by the colonialism to the Philippines and the World War, what do you think has influenced the identity of American cinema?"
ReplyDelete-Jamie Mae Sim Lit14 P
The idea that surprised me is the Cinema came from Americans, a colonizer or the Philippines. Even though that was the case, it was used to show the love and the feelings of the Filipino for the country. Ironically as it may seem, a thing that was from the people that once prevented the freedom to express the love of the Filipinos for its country is now used to express nationalism. The most memorable thing that I cannot take of my mind is that an American, a guy called Gross, started showing movies that has a theme of nationalism for the Philippines. If I were to ask Prof. Musser, I would ask him that how could an American like him and EM Gross could actually understand how the Filipino feels and express nationalism as Filipino because Gross is not a Filipino but an America.
ReplyDelete-Kristofer Benedict Chua Lit14 P
What I find most striking about Prof. Musser’s talk is the use of nationalistic themes in Filipino films (i.e. films about Philippine ideas, people, and situations not necessarily by Filipinos) before Jose Nepomuceno’s Dalagang Bukid. Usually, being under the rule of a foreign country, film makers, Filipinos or Americans who have lived and learned to love the Philippines, would not want to trigger any conflict with the ruler or the government through their art; thus, avoiding controversial themes in their craft. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a very controversial topic. Often, it would involve opposing foreign rule and their ideas and propagation of their culture and practices and; therefore, create trouble between film makers and the government. However, in Prof. Musser’s talk, he mentions that the films before were based on nationalistic themes such as the life story of Dr. Jose Rizal, first Asian nationalist.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Prof. Musser about his talk would be, “During these years wherein nationalism was a popular concept in films, were there any nationalistic Filipino films that were against American rule?
-Izzabella B. Perez, Sec P
Part 1 - The Early Cinema (from the emergence of the cinematografo around 1902 until the release of the "first" Filipino film in 1919), as Prof. Musser pointed out, was a ground for Filipino Nationalism and Identity in the time of American Colonialism - this being based solely on Edward Meyer Gross's contributions. But contrary to what he concluded, Prof. Musser said in the beginning of his lecture that the cinema was originally a tool to instill international supremacy and colonial mentality - although not specifically on the Philippines, but on a more general context. He mentioned that the French, being the inventor of the cinematografo, used this invention to assert dominance over other world powers, including America. Somebody from the audience raised a question regarding this and I was struck by Prof. Musser's answer. He argued that the cinema, being a somewhat "brainwashing" tool, actually resulted to social and cultural resistance, thereby motivating the colonized to establish their own identity. As such, I find it odd that he justified the colonialist cinema as "resistance-inducing" (therefore beneficial), when in the first place, he stated that Gross's works were pro-Filipino and anti-imperialist. Nevertheless, Gross's films - whether they were Colonialist or "Filipinized" - have quite interested me. In that they were produced by an American but were catalytic to Filipino Nationalism.
ReplyDeletePart 2 - "The Early Cinema, not just limited to Gross's contributions - what was it's true inclination? Colonialism or Filipinization?"
Villejo, Erwin Dee J.
Section P
It's very surprising to know how important cinema actually was in developing nationalism in our country. Cinema grew and was very much influential during historical periods in the past. These events are what triggered nationalistic cinema to grow in our country and around the world as well. With the help of cinema, people were able to learn more about the truth of their surroundings. According to Prof. Musser, Filipinos used cinema in the early days to bring the outside world to them. This gave us eyes to happenings around the world which I believe made us want to be nationalistic. And since nationalistic cinema's boom was during times of important historical events, it became even more influential to Filipino nationalism. It's also very striking and ironic to have an American being one of the earliest people to influence Filipino nationalism.
ReplyDeletepart2- Being our colonizers, Americans have also been exposed to Filipino cinema. Was Filipino cinema also able to influence American cinema in any way?
-Schevenard Cu, section P
Edward Mayer Gross’s huge investments in the Philippines are controversial and striking for me. His initial seed that is a coconut plantation in Laguna, which produces coconut oil, let alone, is already a profitable venture. However, his gamble in taking on film production business with his new wife, Tina Molina, was ground-breaking most especially for Filipino culture. It is ironic that, even with the help of a Filipino (Molina), an American would propagate a sense of nationalism among the colonized through a seemingly strict business venture. It is also an interesting note that the film company (Molina-Gross) incorporated the works of Dr. Jose Rizal in their productions, risking a probable seditious act among the colonized audience. Nevertheless, what Gross did gives justice to one of the main purposes of American colonization that is to expand American assets and find quality investments.
ReplyDeletePART 2: If given the chance to ask once again, my question would be, “Aside from the incorporation of Dr. Jose Rizal’s works in their film productions, what other aspect in Molina-Gross films could have triggered the nationalistic spirit of the Filipino audience and the desire to find their own identity in film-making?”
- Ma. Angelica Anne M. Tangco Lit 14-P
Part 1 – To think that the cinema in the Philippines took many forms (i.e. cinema in American camps during the American Rule, the rise of the Theatro Filipino, the Molina – Gross Productions) was really surprising for me as it is really contradicting with the notion of cinema we have today which is cinema and movie theaters in malls. Throughout Professor Musser’s talk about the evolution of cinema in the Philippines, we can really see how the cinema we know today. The transition I can see is that it came from the documentation of daily experiences to films and then theaters are built up to a certain time where Filipinos started writing films during the rise of the cinematographos until it finally came to the building theaters where Jose Rizal’s life and greatness is shown by the Molina – Gross Productions. It is because of Edward Meyer Gross who stayed in the country after the war and helped front the production of active shows against the Americans and followed by the presentation of Jose Rizal’s life. Some new insights I found most memorable is the fact that the Filipinos really fought a hard battle just to give rise to the Philippine cinemas we know today.
ReplyDeletePart 2 – A question for Professor Musser would be: “How could you as someone who is studying the origins of Filipino cinema deepen your understanding of the amount of nationalism involved in the growing of Filipino cinema aside from Molina – Gross Production’s shows about Jose Rizal’s life?”
- John Vincent C. Lorenzo (Lit 14 Sec P)
1 - The most striking, and somewhat ironic, thing about Prof. Charles Musser’s speech is the idea that the supposedly “nationalistic” Filipino cinema was pioneered by foreigners. (the Americans, Gross and Yearsley) I also think that it is a flaw in Prof. Muller’s argument, because since it was created by foreigners, Gross’ and Yearsley’s works should not be considered as the birth of Filipino cinema. They should only be recognized as a stepping stone that facilitated the birth of “True” Filipino cinema. In replacement, Titay Molina’s continued work of her husband, Gross, and Jose Nepumoceno’s “Dalagang Bukid” should be considered the birth, and the very first records of, True Filipino cinema.
ReplyDeleteBut the Americans deserve credit for their work nonetheless; without Edward Meyer Gross, his wife, Titay Molina would’ve never been a major figure in Filipino cinema, therefore the cinema in the Philippines would’ve been irrelevant for about another 5-10 years. I believe that even without Gross, Yearsley, and Molina, sooner or later, somebody would’ve transcended Filipino cinema the same way they did, because it used to be a very lucrative field.
2-“ Does the nationalistic themes of the early films by the Gross reflect the mentality, and intention of the Americans towards the Philippines? Because as you have mentioned, majority of the Americans at that time were anti-imperialist, and the nationalistic themes that they have used at that time contradicts imperialism and promotes freedom. Was this just a coincidence or does it have an intention behind it?”
Camilo J. Cordero Jr.
Lit14 P
For me, the thing i found most striking in Prof. Musser's talks were his pointing out to nationalism and the filipino cinema being the core and probable source of it. However, i found that giving such a talk requires further study of Philippine history in general. I found that most of the questions targeted towards his topic of the cinema being a source of nationalism were not answered properly and were even corrected by a guy in a red polo who I think is a historian. The thing that caught my attention was his pointing out that during the time when Phil. nationalism was rising and booming, the cinema came and boosted this. So, this means that the Americans themselves fueled this nationalism for the country.
ReplyDeleteMy question now is:"Right now, during a time when the Filipinos are struggling with their leaders, corruption and poverty, do you think Philippine cinema can still have the same nationalistic influence that it had before?"
-Corral, Russel
Section P
The most striking fact that I learned in Professor Musser’s talk would probably be that even Filipino cinema is one of the things that the Americans have contributed after their colonization in the country. I was surprised about it because it was never mentioned in our History classes before that this form of entertainment came from them. An American like Edward Meyer Gross contributed in the foundation of the Filipino cinema. If I was in his shoes, I would have gone back to my homeland and help in further improving the film making industry there. However, in his case, he chose to stay here to start the industry from nothing. Furthermore, he, together with his wife Titay Molina, focused on making films that are usually about Filipino nationalism and culture and these films were spearheaded by Filipino actors, which is ironic because Gross is an American.
ReplyDeleteThe question would be: “Do you think that promoting nationalism through films today would still be as effective as before? If yes, how? If no, why?”
-Joan Carla Sy, Lit 14 P
1 – It was common in the Philippines to use what they have learned from the colonizers to use it against them. The idea of using cinematography, which was brought by the Americans in the Philippines, to open the eyes of every Filipino about nationalism through films, was one of them. Filipino authors, screen writers and directors pursued on using their skills to help the Filipinos realize the situation they are in because of the colonization. Thus, the Nationalistic genre in cinematography in the Philippines came to life. It was because of Edward Meyer Gross the Philippine cinema came to be with the help of his wife Molina.
ReplyDelete2 – Could it be possible that the Philippine cinema would be the same if it weren’t for Edward Meyer Gross?
-Lu Emil Tabel Lit 14P
What strikes me most in Prof. Musser's lecture was the urge of Gross and Yearsley to bring nationalism to Filipinos. Even if there were conflicts in the Philippines, they stayed and really strive to make films with nationalistic themes. It is rare for people to bring nationalism not to their native country. Gross,
ReplyDeletewith the help of Molina, took a big risk on starting their own film production even without the assurance that this is going to work out and it eventually worked out in the end. I find the concept of using cinemas as a sense of nationalism for us, Filipinos most memorable. It is not just a form of entertainment but also a form of nationalism.
If I were to ask Prof. Musser a question, I would ask him "What interested you to study the cinematography of the Philippines and not of the other countries?"
-Ryan Sibbaluca (Section P)
I find the fact that Filipino film was more nationalistic back then than it is today quite interesting. I never thought that Filipino film grew up in such a way that it would create adaptations of the life and death of Dr Jose Rizal and other movies that were uniquely Filipino, even if the equipment came from overseas. The fact that films back then were made to promote nationalism is even more surprising. I also realized that these films were made during stressful and hard times since there was war and colonization.It's hard to accept that fact that with films promoting nationalism and cultural identity back then would mold the Filipino cinema today. Those films that get famous rarely show what being a Filipino is. Superheroes and aggrsesive soldiers aren't close to being one.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "Would you say that the history of Filipino film you discussed is complete or were there other lesser known but just as influential contributors to film?"
Chester Lorenz Chacon - P
After the lecture delivered by Prof. Charles Musser, I find it most striking that Edward Meyer Gross,an American together with his wife Titay Molina, was the one who have actually worked with Filipino writers and actors in making nationalistic films. I find this rather amazing because I never thought that it would be an American, whose country have colonized us before, who will be the one to contribute this nationalistic films here in the Philippines. Thus, making nationalistic films in Filipino cinema really had a great impact on Filipinos about nationalism. I found it most memorable that it would be this films and cinema which would help bring the spirit of nationalism in the Philippines. One of the insights I learned here was that the Americans did not only influence us in making films or cinema but also helped the Filipinos to what nationalism is through this nationalistic films.
ReplyDeleteIf given a chance, my question for Prof. Musser would be did Edward Meyer Gross also contribute/influence something to American films?
-CAMILLE T. KOA
SECTION P
The most striking part in the talk I found was that Edward Meyer Gross made a huge impact to out nationalism. That he was one of the first people who spoke out or showed to the public what revolutionaries could not do legally. As how been portrayed by Professor Charles Musser he was like a fuse to the up coming ideals to nationalism. With one man’s actions through the power of cinema chained a series of events that awoke more Filipinos and Americans alike to stand up against these kinds of problems. Through the power of one expressive technique of portraying ideas comes inspiration to many alike. What can be seen as to his actions is reflected in his identity even though he was left by his wife for his life style in the Philippines. He still maintained his ground and continued to live on this land and even married a Filipina named Tina Molina.
ReplyDeleteGiven the impression during the talk, Edward Meyer Gross was one of the initiators to the said out come of nationalism with regards to the Philippine nation. Can we truly say to ourselves that we Filipinos freed ourselves from our capitalists as we say we did? That is because from the impression given in the talk it was merely they who gave us enough strength to do it.
-Daryl Royce M. Tanrena Lit14 P
Part 1- I have always been confused about the Philippine national identity because Filipinos are somewhat like the Spanish or Americans since we have been colonized for a long period of time. During the novelty period, Philippine cinema was already distinct with a common longing of family, nation and state which was a global phenomena adapted from cronogrfio which originated from Spain. During the U.S. military rule, the Americans brought the idea of cinema being iconoclastic and expansionistic. Throughout the rise of the Cimatogrofos which originated in France, there was a rise of the different forms of films such as war and story films where cinema was slowly emerging as a central identity in Philippine culture. In the fourth movement of Philippine cinema, the Monila-Gross Productions played a key role in establishing nationalism among the Filipinos through showing films about the life and death of Rizal and films about the 3 Gomburza martyrs. The idea that I find most memorable is that The Philippine identity is a syncretism or mixture of different cultures which is clearly seen through the history of cinema.
ReplyDeletePart 2- If I were to ask Dr. Charles Musser a question, I would ask, “If the Philippine identity is actually a syncretism or mixture of different cultures, is there an original or true Filipino identity?”
Desiree M. Fadri
Lit 14-Section P
I grew up understanding that Philippine cinema started with Jose Nepomucena. I thought it was somewhat fishy and impossible that Philippine cinema is pure Filipino, as what they usually teach students to believe. The talk shed some light on my queries on this topic. I learned how it really was the Americans who introduced and produced the first Filipino films and how nationalism played a significant role in the flourishing of this field of art. It also gave me insights that all nationalities, colonized or not, aren’t pure. It is quite ironic that the Americans, when we were still colonized, pushed nationalism through mediums such as cinema. But when they left, the nationalism faded and was replaced by the commercialism America is known for.
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask Prof. Musser about his opinion on Filipinos neglecting the American influence/s on Philippine cinema (probably, to show that the Philippines have its own identity that isn't influenced by its colonizers). Should it be taken against the Filipinos, why or why not?
Hans Yu. Lit 14 P
I like what professor Musser said, “Without colonialism, there wouldn’t be nationalism”, or something like that, and what he said is true. What I found interesting is that Filipinos used films, a foreign influence, to promote nationalism, very ironic. I also found it surprising that cinemas and films, what I thought supplied pleasure during stressful times, were also a great influence to nationalism. Another fact I learned is that cinema also served as an escape to the Filipinos. The ironic thing is they want to escape regime but the people who supplied that regime also supplied their form of escapism. We can’t deny the fact that the American also served as our colonizers for a while.
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask professor Musser this question: Why do you think films were used to promote nationalism?
-Dianne Laurice Tan, Lit14 P
PART 1 - What I find most striking about the talk last friday was about how Edward Meyer Gross, an American, contributed to the rise of Filipino Nationalism. It sounds ironic that an American, during the American Occupation in the Philippines, was one of the people who gave Filipinos the idea of nationalism through his films that has nationalistic themes. Of course, Gross wasn't alone in doing this; he actually worked with Filipino writers.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I find striking and memorable about this talk is that Filipino Cinema isn't actually "pure filipino" but was influenced to us by our American colonizers. This just makes me a bit sad that even from our Filipino culture and arts, Filipino Cinema is not originally from Filipinos. This affects our ideas of Filipino identity - What then makes us Filipinos original and different from the others, and not just a copy and/or mixtures of other races?
PART 2 - Were the other American colonizers aware that E.M. Gross, an American, was actually putting in nationalistic themes in the films he has shown to his audience? If they were, and knowing that the idea of nationalism might arise and Filipinos might actually take action against the colonizers, why didn't they stop Gross' film production?
Tan, Ariadne Sharla
083694
Lit14 - P
For me, the most interesting part of Professor Musser’s lecture last Friday was the fact that Philippine national symbols (e.g., carabao, mango, maya) were made during the American period in our country. It is really ironic but I think there’s a reason behind that. I believe that through all those hardships that Filipinos had experienced during the colonizing period of Spain and America, they had come to realize their true identity- their strengths and weaknesses. By looking at it in a positive way, colonizers also pulled out the best from Filipinos. They thought us how to fight and gave us a lot of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe most important idea that I learned from the lecture is the kind of movies that were played during the World War II here in the Philippines. Because war devastates family, nation and state, movies had the subject matter of family, nation and state as source of entertainment.
If I were to ask a Prof. Musser a question, it would be: Why do we need to reassess the origins of Filipino cinema? How does the Philippines cinema affect our reputation to other countries and our way of living as Filipinos?
Sarah Candido –Lit14 P
The fact that an American, Gross, was able to bring out Filipino nationalism was quite astonishing. Even though he was not an American, he felt what being Filipino is about and showed it to others, through film. Everything he had, he gave it up just to stay in the Philippines to do something he wasn't even supposed to do. The way i see it now, it's a shame that Filipino nationalism started from an American, even more, it isn't very evident now. Cinema has become a part of our norm; when will be the next nationalistic boom? I think we really need one now.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Professor Musser is what attracted him and (if he knows) Gross? And are those qualities still present in the Philippines/Filipinos?
-John Wong 084142 Lit14P
The thing that struck me the most about Prof. Musser’s talk was the fact the beginning of Filipino cinema was not actually at 1919 with Jose Nepomuceno’s Dalagang Bukid, rather very much earlier. Probably, the reason that this is the claim of most essay’s I’ve read is because the past ones, such as the ones Prof. Musser pointed out, such as Gross and Molina’s, were work or dominant Americans. The interesting thing, for me, is that, we claim this, yet the earlier films were already advertising or encouraging nationalism among Filipinos. The films that were earlier created were based on historical events that would really increase nationalism among the Filipinos, especially considering the time it was made. Also, it is interesting how the first film was about Rizal’s life, yet it is less known compared to Dalagang Bukid.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to ask Prof. Musser something, I would ask him what his reaction would be regarding that common assumption that Nepomuceno started Filipino film.
Grace Gana
Lit 14 - P
What I find most striking about the lecture delivered by Prof. Charles Musser of Yale University was when he broke the stereotypical view that Americans had no better intention other than to obtain power by colonizing the Philippines. With the presence of Edward Meyer Gross, this view had a 360-degree turn. It is indeed amazing that an American is actually willing to spend his lifetime working towards the development of the Philippine cinema, even bringing Filipino nationalism to it. This, I believe, is the most striking fact that Filipinos have to know about the origins of Filipino cinema. With this, Filipinos can learn to appreciate better their country (since they ought to realize that even colonizers taught them to be nationalistic). They can also learn to break stereotypical views such as this one.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to ask Prof. Charles Musser one question, it would be: Can you say that the nationalism steered by the Americans into the Filipino cinema is still present in those movie/action stars today who are shifting into politics? Why?
Melissa Manay, Lit 14 P
His idea of nationalism that has been brought by colonialism during the American period was for me the most striking concept I’ve learned on Prof. Charles Musser’s talk last Friday. The lecture gave sufficient information on how the Filipino cinema has developed starting from the novelty period, US military rule, and the rise of cinematografos up until the age of Albert Yearsley and Edward Meyer Gross that synonymously contributed on the foundation of our nationalistic identity which gave us the power to regain our independence from the American colonization. For me, it was somehow ironic how the Filipino cinema as influenced by the Americans played a very important role in the development of our patriotism and consequently brought Filipinos the will to reinforce and fight for their rights against their colonizers. Given this, it also supports his idea of how historical circumstances posed cultural changes in the lives of early Filipinos. Finally, I certainly agree when Prof. Musser quoted in the latter part of his lecture that “the whole idea of nationalism came from struggles on colonialism” which was certainly true based on our own historical experience.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Prof. Musser would be: Since the concept of nationalism imparted by the Americans is slowly diminishing during our times of technological advancements in film making, what could be his suggestions for our current Filipino film industry so that our nationalistic point of view will not be left behind and endangered?
-Romy Robielos II, Lit-14 P
I feel that cinema was another way in which the west colonized our country. It dominated the Filipino way of life until now. The influence brought about by Mr. Gross still continues to develop to our modern times. This fact, I feel, is most interesting to me since they used nationalism as their first basic theme, a theory based upon foreign lands. If I were to compare this to anything, I would compare this to the Trojan horse that devastated Troy, like the wooden-horse statue, it first seems like a good thing, but ended up totally overpowering our country in terms of influence and belief.
ReplyDeleteProf. Musser, setting aside his business here in the Philippines, what do you think is another strong point in which Mr. Gross stayed and developed cinema in a war-torn land?
-Ivan Zamora Lit P
I am very curious why it's Sir Gross, an American, who was able to have a lot of contributions in the Philippine cinema during his time. What's actually running on my head during the lecture was if there aren't rich Filipinos during that time who can put up a cinema and show movies. I have thought of how Filipinos during the time are not into business but rather being entertained. Also, i tried to examine if Sir Gross' motive in putting up the cinematografos was just plainly business or his passion for movies. Sir Gross' life is also one interesting topic for me because it seemed like he already has everything but on the latter part of his life, almost everything he once had flourished.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Prof. Musser would be, "Is there something, a concept or technique, that was once unique in the Philippine cinema? If there is, how was it developed and how does it present itself in the current generation?"
-Sydney Dondon, Lit-14P
I find most striking about his talk are the historical roots of Philippine cinema and the people who contributed to its success. His talk was very informative because it was like an account in history that he was explaining to us. He mentioned four historical divisions namely the novelty period, US Military rule, Rise of the Cinematografos and The Rise of Filipino Film making and he named a few prominent and important people in developing the Philippine cinema and incorporating nationalism in it. And it is truly inspiring that even a person from a foreign land would have an interest in another culture's history or early beginnings. If I could ask him one question, I would ask him why is he so interested that he even started a study and research about the start of Philippine cinema and the nationalism revolving around it.
ReplyDeleteJohn Albert M. Bonifacio, II-BS LM, Lit Section P
Part 1
ReplyDeleteBecause of Professor Musser’s talk, I discovered a different point of view for Philippine Cinema. For starters, I was amused to see the development of Philippine cinema. Although it was never mentioned before, Musser suggests that the Americans greatly influenced if not brought cinema here to the Philippines. It was interesting to here that an American, Edward Meyer, Gross together with his wife Titay Molina, produced nationalistic films that boosted nationalism in the country. Although I don’t fully agree with Mr. Mussers, theories, I was open to the possibilities of his theories. I only suggest that he further research his thesis to be able to convince people. He didn’t seem confident about his repot thus resulting in ambiguity among his audience.
Part 2
If countries like India, that produced an Oscar winning film “Slumdog Millionaire”, were able to gain the world’s attention, why don’t our country’s films match up? What type of movies can help develop the Filipino movies to appeal not only to the Filipino audiences but to the whole world as well?
Reesh Miranda
Lit 14 P
The irony of the Filipinos using the cinema as their way to express nationalism is indeed interesting. The idea of cinemas and films was passed on to us by the Americans yet we find it as our exit to the ideas of colonialism. Nationalism was enhanced because we were forced to look back to our past, appreciate it with depth and make a story out of it that will somehow express the unspoken feelings of our dead ancestors. The American Colonialism was a very hard time for the Filipinos and nationalism was triggered by their endeavors. And since one cannot express publicly his/her hatred for the Americans, they do it in films. They risked incorporating Rizal's works in their films and they did it with success I think. Though it's quite ironic that the Americans triggered our nationalism spirit to fire up, I believe that it's the perfect timing for the Filipinos start being nationalistic. In times of colonialism will the Filipinos realize that indeed they love their country.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to ask a question to Prof. Musser I would ask this: "The Philippine Cinema certainly deteriorated in terms of nationalistic quality in the point of view of people, would you disagree and say that the Filipino films today still got the nationalism spirit? In what ways?"
-Camille Jacinto, sec P