After watching the beautiful but painful movie Heneral Luna with my cousin, Emil Flores, I can't help but think how thematically parallel it is with "The Dark Knight."
In the latter, Harvey Dent was projected as the white knight, the hero that inspires hope, the hero that Gotham needs. On the flip side (pun intended), Gotham being composed mostly of either corrupt, self-serving people or people so scared they will compromise everything to feel safe, Batman the outlaw is the dark knight, the hero that it deserves.
This theme is unconsciously mirrored in Heneral Luna where the aggressive, uncouth, but uncompromising General Antonio Luna who is able to rally patriots to his side, is the hero the Philippines needs in order to hold together. But Filipinos, especially the business oligarchs, would rather back someone who would make them feel safe rather than free. And so, if historical rumors are to be believed, Aguinaldo rose to the occasion, and Luna is killed by "unknown assassins."
This made me think that maybe we, the Filipino people, don't really deserve to live as a free people. I say this not because I don't think we are capable of standing on our own. We are capable. Perhaps we are too capable, that we can't seem able to stand together. We only know to use our freedom to achieve our individual/familial/regional ends, que se joda to anyone else.
Thinking about it further, I believe this is not limited to Filipinos, but is a universally human trait. The Bible narrates how the Israelites were freed from slavery, enabled to conquer the Promised Land, and settled there to be a truly free nation, without any king over them save God Himself. Then, "In those days, Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" (Judges 21:25). The book of Judges records the social chaos that ensued among people who did not know how to properly use freedom.
Postscript: Watch til the end of the credits. You will see a teaser for the next movie in the planned trilogy. :)
I remember Quezon's grandson trying so hard to defend those words by adding that the soundbite is incomplete. That he ostensibly also said "... because we Filipinos can always change our government."
ReplyDeleteEven if that were true, even that is part of the problem, right? Because Filipinos (actually, Manileños) change their government at the drop of a hat, there's no stability.
A historian friend of mine also made the same comment about the quote being incomplete. I shall correct it soonest. However, I believe the ability to change a government is a neutral thing--it can be part of the problem if the act of changing is driven by self-interest; or it can be part of the solution if it is driven by a desire to correct wrongs and promote the common good. In the same way that the embrace of the status quo is a neutral thing for the very same reasons. In the case of the history projected by movie, the rich business oligarchs embraced the status quo, regardless of who was in power, because they know that those in power would make their businesses flourish. Interestingly, Antonio Luna didn't want to change the government, only that it fulfill the function that it was intended to be--govern and protect the Filipino people. But regionalism and self-interest was his enemy and kept him from fulfilling his task, as he was blocked left and right by Cavitenos, kababayans and thus allies of the President. His sentiments are not unlike those of Vietnam War veterans who felt betrayed by their own government because said government was not committed to winning the war.
ReplyDeleteI remember a comment K. Emil once quoted: perhaps the only solution for the Philippines to lose this destructive regionalism and become truly one nation is to go through a civil war. While it does seem to make sense, I don't want to be around to see that happen.