Cinemalaya 2010: THE TRIAL OF ANDRES BONIFACIO Review
When a film is described as
poetic, it is often taken as a compliment. However, when a film is described as
theatrical, it is seen as a critique, scathing at that. What makes poetry the
better spouse to cinema? Isn't cinema but a visual and aural interplay of
poetry and theater to begin with? Theater provides the cornerstones: the
narrative, the milieu, the setting and the characters. Poetry, on the other
hand, more than the façade and the flourishes, provides the requisite subtlety
in the execution --- the minute gestures that accentuate a character, that last
five seconds of absolute silence before a cut, the symbols, the verses, the
rhymes, and rhythms. This is purely hypothetical. But if films are judged based
on a balance where theatricality is measured with poetry, and the former
outweighs the latter by a large margin, does it mean that the film is better
off staged than filmed?
Of course, cinema, contrary
to common misconception, is vaster than the trite and absolutely baseless
hypothesis that was just forwarded. For that reason, cinema should and cannot
be caged to what is merely "cinematic" because the term "cinematic" itself is already
enigmatic, subjective in its very definition and has something more to do with
how the recorded moving pictures are treated and utilized to express rather
than how these pictures are moved and later on recorded. That being said, for
all the accusations of supposed theatricality, Mario O'Hara's flawed yet
masterful Ang Paglilitis ni Andres
Bonifacio (The Trial of Andres Bonifacio)
is truly cinematic, probably the most important and cinematic creation that the
Cinemalaya Film Festival ever produced in its six years of existence.
Ang Paglilitis ni Andres Bonifacio starts off after the Tejeros Convention where Andres
Bonifacio (Alfred Vargas), a commoner from Tondo who is the founder and
regarded father of the Philippine Revolution, has lost the presidency of the
Revolutionary Government to Emilio Aguinaldo (Lance Raymundo), one of the more
popular generals in the
I
agree. Ang Paglilitis ni Andres Bonifacio
is theatrical, but theatricality and literariness is the point. What
essentially is the value of history translated into film, as is? It only
glorifies and celebrates the erroneous artifice of a concrete and permanent
history, as written by the few, and more damningly, by the few who are in the
position to write and create history. We have seen this happen with Marilou Diaz-Abaya's
Jose Rizal (1998), a film that
attempted to film Jose Rizal's life as fact that it only succeeded in being
both glossy yet tepid, as compared to Mike De Leon's Bayaning Third World (Third
World Hero, 2000), a film that has experiential knowledge of the
impossibility of committing history to celluloid that it resigned itself to
deconstructing the hero and what it has become in the present age.
The
film, self-consciously theatrical from its very first frame up to the last, eschews
reverence for its depiction of history. By scripting the trial as it was
recorded up to the final recount of Lazaro Macapagal who read to Andres and his
brother Aguinaldo's verdict, utilizing theater actors to play historical
figures as if they were acting on stage for immediate audiences and hence
enunciating words, expanding bodily gestures, and utilizing exaggerated acting
styles, and employing several theatrical and literary devices, O'Hara treats
history as literature and more specifically, treats the trial of Bonifacio as
fiction, dramatized and romanticized. This film's form, as described above, aptly
sets the tone for the grandiose stage play that is Bonifacio's trial, a
proceeding set-up to emulate a sense of fairness and justice in the dilemma of
legitimately dispatching the utmost symbol of the revolution.
It
is undoubtedly inevitable that many viewers would imagine Ang Paglilitis ni Andres Bonifacio as history recreated in film for
the singular purpose of historical education, and I seriously fear educational institutions
treating the film as such, feeding eager minds O'Hara's clever mockery of
recorded history as truth and fact. Before ending up with conclusions about
historical figures whose lives and deaths are buried deep in speculations,
hypotheses, and conflicting accounts, one should cognize the genius of O'Hara's
exploitation of the media he utilizes, that the Andres Bonifacio of his film is
the Andres Bonifacio of the records of the biased revolutionary government, the
main character of a staged play, the leading man of a film, and not the revered
national hero of the Philippines.
O'Hara
curiously incorporates the tale of the Ibong Adarna, also staged, in his film.
Vargas, apart from playing Andres, also plays the youngest prince who in the
Adarna tale, meets a hermit who gives him a knife and several lemons to keep
him awake as the Adarna bird sings its lulling song. The film's use of the
Adarna tale ends mid-tale, when Andres and his brother are killed by
Aguinaldo's men. Death, more than the grand equalizer of men, is also the most
effective means to silence men. Unlike the youngest prince of the Adarna tale
who will be able to return to his father's castle after being beaten up by his
jealous brothers, and be acknowledged for his feat of capturing the Adarna bird
and curing his father, Andres and Procopio's deaths in the hands of his fellow
Filipinos has left an incurable, lingering void in a country's problematic
history. All we can really do is investigate, speculate, and hopefully, create,
and that as we do all those things, we can nurse this ailing nation to full
health, with or without the help of the mysterious songs of the mythical bird.
(Cross-published on Lessons From the School of Inattention.)

